4 Comic Book Retcons That Quietly Erased Horrific Backstories

You know, one of the wildest things about reading superhero comics for decades is how the past is never really the past. Unlike a novel or a movie where the story is, for the most part, fixed once it's done, comic book history is more like a living, breathing (and sometimes awkwardly shuffling) entity. With characters who've been around for 60, 70, even 80+ years, written by hundreds of different creators, things are bound to get a little... inconsistent. Or maybe a little dark. Or perhaps just plain weird by today's standards.

That's where the "retcon" comes in. It's short for retroactive continuity, and it's basically the narrative equivalent of hitting the "undo" button, or maybe just adding a sticky note that says, "Actually, this is what happened." Sometimes, these changes are small, just tidying up a plot point that didn't quite make sense. Other times, they're massive, fundamentally reshaping a character's origin or entire history.

This got me thinking, especially after digging into that report on retconned origins. You see, sometimes, the history isn't just inconsistent – it's genuinely disturbing or problematic. And rather than letting that uncomfortable stuff just sit there, publishers often step in to... well, to soften it. To quietly (or not so quietly) erase the bits that don't quite fit the hero we want or need them to be today. It's like they're cleaning up the family photo album before company comes over.

We're going to look at a few fascinating cases where iconic heroes (and even a villain!) had some seriously rough, bizarre, or frankly, disturbing elements scrubbed from their backstories. We'll peek at what the original deal was, how it got changed, why folks think the change happened, how readers felt about it, and even glance at what was going on with sales at the time. It’s a wild ride through the mutable history of capes and cowl.

To learn more about comic book secrets, see this article. You might also enjoy reading about these plot holes.

Captain America: Remember When Cap Was a "Commie Smasher"? Yeah, About That...

Let's start with someone who literally wears his patriotism on his chest. Captain America is supposed to represent the best of America, right? Idealistic, courageous, stands up to bullies. But there was this stretch in his history, post-World War II, before his big Silver Age revival, that was... well, let's just say awkward.

(A) The Awkward Years: Cap's Cold War Blip

After the Nazis were defeated, Cap's popularity dipped, and his comic was canceled. But in the mid-1950s, at the height of the Cold War paranoia and the McCarthy era, Marvel (then Atlas Comics) brought him back. And this wasn't the Cap who fought for freedom against fascism; this was "Captain America: Commie Smasher." Seriously, that was his nickname!

This version was deeply steeped in the anti-communist frenzy of the time. He wasn't just fighting Soviet spies; he was actively hunting communists, his methods and rhetoric feeling jarringly jingoistic and extreme compared to the guy who punched Hitler. For modern readers looking back, and even back in the more politically nuanced 70s, this portrayal felt genuinely disturbing – an icon twisted into a symbol of ugly, paranoid extremism. It just didn't track with the noble Steve Rogers.

(B) The Retcon Saves the Day (and Cap's Reputation)

When Stan Lee and Jack Kirby brought the real Captain America back in the Avengers in 1964, they established that Steve Rogers had been frozen in ice since the end of WWII. So, who the heck was running around in the 50s smashing "commies"?

Enter the retcon, delivered beautifully by Steve Englehart in the early 1970s. The reveal? The 1950s Cap wasn't Steve Rogers at all! He was a history professor named William Burnside who was so obsessed with Captain America that he underwent plastic surgery to look like him and found a way to replicate the Super-Soldier Serum. The kicker? His version of the serum was flawed and slowly drove him insane, amplifying his already fervent nationalism into dangerous fanaticism.

This was a genius move. It completely quarantined the uncomfortable "Commie Smasher" era. Steve Rogers, our core hero, remained pure – frozen in ice, untainted by that wave of nationalistic extremism. The disturbing actions were attributed to a deranged imposter, effectively "softening" Steve Rogers' legacy by removing that stain. They even brought Burnside back later as a villain, allowing them to directly contrast his twisted patriotism with Steve's genuine ideals.

(C) What Did Fans Think? (Mostly Fine, Actually)

Unlike some later retcons that stirred up a hornet's nest, the Burnside retcon was largely accepted. It fixed a clear continuity problem (who was Cap in the 50s?) and, more importantly, it protected the character everyone loved by attributing the problematic stuff to someone else. Fans seemed okay with this kind of "softening" because it felt like it was correcting a mistake and reinforcing who Captain America should be, rather than taking something away.

As for sales back in 1972, getting precise numbers is tough based on the data provided, but the early 70s were part of the Bronze Age, a time when comics were starting to tackle more complex themes. Englehart's Cap run was known for its political commentary, and this retcon fit right into that trend of using the book to grapple with real-world (or recently past-world) issues like the legacy of McCarthyism. The change wasn't likely driven by sales, but by a creative desire to align the symbol with a more considered view of American ideals, and it clearly resonated enough to become the standard explanation.

Mr. Freeze: More Than Just a Cold Fish

Here’s a character who went from being pretty forgettable to genuinely tragic. For years, Mr. Freeze was, well, kind of a joke. He had a freeze ray, wore a cold suit, and... that was about it.

(A) Remember When Freeze Was Kinda... Boring?

When he first showed up back in 1959 (as Mr. Zero, actually, before becoming Mr. Freeze), he was just another gimmick villain. His motivation was usually pretty flimsy – maybe he wanted diamonds because they looked like ice, or he was just mad about the accident that made him need his suit. He was dangerous, sure, but disturbingly lacking in any real depth or compelling reason for his villainy. He was just... a cold guy who did crimes.

(B) "Heart of Ice": The Retcon That Changed Everything

Then came Batman: The Animated Series. That show was famous for adding depth to Batman's villains, and they hit a home run with Mr. Freeze in the Emmy-winning episode "Heart of Ice" in 1992. Written by Paul Dini, this episode gave Victor Fries a name and, more importantly, a heartbreaking backstory.

Victor was a brilliant cryogenics scientist trying desperately to find a cure for his terminally ill wife, Nora, whom he'd placed in suspended animation. His greedy, heartless boss, Ferris Boyle (a new character created for the show), tried to shut down Victor's unauthorized experiment. A struggle ensued, leading to the accident that transformed Victor into Mr. Freeze. Worse, the accident seemingly destroyed Nora's cryo-tube.

Suddenly, Freeze wasn't a generic mad scientist; he was a man consumed by grief and rage, his crimes driven by a desperate, albeit warped, love for his lost wife and a burning desire for revenge against the man who took her from him. This origin was so powerful and popular that DC Comics quickly brought it into the main comic book continuity.

(C) Why This Softening Worked So Well

This retcon completely "softened" Mr. Freeze, not by making him less dangerous, but by making him profoundly more sympathetic. His disturbing obsession with cold and vengeance was no longer rooted in generic evil but in a relatable (though extreme) response to tragedy. He became a tragic figure, an anti-villain whose methods were terrible, but whose core motivation you could understand, even pity. This elevated him from a forgettable villain to one of Batman's most iconic and emotionally resonant foes.

(D) Sales and Reception: Everybody Loved It

Pinpointing the exact sales bump for the comics right after adopting this origin is tricky with the available data, as detailed monthly sales charts are more consistent post-1997. However, the context is key: the 90s were huge for Batman, fueled by the mega-popular animated series and movies. Bringing in the "Heart of Ice" origin capitalized on the character's newfound popularity from the show and integrated a genuinely beloved piece of storytelling.

The fan reaction? Overwhelmingly positive. Unlike many retcons, this one faced virtually no backlash. It's consistently praised as one of the best retcons ever because it took a weak character and made him exponentially better by giving him depth and emotional weight. This really highlights that fans are often okay with origin changes if they feel like they improve the character and add to their story, even if it means the old history is tossed out.

Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver: The Family Feud, Reimagined

Okay, now for a retcon that was decidedly not universally loved. For decades, Wanda and Pietro Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, had one of the most significant and narratively rich parentage reveals in comics: they were the mutant children of the master of magnetism himself, Magneto.

(A) Once Upon a Time, Their Dad Was... Magneto

This connection wasn't there from their first appearance, but it was hinted at relatively early and solidified in the 1980s. For over thirty years, it was the established "truth." This gave them incredible narrative potential: kids of one of the biggest villains, trying to be heroes, caught between the Avengers world and the X-Men/mutant world. Their relationship with Magneto fueled major storylines and added layers of complexity to their characters. It also made Polaris their half-sister, which was pretty cool.

(B) The AXIS Shift: Suddenly, They're Not Mutants?

Then came the 2014 crossover event, AXIS. In a pretty abrupt moment, a villainous Scarlet Witch used a spell against her bloodline, and only Quicksilver was affected, revealing Magneto wasn't their biological father. Subsequent comics hammered it home: Wanda and Pietro weren't mutants at all. Their powers came from experiments by the High Evolutionary, and their true parents were eventually revealed to be a Romani couple or a Romani sorceress, depending on which version you read. Their fundamental status as mutants, which they'd had since their debut in 1964, was gone.

(C) The Real Disturbing Part: Why the Change Happened

Here's the thing: unlike the other examples, the original Magneto parentage wasn't really seen as "disturbing" by fans. It was a beloved, foundational part of their history. The "disturbing" element here, in the eyes of a lot of readers, was the reason for the retcon.

