Xack Rant: Retcons and Kingdom Hearts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Unflattering camera angle, I know. I rushed this video in a lot of ways. Releasing it basically on the advent of Kingdom Hearts III feels like odd timing, but I figure it's basically now or never. It was meant to be done earlier, of course, so now it is. I'm also never relying on my camera's auto-focus ever again. It's atrocious.
But getting that stuff out of the way, this video is a bit of a different format to my other stuff. It's like a Xack Reacts but I wouldn't say it's the same since it's less my thoughts and more of a video essay (and also my thoughts). Not normally my style, but it was probably the best way for me to express some opinions that need expressed, but also some facts that need clarified. It was very off-the-cuff as you can probably tell, but I actually did plan my points ahead some, which is actually more than I usually do.
Enough ranting, here are some timestamps:
0:00 - Introduction
2:25 - What is a Retcon?
4:29 - The 2 main points
4:45 - 1. Retcons are not plot twists
8:41 - 2. Retcons are not (inherently) bad
12:43 - Retcons in Kingdom Hearts (BBS)
14:39 - The 2 main KH cases
14:49 - Ansem isn't Ansem
19:19 - Nobodies do/don't have hearts?
27:21 - Rant over, brief discussion
27:49 - The existence of nobodies in KH
29:02 - Concluding summary
By the way, I've started playing Kingdom Hearts III.
Want to know how it went? Stay tuned.
---
Below is a list of other places where you can find me and play cards with me.
I have a Twitter: / ultralewis
You can add me on PSN if you like. My username is "Xackleton" and I have a community on PS4 called "Xackadee and Friends" where I post updates on my videos and also just chat.
And finally, if you like reading, I'm here: www.wattpad.com/user/Xackadee
Cheers for being ace! - Ігри
Before I watch the vid:
I get so annoyed with people claiming that the “one keyblade” idea was retconned. Two more of them were introduced in the same game that stated that. It was very obvious that very few people even knew what a keyblade was in the world they lived in. People not knowing the truth, in a mysterious story, is not a retcon. It’s a decent mystery.
Not bad. I think these are pretty reasonable explanations for why these things in the series are here. I never really dwelled on it for too long while seeing these cutscenes for the games, but I did think it was strange for creatures that supposedly had no heart to be snarky, get angry, and even cry.
The only thing I'm still kind of iffy on is Yen Sid not telling Sora. It's pretty likely he didn't know, yeah. After all, how would you know Nobodies can have hearts unless you speak to a researcher or see first hand for yourself. At the same time though, it seems to me like something the writing team let slip and forgot about as the series went on. I only feel this way though because of how complicated the writing is for this series and it seems like a detail they wouldn't pay attention to.
So in conclusion...
Grim, Billy, and Mandy being alive after being wiped from existence in a previous episode = Retcon
Lisanna Strauss being alive despite previously being established as "dead" = Plot twist...a bad plot twist.
Yeah, pretty much. Kudos on using examples that I recognise, as well. I've only seen like, 2 episodes of Billy and Mandy, but that did happen in one of them.
Xehanort's goal change in kh3 is the biggest retcon
"Xehanort's goal change"?
I've always felt that Xehanort's goal was very consistent and his motivation speech in KH3 didn't strike me as any different from what he'd always been trying to do since BBS. What did you see his goal as, pre-KH3?
@@Xackadee Xehanort might have been wanting balance but he always viewed the light as the source of imbalance, not darkness.
@@Vigriff Looking over his speech in KH3, he doesn't claim the darkness in the world is an imbalance, not at present. He recounts how darkness spread like a plague during the Keyblade War and consumed everything, which is what happened. He says as much about it in one of the Xehanort reports in BBS.
The only other time he mentions darkness is when he says the World needed a leader to stop others from polluting the world with their darkness, which I see as him claiming to be the only one with enough control and wisdom to maintain balance and stop others from tipping the scale in the other direction.
Having at least watched the "Retcons are not Plot Twists" portion, Retcons are not necessarily plot twists and vice versa, but more often then not they are interwined. Usually the point of introducing a retcon - or change in previously established information - is to change perception of the plot in some way. Plot twists more often can be stand alone, such as your example in the video about a major character suddenly dying (it would need more context then that to be labeled a plot twist, but I get what you are going for). But retcons are more likely to be plot twists. Technically, you can retcon information outside the work itself, such as in an interview which inherently does not affect the plot in the work itself (whether or not you put any emphasis on authorial word outside the work is another debate entirely). This is the most common form of retcon that isn't a plot twist.
