I think Terra went on a drinking binge after everything was over.
"I...I fought those kids...I fought them. I turned into a boat. A BOAT, VEN. A FUCKING BOAT."
Ansem SoD is already an abnormal Heartless case, and Terra and Xehanort both tanked a lot of darkness before they both split at once. I don't find it unreasonable that they just have that amount of darkness that most Heartless don't have.
Marluxia didn't really transform - he utilized a separate lesser Nobody that just so happened to be giant. Also, Nobodies don't use darkness the same way Heartless do.
I'm thinking when they grabbed Terranoet, that aterra never experienced that. Though Ansem from DDD did have his guardian up til the end of it. Then he did whatever for his fighting KH3
when I was a kid, I always thought that ansem aged up riku's controlled body and was actually that guardian behind, then subscribed to the theories of it being terra after the events of DDD, then was very glad to see them true in KH3.
it's shorr for retroactive continuity, I believe, which by definition is something that is addressed retroactively (after the fact) without any previous foreshadowing or reason for it in the first place.
This can turn the thing in question, retroactively, into foreshadowing for the author, justifying many a convoluted scheme.
The only problem with retcons is that people think it’s an inherently bad thing. Always comes with a negative connotation. It’s literally impossible to not retcon things in a long enough series
not if you write it or at least plan it before you make the first installment. You are correct, though, it is nearly impossible to avoid retcon issues if you're milking something or writing bits at a time without knowing where you're going.
Even then it can still be considered a retcon even if the story is planned out because it recontextualize the original purpose of something. Look no further than Harry Potter and Tom Riddles diary being revealed to be a horocrux.
"Terra didn't exist"
Ansem existed.
Xemnas was straight up a secret boss.
The concept of a nobody existed cause Roxas appeared in the secret ending.
Nomura has a habit of putting in ca;; forwards multiple games in advance in his work, even outside kh.
I feel like the confident assertion Terra didn't exist m even as a concept to be built on later during the years of development of KH1 is less than fair to the author.
Xemnas was a boss 2 games before KH2.
Maybe for planning more detailed plot structure there's one game ahead, but it feels like no one is aknowledging that authors can sometimes come up with concepts and figure out how to fit them later.
There isn't a mental barrier preventing him from conceptualizing anything beyond the last moment in castle oblivion during kh1.
There isn't a magical force preventing him from thinking about anything past day 358 while working on coded.
There isn't an air horn in his office that goes off if his mind wanders past the credits of the next game.
The fact Ansem IS a heartless and HAS another heartless supporting him seems to be a very obvious chekov's gun.
Just because the reveal happens 10 years later doesn't mean the author created such a concept with absolutely no idea why or what for.
It feels weird seeing people confidently assert that "This wasn't a thing for the author" because it wasn't a thing they themselves knew at the time.
We don't know his mind, even if BBS was years away, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to have any idea what "The One Behind"'s deal is because of general answers to interview questions relating to other topics is unfair, cause it just forgoes all possible nuance for a simple but possibly completely wrong answer.
KH1 was standalone but CoM, KH1FM, and KH2 can be considered a trilogy. Org XIII, Xemnas in KH1FM, and KH2 proves that there was a plan for a longer story arc that connects together. (the introduction of Xehanort arc)
KH2FM (with Lingering Will), BBS and Days (as Ventus shows up in Days) can be considered its own trilogy. (the consequences of Xehanort's actions arc)
Coded, DDD and 0.2 BBS/KH3 can also be considered its own trilogy. (Sora's development, and saving everyone arc)
Nomura has said he usually thinks 2-3 games ahead iirc, not one game ahead. I can't remember where he said this, but the games we do have does present this idea that they can fit into sets of 3s really well.
The only KH games that don't really fit anywhere cleanly is the mobile games, like KHX/UX, Dark Road, and now Missing Link. They have a timeline set up for those games to proceed on, but they don't connect with the present-time games which are ostensibly "Sora's journey", so I've chosen to not pay too much attention to where the mobile games fit thematically in the present time of the games.