This change happened during a period when Marvel Studios (owned by Disney) and 20th Century Fox had separate film rights – Fox had the X-Men and mutants, while Marvel Studios had the Avengers. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were in a weird legal gray area. The widespread belief was that Marvel Comics changed the twins' origin specifically to sever their ties to Magneto and mutantkind, weakening Fox's film claim and aligning the comics more with the MCU (where their powers came from Infinity Stone experiments).

This felt less like a creative decision and more like a corporate mandate, a "tantrum against FOX," as one fan put it. Erasing decades of rich, established history for perceived business reasons was seen as a profound betrayal by invested fans. The disturbance wasn't in the new origin itself being offensive, but in the cynical, non-narrative motivation behind it.

(D) Sales vs. Online Outrage

Looking at sales data from the AXIS period and the Uncanny Avengers title that followed is tricky because the change happened within big events and relaunches that tend to boost sales across the board. While Uncanny Avengers sold decently, it wasn't tearing up the charts compared to top Marvel books, and it's impossible to isolate the retcon's specific impact.

The overall market was strong for Marvel during this time. So, while there was huge online backlash and frustration from fans, it didn't cause an immediate, catastrophic sales crash for the involved titles or the publisher as a whole within that market context. This is a classic example of the disconnect between vocal online fan sentiment and immediate purchasing behavior, especially when changes are buried within popular event storylines. However, that lingering fan dissatisfaction is real, and Marvel has even subtly acknowledged the controversy in later comics, showing that these things stick with the audience.

Wonder Woman: Clay, Zeus, and the Fan Divide

Wonder Woman's origin story has bounced around a bit over the years, but the shift that caused a significant stir involved changing her unique creation myth to something more... conventional.

(A) The Clay Origin: Unique and Thematic

For many decades, the established origin, particularly solidified after the 1980s Crisis on Infinite Earths reboot, was that Diana was sculpted from clay by her mother, Queen Hippolyta, and brought to life and gifted powers by a group of goddesses. This origin was incredibly thematic and powerful. It positioned Diana as the product of an entirely female creative act, reflecting the matriarchal society of Themyscira. It gave her a unique place in mythology, distinct from the many heroes fathered by Zeus. It felt special and aligned with the feminist underpinnings of her creation by William Moulton Marston.

(B) The New 52 Shift: Daughter of Zeus

Fast forward to DC's 2011 New 52 reboot. Most characters got updated origins, and Wonder Woman was no exception. Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang's run revealed that the clay story was a lie Hippolyta told Diana. The truth? Diana was the biological daughter of Zeus, king of the Olympian gods, born from an affair with Hippolyta. This made her a demigod, placing her squarely within the often-tumultuous drama of the Olympian pantheon and giving her a more straightforward (some would say generic) explanation for her powers.

(C) Was the Original Disturbing, or the Retcon?

Okay, the article brief frames this as softening a disturbing backstory, but as the report points out, most long-time fans didn't find the clay origin disturbing at all. They found it unique and beautiful. The retcon was what they found disturbing.

Fans reacted strongly and negatively to this change. They felt it stripped away what made her origin special – the man-free creation, the connection to female deities, the distinctiveness. Replacing it with "just another demigod" story, tied to the often problematic figure of Zeus, felt like a regression, undermining her feminist roots and making her less unique. There were even uncomfortable implications about incest given previous continuity about Hippolyta's lineage.

Some argued the Zeus origin made her more relatable or easier for new readers to grasp, especially with film adaptations in mind. It felt like an attempt to "soften" the perceived "weirdness" of the clay origin for mainstream appeal. But for many established fans, this wasn't softening; it was hardening her into a more conventional, less distinctive mold.

(D) Sales During New 52 Hype vs. Lingering Discontent

The New 52 launch was a massive sales success for DC across the board, driven by the hype of the reboot. Wonder Woman #3, where the Zeus origin was revealed, sold well (over 65,000 copies), but it was significantly lower than the top-tier New 52 books like Justice League or Batman.

Again, the overall success of the relaunch makes it hard to say definitively how much the origin change itself impacted sales numbers at that exact moment. But what the sales charts don't show is the depth and persistence of fan discontent. The vocal backlash online didn't stop, and it's clear that despite the initial sales bump from the reboot, many fans never accepted the Zeus origin, leading to later comics initiatives that have deliberately swung back towards the clay origin. This shows that while sales might ride the wave of a major event, long-term fan buy-in depends heavily on whether they feel the creative choices honor the character.