After reading up more on retcons, I see what you mean. What I've described as retcons is definitely a kind of retcon, but they can be more loosely or basically defined as a plot point that wasn't intended from the start.
I have to say, defined that way, I really don't see the point in the term. Adapting continuity as you go is such a natural and usually necessary part of writing - I make a case in this video for why even the most egregious of retcons aren't necessarily a bad thing. It makes sense to me to have a label for when this kind of thing overwrites in a contradictory way, like characters acting like a clear contradiction has always existed, but to extend that label to something as broad as generally new plot points that reframe our understanding of past information causes it to lose so much meaning.
I remember someone saying that calling things "plot twists" and "retcons" has lost all meaning because people who like the plot point will just call it the former and people who dislike it will just call it the latter. Part of the reason I made this video was distinguish them in opposition to that point of view, but now I think I understand what they meant. It's pretty disappointing.
@@Xackadee The term and usage of retcon, from my understanding, was more born from fandoms then from the literary community. "Retcon" is technically a neutral term that fandoms adopted to more often then not mean something undesirable. The important thing to recognize is the context in which people use the term, and it can sometimes be used in the more literal less negative sense. Should it be so synonymous with negativity? Probably not. But it is a fan adopted (and potentially created) term for a purpose, it just comes across the wrong way to people looking in from outside.
This is where the confusion (and anymosity) comes in from those looking at "fanboys" critiquing a work and believing they are just whining about fiction. While this is true of some, I am willing to give most the benefit of the doubt since more often then you would think their reasoning is understandable, sometimes solid even. I'm not one to automatically jump to the defense of something I love just because I love it. I am open, or as open as can be, to any and all criticisms.
@@PathBeyondTheDark Yeah, I hear you. Though I'm sure I haven't studied it as much as you, narrative design is a topic that I'm really interested in and I've always been passionate about writing. Topics like this are really fascinating to me as a result (the improper use of the term "Mary Sue" would be another) so I'm usually getting into debates (which usually turn into arguments) about topics like that.
But it's a subject that is hard to separate the objective from the subjective a lot of the time because of stuff like this. Sometimes people don't care about how a technique can be used or is meant to be used; all that matters is that they don't like it and that serves as their reasoning why. But you can find a surprising level of depth to the arguments sometimes and if nothing else, it gives me stuff to think about.
The reason retcons are primarily defined as recently created(not just introduced) plot points that change how previously information is understood, is for context behind its execution.
People lable Darth Vader's reveal in ESB as a retcon, since it wasn't the idea when the first movie was made, because it puts in perspective why said twist wasn't implied at all in the first film: George Lucas didn't think of it yet
Lol I love when people talk about the Nobodies having hearts because it’s easy to point to other characters that aren’t supposed to have them like Pinocchio and Tron or even the Heartless themselves in KH1.
I think its the really obvious retcons from comics that give them a bad name. Of course in comics, they're commonplace because writers are changed out so often and they need to retcon details in order to tell whatever story they are set on telling. And for the most part that works for that medium.
I'm glad you brought up Star Wars because that series has the most recent retcon I can think of that made me cringe: those golden dice. They were present in ONE scene in the original movie but were never seen again. Now in newer movies, they make it seem like not only were they always there but that they have huge sentimental value to both Han and Luke. This is an example (for me) of when a retcon doesn't work. A large amount of attention is drawn to it and it is supposed to have a huge emotional impact but it doesn't because its just not true for fans of the original trilogy.
Your example of Donald not knowing about Yen Sid's castle is a perfect example of when retconning is useful and makes sense. Its a small detail that is easily fixed in order for new stories to make sense. It is essentially just undoing one line of dialogue.
and horror movies, for example Halloween is full of retcons.
Oh yeah, if I was more of a comic book guy, this video would probably be almost nothing but examples from them. I don't know much about them, but I do know that they're practically a nesting ground for retcons, good ones and bad ones. But as you say, that's understandable.
On the Star Wars point, I hear you and I get what you mean but I don't know if I would class the golden dice as a retcon. It's not technically inconsistant, as far as I'm aware since as I define them in the video it's more something like an add-on rather than a rewrite.
