Didactic Thumbs (Pedantry Corner) in Idle Banter Posted October 18, 2017 5 hours ago, Ben X said: 'Ret-con' is getting misused in the Blade Runner thread! Revealing something undisclosed in previous films is not a ret-con. The reveal at the end of Empire Strikes Back is not a ret-con. If that were the case, every piece of relayed information within a single film would be a ret-con! A ret-con is when the audience is asked to ignore a previously established fact, with no in-universe justification. So in Red Dwarf, where previously it was stated that Lister and Kochanski only spoke 15 words to each other in their lives, but in season 7 the writers bring her on as a regular character and decide that actually they had a full romantic relationship, that's a ret-con. ret-cons are almost always re-interpretations of past events, usually that insert new info that changes the context or interpretation in an intentional way. For example, Swamp Thing's origin was changed by Moore by revealing the information that the laboratory accident that created him didn't turn the human into a swamp monster, but rather imprinted a shade of his human consciousness on the swamp. This fundamentally changed the character, but didn't properly contradict anything in the past. It just added continuity... retroactively. I haven't seen the new Blade Runner so I can't speak to that, but I am certain your interpretation of a ret-con doesn't confirm to normal usage at all. This definition from the Google definition is pretty solid: Quote a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.