web stats

CSBG Archive

Abandoned Love: When Did Deadpool and Cable REALLY First Meet?

1 2
Next »

Every installment of Abandoned Love we will be examining comic book stories, plots and ideas that were abandoned by a later writer without explaining that the previous story was retconned away. Click here for an archive of all the previous editions of Abandoned Love. Feel free to e-mail me at bcronin@comicbookresources.com if you have any suggestions for future editions of this feature.

This one is a bit different, as you could argue it belong more in Abandoned an’ Forsaked or something else entirely, but this is about the very clever recent Deadpool and Cable mini-series by Fabian Nicieza and Reilly Brown called Split Second, where Nicieza establishes how Deadpool and Cable REALLY first met. I got a real kick out of what Nicieza came up with…

Deadpool debuted in New Mutants #98 by Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza, where he seemingly met Cable for the first time…

newmutants98b

newmutants98c

newmutants98d

newmutants98e

Okay, so that’s that.

Now twenty-five years later, in the mini-series Cable and Deadpool: Split Second by Nicieza and Reilly Brown, after some various hijinx, the upshot is that Deadpool has been tasked with eliminating Cable from the timeline to stop him from doing some bad stuff…

deadpoolcablehistory1

But instead, Deadpool ends up saving Cable’s life during Cable’s late twenties…

deadpoolcablehistory2

and then again in Cable’s early twenties…

deadpoolcablehistory3

deadpoolcablehistory4

This has the result of healing the timeline just as well as killing Cable would have…

deadpoolcablehistory5

HOW, though?

Go to the next page to find out…

1 2
Next »

29 Comments

It’s a retcon. The intent of the original scene was clearly that the two had not met previously.

I’m not sure whether to laugh or groan at this.

wibbly -wobbly, timey-wimey

I loved this. I enjoy the idea of a writer slyly adding layers to his work from 25 years earlier. I’m not sure it’s a retcon, I feel like that’s more reserved for fixing something, or when a script ignores an established point to do something distinctly different. This just adds context and backstory. That’s kind of like saying Better Call Saul is a retcon because it gives us new perspectives on an established character. Nothing really changes in New Mutants #98 because of this addition.

I kind of thought the “And you have” was in response to “hired me to find you”, not “pleased to meet you”, though. As in, “you have met me”.

So Cable & Deadpool are basically The Doctor and River Song?

At the very least it’s a retcon in the original sense of “retroactively adding continuity”, such as All-Star Squadron or Untold Tales of Spider-Man.

once again proof that time travel in the x-men universe is like dr. who crazy and one never knows what the results will be . plus loved how deadpool figures out that cable puts up with him because he met him earlier then when he tried to take cable out for mr. toliver

It’s a retcon but man is it a good one. Very clever.

It is a retcon, but it’s a really well done one.

I have to agree with a couple of the posters above; while it is most definitely a retcon, it was a very cleverly done one (it even took me a minute when first read the comic to glean Fabian’s re-interpretation of that moment).

It certainly put a lot of the Cable/Deadpool history in a new light (and as Wade notes, explained why Nate has put up with him for so long). That mini overall was a delight to read. I miss Fabian’s Cable and Deadpool (even if it would be called Deadpool and Cable nowadays).

akkadiannumen

March 2, 2016 at 5:03 pm

Very nicely done.

deadpool vs x-force also had the two meet earlier than new mutants 98

Not only did they meet during the revolutionary war, civil war, and boxer rebellion (that deadpool vs. x-force), I think there was also deadpool and cable 25, which i can’t remember the timing of. Also, don’t know if deadpool vs. x-force counts, since it erased itself.

It is a retcon, but honestly it’s one I’ve been waiting to do since I first started Cable & Deadpool in 2004.

I wanted to play that line from the minute I wrote them together, and the Split Second mini was the perfect opportunity to justifiably get away with it!

– fabian

Deadpool: Rebirth.

I’d say more revelation than retcon since it adds layers instead of changing continuity…

It would have been even more fun if the retcon explained how Deadpool’s gun materialized in his LEFT hand out of thin air, magically teleported into not his, but Nightcrawler’s RIGHT hand (notice the two fingers) and was gone again when Cannonball hit him. Seems like an opportunity wasted ;)

A retcon is not necessarily a bad thing.

To use Websnark’s classification system http://www.websnark.com/archives/2008/01/retconning_just_1.html

I’d say this is a Category 2 Retcon: The Story You Thought You Knew as it changes it from a first meeting for both characters & reveals that one of the characters had met a later version of the other before.

To use Websnark’s classification system http://www.websnark.com/archives/2008/01/retconning_just_1.html

Good lord, was that some whiny writing. The basic definitions were okay, though, but goodness, he sure added a whole bunch of excess pontificating to what should have been just a nice, informative article.

It is a retcon, but honestly it’s one I’ve been waiting to do since I first started Cable & Deadpool in 2004.

I wanted to play that line from the minute I wrote them together, and the Split Second mini was the perfect opportunity to justifiably get away with it!

– fabian

It was well worth the wait! It really worked great.

A retcon is not necessarily a bad thing.

Certainly not. I just wasn’t sure how to classify this bit. I wasn’t using the term “retcon” as a negative one. I’m fine with good retcons.

Roy Thomas was the first person I ever heard use “retroactive continuity” AKA retcon—did he come up with the term (obviously not the concept itself)?

Roy Thomas was the first person I ever heard use “retroactive continuity” AKA retcon—did he come up with the term (obviously not the concept itself)?

The term was used in at least one academic text in the 1970s, but Thomas definitely popularized the term. However, he got the term from a fan at a convention (Thomas initially called it its full name of “retroactive continuity”), so no, even if you believe (as I do) that Thomas’ use of the term was distinct from the use of the term in the early 1970s, he still did not actually coin it.

thats a f**king stretch BUT at least its Nicieza doing it and no one else, makes it ‘okay’ in my book :P

Brian –
“Certainly not. I just wasn’t sure how to classify this bit. I wasn’t using the term “retcon” as a negative one. I’m fine with good retcons.”

Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. My comment wasn’t aimed at you, but at everybody saying that changing the original meeting isn’t a retcon when that’s exactly what it is.
… in case they’re thinking retcons are automatically a bad thing and getting defensive.

“Good lord, was that some whiny writing.”

Whining over comics? Well I never!

Thanks Brian.

As far as retcons go, that is a very precise scalpel cut.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives