Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
I think adaptations can have their own canon. There's nothing inherent in the concept that any Intellectual property can only have a single canon. The original Jason Bourne novels are VERY different from the movies, but I think both versions have their own canon just like I think the manga and the anime of DB can have their own.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
It's certainly much easier to just say headcanon or something like that than say "what I believe would be considered canon, or what I prefer to be canon", so, whatever.ABED wrote: Fair enough and it's why terms like "head canon" bug me.
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
Would you say the 2 movies and Toyotarou's manga starting from the Champa arc are canon to Toriyama's manga while the Super anime is canon to DB & Z ?ABED wrote:I think adaptations can have their own canon. There's nothing inherent in the concept that any Intellectual property can only have a single canon. The original Jason Bourne novels are VERY different from the movies, but I think both versions have their own canon just like I think the manga and the anime of DB can have their own.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
I just go with "in my imagination" or "I imagine". It's much clearer and doesn't confuse the concept.rereboy wrote:It's certainly much easier to just say headcanon or something like that than say "what I believe would be considered canon, or what I prefer to be canon", so, whatever.ABED wrote: Fair enough and it's why terms like "head canon" bug me.
That's not for me to say. They could. All I know is that for something to be canon, it has to be official. It can change on a whim and it could change a lot or not at all.Would you say the 2 movies and Toyotarou's manga starting from the Champa arc are canon to Toriyama's manga while the Super anime is canon to DB & Z ?
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
At the end of the day it's just a personal stylistic choice of how we choose to speak. Any term can be confusing for people who aren't familiar with it or are mistaken about what it, and, even if it's confusing for some, I don't see why people should refrain from using words or terms that they want to use and that other people might have trouble with since, if everyone did that, then no one would use any complex, unusual, varied or similar words/terms (like, for example, "borborygmus"), or would be criticized simply for trying to use any any complex, unusual, varied or similar words/terms, so that to me is a non-issue.ABED wrote:I just go with "in my imagination" or "I imagine". It's much clearer and doesn't confuse the concept.rereboy wrote:It's certainly much easier to just say headcanon or something like that than say "what I believe would be considered canon, or what I prefer to be canon", so, whatever.ABED wrote: Fair enough and it's why terms like "head canon" bug me.
That's not for me to say. They could. All I know is that for something to be canon, it has to be official. It can change on a whim and it could change a lot or not at all.Would you say the 2 movies and Toyotarou's manga starting from the Champa arc are canon to Toriyama's manga while the Super anime is canon to DB & Z ?
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
All good points, but in my mind, headcanon is needlessly confusing. People have enough trouble getting canon, then to put two opposing concepts together under one definition when there's already servicable enough shorthand is something I find irrational. I wish I know where it came from. I guess it amounts to there being a differnce between a term being confusing and people being confused by a term. For instance, people misuse nonplussed a lot, even though it only means one thing, but that's different from someone being confused by a term that lumps two opposing concepts together.rereboy wrote:At the end of the day it's just a personal stylistic choice of how we choose to speak. Any term can be confusing for people who aren't familiar with it or are mistaken about what it, and, even if it's confusing for some, I don't see why people should refrain from using words or terms that they want to use and that other people might have trouble with since, if everyone did that, then no one would use any complex, unusual, varied or similar words/terms (like, for example, "borborygmus"), or would be criticized simply for trying to use any any complex, unusual, varied or similar words/terms, so that to me is a non-issue.ABED wrote:I just go with "in my imagination" or "I imagine". It's much clearer and doesn't confuse the concept.rereboy wrote:
It's certainly much easier to just say headcanon or something like that than say "what I believe would be considered canon, or what I prefer to be canon", so, whatever.
That's not for me to say. They could. All I know is that for something to be canon, it has to be official. It can change on a whim and it could change a lot or not at all.Would you say the 2 movies and Toyotarou's manga starting from the Champa arc are canon to Toriyama's manga while the Super anime is canon to DB & Z ?
Think about head canon
Canon - officially declared continuity
Head - personal preference or imagination
So how can a person's personal preference or what's in their imagination be a version of the officially declared continuity?
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
-
- Not-So-Newbie
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:16 pm
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
I like to think so lol
- PsionicWarrior
- I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 2:33 pm
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
I really don't understand why people consider GT to be canon, had there be any doubts they should all be gone since BoG.
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
In Xenoverse 2 they have it as an alternate timeline so although it's not set in the same timeline as Super, its still connected to it through an alternate one where Beerus never went to earth. Like Trunks' timeline.PsionicWarrior wrote:I really don't understand why people consider GT to be canon, had there be any doubts they should all be gone since BoG.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.
