Today's Twelve Days of Xmas (not really) 'giveaway' comes with some bonus retroactive continuity:
[Source: @outlander_starz IG account - posted December 20, 2025]
This clip, which is in fact promo for a 26 minute long Walk Down Memory Lane extra, exclusively designed for the US audience - you have to subscribe to *** to watch it, which I think is really, really idiotic marketing. You can watch it here (and I really hope some Good Samaritan will post it): https://www.starz.com/us/en/series/outlander/season-7/bonus/outlander-cast-walk-down-memory-lane/73661?
What about that walk in Hyde Park, when they both vowed to always have eachother's backs? Wasn't that a seminal, founding moment, playfully/nostalgically being remembered by both, regularly, during promo?
You all know what I am talking about:
[Source: S's X page - posted March 22, 2014]
We also know when that walk happened - and it was before the stables moment, with utmost certainty: Sunday, September 15, 2013. Which is four days after the official announcement of C being cast as Claire, on September 11, 2013.
[Source: S's X account - posted September 16, 2013]
Also, this - a moment documented and openly acknowledged by both of them:
[Source: C's X account - posted September 17, 2013]
Now we are supposed to believe the first real and consistent encounter happened at the stables, closely monitored by ***, that made it a Season 1 promo item?
This?
We know filming of Season 1 began on October 7, 2013:
[Source: https://www.outlandishobservations.com/2013/10/first-day-of-filming.html - posted October 7, 2013]
Objective? As S reluctantly says, in the above Walk Down Memory Lane clip, 'yeah, it was a long time ago'. All is but forgotten. Oh, FFS.
The problem is, we still have brains. And memories. If that looked arresting, it's because it was. And because it was in the aftermath of 'a great day' and 'the beginning of this wonderful madness'.
The One-Punch Man manga series has seen several rewrites of chapters and parts of arcs, and several fans have taken to calling the revised chapters 'retcons'. That this isn't correct is something that has been getting on my nerves forever, but I've ignored it for two reasons. One, damn, but I do have more to do in life than carp on terminology in online fandom, and two, I've not minded the irony that One-Punch Man isn't big on retconning. However, in the most recent webcomic chapter, 152, there is a bona fide example of retconning, and so I've got to say something.
First, Let's Define Terms
First thing, what *is* retconning? It's short for 'retroactive continuity': when something that should have been established earlier in the story is written in and explained as if it was always there. If you want more on that, you can waste a few hours on TV Tropes. It's often used as a pejorative, especially with regard to mainstream Western comic book writers, where discontinuities, reboots, and retcons are common as the long-in-the-tooth properties pass from one writer to the next. However, it's rather stupid to use words wrongly as it deprives us of the ability to accurately describe and analyse what we see. It's additionally stupid because retconning is a tool, and it can be used well, even though it's easier to remember examples of poor use.
Specifics
As I've said, ONE hasn't been big on retconning. Notably, he's been happy to let the OPM manga and webcomic develop their own continuities. For example, it would have been easy for him to introduce Suiryu in the webcomic by having him recall having met Saitama and been inspired to become a hero: that would have been a retcon as we never saw the two meet earlier in the webcomic, but no. He started Suiryu as the unreformed guy he started out as and let him develop his own way.
So what's different here? Well, *nowhere* in the webcomic have Ryumon and Metal Bat had any interaction. They were introduced to each other in chapter 125, and that was it. Nowhere in the webcomic do we see Ryumon questioning his role in society, mentioning Metal Bat, or even watching Metal Bat in action from afar. However, in chapter 152, he reveals that he's been an admirer of heroes from childhood, admires Metal Bat, has been talking to Metal Bat, and has changed his MO as well as that of his group. THAT. IS. RETCONNING. 100%.
So, is it BAD? FUCK NO. IT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE. Let us dig into why it's so good. The cure for retconning is rewriting, as happens in the manga. It doesn't always pay to do so: sometimes you can't or won't go back. And you have to consider carefully whether it's worth tearing up a partially-written work to establish a new fact. In this instance, it's definitely not worth it: the FACT that Ryumon is an ally to Metal Bat is much more important than whatever PROCESS he went through to become one.
