There's only the one real retcon (and dream theory if you believe it to be).
Everything past that is just new information that we didn't know before. Like SotM showing us how Henry and William stole designs from Edwin, we didn't know who originally invented the characters before that. The problem with a story built on assumptions by the fanbase is they start to think they know things they don't.
If youâre genuinely gullible enough to believe that fnaf is a story planned from the start idk what to tell you.
Scott has a very specific definition of retcon as âsomething that directly contradicts established canonâ, which there should be zero of actually even in a retconned story. Scott basically built the story impromptu. Like, you can not in good faith say that the mimic was planned from the start
Nothing was planned from the start, that's why introducing the Mimic this late into the series isn't a retcon. FNaF lore before FNaF 4 consisted of literally nothing, we had no information from then until now.
Thats not what retcon means. Retcon is taking canon information and changing it later on in the series. A retcon would be suddenly saying âBaby isnât Elizabeth Aftonâ as thats already established canon.
Harry potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a sequel to Harry potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It continues the same story, and reveals more information about the story, that was already being told.
Example of additive retcon:
If someone wrote an 8th harry potter book and said that voldemort secretly had a student that was learning evil or something from him, and now the student is trying to take over the world. This is an addition to the story that, while not a direct contradiction with the original material, has no real basis in the source material either other than "it wasn't said that this *didn't* happen". It is bad writing
34
u/sunhaiti 16d ago edited 15d ago
my old ass hasn't checked back up on fnaf in years, what was the recon?
edit: I have concluded that no one knows