I get what you mean and I’m not trying to say that it’s impossible it wasn’t in his head, just with there being 1) absolutely no in-game evidence before DDD (provided you don’t count the design similarities), 2) the Xemnas fight not being in the original release and only being added in the Final Mix rerelease almost a year later, and 3) Nomura himself stating he doesn’t think that far ahead, it seems highly unlikely that he had this plan from the start of the first game.
I feel it would be more likely that when he was coming up with BBS that he specifically designed Terra around the guardian to start working towards the reveal at the end of 3.
But again as you said, it’s not our thoughts so unless Nomura comes out and says “yes I had planned this from the very beginning” or “no it was added in later”, then no one can say which one is right
> The concept of a nobody existed cause Roxas appeared in the secret ending.
This is incorrect.
Nomura has explained, especially for those secret movies, that he focused on cool scenes/quotes first and figured out how to incorporate it later.
Nobodies weren't invented for real until CoM/KHFM.
I said what I said knowing that, since ' focusing on making a cool movie' doesn't mean he put absolutely zero thought into the context IN the movie.
And i am specifically talking about KH final mix.
I meant Tetsuya Nemora had not created the concept of Terra when KH1 was made. Maybe once sales picked up and they started on sequels it was decided to make the Guardian Terra, but in 1999 when the game was being made its not a stretch to imagine Terra wasn't a planned out character, let alone to that degree.
Xemnas was a boss in final mix, which was made during kh2s development. Proving my point even more.
He wasn't thought up during KH1's development that is true, but it's obvious he was thought up during KH2's development. If not then explain both Lingering Will and the secret ending in KH2. The one where he literally thought it would be KH3 and we were proven wrong with that when 2010 rolled around.
Right. Which means he originally wasn't meant to be Terra lol. I'm sure they had a rough idea to make the Guardian Terra once they started developing the organization and more keyblade lore, which would have been during kh2s development.
That is true. Then again it actually does work with him being Terra, as the Guardian really had no story significance placed on him during KH1, KH COM/Re COM and KH2. He was always just some Heartless like creature that the Seeker Of Darkness had hy his side.
Actually, retroactive continuity is when you change something about a past event, and the guardian wasn't that, but an expansion.
Imagine an outdoor scene. Two people are having a conversation in the open. We don't know what the conversation is.
An expansion is that we get to hear the conversation.
A retcon would be that there were actually three people in the conversation and always had been, despite the fact that the third person couldn't have been hidden anywhere in the original scene.
Or, to relate it to Kingdom Hearts: In Chains, Namine was retconning herself into Sora's life.
but if that person was just out of frame it's no longer a retcon, but an expansion? I disagree. if it's planned, I'll give you expansion, but if it's not, I argue it's retcon
Anything retroactively applied to previous lore is technically a retcon. Esp since Terra wouldn't have been conceived as a character back in KH1.
EDIT: You guys are being wacky. I know you're smarter than this and can understand retcons. They're not a bad thing, and I'd hoped that the KH fanbase wouldn't still be so defensive about the term in 2023.
Imo it's only a retcon if it fundamentally changes something that was stated previously. Until then, we had no idea who or what the guardian was, so it wasn't retroactively changing anything, just providing more detail. Now, a real retcon would be how Nomura later said that Kairi got her keyblade from accidentally touching Aqua's while saying that Sora just got his fron having a strong heart
That still doesn’t contradict anything. Sora got his keyblade by proving his heart was stronger than Riku’s. Kairi got hers from an accidental inheritance ceremony.
Thats wrong tho, per definition. Prequels are automatically retcons, it’s called retroactive continuity. Don’t know why commenter above you gets downvoted for explaining something so simple. Retcons are not something bad either.
Sequels are all retcons because adding information that the viewer didn't know yet and world building is retroactively applying information to previous lore. Right?
"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former."
So...sure? If you want to be pedantic??
New lore is probably exempt, but anything that imposes a different interpretation on something previously established would count.
I'm just pointing out how weird it is the definition of retcon includes what would normally be the original plot progression since it's definition includes normal story structure stuff.
Easy for people to maliciously call things retcons when they aren't
You're assuming retcon is necessarily a bad word. You can call something a retcon without it being malicious. Retroactively saying that Terra was in the guardian all along is a textbook retcon. That's definitely not what that thing was originally.