That said, I agree with you. Retcon or not, it's kind of a dumb thing to suddenly draw attention to and make significant, though I do forgive the way it was done in TLJ since I think they were only used there as a physical keepsake to represent Han. There's not really that many items that could be used to do that, apart from his gun maybe. I just like the subtlety of Luke's implication by saying "No one's ever really gone" while giving Leia the dice and those same dice disappearing out of Ben's hand later as a visual cue for what he's lost. It's a good use of show don't tell, even if it needs to be done with a random prop that, granted, I didn't even recognise the first time I saw it.
12:50 Here's the KH part
There are timestamps in the description, you know.
@@Xackadee well don't I look stupid now dx
Thank you! For finally saying it! So many people throw a fit over the Nobody thing and then ignore clear signs of the opposite. Sora even states in DDD that Xemnas literally LIED to them about not being able to have hearts. It’s so refreshing to hear it from someone else. Good to know I’m not crazy.
You're very welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.
And totally. Xigbar also literally says "It's about time you noticed." Like, we were meant to notice it. And the funny thing is, we did. I still remember the number of fan theories pre-DDD that involved the idea that Roxas had a heart and that it was giving characters like Xion and Axel the ability to feel because nobody really believed that they were totally heartless.
Not only that but Demyx outright saying "Oh, we do too have hearts!"
Like seriously. People are able to be wrong.
Nobodies actually having hearts is a likely a change to explain why this band of characters have personalities and reactions to things. At least that's how I see things. XD;
Plot twists are different from retcons. Sticking up for them for how you interpret them is fine and all, but how will you perceive them when all of the justifications you make are retconned to make no sense?
There is no consistency, the information DID change what was known and established. Making the story up as you go and forgetting the previously established information never works well, look to Bendy as an example of this.
There's no point in saying it's convoluted anymore as there always seems to be a retort. I personally feel that fans should be expecting more cohesiveness and respect rather than just putting up with whatever is thrown at them and defending it by creating their own head cannon as to why it works
You're absolutely not wrong, though I do think this is a case-by-case issue. While retcons can be necessary, I'd still encourage avoiding them as much as possible. Some series are built that way and others really aren't but regardless of where on the scale it falls, it's always better to have consistency and thought go into the blueprints as much as possible than to throw caution to the wind.
This sometimes just isn't possible, which is why I say that retcons can be necessary and should be forgivable, but it all comes down to how it's handled, as you say. A creator who takes great care to consider all the information they've fed their audience and break from that consistency only as a last resort is going to be more respected than one who doesn't even remember the original canon in the first place, for good reason.
And of course, how fans receive those different treatments will also vary from person to person. We all have different tolerances and some of us are just here for the drinks.
Xack I can't wait to hear your thoughts on KH3...
I'm super dissapointed by it
I'm thinking of doing a livestream about it. I don't have much experience with livestreaming, so it would be kind of an experiment, but it might be an easier way to talk about the game than the more one-way approach of a video and comments.
The difficulty is knowing what time would be best to aim for, considering various time zones, and dealing with the lack of confidence that enough people would even show up.
@@Xackadee yeah haha all understandable...
well whatever you do i'll listen
jacob yako how are you Super disappointed by it??
The identity that was stole was a big deal because he was talking to the guy he stole the name from.
Why is that a big deal?
Retcon Hearts
Such as?
@@Xackadee - Riku saying that Kairi coming to the Islands was what sparked his interest in worlds other than Destiny Islands, but BBS establishing that Terra (someone from another world) encountered Riku and blessing him with the Keyblade passage happened before that. Why was Terra never mentioned or shown for this moment in the first game? Obviously because the concept of Terra doesn't exist yet, but it's a change in Riku's motivations.
Xion is another retcon. She is not mentioned a single time in KHII. Days tries to pull the "oh, no one will remember me" line, but that only matters in the context of Namine's memory meddling, and Namine would have remembered her. By the time you reach DDD and KHIII, everyone remembers Xion without that many problems, even though Namine has had zero impact since then. The writers tried to retroactively shove her into the series four years after the release of KHII as being important and it shows.
@@Rikrobat Riku - Three things. One is just a detail thing in that it's debatable that Xehanort could be the one who inspired Riku to want to see other worlds, since Riku tells Terra about him when they meet and in doing so shows that he already knew there must be more out there. Granted, seeing Terra was probably proof of that he hadn't previously had.
