5 Worst Star Wars Retcons, Ranked

For better or worse, retcons have been a part of storytelling for as long as we can remember. These retroactive continuity changes can shed new light on a character or plot point, and even pave the way for entirely new stories to exist that we didn't know were possible. Case in point, one of the best Star Wars changes that made the franchise better is the revelation that a certain Sith Lord was a certain Jedi-in-training's father at the end of "The Empire Strikes Back." Not only did this drastically change the direction of "Return of the Jedi," but it helped pave the way for the prequels as well.

But for every good retcon that explains away something tricky or confusing, there are bad ones that spoil the fun or create continuity errors difficult to ignore. The trick is using them wisely and in a way that's consistent with the rest of the story. Of course, when it comes to the Star Wars franchise, there are a plethora of retcons out there that are constantly reframing the way we see the epic space opera. There's a reason that many believe Disney has damaged the brand forever.

This is why we put together our list of the five worst Star Wars retcons out there. Pulling from all three trilogies and subsequent material, it's these creative decisions that made us take pause before hitting lightspeed. But before we get into it, we should note that we did not include the erasure of the "Expanded Universe" (now rebranded "Legends") here. Though tragic and disheartening, George Lucas himself didn't really consider it canon and was willing to break from it at any time. That said, here are the worst Star Wars retcons ... of our current continuity.

When "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was first announced, there were a lot of mixed reactions. For starters, fans of the original 2D micro-series "Star Wars: Clone Wars" were disappointed to see that story erased and replaced. But more than that, the introduction of Ahsoka Tano (Ashley Eckstein) as Anakin Skywalker's (Matt Lanter) previously unmentioned Jedi Padawan was a major change to the lore. Although Yoda (Tom Kane) explains it away as a means to help Anakin grow, it feels irresponsible of the Jedi, considering the loose cannon the young Skywalker could be.

While Ahsoka has since grown on many since her unlikable early days, transforming into an interesting and complex character over time, her inclusion is still a retcon with big ramifications. For one thing, it's strange that Obi-Wan (Alex Guinness) never mentions her to Luke (Mark Hamill) during the original trilogy. You'd think that someone of her capabilities and personal history would be helpful in the fight against Darth Vader (David Prowse and James Earl Jones), but her name is passed over entirely.

Indeed, her entire existence has forced the franchise to bend over backwards to explain her absence in pivotal moments throughout the saga, with the entire final season of "The Clone Wars" devoted to why she's not by Anakin's side in "Revenge of the Sith." Additionally, her more recent live-action appearances (played by Rosario Dawson) have annoyingly pushed her into every avenue of the post-"Return of the Jedi." Sure, we love Ahsoka, but she doesn't always need to be at the center of everything.

Speaking of unnecessary young characters who are partnered up with broken Jedi in stories that retroactively change continuity, "Obi-Wan Kenobi" did something similar when Ewan McGregor's "Old Ben" Kenobi leaves Tatooine to go and save a young Princess Leia (Vivien Lyra Blair). However, Leia being introduced to Kenobi long before she sends for him in "A New Hope" seems, well a bit disingenuous and fan-servicey more than anything else.

The creative decision strangely reframes some of the most important moments in the original trilogy. Obi-Wan spending more time with Leia as a child than he did with Luke in "A New Hope" just doesn't work. Especially since Leia is the one who comforts her brother after the old Jedi's death. And while some have considered Leia's comment about how Old Ben "served her father during the Clone Wars" to be a "cover story" to hide their connection, she's already exposed his real name in the message and putting them both in danger. There would simply be no need.

Of course, there are other issues that audiences take with "Obi-Wan Kenobi." The dual between Obi-Wan and Vader, as cool as it is, is another weird departure from George Lucas' original story. Their final battle in "A New Hope" is clearly referencing their previous fight on Mustafar in "Revenge of the Sith," no matter how hard "Obi-Wan Kenobi" tries to shoehorn the "Anakin is dead" line in. In short, the retcon severely undercuts Luke and Ben's relationship in "A New Hope" and the time between trilogies.