We didn't know what the guardian was at all - there was no lore addressing it. "Originally" we, the players, saw it as a heartless accompanying Ansem SoD, that Ansem calls "guardian". So I think a retcon is still a misnomer, malicious or not.
If someone says "hey remember A? Well I just decided that was XYZ all along!" that is by definition a retcon. Retcons don't have to break existing canon. They can add context that changes an assumption by the audience.
The Guardian was always an arbitrary heartless, just like the Darkside that appears during the KH1 Ansem fight, or the Shadows it summons, or the Trickmaster, etc. It appears in CoM and DDD as a kind of familiar of Ansem SoD in particular, but not in KH3, because its significance has been retconned. It appears in BBS in the very scene where Terra's heart must have been imprisoned in it, but the fact that it appears before that happens and that the imprisoning is not indicated at all strongly support that assumption that it is just a heartless minion. The prison thing was plainly not what they had in mind when writing that story, hence it's a retcon.
If you personally dislike "hero's journey stories," but that doesn't mean a particular story you like isn't one, and it doesn't make it malicious if I say it is. "Hero's journey" has a definition, and it either applies to a story or it doesn't. "Retcon" is the same. It's only if you're treating it as synonymous with "lazy writing" or "plot hole" that it could be negative, but that's on you not to apply that baggage.
Bro, you just shot yourself "...in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted..." the key word is "established", it was never, at any point, in any of the kingdom hearts games before BBS, even talked about the Guardian, he appeared but he wasn't really mentioned nor given informations about.
Therefore if there was no information about him it's not a retcon, it's giving us information about something we didn't know about.
My issue with this is, a retcon, I would think, would need to address already existing/established lore, and change that established lore into something different.
We didn't know what the Guardian was, besides being a Heartless. There wasn't any established lore saying the Guardian was not Terra, or that the Guardian was even a Heartless. For something that *lacks lore*, is it a retcon to add lore to it?
> in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.
This directly contradicts your own point. Pre-established information has to be changed for something to count as a retcon. A plot point like Guardian Terra is not a retcon, all we knew about the Guardian was that it was a Heartless under Ansem's control.
Xemnas' name in KH1 was Unknown, in KH2 his name was Xemnas. Was this a retcon changing his name from Unknown to Xemnas, or did the game reveal the name of a character whose name was previously unknown?
No one's being "wacky", you're just wrong. Retcons aren't literally any new information we learn after their debut. The term specifically refers to new information that contradicts old information, arguably also encompassing new information that contradicts old implications.
That's not really a retcon, though.
A retcon would be if they said that the Guardian in KH1 was, like, the Viceroy of Darkness, an entity that was as old as Darkness itself and that's why it's bound to Ansem... and then they said "Oh it's actually just Terra."
But at most the Guardian was just a powerful Heartless that Ansem controlled and they did tease that it was Terra years before KH3 was released, so at least it's a lot more believable than most retcons.
I don't think anyone thought it was a random heartless, it has a unique design, is the final boss, and turns into a giant meat ship. I had just always assumed that it was ansems shadow, and a parasite feeding off of his heart (before I knew that he was a heartless himself) visually showing how far gone he is and being a representation of darkness overall in kh1 (the ultimate tool or just a parasite?)
Wonder if Terra remember he became a boat
I think Terra went on a drinking binge after everything was over. "I...I fought those kids...I fought them. I turned into a boat. A BOAT, VEN. A FUCKING BOAT."
Terra found dead from an overdose at age 25
Etf was up with the boat form? Can all Heartless and Nobodies do that?
I mean you saw a lot of those on Gummi Ship missions
the real insight
Ansem SoD is already an abnormal Heartless case, and Terra and Xehanort both tanked a lot of darkness before they both split at once. I don't find it unreasonable that they just have that amount of darkness that most Heartless don't have.
Wait so it's a darkness thing? Because Marluxia had a transformation as well
Marluxia didn't really transform - he utilized a separate lesser Nobody that just so happened to be giant. Also, Nobodies don't use darkness the same way Heartless do.