Second thing is that is that Kairi was further proof of that. What he says about her is true to an extent, even if he had other knowledge that he doesn't let on about.
Third thing is the reason he doesn't let on, which is that Terra told him he had to keep it all a secret. Whether Riku continued to believe the "magic" excuse as he grew up or not, he still honoured his promise and kept that to himself. Kairi, if anything, would have provided a good cover for him to express his desire to see other worlds and attribute that desire to something other than his secret.
So there is a reason that what he says isn't inconstent. The events add up, the only difference is that we understand the character better.
Xion - First thing, I'm not actually sure that Namine would have remembered her.
Second thing, even if she did, why would she bother to bring up or mention someone that nobody else remembers? What would that accomplish? Looking at Namine's brief appearences in KH2, she kind of has her hands full with other problems throughout that game and she said in 358/2 Days in the first place that she wouldn't be able to save any memories of Xion no matter how much she may want to. It's out of her hands; there's nothing she can do.
Aside from that, nobody remembers her in DDD and in KHIII, Xion is literally brought back and her memories end up coming with her. People learn about her existance and then rediscover who she was over those two games. It's not like there was a surplus of evidence prior to 358/2 Days of what the Organization got up to pre-KH2 and literally the only things we knew about Roxas were that he was best friends with Axel and he had questions about the keyblade that he ended up leaving the Organization over, both of which are still represented in Days, so altogther, the idea that there was another member of the Organization that Roxas was best friends with that everyone lost all memory of is fairly feasible. If anything, she's further proof of the reason Roxas left the Organization because of her close relationship with him and the way she was treated for the very nature of what she is, so it's a case of adding on to a pre-existing story, which is a valid way to give a character importance.
Frankly, the bottom line is that there's nothing inconsistent about Xion. Any argument that could be made has an answer for it. Even the name "XIII" was addressed before everyone even lost all memory of Xion. Call it contrived all you want, but that isn't the definition of a retcon. You may not approve of the method of adding in a new important character in a prequel/midquel story, but that doesn't change the fact that there aren't any contradictions.
Xackadee - I suppose where we might differ is that I consider retcons to be decisions that affect the narrative being told, and how they overwrite the importance of a character and their connection to the story.
Riku didn’t have to share the knowledge of Terra to his friends because he promised to keep it a secret, but where was the reveal to the audience? Non-existent. So when he says Kairi is the one who inspired him, this makes Kairi’s role in Riku’s motivations integral. When you reveal that, no, it was someone else never mentioned before a new idea prequel came along, it changes the dynamic that the three friends had, and not for the better in my opinion. It messes with the consistency of the character motivations in order to make Terra more important to the lives of the original trio.
As for Xion, her inclusion interferes with the importance of Roxas’ character in KHII. Originally, it was Roxas who was needed to awaken Sora. Important memories were inside Roxas, and without him, Sora would remain asleep. But then Days appears, and all of that importance gets piled onto Xion to make her relevant. Yes, the game still needs Roxas to merge with Sora, but Xion is the one holding up the plans, holding onto the important memories. She is also shoved into a friendship that functioned perfectly fine in KHII without her existence.
The fact that KHII makes just as much sense without Days proves that Xion was an unnecessary, retroactive rewrite that only serves to take away a role that was integral to Roxas originally.
When a new instalment has to revise another character’s importance and role in order to offer relevance to a new character that was never once hinted at or mentioned when proper foreshadowing indicates their presence should have mattered in key scenes, that is a retcon to me.
@@Rikrobat Still not the definition of a retcon.
I can see your point as far as Riku is concerned, but I'm not really that fussed by it because that trio has sadly barely been a trio since KH2. Their problems extend way beyond a little flashback.
As for Xion, to be honest, it just sounds like you don't like her. Again, her presence doesn't change anything and if anything only adds on to what we already know. Heck, it's because of her explicitly that restoring Sora's memories took a whole year. Her presence gives depth to the Axel and Roxas friendship because the story events involving her test their respective loyalties to the Organization and to each other. There's plenty of events between them that don't involve her and aren't about her, but they have more to do throughout the game because they each have their own perspective on how to deal with the problems that Xion is going through, Roxas often by taking action and Axel often by lying. In other words, she adds to their dynamic by being a third best friend for them to concern themselves with. And that's all on top of Xion having her own arc of struggling to know what the right thing to do is and wrestling with doing that over just getting what she wants. Basically, Xion's presence is in no way a bad thing and she's one of my favourite characters because of what she adds. The Roxas-Axel-Xion trio is by far the best written trio in the series because of the drama they go through together.