The story *needs* someone like Ryumon to act as an ally: the way the webcomic is set up, Metal Bat left on his own tod to join the Neo Heroes, so there's no one back at the Hero Association to support him. The other pro-heroes who joined with him are all either too isolated or too miserable to be of use -- yes, the selfishness of the heroes in the wc is coming back to bite them. And with his sister being held hostage, merely breaking out without an ally able to move freely within the Neo Heroes to look out for Zenko's safety would have doomed her. The story needed a 'lucky' break like this, or it'd be hopeless.
Is Ryumon the right character to use? Oh yes indeedy. First, as a stock character, we, the audience, like the idea of a gangster with a heart of gold, someone who may exist outside the law but still has a clear sense of right and wrong and who has standards about who may and may not be targeted. We're prepared to accept Ryumon in a way that we would not have been able to accept Zaedats having a change of heart (well, if he still had a heart to change... poor bastard). Second, Ryumon hasn't kicked any puppies; we haven't seen him do anything horrific. He may not have done much that is good, and it's clear that he'd been happy to regard the eventual culling of pro-heroes as no bad thing, but he doesn't come across as the sort of guy who'd applaud a completely subjugated world. It's right that he rebels.
He may be no devil, but he's no angel either: the pro-heroes being a rival gang whose demise is no bad thing is his view. Note, however, that he does want to be respectable.
His rough speech and his desire for respectability make it believable that he'd get along with Metal Bat, and so we're ready to buy that he'd be influenced by the young hero to actually be heroic rather than just mime being one. Along those lines, ONE established in the wc that as the various Neo Heroes came into contact with the various pro-heroes -- Webigaza with Child Emperor, Raiden with Puri Puri Prisoner -- they have not been able to avoid being impressed and moved by their examples and testimonies.
Given all of these factors (the right character, a process we've accepted for other characters, and a strong in-story need for the character to take action), Ryumon's heel-face turn fits in beautifully, and that's how a retcon is supposed to work.
This is very unlikely to happen in the manga for three reasons. Reason 1 (the most important): ONE knows where he wants to go with the character so he can just get on and write an organic story. It is also the case that many of the pro-heroes we're following into the Neo Heroes are doing so with a plan and are working together, rather than the scattershot individualism of the wc: they have more resources. Reason 2: as a paid-for work, ONE isn't going to expect us to be happy with after-the-fact handwaving. That's why he's willing to spend months rewriting if need be. Reason 3: Ryumon in the manga has much dirtier hands than his webcomic equivalent, having organised hero betting and planning worse. We are going to have to see him change. And with him already butting heads with Metal Bat, there is plenty of scope for just that to happen. Not too easily, I hope! :D
Not only is he no angel, but he's still actively criminal.
We don't need the webcomic to know that this is going to be interesting, but now we can look forward to this being INTERESTING.
Call to action
Please, for fuck's sake, can we use the right words? The no longer canon chapters are SCRAPPED or REDACTED. Their replacements are REVISIONS. Otherwise, we're just babbling nonsense.
March 1985. Whatever else one may say about the Crisis on Infinite Earths, it was a triumph for truth in advertising: Worlds lived, worlds died, and the DC Universe was never the same. A cynic might add, "And nothing ever made sense again," since the event kicked off almost 40 years of retcons, revisions, and successive reboots, which DC used to internally describe as "white events," after the cataclysmic moment in CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS #10 where the original multiverse was shattered and recreated:
Even before the Crisis event was ever conceived, DC had a long history of fairly dramatic editorial and creative shifts, some of which hung on specific story events (like the de-powering of Wonder Woman in 1968) and some of which did not (like the inauguration of Batman's "New Look" in 1964). With the benefit of hindsight, it's possible to make some general observations about editorial revisionism and efforts to tear down and rebuild internal continuity:
It's ultimately easier (and more effective) to ignore than to change. When Julius Schwartz became Batman editor in 1964, he dispensed with many characters and concepts that had been staples under his predecessor, Jack Schiff, such as Batwoman and Bat-Mite. With one exception, there was no story explanation of where they'd gone — they just stopped showing up and were soon forgotten. The exception was Alfred the butler, who was killed off dramatically in DETECTIVE COMICS #328. When the producers of the 1966 Batman TV show decided to incorporate Alfred into that series, Schwartz was obliged to resurrect him, in a singularly preposterous way, after which he was regarded as indispensable. By contrast, while most of the characters who'd simply been ignored also returned, it was much later and generally in quite minor ways; their long absence reduced them to marginalia that could be incorporated or not, as seemed most useful.
