It is a bit of a stretch but saying Joss goofed up or purposefully chose to disregard that bit of information for the benefit of the movie (while probably true) isn't satisfying enough for me. It's preferable for me to come up with an explaination (however tenuous) in order to preserve the continuity of the verse in my head.

but saying Joss goofed up or purposefully chose to disregard that bit of information for the benefit of the movie (while probably true) isn't satisfying enough for me. It's preferable for me to come up with an explaination (however tenuous) in order to preserve the continuity of the verse in my head.

And Angel was Spike's sire. Uh-huh.

Yeah. It just doesn't bother me to say, "Joss disregarded continuity on purpose," maybe because I've seen him say so in multiple interviews. Just the other night I was noticing how interestingly the episode "Darla" retconned Angel's experience with the Gypsy girl as portrayed in the episode "The Prodigal." (ie, Darla knew immediately that he had been cursed and kicked him out in "The Prodigal," whereas in "Darla" she seemed to be ignorant of or at least unbothered by this fact).

In other words, Joss's total willingness to retcon himself isn't a bug; it's a feature.

In other words, Joss's total willingness to retcon himself isn't a bug; it's a feature.

Gift with purchase?

Or the simplest explanation is that Simon knew very well what the crew of Serenity would think of him, and he decided to play up the helpless angle a bit to gain sympathy, and lied in the pilot.

I don't believe it. His bumbling helplessness was far too realistic. Plus, anybody that could be that cool hitting the floor with the neat paralysis thingy he had shouldn't be so uselessly scared with a gun, methinks.

The nice part about it being a retcon is that we get to have our cake (exciting action sequence! New weapons!) and eat it too (the whole point of the original escape story being that Simon doesn't actually know till the box is opened whether his sister has been rescued or not).

On the one hand, active rescue, Simon being assertive, River assisting her own escape; on the other, passive rescue, that richness of whole other characters we never meet who have motivations, and that sick fear of throwing away everything on the mere chance of saving his family. Two very different interpretations, both of which can, at times, seem to fit the character we meet on the screen.

Although, intellectually, I find retconning sloppy and annoying, sometimes it is very emotionally satisfying to have conflicting motivations/explanations/thought-processes, both of which are plausible and neither of which is exclusive. Which, come to think, is what the Jossverses are all about, right? Emotional arc supersedes logic when necessary.

Emotional arc supersedes logic when necessary.

Bingo.

...One of my big problems with the Simon maybe-a-retcon is that they told him exactly what they had done to River. They said stuff about the "stripping process." Which means that "Ariel," and any other time spent figuring out what was wrong with River, becomes unnecessary. That's what bugs me more than the did-he-or-didn't-he? in terms of who was the active agent in River's escape.

Not exactly. Simon doesn't necessarily know what "the stripping process" actually means. He's a trauma surgeon, not a brain surgeon, so the procedure could easily be entirely unfamiliar to him. It's very possible he's just playing along, pretending he knows exactly what the man's talking about until he knocks everyone out and rescues her. He may have his theories about what the man's words mean, but since they regard the brain, which is frighteningly complex, theories can be dangerously unhelpful without hard data.