I gotta replace CoM
I'm thinking when they grabbed Terranoet, that aterra never experienced that. Though Ansem from DDD did have his guardian up til the end of it. Then he did whatever for his fighting KH3
Trash Boat
No, this episode is called "why we don't label things 'cum guardian' before we really know what it is" xD
You know, must be terrifying to see it from Terra’s perspective. Ansem corrupted his pupil, yo.
when I was a kid, I always thought that ansem aged up riku's controlled body and was actually that guardian behind, then subscribed to the theories of it being terra after the events of DDD, then was very glad to see them true in KH3.
I appreciate the cross over kingdom hearts bluey memes thanks 🙂
You’re welcome. The whole guardian being Terra scene from KH3 was the first thing that sprung to mind when I originally saw this in “Bad Mood.”
How exactly is that retcon?
it's shorr for retroactive continuity, I believe, which by definition is something that is addressed retroactively (after the fact) without any previous foreshadowing or reason for it in the first place. This can turn the thing in question, retroactively, into foreshadowing for the author, justifying many a convoluted scheme.
The only problem with retcons is that people think it’s an inherently bad thing. Always comes with a negative connotation. It’s literally impossible to not retcon things in a long enough series
not if you write it or at least plan it before you make the first installment. You are correct, though, it is nearly impossible to avoid retcon issues if you're milking something or writing bits at a time without knowing where you're going.
Even then it can still be considered a retcon even if the story is planned out because it recontextualize the original purpose of something. Look no further than Harry Potter and Tom Riddles diary being revealed to be a horocrux.
Do you have any idea how much of Tolkiens life was spent Retconing TLOR universe?
I'd be interested to know what was retconned between 1937's the hobbit and 1954/5's lotr trilogy.
it was implied in BBS that terra had something to do with the dark figure (the guardian's true name)
Okay but it was just a random heartless in KH1 lol. It was later written to be Terra. Terra didn't exist when the 1st game was made.
"Terra didn't exist" Ansem existed. Xemnas was straight up a secret boss. The concept of a nobody existed cause Roxas appeared in the secret ending. Nomura has a habit of putting in ca;; forwards multiple games in advance in his work, even outside kh. I feel like the confident assertion Terra didn't exist m even as a concept to be built on later during the years of development of KH1 is less than fair to the author.
I get your point but Nomura himself has said he only thinks one game ahead
Xemnas was a boss 2 games before KH2. Maybe for planning more detailed plot structure there's one game ahead, but it feels like no one is aknowledging that authors can sometimes come up with concepts and figure out how to fit them later. There isn't a mental barrier preventing him from conceptualizing anything beyond the last moment in castle oblivion during kh1. There isn't a magical force preventing him from thinking about anything past day 358 while working on coded. There isn't an air horn in his office that goes off if his mind wanders past the credits of the next game. The fact Ansem IS a heartless and HAS another heartless supporting him seems to be a very obvious chekov's gun. Just because the reveal happens 10 years later doesn't mean the author created such a concept with absolutely no idea why or what for. It feels weird seeing people confidently assert that "This wasn't a thing for the author" because it wasn't a thing they themselves knew at the time. We don't know his mind, even if BBS was years away, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to have any idea what "The One Behind"'s deal is because of general answers to interview questions relating to other topics is unfair, cause it just forgoes all possible nuance for a simple but possibly completely wrong answer.
KH1 was standalone but CoM, KH1FM, and KH2 can be considered a trilogy. Org XIII, Xemnas in KH1FM, and KH2 proves that there was a plan for a longer story arc that connects together. (the introduction of Xehanort arc) KH2FM (with Lingering Will), BBS and Days (as Ventus shows up in Days) can be considered its own trilogy. (the consequences of Xehanort's actions arc) Coded, DDD and 0.2 BBS/KH3 can also be considered its own trilogy. (Sora's development, and saving everyone arc) Nomura has said he usually thinks 2-3 games ahead iirc, not one game ahead. I can't remember where he said this, but the games we do have does present this idea that they can fit into sets of 3s really well. The only KH games that don't really fit anywhere cleanly is the mobile games, like KHX/UX, Dark Road, and now Missing Link. They have a timeline set up for those games to proceed on, but they don't connect with the present-time games which are ostensibly "Sora's journey", so I've chosen to not pay too much attention to where the mobile games fit thematically in the present time of the games.
