History FanonDiscontinuity / Theatre

* Many ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fans immediately discounted ''Theatre/HarryPotterAndTheCursedChild'' due to many discrepancies, including the bizarre retcons involving the Trolley Witch, Harry's sudden {{Jerkass}} tendencies contradicting what he told his son only days earlier, and most of all, a plot that required contradicting not only what Rowling had established with time travel in [[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Book 3]] but also a plot point in [[Literature/HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix Book 5]] - namely, that all Time Turners had been destroyed. And while Creator/JKRowling was involved in the production, [[OnlyTheCreatorDoesItRight she neither directed it nor wrote the script]]. [[BrokenBase Other fans enjoyed it for what it was]]: a welcome return to the wizarding world.

* Many ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fans immediately discounted ''Theatre/HarryPotterAndTheCursedChild'' due to many discrepancies, including the bizarre retcons involving the Trolley Witch, Harry's sudden Jerkass tendencies contradicting what he told his son only days earlier, and most of all, a plot that required contradicting not only what Rowling had established with time travel in [[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Book 3]] but also a plot point in [[Literature/HarryPotterAndTheOrderOfThePhoenix Book 5]] - namely, that all Time Turners had been destroyed. [[BrokenBase Other fans enjoyed it for what it was]]: a welcome return to the wizarding world.

** And of course, being that the Trolley Witch had no established story to retcon, Harry occasionally being a thoughtless jerk was a major recurring character trait, and the Time Turner in the play was explicitly said to be a new prototype that didn't work like any time turner previously seen, one might accuse those fans of just lacking reading comprehension.

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, to the point of Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgins were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, to the point of Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, to the point of Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, to the point of Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].
* ''Our American Cousin'' was last performed on April 14, 1865. We all know why it hasn't been seen since. At least the play itself is available in full online.

* It shouldn't be surprising that academic studies of Shakespearean canonicity quickly turn to a matter of fanonicity when supposedly unbiased critics bring their own prejudices to the debate. Most notorious is the now-accepted ''Theatre/TitusAndronicus'', a play so [[IAmAHumanitarian horrifically violent]] that people debated for ''hundreds of years'' over whether the rarefied mind of Shakespeare could have written such a play.

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, to the point of Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, even with Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* In his play ''Theatre/{{Pygmalion}}'', Creator/GeorgeBernardShaw intended for female lead Eliza Dolittle to leave at the end and go on to become a successful, independent woman, whilst male lead Professor Higgins would forget all about her and pursue his own life. Instead, the vast preference for the audience was to believe that Eliza and Higgins would go on to become a happily married couple, and not even Shaw's publishing of "What Happened Afterward", an essay in the 1916 print edition elaborating his [[WordOfGod official statement]] that Eliza had gone on to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill and open a flower shop, combined with his arguments as to why Eliza and Higgens were wrong for each other. It did absolutely ''no'' good; the subtext of romantic attraction between the two leads [[MisaimedFandom was just too powerful for the theatre-goers to ignore]], and every adaptation of Pygmalion since has swung towards more overtly romantic endings. ''[[UpToEleven Even the actors who played the parts of Eliza and Higgins]]'' thought the implicitly romantic ending was a better one, with the first actor to portray Professor Higgins in particular [[DeathOfTheAuthor telling Shaw he should be grateful that they discarded his original ending]].

* The great majority of ''Theatre/ThePhantomOfTheOpera'' fans choose to ignore its sequel, ''Theatre/LoveNeverDies'', due to perceived plot holes, poor characterization, and the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber was the only member of the original creative team to work on it.

* Going back a couple hundred years, the ending of ''Theatre/KingLear'' by Creator/WilliamShakespeare incited this reaction in fans [[spoiler: when the sweet, innocent Princess Cordelia was executed on a whim]]. Many refused to acknowledge this ending and rewrote it for the stage and publication. Some of the rewrites included [[spoiler: mostly Cordelia being saved in the nick of time and being married off to Edgar or another suitor]].
** It shouldn't be surprising that academic studies of Shakespearean canonicity quickly turn to a matter of fanonicity when supposedly unbiased critics bring their own prejudices to the debate. Most notorious is the now-accepted ''Theatre/TitusAndronicus'', a play so [[IAmAHumanitarian horrifically violent]] that people debated for ''hundreds of years'' over whether the rarefied mind of Shakespeare could have written such a play.