Crossovers are the most serious and persistent enemy of change. The nature of company-owned comics is that the characters will inevitably show up in crossovers, team-ups, and events of various kinds, often written, drawn, and edited by people who aren't familiar with the finer points of the characters' history, inevitably resulting in troublesome contradictions, up to and including characters who were previously supposed to be dead inexplicably popping up alive. The more convoluted a change to a character or their history, the more likely that it will misrepresented, accidentally undone, or just ignored the next time the character shows up in a series other than their own.
A true line-wide reboot is commercially infeasible. A publisher like DC or Marvel has many different titles at once, and at any given time, some of them are selling better than others. If a title isn't selling well, there may be nothing to lose by rebooting it or making drastic changes to its characters and direction, but doing that to a series that's currently a hot seller is foolhardy. So, the bestsellers will generally stroll through a "white event" with only minor cosmetic adjustments, while weaker titles may undergo a whole series of radical reinventions. If the former bestseller goes into a slump and one of those radical reinventions transforms an underdog into a hit, the situation will be reversed. Surely this won't backfire later …
Timing is everything. A lot of the confusion that resulted at DC in the wake of the Crisis stemmed from the fact that different revisions happened at different times. For instance, the headaches surrounding Hawkman began in large part because of the editorial decision in 1990 not to treat the Tim Truman HAWKWORLD series as a kind of "Hawkman: Year One" (which is how it was conceived), but rather as a reboot, even though that threatened to retroactively remove the Hawks from books like JUSTICE LEAGUE, which had become very popular following its most recent revamp. This kind of thing creates situations where creative teams have to come up with desperate contrivances to explain retroactive changes to very recent stories. Having Hawkman and Hawkwoman stop showing for Justice League adventures for a while wouldn't have been a big deal, but trying to assert that the Hawkman and Hawkwoman who'd previously appeared were either never really there or were actually somebody else was another matter, and the problems this created were never fully resolved.
Continuity-tidying for its own sake is almost always a creative dead end. This is a lesson that Nelson Bridwell and Roy Thomas demonstrated over and over throughout the Bronze Age: It's one thing to have some flashbacks, if it serves the story, or maybe to retell a character's origin with a few nips and tucks, but if your main purpose is to explain, e.g., why Namor once wore the wrong shorts, the results are likely to be either silly or tedious. This hasn't stopped DC and Marvel from wasting a lot of ink and paper on specials and miniseries that exist to retell earlier stories in an updated, continuity-compliant manner, usually to no good end. The fundamental problem with such things is that their main object is to regurgitate familiar older stories (if they weren't familiar, there would be no point in retelling them) while urging readers who have read the original version (who are the most likely audience) to ignore their lying eyes. This is, with very, very few exceptions, a dismal exercise that routinely defeats even usually reliable creators like John Ostrander (see for example the tiresome 2001–2002 JLA: INCARNATIONS), and frequently results in yet more contradictions to explain or ignore.
The bottom line is that while you can blow things up all you want, the likelihood that they can be reassembled in a clearer, more cohesive way is really quite low, and diminishes the more frequently you try.
I want to be clear here that this isn't a criticism of the CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS series (which has many virtues, along with some significant flaws), or even any of the individual revisions and retcons that have followed, some of which are, in their own right, perfectly fine. The dilemma is that the project that an event like this represents is ultimately a doomed one. It might spark some commercial interest, at least briefly (which is of course at least half the point), but simplification and unity are just not in the cards and probably never will be.
@alwaysalreadyangry replied to your post “@alwaysalreadyangry replied to your post “Like the human species, I had a head, and like a human being, I enjoyed it immensely.”...”
I’m glad to hear it, Frank, but what happened to your head?
"Oh Frank, what a world!" they cried. "Now you're a human being with a soul and a heart and lungs, just like in my dreams, and that's why you're so good and kind and full of so many wonderful thoughts! :D"
While I’m riding high on the finale to Star Wars: The Clone Wars (No I am not crying....I cried it all out last night) I have decided to compile a list of the worst retcons to the Star Wars franchise.
Why? I dunno, I’m a crotchety old nerd who likes to complain about decades-old stories. Do I need another reason?
