AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > General Anime

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-08-13, 23:45   Link #1
Blueknight78
Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Canon(fiction) what is this??

hi guys i'm new here, first sorry for not so good english or a "engrish" i will try using google translator and sometimes he also not too much "perfect as i wanted".

well going to topic:

sometimes watching some forums and others sources i aways find that discuss a bit weird and somehow mislead, when the topic is about "canon"

I would like to start a good debate about the canon term what really is it?

because nowadays I see it being used very bad especially in animes and mangas or novels, only the famous manga or novel is canon and not the anime.

first let's start from good sources:

wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28fiction%29
Spoiler:
]

tv troopers:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Canon
Spoiler:


http://pt.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Canon
Spoiler:


i also asked a serious critics of television, film and comics here where i live about it and their asnwered:
canon is anything licensed/authorized/recognized by the owner of the franchise, this means who not "only the manga or novel or anime as long is recognized by the owner can be canon.

a good exemple of it could be kyouto animation, most of their anime adapatations are canon, because their also are the owner of the copyright of most of the novels who their work.

or in cases of "reboots" is a reference to know where that thing originally"come

as far i see in japan their pretty much follow that pattern of if the creater say is canon then is canon even if write by another person

good exemple is godzilla movia the 1998 version japaneses not acnowledge as canon, their even made another movie just to kill the stupid fake with the real one but the current one is being recognized as canon.

marvel and dc also pretty much follow that pattern with their reboots.

basically canon is what make difference between official work and fanmade, by official work dont necessary means only the manga or novel or anime, but all the franchise associated, spinoffs, anime.

come from this where come that "common sense" who only one thing is canon and none other is????, i aways see peoples advocace that but none never even give a good reason than "common sense" or like the tv trooper called:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

i see that rule happen a lot in western culture

a unknow force who give unknow rules where we must follow because someone unknow told it.

well for me canon is exactly what i learned and understood as long the time is anything officially recognized by the creator or owner of the franchise, or as long the owner support or say who this is canon then is canon.

a good exemple of this who i see that days could be fairy tail, part of the western culture love to say "anime is not canon only manga" or now with the release of the new spinoffs "licensed and recognized by mashima" and the novels peoples come and say "only manga is canon, that spinoffs are not canon and bla bla bla, i see that know with anothers adaptations of mangas, novels or even anime(when anime is the original then gain manga or novel version with spin offs)

some others exemples who i know, shakugan no shana his original source is a novel but afar i know anime is also considere canon, zero no tsukaima anime is also recognized by the creator as canon(anime even has ended before novel but the wirter confirmed who that wil be the end), Aishiteruze baby(where the mangaka died before manga end but give to anime team the script for the end, then the anime had the end).


if most of the sources who i looked say who canon is not that things some peoples "say"(only manga or novel is canon), why peoples keep saying that??? wha exactly is the true???, how something who was supposed to to distinguish offical source from fanfictions, turned in "only part of the official source being canon??

share your ideas.
Blueknight78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-08-14, 07:46   Link #2
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Two points.

First: canon is not just a term that differentiate between fan made works and author made works. There are several examples of authors that create spin-off or one-shot alternative stories with their characters and settings and officially claim that "this is out of canon".
Another example is the marvel continuity where at one point the editors had to make sense out of the contradictory mess of all that they had published. They therefore decided what was canon and what was not in the "continuity" and then they created several alternative universes each with their own precise canon.

Second: When it comes to anime adaptions sometimes you get what is generally called a "original ending", which implies the anime follows a different story than the original source, often contradicting it. In such cases it makes more sense to differentiate between "anime canon", "manga canon", "light novel canon" and so on. They may all be "canon" in their own contexts but they are not the same canon. If an anime adaption shows "event x" it doesn't mean that "event x" is canon in the manga from which it was adapted.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-08-14, 09:39   Link #3
Blueknight78
Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Two points.

First: canon is not just a term that differentiate between fan made works and author made works. There are several examples of authors that create spin-off or one-shot alternative stories with their characters and settings and officially claim that "this is out of canon".
Another example is the marvel continuity where at one point the editors had to make sense out of the contradictory mess of all that they had published. They therefore decided what was canon and what was not in the "continuity" and then they created several alternative universes each with their own precise canon.

Second: When it comes to anime adaptions sometimes you get what is generally called a "original ending", which implies the anime follows a different story than the original source, often contradicting it. In such cases it makes more sense to differentiate between "anime canon", "manga canon", "light novel canon" and so on. They may all be "canon" in their own contexts but they are not the same canon. If an anime adaption shows "event x" it doesn't mean that "event x" is canon in the manga from which it was adapted.
1 - yeah i know that was why when i asked to the critic team their said that who "is anything licensed or recognized by the creator or owner of the franchise as part of the main storyline, like you told we can find non-canon material from the owner too, what is matter is when he say what is canon or no.