You yourself said as much. Xion's presence doesn't actually change anyone's importance or interfere with the original story. Literally your only problem with her is that she wasn't necessary, which, like, prequel, so duh. But also, story, so duh.
Something I always bear in mind is this: No story is necessary. People often like to complain about "unecessary sequels/prequels" but the reality is, those continuations are no more or less necessary than the story that preceeded it. These stories aren't unecessary; they're unwanted. Because no story is in any way necessary for any reason. At best, some sequels are needed to finish an existing story, but the idea that a piece of narrative shouldn't exist because it doesn't need to exist is ludicrous. Anyone who complains about an unecessary inclusion to a fictional universe is really just complaining that they received a story they didn't want. Just look at Toy Story 4. To some, it's the true conclusion to the series, to others, it's a pointless add-on that shouldn't have been made.
TED Talk over. Point is, Xion isn't a retcon. You either just don't like her or don't like the story that brought her into the series. I just think it's worth pointing out to you that even by your own definition of what you consider a retcon, Xion doesn't apply to that. Xion's one of my favourite characters and I adore the story of Days but if you don't like her, that's your prerogative; it's your opinion and I while I disagree, I don't have a problem with it. Just own it.
I'll tell you why "Ansem isn't Ansem" IS a retcon:
In Chain of Memories: Reverse Rebirth, Riku asked Vexen "Are you with Ansem?". Vexen responded "You are half correct".
We know what Vexen meant. He was with Ansem's Nobody, but not really Ansem.
Vexen knows who the real Ansem is supposed to be, since he was a direct apprentice of Ansem.
No apprentice disrespects his master by referring to someone else as Ansem.
Had it not been a retcon, Vexen should've said "I used to be" or something like that.
I would think no apprentice would disrespect their master by betraying them, usurping them and casting them out into a realm of nothingness, but Ansem's apprentices clearly have different limits towards what apprentices should and shouldn't do. But if you're sure that makes sense then I guess there's no alternative.
@@Xackadee No you don't get it. Xehanort and Vexen are not comparable.
Xehanort betrayed his master, while Vexen stayed loyal in KH3. That's why I said it's out of character for Vexen to disrespect his master.
@@ShadowbannedAccount I guess Vexen has no reason to "atone" then, since he's a flat character who never changes, alters or does anything that he would later go on to regret, as you say.
I don’t really care whether or not the all things “grow hearts” reveal is a retcon or not.
I don’t like it. For this main reason. The moment Xemnas revealed this in Dream Drop Distance.
I was left with this awful feeling. That nothing mattered anymore. The Heartless are not a threat, there’s no true loss, because everything just grows a heart back. So, why fight on?
That’s why I don’t like it, because it ruins the sense of high stakes the Heartless once presented in the games. The Nobodies look idiotic rather than sympathetic, and it takes away their core motivation for existing at all. Ruining the drama that KH2 set up and the themes in it too. It all just deflated like a balloon for me sadly. 😢
I don’t want it to be that way, but I just can’t help but it feel that’s what that concept did. It harmed rather than helped and I think writing wise, there were more interesting ways they could have gone. In explaining the emotional states of nobodies. Without compromising the rest of the world building because it’s a too easy fix, for something that should have had more thought out into it.
Here's why I disagree with that:
*Xemnas:* _You accept darkness yet choose to live in the light. So why is that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice?_
*Riku:* _That's simple. It's because you mess up our worlds._
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think that we fight the Nobodies because they're Nobodies. We fight them because of what they do, not what they are. Hearts or no hearts, it doesn't change that these antagonists are causing harm to people for selfish gain. That matters. Why would Nobodies being capable of growing hearts change that?
For that matter, why are the "heartless not a threat"? They are. What does any of this even have to do with the heartless? This twist isn't about them. And why is the there "no true loss"? There is. People can still be killed and many nearly do throughout Kingdom Hearts III. Furthermore, Nobodies do still lack hearts, so that's still a core part of their motivation. What came before is actually largely unchanged, which ties into my next point.