In no particular order:
Making Emperor Palpatine a Sith
It’s been 21 years since The Phantom Menace came out, so for an entire generation of nerds he’s always been “Darth Sidious”, but we old-timers remember that for the 22 years before that there was no connection between the Emperor and the Sith. The term “Sith” itself was present from the earliest iterations of the first film and was used in some promotional materials and tie-ins and toys, but it was solely connected to Darth Vader as a Dark Lord of the Sith. The Expanded Universe built a specific philosophy and history around the Sith as a concept, not just as a catch-all term for darksider, and that history explicitly didn’t include the Emperor. There was even hate and schism between the Sith and some other Dark Side philosophies, and even those who didn’t use the Force at all. In The Truce at Bakura, an EU novel that began the day after Return of the Jedi, an Imperial governor initially dismisses the Rebels’ claims that the Emperor is dead as propaganda until they say that Vader is the one who killed him. That he believes, and even says how foolish it was for the Emperor to have trusted a Sith.
Even without going into what Dark Side philosophy the Emperor did follow, having Vader as a Sith and the Emperor not helped flesh out the universe by showing that even amongst the totalitarian despots there were different factions. Just like Hitler and Mussolini each had their own brands of Fascism, they can work together while still being distinct.
Introducing the concept of the Chosen One
People often forget that Darth Vader wasn’t the main antagonist of the original Star Wars film, Grand Moff Tarkin was. Vader filled the role described as “The Dragon”, the enforcer and primary legman, and the threat they had to bypass so that they could destroy the real threat. He was a lackey. A cool lackey absolutely, who grew into the primary antagonist in The Empire Strikes Back, but still a lackey. And despite how cool and badass he is (And don’t get me wrong, he is a fantastic character and one of the best villains in history) there’s nothing “special” about him within the context of the Jedi and Force users in general. He does not have any significant advantage over Obi-Wan Kenobi in their duel and is obviously completely unprepared for Kenobi to become One with the Force at his loss (And it is debatable if he even “won” at all given Kenobi’s deliberate self-sacrifice). When he and Luke duel in ESB he definitely has the upper hand throughout their entire fight, but only as somebody with more experience and training, not because he is Magically Superior. By the time of ROTJ Luke has even surpassed him despite only three years of experience.
In the Original Trilogy Vader is portrayed as a dangerous, powerful, and skilled opponent, but never as somebody POWERFUL. Never as somebody whose strength or control over the Force is legendary, who is heralded in prophecy. Yoda performs feats with the Force that Vader never comes close to equaling.
To go back and say that actually his affinity the Force is the greatest that the Jedi have ever seen, even greater than Yoda himself (BTW, I’m including the midi-chlorians under this header) makes no sense. To say that he was the Emperor’s #2, helping run the entire Empire right from the moment of its founding, contradicts the original film itself where he was lower on the chain of command.
Darth Vader, and by proxy Anakin Skywalker, was a good enough character without trying to shill his background all to hell.
The impending threat of the Yuuzhan Vong
I’ll be upfront, I never liked the stories with the Yuuzhan Vong in and of themselves (When they started coming in is right about when I stopped reading new EU material). The New Jedi Order just didn’t grab my attention. But what really riled me up was the way the EU tried to backfill the Vong into the franchise history by saying that the entire rise of the Galactic Empire was to prepare for their arrival. That Palpatine knew they were coming, and since the Republic would have been incapable of standing against them he took over so that the galaxy could present a strong, unified front against them.
This is something I actually see a lot of in fiction, and it pisses me off each time: The evil despot actually had noble goals because they knew of an even greater threat and they needed to take control in order to deal with it, because a dictatorship gets things done. You even see this in real life when people try to say that for all Hitler’s faults you have to respect that he made Germany a powerhouse that was this close to conquering the world, and that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Not only are these examples patently false (Nazi Germany never was “this” close to winning the war, and the trains never did run on time in Italy), but they come with the tacit endorsement that maybe their evilness would be worth it for the benefits.
The Galactic Empire explicitly wasn’t a Super Efficient Society. We saw time and again how wasteful the Empire was with its resources as it squandered them on inefficient superweapon after superweapon, how it laid waste to planet after planet for the purposes of propaganda. The Empire was so inefficient that it was able to be toppled by a ragtag band of rebels who had nowhere near the resources, population, wealth, or control it had. If the Empire couldn’t even defeat the Rebellion, just how was it supposed to stand against the Vong? And if the explanation is that the Emperor had been seduced by his own ambition and forgotten his original “noble” goals, why would other characters who knew the truth have gone along with his wanton oppression even after his death?