2 - yep is very common anime come with "anime original ending" and contradict the main source and we get 2 different "canons", but dont necessary means who the anime is noncanon or less canon than the source if i'm not wrong a good (at last for what i read who could be wrong)exemple is soul eater, the end in anime and manga are slight different(last fight) but the mangaka recognize both of then as "canon" and follow the "pick what you like more" ending.

like i old my big concern is about since when that rule of "only A is canon" become so oficial who i see a lot of peoples advocate over it even without know if her is true the famous "common sense", without really check the truthfulness of that "argument(as long someone agree is true...)

i know we have manga only fan, novel only fans or anime only fans which in most of the cases are the ones advocating that "rule" and aways fight over it but we aslo have peoples who like all (manga, anime or novel) and why that peoples are forced to accep that "rule" as the only truth even without any real reason than the personal desire of that peoples who advocate that rule.

like i read canon was something created just to fix some confusions created by the writer or make sure who only what the writer accept(not exactly only what he write) as part of the story timeline or universe.

that post is more like to make more clear about it, cuz sometimes i believe who most of the peoples say that are bad informed peoples, who just follow the things because that was the only thing their know and dont really try to check if it is really true.
Blueknight78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-08-14, 10:55   Link #4
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Perhaps that confusion comes from how the term "canon" sometimes is applied to a franchise which encompasses several media.

For example let's take this excerpt from the wikipedia article that you quoted:

Quote:
The official Star Trek website describes Star Trek canon as "the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies" (that is, the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the Star Trek motion pictures).[7] Events, characters and story lines from tie-in novels, comic books, video games and Star Trek: The Animated Series are explicitly excluded from the Star Trek canon, but the site notes that elements from these sources have been subsequently introduced into the television series, and says that "canon is not something set in stone."[7]
This is an example where a whole deal of official products related to a franchise are officially, by a general rule, labeled as non canon unless differently specified.

This a context where "canon" refers to the "canon" of a corpus of different works which makes sense in the case of a huge franchise such a Star Trek.
Each of the single works have their own canon but it's not necessarily part of the "Star Trek canon" which defines a way bigger continuity.

Whether this applies to anime and manga depends on whether you can talk about a franchise or not. That's not the case with most anime but there are some exceptions. If you can identify a continuity that encompasses and ties together several stories, then you can also have non-canon related stories whether they are fan made or not.

Anyway the question of canonicity should be brought up regarding different stories set in the same universe or portraying same characters. In case of adaptions it makes little sense. In case of adaptions I'd rather talk about whether they are faithful to the source material or not.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-08-14, 15:49   Link #5
Blueknight78
Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Perhaps that confusion comes from how the term "canon" sometimes is applied to a franchise which encompasses several media.

For example let's take this excerpt from the wikipedia article that you quoted:



This is an example where a whole deal of official products related to a franchise are officially, by a general rule, labeled as non canon unless differently specified.

This a context where "canon" refers to the "canon" of a corpus of different works which makes sense in the case of a huge franchise such a Star Trek.
Each of the single works have their own canon but it's not necessarily part of the "Star Trek canon" which defines a way bigger continuity.

Whether this applies to anime and manga depends on whether you can talk about a franchise or not. That's not the case with most anime but there are some exceptions. If you can identify a continuity that encompasses and ties together several stories, then you can also have non-canon related stories whether they are fan made or not.

Anyway the question of canonicity should be brought up regarding different stories set in the same universe or portraying same characters. In case of adaptions it makes little sense. In case of adaptions I'd rather talk about whether they are faithful to the source material or not.
yeah good points that is why is important to take the owner words as priority, a case like that is a case of take things in grain and salt, like their said "somethings are not canon however this not a 100% statement and we can change over time.

i think the big problem about canon "lie" in that 2 words: faithful and fillers, many peoples use that words to discredit adaptations outside the main source the famous "if not happen in the manga" then not canon.

not being faithful or having fillers dont means "noncanon" just means
exemple when a fight or moment happen different in both sources peoples just jump and say not canon or when a scene looks bigger than the source or when we have the famous "fillers arcs", where the adaptation go on a own path and peoples just bitch about how boring and horrible is that filler(many times just because is a filler and not because is bad)if that arc dont happen in the source is not canon again another misslead, a good exemple come from fairy tail the starry arc which until today some peoples keep saying is not canon even when mashima make clear who what happened on that arc is part of the timeline.

and faithfull we have exemple of adaptations with multiple ends and all is canon a good exemple is fait stay night: novel have a ending anime have another and game another but all of then are considered canon just different iterations but all of then are valid as a ending.
Blueknight78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-08-14, 16:38   Link #6
Triple_R
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
My general approach to what is "Canon" is "Everything that is contained in the original version of the actual story".

Now, as it pertains to adaptations of the original story, my approach is more or less as follows...

1) If the adaptation departs drastically from the original story, then the adaptation is its own separate (and secondary) canon. In other words, an anime adaptation that departs drastically from the original story is its own "anime canon", but the original story is still what matters the most when you're talking about, say, the most definitive version of a character.

2) If the adaptation adheres strictly to the original story, then I view it as representing the original canon itself, except where there are points of contradiction (here the original story would be favored, of course). So let's say you had an anime named Super Star Shounen that was an adaptation off of a popular manga. If the SSS anime consistently adhered strictly to the manga, but had a "filler arc", I'd consider that filler arc canon itself insofar as it didn't outright contradict source material.


The idea of "canon", as applied to popular entertainment, is important for ensuring that fans are more or less on the same page when it comes to understanding a story and its characters. I think it's good for fans to have the same shared frame of reference here because its conducive to good discussion, and it makes popular franchises more accessible to new fans.

I mean, if people can't even agree on what counts as part of the actual story or narrative, then that would certainly hinder discussion. Differing interpretations are fine, of course, but they should be focused on the same plot points, plot events, character dialogue, etc... Otherwise, it's like trying to be a juror for a case where you don't know which pieces of evidence are admissible and which aren't.
__________________
Triple_R is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.