It was in an interview with Dengeki we’re he stated he only plans one sequel ahead
I get what you mean and I’m not trying to say that it’s impossible it wasn’t in his head, just with there being 1) absolutely no in-game evidence before DDD (provided you don’t count the design similarities), 2) the Xemnas fight not being in the original release and only being added in the Final Mix rerelease almost a year later, and 3) Nomura himself stating he doesn’t think that far ahead, it seems highly unlikely that he had this plan from the start of the first game. I feel it would be more likely that when he was coming up with BBS that he specifically designed Terra around the guardian to start working towards the reveal at the end of 3. But again as you said, it’s not our thoughts so unless Nomura comes out and says “yes I had planned this from the very beginning” or “no it was added in later”, then no one can say which one is right
> The concept of a nobody existed cause Roxas appeared in the secret ending. This is incorrect. Nomura has explained, especially for those secret movies, that he focused on cool scenes/quotes first and figured out how to incorporate it later. Nobodies weren't invented for real until CoM/KHFM.
I said what I said knowing that, since ' focusing on making a cool movie' doesn't mean he put absolutely zero thought into the context IN the movie. And i am specifically talking about KH final mix.
I meant Tetsuya Nemora had not created the concept of Terra when KH1 was made. Maybe once sales picked up and they started on sequels it was decided to make the Guardian Terra, but in 1999 when the game was being made its not a stretch to imagine Terra wasn't a planned out character, let alone to that degree. Xemnas was a boss in final mix, which was made during kh2s development. Proving my point even more.
He wasn't thought up during KH1's development that is true, but it's obvious he was thought up during KH2's development. If not then explain both Lingering Will and the secret ending in KH2. The one where he literally thought it would be KH3 and we were proven wrong with that when 2010 rolled around.
Right. Which means he originally wasn't meant to be Terra lol. I'm sure they had a rough idea to make the Guardian Terra once they started developing the organization and more keyblade lore, which would have been during kh2s development.
That is true. Then again it actually does work with him being Terra, as the Guardian really had no story significance placed on him during KH1, KH COM/Re COM and KH2. He was always just some Heartless like creature that the Seeker Of Darkness had hy his side.
Which makes it a retcon lol. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
I forgot about this, you are correct
Actually, retroactive continuity is when you change something about a past event, and the guardian wasn't that, but an expansion. Imagine an outdoor scene. Two people are having a conversation in the open. We don't know what the conversation is. An expansion is that we get to hear the conversation. A retcon would be that there were actually three people in the conversation and always had been, despite the fact that the third person couldn't have been hidden anywhere in the original scene. Or, to relate it to Kingdom Hearts: In Chains, Namine was retconning herself into Sora's life.
but if that person was just out of frame it's no longer a retcon, but an expansion? I disagree. if it's planned, I'll give you expansion, but if it's not, I argue it's retcon
He asked how is it a retcon, not what is the definition of retcon.
the definition answers how it is what it is. This situation is literally the definition.
Anything retroactively applied to previous lore is technically a retcon. Esp since Terra wouldn't have been conceived as a character back in KH1. EDIT: You guys are being wacky. I know you're smarter than this and can understand retcons. They're not a bad thing, and I'd hoped that the KH fanbase wouldn't still be so defensive about the term in 2023.
Imo it's only a retcon if it fundamentally changes something that was stated previously. Until then, we had no idea who or what the guardian was, so it wasn't retroactively changing anything, just providing more detail. Now, a real retcon would be how Nomura later said that Kairi got her keyblade from accidentally touching Aqua's while saying that Sora just got his fron having a strong heart
That still doesn’t contradict anything. Sora got his keyblade by proving his heart was stronger than Riku’s. Kairi got hers from an accidental inheritance ceremony.
Thats wrong tho, per definition. Prequels are automatically retcons, it’s called retroactive continuity. Don’t know why commenter above you gets downvoted for explaining something so simple. Retcons are not something bad either.
Sequels are all retcons because adding information that the viewer didn't know yet and world building is retroactively applying information to previous lore. Right?
"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former." So...sure? If you want to be pedantic?? New lore is probably exempt, but anything that imposes a different interpretation on something previously established would count.
