Retcon is an older and less crudely expressed concept, and is distinguished by being actually canonical.

On Reaver-Pax: Just rewatched Bushwhacked for the second time since seeing the movie and the Paxed ship thing still works for me (at least as well as some of the other things we're asked to believe in the series/movie) if you can assume a short (hours? days?) active half-life for Pax in atmosphere so that our heroes don't get Paxified when they unsuit. I thought about that when Mal was cracking his cap and what a different story it'd be if the Pax were still active.

Placemats revealing River and Simon: This makes me smile every time because I've seen law enforcement officers act like that in real life. Looking inside a breadbox for a suspect or flipping through a notebook while searching for stolen stereo equipment, I guess it's part of the training. I think the scene would maybe have been less without that. And the reveal to the outside of the ship with our sibling-pair is ALWAYS beautiful. The look of unabashed delight on River's face, the look of fear on Simon's, they whole prettyness of it makes me want to watch it again. If the shot had included the big cruiser hanging over their heads looking like it's ready to crush them just for being so insignificant I think I'd need a towel.

The episode still creeps me out and it's hard to watch, but that's what makes it so good. Oh, wanna watch it again... OiS first, then another Bushwhacked. Then I need to see the movie again. I'll be in my bunk.

When it comes (no pun intended) to differences between the movie and the Firefly backstory, I just view it as something that had to be done for the sake of the story and pacing of the movie, and leave it at that.

To me that's the most important thing. "Show don't tell" is one of the basic tenants of good story telling, particularly if you don't have a bunch of time for things to unfold. Opening the film with Simon busting out River (particularly the way they showed it, with the time-shift, which made me happily uneasy with thoughts of "IS this happening or WAS this happening" through the opening of the film) was so hugely dynamic and pulled the audience right into the story. HOW Simon busts out his sister is so much less important than THAT Simon does it. Sure he's a little less prissy now, but he's still a naive rich overly-tidy boy taking on the world that created him and running for his life.

Retcon is an older and less crudely expressed concept, and is distinguished by being actually canonical.

Retcon and fanwank aren't related, though.

A fanwank is something I do to explain something that doesn't make sense. A retcon is something the creator does that messes with our previous (perfectly reasonable) interpretation of canon.

I thought a retcon was something the writers did to explain a previously unexplained continuity error? Still not the same thing as fanwank.

Not related to fanwank nor retcon, there was a long piece in the LA Times today about the effort of keeping productions in the LA. They wrote extensively about Serenity as an example of this. I loved the picture of the cantilevered mule on a truck.

In brighter news:

American BO figures for Saturday- only around a 40% drop from last Saturday, which after Friday's poorer showing is a nice surprise.

I'm trying to get an actual source for that.

ETA: [link]

Oh, and thanks for clearing up the whole fanwank/retcon thing. It's now as clear as mud! ;)

Retcon can do either--it can be for the sake of explaining a continuity error or just to expand the story in a certain direction (sometimes in ways that people feel are screwing with canon). Retcon isn't defined by intention so much as act; it's when a writer inserts something into a canon's past that wasn't an explicit part of that past to begin with.

Retcon isn't defined by intention so much as act; it's when a writer inserts something into a canon's past that wasn't an explicit part of that past to begin with.

Ah, that makes sense (it's "retroactive continuity", after all). Thanks.