At the end of "Revenge of the Sith" there is a montage of many of the prominent Jedi being slaughtered by Clone Troopers during the infamous Order 66. But as for just how many Jedi were killed during this time, well, the number is unduly debatable. In the book "The Star Wars Archives: Episodes I-III, 1999-2006" by Paul Duncan, George Lucas is quoted as stating that "out of 10,000 Jedi, maybe 50 or 100 are left." That's a pretty small sample across the entire Empire-infested galaxy, which makes it frustrating when new installments continue to introduce more into the mix.

What we're not saying here is that stories about surviving Jedi aren't important or interesting. They are both of those things. But between "Star Wars Rebels," "The Mandalorian," "Obi-Wan Kenobi," "Star Wars: The Bad Batch," and the plethora of Star Wars comic books out there; you would think that the "great Jedi purge" wasn't so effective after all. Considering the way that the Jedi (and the Force in general) are spoken of in the original trilogy, it genuinely feels as if Yoda (Frank Oz) and Obi-Wan are among only a tiny handful that still hold to the old ways.

With over 30 confirmed survivors already existing within the Disney-owned universe — including characters like Ahsoka, Grogu, Cal Kestis (Cameron Monaghan), Reva (Moses Ingram), and Gungi (Jonathan Lipow) — Star Wars' continued insistence on bringing in more survivors subverts not only the overall disaster that struck the Jedi Order, but Luke's post-"Return of the Jedi" attempts to rebuild it. The math may technically match with Lucas' quote, but it certainly feels like we have met every single one of these survivors, and Disney is still digging new ones up.

Ever since George Lucas went back and revised the original Star Wars trilogy in 1997, there has been some heated debate among fans regarding whether Han Solo (Harrison Ford) or Greedo (Paul Blake, Maria De Aragon) shot first. The confusing Han Solo/Greedo timeline begins back in 1977 when Solo shot Greedo in the Mos Eisley cantina, killing him instantly. The problem is, the way the scene was edited, it's unclear who does what when. We know that Han kills Greedo, helping to establish his scoundrel behavior, but Lucas never intended him to be so cold blooded.

In the 1997 Special Edition of "A New Hope," Lucas re-edited the sequence to include a wide shot that shows Greedo shooting first. This gave Han a little more justification, but it only enraged fans who believed that Solo should be a bit more hard-hearted toward the bounty hunter. So, by the time the 2004 edition was released (the version of the film available most widely today), both characters shoot at the same time, ultimately concluding with the same results.

To make things even weirder, the 2011 Blu-ray release shortens the sequence and the 2019 edition of "A New Hope" adds some additional dialogue on Greedo's part, which only adds to the confusion. The truth is, the whole sequence was better the first time around when Han Solo was saving his own butt. By killing his opponent first, it establishes the type of man he is at the beginning of the trilogy, juxtaposed with who he later becomes.

"Somehow, Palpatine returned." Those infamous words spoken by Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) have not only become an internet meme but sum up the thoughts that many have shared on the Star Wars sequels since Disney first launched the trilogy over a decade ago. After two uneven attempts to continue the saga, it concluded with a lackluster finale, "The Rise of Skywalker," which cobbles itself together with beats from the original trilogy and throws a resurrected Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) in for good measure.

After his demise in "Return of the Jedi," the galaxy was rid of the Emperor. It was finally time for the sequels to explore new threats in the form of Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), and the First Order ... Right? Apparently, the best Disney could do was tread the same old territory, re-writing Lucas' original trilogy conclusion in favor of yet another Palpatine face-off. The whole thing is so lazy that the Episode IX opening crawl was explained on Fortnite rather than in-universe. And that's not to mention all the Star Wars comics that have had to explain it away.

Of all the retcons in Star Wars, this is the worst. It truncates Luke Skywalker's victory, Anakin Skywalker's redemption, and the overall success of the Rebels in the original trilogy. In the end, the sequels (and Palpatine specifically) make it all feel as if it were for nothing. Sure, the Expanded Universe resurrected Palpatine too, but that version didn't speedrun its story. Not the way "The Last Jedi" rushed to cover a previous installment's poor audience scores, certainly. The results speak for themselves. And if they don't, well, there's probably another Fortnite crawl that could help pad it out.