Trying to give the Empire a “reason” for existing was self-contradictory and borderline offensive.
Having the Clones fight for the Republic
I’m very much in two minds over this one, because as bad as the original retcon was other creators have managed to turn it into genius (Looking at you Clone Wars and The Clone Wars). But I’m nothing if not petty, so...
The Clone Wars were one of the eras that had not been discussed in great detail in the EU before the Prequels came out, instead only being vaguely alluded to. George Lucas was already talking about making more movies and they didn’t want to contradict what was to come. But even with only those vague allusions, it was established that the Clones were the bad guys. The Clonemasters were regarded monsters who unleashed hordes upon the Republic like a swarm of locusts or a plague. The Clones themselves were often unstable, and regarded by the populace as soulless duplicates overwhelming the galaxy. The clones were held in such fear by the populace that Mara Jade -- an Old Empire loyalist (Sort-of) -- decided to switch from passively assisting the New Republic because her boss told her to to actively assisting them at the thought of the Empire starting the Clone Wars again.
Even the name of the conflict implies that the Clones were the enemy: People don’t name a war after their own soldiers. The Droid War, Separatist Secession, Clone & Droid Conflict, Jedi Aggression, etc. all would have made more sense for the war as depicted.
Getting into philosophy, the idea of cloning soldiers expressly for war is morally abhorrent. It’s mass slavery. And I am far from the first person to point this out, but that aspect is not even mentioned in the Prequel films. The Jedi accepting this clone army is repugnant, and some people have used this to show that the Jedi Order was already corrupt at the time of the rise of the Empire, but this wasn’t explored at all in the films that introduced the clones as the Grand Army of the Republic.
Getting into just simple common sense...HOW FUCKING DENSE DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO JUST ACCEPT A MYSTERIOUS ARMY THAT APPEARED OUT OF NOWHERE?!?!
That makes no sense. It never made sense. The idea that nobody in the Republic, from the government to the military to the populace at large, questioned the very existence of the clone army....it was too much. The exploration of just how ridiculous this is made for great fodder in The Clone Wars, but only because they had to paper over the GIANT GAPING CHASMS that the concept created.
Making the Jedi a cult
In the old EU, the Jedi of the Old Republic were described as allowed to have families, even being encouraged to do so. They were allowed to pursue lives and interests and careers outside of the order itself, and didn’t need to forsake who they used to be. The Jedi Council didn’t have legal authority over the lives of its members, and didn’t try to mandate personal lifestyle.
People started training in their teens when they were old enough to at least understand the concept, and if they were taken as children it was in unusual extraneous circumstances.
While there were Jedi customs, and Jedi Codes, and they had rules and regulations to follow, but they addressed how they should act as Jedi. They didn’t care what kind of clothing you wore.
Starting with The Phantom Menace, Jedi were taken at such young ages to begin their training that they could not give any consent to their enlistment, nor were they offered any alternatives when they had grown up and may be able to decide for themselves. They are indoctrinated into a singular Jedi philosophy, not allowed to even debate the dogma of the Council without ostracism, let alone actually defy it. The Jedi Council unilaterally makes decisions for the entire Order galaxy-wide without any apparent method for dissent or appeal, or any devolution of authority.
Taking (Abducting) children as infants, not allowing them any contact with their families, mandating an isolated ascetic existence...the Jedi Order became a cult.
That’s a cult, plain and simple.
These changes didn’t make the Jedi “complex”, didn’t make the conflict “shades of grey”, they’re just creepy and nonsensical.
The Justice Society of America is the first superhero team in comic book history, its popularity led to the creation of many more in both DC Comics and Marvel (or their predecessor companies)
In Marvel Universe, it started with Carl Burgos’ All Winners Squad which served as an inspiration for Roy Thomas to create Invaders in the mid 70s along with Liberty Legion
Unlike Superman and Batman who were later shown as members of JSA through retroactive continuity, Captain America remains a constant both in 1940s teams (Golden Age and Retro-active editions) as well as Silver-Age Avengers, and his presence continues to this day. This salient feature is best captured by Alex Ross in Captain America no. 22′s variant cover
Namor may have been created before Captain America, both him and Cap are part of Marvel Universe to this day but there is something special about ‘The First Avenger’ that he remains a revered character for Marvel fans even in the 21st century
Simply put: he is Marvel’s hero for all the generations
Doctor Who Canon and The Retroactive Continuity Paradox.