Following that, Xemnas says this:
*Xemnas:* _That may be... However, what other choice might we have had?_
*Sora:* _Just give it a rest! You're Nobodies! You don't even exist! You're not sad about anything!_
*Xemnas:* _Ha ha ha ha... Very good. You don't miss a thing. I can not feel sorrow..._
This exchange pre-twist makes the Nobodies a weak set of antagonists who are arbitrarily carrying out villainous actions as though they're bound to do it, like a river has no choice but to flow downstream. Sora even buys into this and dismisses them out of hand. The thing is, that doesn't add up when characters like Namine, Axel and Roxas proved that the Nobodies _do_ have a choice. They're capable of free will or leaving the organisation and make some emotional choices.
I feel like now's a good time to remind you that the fact that Nobodies can regrow hearts is not public knowledge in-universe. Only a small handful of people are shown to know that from earlier than the reveal, namely Xemnas, Xigbar and DiZ, none of whom had the Nobodies best interests at heart.
That's why this works. This reveal is the missing piece that fixes the issues with Xemnas' story and explains the actions of the outliers. Nobodies still need help to grow hearts and they themselves are unaware that this is the case and above all, _Xemnas is trying to prevent that._ The entire point of the Organization becomes so much more sinister when you learn that Xemnas was actively trying to _take away_ the power of choice that the other Nobodies had. He was using them and trying to supress the natural power of life itself - something that ensures that anyone who can form connections to other people can feel for those people.
And because of that, it adds a layer of manipulation and dramatic irony to scenes like the one above as his lies extend to fooling Sora and he plays into that. He lets the heroes think of his victims as the villains. On behalf of the other members, that's as sympathetic as it gets. The core motivation of the Nobodies is not only still there, it's something that was _actively exploited._ That matters. Why wouldn't it?
Call it an easy fix if you want, but that's a good thing. It's not something that's a stretch to believe or takes extra steps of complicated understanding (something KH lore already suffers from in abundance) to follow along with. It's a natural conclusion to the stakes that were set up for us prior to it, makes greater sense of the former conflicts of the story and adds to the drama rather than diminishes it.
I can't change the way you feel about it and if you don't like it then I'm sorry to hear that but to say that it harmed rather than helped is way off the mark. Don't fixate on alternate explanations. There will always be, for every twist in every story, other ways that things could have played out and with an infinite number of possible new directions, there's always a better path. As such, it's a pointless question. Focus on what we have. The story as it exists may not live up to your own personal ideals, but it was never trying to. When you actually analyse what this twist did for the universe and the world-building, it's a very rational result.
@@Xackadee I didn’t say what I did, as an explanation as to why it ruins my reason to fight Nobodies. Because the fighting isn’t the entire core aspect.
In all honesty, I wish as characters that we didn’t need to fight them. Because it’s very sad to imagine an existence like that, with them being exploited and used by Xemnas. They all have my full sympathy.
What I mean is, is that if they just grow Hearts. Are they truly Nobodies anymore? Because the point of their existence is that they have no hearts and they are trying to re-find their original selves to become complete. That gives them motivation.
But just by having them grow hearts. That motivation is taken away and they’re not really Nobodies anymore. They’re just Somebodies with black coats on. Which then makes them pointless to exist as a fictional race if you just give it to them like that.
I’m not trying to make this into an argument and I do respect your feelings and of course, I never expected the story to follow my own logic. That’s not what it’s supposed to, I do understand.
But again I do see this aspect as a problem that I can’t help but comment about. I will always love Kingdom Hearts, but I won’t stay quiet if I feel something has gone wrong.
But that’s what’s fun about having a discussion about these things isn’t it? 🙂
@@lauraroberts3520 No, it's fine! I just want to understand what you're saying and make it clear why I feel differently. And if I can help you come around to it in any way, that'd be an excellent bonus, but if you continue to disagree, that's no issue! I get the sense that I view these things from a more thematic perspective - analysing the point of the story - if that helps.
To that I'll say that it's easy to forget that most Nobodies don't get that kind of opportunity. Just because they can regrow hearts doesn't mean that they will and not all of them did. The reveal doesn't sweep away the struggle of the Nobodies, especially since those who did grow hearts were still beholden to an opperessive dogmatic Organization that drove a wedge in their relationships, used them and put them through a great deal of suffering. And that being a massive point of the story kind of shows an irony that what they were looking for was never that far off the whole time, but that very search and need to "be complete" misled them to cause some of their own friction and doubt. All of that would never have happened if they weren't Nobodies who definitively started with no hearts, were constantly surrounded by people with no hearts and were regularly reminded by those people and themselves that they have no hearts.