- PsionicWarrior
- I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 2:33 pm
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
What is 'Xenoverse 2' I don't know of such thing lol
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
That is not the same as saying Dragon Ball GT is canon though. There is nothing implying GT never happened in-universe even it being non-canon, the same goes to the movies, outright stated to take place in a different dimension. There's no connection like you said.sintzu wrote:In Xenoverse 2 they have it as an alternate timeline so although it's not set in the same timeline as Super, its still connected to it through an alternate one where Beerus never went to earth. Like Trunks' timeline.
One of the best Dragon Ball games out there.PsionicWarrior wrote:What is 'Xenoverse 2' I don't know of such thing lol
The game is about Dragon Ball history and meddling with time, so you can expect it'll say something about movies and Dragon Ball GT canonicity.
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
He's being sarcastic.Grimlock wrote:One of the best Dragon Ball games out there.
The game is about Dragon Ball history and meddling with time, so you can expect it'll say something about movies and Dragon Ball GT canonicity.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.
- Sailor Haumea
- OMG CRAZY REGEN
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:28 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
Because it's vastly preferable to Super at its very best?PsionicWarrior wrote:I really don't understand why people consider GT to be canon, had there be any doubts they should all be gone since BoG.
"That's right, everyone of my race can become a giant gorilla!" - Tullece (AB Groupe dub)
- shadowmaria
- OMG CRAZY REGEN
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:35 pm
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
I'll say this.
Technically in Super, there is only two blatant contradictions to GT - Kibito Kai and the Pilaf Gang's ages. God ki can probably be handwaved, but we honestly don't know how Super will end, so still up in the air.
The only other thing I'll say is that the whole debate was reopened when GT was featured as part of the official timeline at a recent exhibition;
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
So until something comes around in-universe that explicitly stops it from being canon, or Toriyama or Toyable or Toshio even say 'nah non-canon, didn't happen, alt timeline, whatever mate'; it'll always be canon to me.
Technically in Super, there is only two blatant contradictions to GT - Kibito Kai and the Pilaf Gang's ages. God ki can probably be handwaved, but we honestly don't know how Super will end, so still up in the air.
The only other thing I'll say is that the whole debate was reopened when GT was featured as part of the official timeline at a recent exhibition;
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
So until something comes around in-universe that explicitly stops it from being canon, or Toriyama or Toyable or Toshio even say 'nah non-canon, didn't happen, alt timeline, whatever mate'; it'll always be canon to me.
Videos I Made, and Uploaded To YouTube:
Celebrating 10 Years of Assassin's Creed
'Stone Cold' Thanos
How Much Was Pre-Released? | Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
Goku, Gohan, and Goten vs Broly (Family Kamehameha) | Fandub
How Toei Animation Should Have Made Dragon Ball GT
How Much Was Pre-Released? | Avengers: Infinity War
Celebrating 10 Years of Assassin's Creed
'Stone Cold' Thanos
How Much Was Pre-Released? | Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
Goku, Gohan, and Goten vs Broly (Family Kamehameha) | Fandub
How Toei Animation Should Have Made Dragon Ball GT
How Much Was Pre-Released? | Avengers: Infinity War
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
Well, considering Dragon Ball GT is an official work, that's no surprising that official materials would give years to it. Even movies have their own time placement, as clarified in Daizenshuu 6. I don't think that means that the movies take place in the main continuity. Why would this mean Dragon Ball GT does?shadowmaria wrote:The only other thing I'll say is that the whole debate was reopened when GT was featured as part of the official timeline at a recent exhibition
- Sailor Haumea
- OMG CRAZY REGEN
- Posts: 797
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:28 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Re: Is Dragon Ball GT canonical?
Some of the movies can take place in the main continuity. I get the feeling that the anime considers it to be that some form of each movie happened at some point, but not exactly like depicted onscreen. Something like Movie 12 happened, but maybe Buu is mentioned as taking a nap or something, and it's in the timeskip. Or Movie 2 happens but Goku can go Super Saiyan and it's in the three-year wait for the Androids. Broad strokes. Otherwise, the Garlic Jr arc wouldn't be a thing. Basically, "something like the movies happened, but not necessarily exactly like the movies show".Grimlock wrote:Well, considering Dragon Ball GT is an official work, that's no surprising that official materials would give years to it. Even movies have their own time placement, as clarified in Daizenshuu 6. I don't think that means that the movies take place in the main continuity. Why would this mean Dragon Ball GT does?shadowmaria wrote:The only other thing I'll say is that the whole debate was reopened when GT was featured as part of the official timeline at a recent exhibition
"That's right, everyone of my race can become a giant gorilla!" - Tullece (AB Groupe dub)