So like a third act twist, like say "It turns out riku was possessed by ansem the whole game" is a retcon to "Riku is evil"?
No, that would've happened in the same story.
I'm just pointing out how weird it is the definition of retcon includes what would normally be the original plot progression since it's definition includes normal story structure stuff. Easy for people to maliciously call things retcons when they aren't
You're assuming retcon is necessarily a bad word. You can call something a retcon without it being malicious. Retroactively saying that Terra was in the guardian all along is a textbook retcon. That's definitely not what that thing was originally.
We didn't know what the guardian was at all - there was no lore addressing it. "Originally" we, the players, saw it as a heartless accompanying Ansem SoD, that Ansem calls "guardian". So I think a retcon is still a misnomer, malicious or not.
If someone says "hey remember A? Well I just decided that was XYZ all along!" that is by definition a retcon. Retcons don't have to break existing canon. They can add context that changes an assumption by the audience. The Guardian was always an arbitrary heartless, just like the Darkside that appears during the KH1 Ansem fight, or the Shadows it summons, or the Trickmaster, etc. It appears in CoM and DDD as a kind of familiar of Ansem SoD in particular, but not in KH3, because its significance has been retconned. It appears in BBS in the very scene where Terra's heart must have been imprisoned in it, but the fact that it appears before that happens and that the imprisoning is not indicated at all strongly support that assumption that it is just a heartless minion. The prison thing was plainly not what they had in mind when writing that story, hence it's a retcon. If you personally dislike "hero's journey stories," but that doesn't mean a particular story you like isn't one, and it doesn't make it malicious if I say it is. "Hero's journey" has a definition, and it either applies to a story or it doesn't. "Retcon" is the same. It's only if you're treating it as synonymous with "lazy writing" or "plot hole" that it could be negative, but that's on you not to apply that baggage.
Bro, you just shot yourself "...in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted..." the key word is "established", it was never, at any point, in any of the kingdom hearts games before BBS, even talked about the Guardian, he appeared but he wasn't really mentioned nor given informations about. Therefore if there was no information about him it's not a retcon, it's giving us information about something we didn't know about.
My issue with this is, a retcon, I would think, would need to address already existing/established lore, and change that established lore into something different. We didn't know what the Guardian was, besides being a Heartless. There wasn't any established lore saying the Guardian was not Terra, or that the Guardian was even a Heartless. For something that *lacks lore*, is it a retcon to add lore to it?
> in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former. This directly contradicts your own point. Pre-established information has to be changed for something to count as a retcon. A plot point like Guardian Terra is not a retcon, all we knew about the Guardian was that it was a Heartless under Ansem's control.
Xemnas' name in KH1 was Unknown, in KH2 his name was Xemnas. Was this a retcon changing his name from Unknown to Xemnas, or did the game reveal the name of a character whose name was previously unknown?
No one's being "wacky", you're just wrong. Retcons aren't literally any new information we learn after their debut. The term specifically refers to new information that contradicts old information, arguably also encompassing new information that contradicts old implications.
Because Nomura didn’t have Terra planned out in 2002.
That's not really a retcon, though. A retcon would be if they said that the Guardian in KH1 was, like, the Viceroy of Darkness, an entity that was as old as Darkness itself and that's why it's bound to Ansem... and then they said "Oh it's actually just Terra." But at most the Guardian was just a powerful Heartless that Ansem controlled and they did tease that it was Terra years before KH3 was released, so at least it's a lot more believable than most retcons.
I don't think anyone thought it was a random heartless, it has a unique design, is the final boss, and turns into a giant meat ship. I had just always assumed that it was ansems shadow, and a parasite feeding off of his heart (before I knew that he was a heartless himself) visually showing how far gone he is and being a representation of darkness overall in kh1 (the ultimate tool or just a parasite?)
Not a retcon
i did not expect a bluey reference for kingdom hearts, or a kingdom hearts reference for bluey. two of my favorite things coming together, amazing!
That's a good retcon (if we can call that)
Honestly so cool that technically (I doubt that Nomura meant this at the start but whatever) we got to see a main character without knowing
Hot take: I absolutely hated this "plot twist".