It's also even easier to forget that not all Nobodies are human form. A vast majority of them are Dusks, Dancers, Gamblers, Samurai, Creepers, etc. The lesser Nobodies as a species are vast in number and far more easily led by the stronger Nobodies, so their heartless selves are stil very much their staple.
And as one minor tidbit that gets mentioned once or twice in the games and I believe was confirmed in an interview but hasn't been actually shown, Nobodies do exist on a time limit. I do think they should have made a bigger deal of it, but Nobodies are doomed to one day fade back into nothing. Even if they grow hearts, they wouldn't be able to just go on existing like before with no end because their existence is still tied to nothingness.
@@d.saunders2506 I can get people being mixed about the heartless and nobody reforming the whole person, a concept that I'm not against but ought to have been handled well.
However, I'm a very strong and firm disagree on the "theme ruining" comment regarding Nobodies growing hearts.
This is the series that defended Pinocchio as being more than a mere puppet who is capable of both possessing and having the right to a heart from its very first installment. The plot twist that the bonds of love between Nobodies were so real that they gave rise to true and honest emotions (and by proxy, the heart that contains them) is *the most* on-brand KH theming there is.
As I said to someone else earlier in this comment chain, I can't change your feelings and I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way, but arguing that it's not consistent and/or even ruins KH's theme is just not accurate.
true retcon: dual weilding. it used to be tied to the amount of hearts inside of a body. now anyone can dual weild
Very true, I was confused when KH3 had a certain sudden inconsistent case of dual wielding come along.
At the same time, I'd have to consider that a grey area. It's a retcon of Nomura's previous explanation of dual wielding, but technically, unless I'm forgetting, I don't think that was ever said to be the case in the games themselves.
16:35 Oh, but it IS a big deal. There is no correct and convenient way of calling KH1 Ansem anymore. You can't call him "Xehanort's Heartless" because, well, 5 and a half syllables. Calling him Ansem is no longer correct and will just make things confusing if he interacts with the real Ansem (which he did, by the way). Calling him Xehanort also does not work because if there are multiple Xehanorts (which there WERE in KH3), well, you know why.
I mean shit, even they realized that this retcon was stupid and called him Ansem, anyway, in KH3.
I understand that, but what you are describing is a minor nuisance regarding one character's naming. A minor nuisance is not a big deal.
@@Xackadee It might be a minor nuisance, alone. However, it adds up with other confusion making it so unnecessary. They could've just made DiZ be a different person instead of this Ansem bullcrap.
What is the point of it? Nothing. Its existence is solely to be confusing.
Just like Heartless and Nobody naming. "Heartless" turns out to 100% be a heart that's fallen to darkness and 0% body. "Nobody" turns out to be 100% a body with no heart.
You know what else does exactly this?
Greenland and Iceland. And do you know why the Vikings named them that way?
Nothing but to confuse enemies. Yes, its sole reason is to be confusing and nothing else.
@@ShadowbannedAccount Well you seem to have all this figured out so I'll leave you to it.
Hi
Hello!
Half the video before we get to the reason ur here.
The first half of the video is half of the reason I am here. Yes, the misapplication of the term to two key events in Kingdom Hearts is something I really want to address, but it's part in parcel with the other annoying fact that people just straight up don't know to use the word "retcon". It's important to establish that before I even tackle the second half, or else someone's just going to accuse _me_ of misapplying the term.
(first)
i literaly just searched "retcon kingdom hearts" and this video was uploaded 19 min ago. what a coincidence.
i dont think im going to watch this, but... im shocked that you would try to use kigdom hearts as a DEFENSE of retconning, since kh plot.... sucks. ok. bye bye
I’m not gonna say you’re wrong for not liking Kingdom Hearts story and such but I think you’re being really shortsighted and kind of boasting that fact by not even giving the video a shot especially since he has good points. Of course this is coming from someone who doesn’t really see a ton of retcons in KH like others have but that’s beside the point. But have a good day.
Yeah, Laran Noire said it all. But if you're shocked that I would use KH as a defence of retcons, then you should really watch the video in order to understand why. Posting a comment announcing your intention to not watch a video _and_ your simultaneous inability to understand said video is a rather odd thing to do.