Rule 1: There is no such thing as canon in Doctor Who.
The best way I can explain this is by comparing it to Schrödinger’s Cat; everything is both canon and not canon until it is officially mentioned in the actual show, and even then it’s still up for debate. The show allows itself to create exit strategies and potential reasons for why a “rule” has changed. It allows viewers to come up with their own reasons as to why the Doctor doesn’t remember this or; why humans don’t know about the many times aliens have invaded earth and London, specifically. It creates answers within episodes that can be applied throughout the series, and where answers aren’t inherently given they can be found. Nothing is every really off-the-table, there is no rulebook to follow (probably because the Doctor, through it into a supernova).
However, lots of people like to point out the shows, so-called, “retcons”, which actually is a word created from the term, retroactive continuity, where the writers/characters appear too have completely forgotten, or chosen to dismiss things that have previously happened or been mentioned. This is basically a “literary device” that allows creators to change/evolve a previously established narrative. This can involve inventing parallel universes for characters to live out alternate lives; reintroducing a character who was previously thought to be dead or just exploring plot lines that would otherwise be in conflict with the work. The most interesting thing about these retcon’s are how often they truly occur and how often fans are happy to dismiss them.
In the Whoniverse the writer, Russell T Davies, takes it to a whole new level, by adding an actual drug into the universe called Retcon, an amnesia inducing pill that allows characters to forget any number of things. It’s what makes Doctor Who specifically such an interesting case in terms of retroactive continuity. The creators never allow anything to be truly retconned (obviously they can’t actually time travel and change the shows history) but at the same time the audience is expected to accept retcons and is even encouraged to find solutions which make them acceptable. Sometimes the creators introduce their own solutions, i.e. Torchwood literally retconning everyone to forget something or taking advantage of previous gaps in established lore to allow for a new cycle of regenerations.
The one thing I can say is that the show never really retcons anything because everything ends up being a retcon where they constantly are retroactively adding in lore that we ‘weren’t aware of’ previously; and when everything is retconned, then nothing is. It is one of the many ways the show allow itself to be constantly refreshed, clever and innovative in its own ability to stay open and flexible to change on the previously established.
As long time fans of the show will know, originally the Doctor was never even supposed to regenerate, the concept was added in so that William Hartnell could leave the show. At the time, he was working to an exhausting schedule as he slowly became more and more unwell. The producers, knowing of his illness, invented regeneration to allow the show to continue without any of the original cast (except, perhaps the TARDIS).
Speaking of the TARDIS, that’s a very interesting potential ‘retcon’ that no one ever mentions. Back in the 60s Hartnell suggests that the TARDIS is only a machine, a very advanced machine, but alas only a machine. In The Edge of Destruction, the crew (gang, team or Fam, if you prefer) discover that this very advanced machine has created clues to warn them of a danger threatening to destroy it.
DOCTOR: It? It? What do you mean? My machine can't think.
BARBARA: You say it has a built-in defence mechanism?
DOCTOR: Yes, it has.
BARBARA: Well that's where we've been wrong. Originally, the machine wasn't at fault, we were. And it's been trying to tell us so ever since.
IAN: A machine that can think for itself?
BARBARA: Yes.
IAN: Is that feasible, Doctor?
DOCTOR: Oh, think not as you or I do, but it must be able to think as a machine. You see, it has a bank of computers.
This of course suggests the TARDIS is indeed and incredible machine with brilliant capabilities but it is not a living thing with thoughts and feelings, as later suggested, however, this could also be attributed to the Doctor not yet knowing the full extent of the TARDIS, its abilities, its creation. To him at this point in time it may just be a ship that can travel through time and space. It could also be that the Doctor is lying to Ian and Barbara about the ships true origins and capabilities because he is weary of them and probably believes they will not understand its true nature. Or it could all actually be attributed to the fact that the creators never truly meant for this incredibly advanced fictional machine to become anything more than an incredibly advanced fictional machine. This speculation is what allows all of these answers to be essentially all true at once, until perhaps, we are given a true explanation.
This is only a small example of how Doctor Who is a show built entirely on retroactive continuity, and never being able to truly know whether the cat is dead or alive until you open the box.
Retroactive Rule 1: There is such thing as canon in Doctor Who but it is constantly changing and evolving from what it originally was, so much so that, the canon is constantly paradoxical and somehow no longer canon.
