So is Tarble now non-canonical?

[rereboy]

Can you and anyone else who says this please stop saying it cause all you're doing is spreading false information.

What? That's completely true. No official entity has ever made a statement regarding what "counts" and what "doesn't count", what's canon and what's not canon. Therefore, it's completely true, there is no established canon. All there is is fan canon and fan's expectations regarding what could be considered canon and non-canon.

Someone claiming that something actually is canon is the one who is spreading technically false information. At most all he can say is if something should be canon or not and his expectation regarding whether it will be someday considered canon or not.

There is no official canon besides, of course, the original source material, which is the manga. That is fact.

Yes. But even portions of the manga can be considered non-canon if the author wishes. For example, if Toriyama stated that in light of BOG, ROF and Super, the last chapters of the manga are non-canon, at least portion of the manga would be non-canon. So, technically, not even the manga is safe.

[Hellspawn28]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not being mentioned doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

But most people always go by the "If it was never mention or seen again, it never happen". That's why Star Trek fans don't view Star Trek V as canon since that movie was mention ever again in the later films. You could say the same for the older 13 DBZ movies as well too.

This is why TOEI shouldn't write Dragon Ball stories on their own... though recent stuff like Minus prove Toriyama-sensei lost quite a bit of his original touch,

Toei did stories of their own in the 90's and a lot of fans are mixed on GT and the 13 films. I'm glad Toriyama is writing the series again. He is a better story teller then Toei is in my opinion. GT was pretty bad and most of the 13 DBZ movies did suck. People have their nostalgia glasses on when they talk about how the older DBZ movies where amazing when most of them are pretty terrible. Sure Toei did some good stuff on their own, but most of it was pretty bad in my opinion.

[VegettoEX]

People have their nostalgia glasses on when they talk about how the older DBZ movies where amazing when most of them are pretty terrible.

I could outline in excruciating detail why I think several of the older DBZ films are not only good, but I may actually like them better than certain/corresponding parts of the "actual" story.

Can we please as a fandom get away from these piss-poor dismissals?

[Sayo-chan]

Why would Super take precedent over the movie it's reiterating? Why would the movie? Did Toriyama's work on BoGs directly affect the line about Tarble being put in? It's all rather arbitrary what's decided by fans to be canon, so I don't see why it matters. Official material is official material, contradictions and all.

People have their nostalgia glasses on when they talk about how the older DBZ movies where amazing when most of them are pretty terrible.

I could outline in excruciating detail why I think several of the older DBZ films are not only good, but I may actually like them better than certain/corresponding parts of the "actual" story.

I would be interested in reading this.

[fadeddreams5]

Yes. But even portions of the manga can be considered non-canon if the author wishes. For example, if Toriyama stated that in light of BOG, ROF and Super, the last chapters of the manga are non-canon, at least portion of the manga would be non-canon. So, technically, not even the manga is safe.

Honestly, I have to disagree. Besides the fact that that portion of the manga would still be canon to the manga itself, which is the original source material, Toriyama doesn't have the final word in this matter since he doesn't have full ownership of the series. For example, he can't just say GT is non-canon--Toei or Shueisha (?) has to agree too. Chances are, they would, but I personally don't take anything the man says in a random interview as the new canon.

Imagine if Stan Lee claimed Spider-Man actually gained his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids before biting Peter Parker in his sleep. Yeah, no. lol.

[irreality]

But most people always go by the "If it was never mention or seen again, it never happen". That's why Star Trek fans don't view Star Trek V as canon since that movie was mention ever again in the later films. You could say the same for the older 13 DBZ movies as well too.

Well, the events of the JSAT are pretty insignificant, though. Lots of things happen in everyone's lives that nobody ever mentions again. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it is not especially important. Tarble could be canonical or not.

As a Star Trek fan, as much as I dislike STV, it is unfortunately part of canon. The concept of a sect of Vulcans with emotions is referenced again in "Enterprise" as the V'Tosh Ka'tur, anyway. It is not like the JSAT -- to deny its canonical status would be a matter of personal preference, not of source material. The source material includes TOS and its 6 movies as canon (even though many episodes in TOS are standalone and not mentioned again). TAS is more disputed.

Film 13 (and maybe 1 other film? don't remember which) could still happen depending on the exact timing of Super. Again, not being mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen (doesn't mean it did, but it is possible). A complete contradiction in the timeline (not a small one that could be a storytelling oops) makes it impossible to reconcile most movies, however.

[VegettoEX]

For what it's worth, don't they even within the JSAT special itself mention how insignificant its events were? That's a perfect "out" for not having to ever really talk about it again.

[Cetra]

Yes. But even portions of the manga can be considered non-canon if the author wishes. For example, if Toriyama stated that in light of BOG, ROF and Super, the last chapters of the manga are non-canon, at least portion of the manga would be non-canon. So, technically, not even the manga is safe.

Honestly, I have to disagree. Besides the fact that that portion of the manga would still be canon to the manga itself, which is the original source material, Toriyama doesn't have the final word in this matter since he doesn't have full ownership of the series. For example, he can't just say GT is non-canon--Toei or Shueisha (?) has to agree too. Chances are, they would, but I personally don't take anything the man says in a random interview as the new canon.

Imagine if Stan Lee claimed Spider-Man actually gained his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids before biting Peter Parker in his sleep. Yeah, no. lol.

Yes but if all of them agree it is no longer canonical. That is what retconning is. Basically they could retcon all 42 vols. if they wanted.

[fadeddreams5]

Yes. But even portions of the manga can be considered non-canon if the author wishes. For example, if Toriyama stated that in light of BOG, ROF and Super, the last chapters of the manga are non-canon, at least portion of the manga would be non-canon. So, technically, not even the manga is safe.

Honestly, I have to disagree. Besides the fact that that portion of the manga would still be canon to the manga itself, which is the original source material, Toriyama doesn't have the final word in this matter since he doesn't have full ownership of the series. For example, he can't just say GT is non-canon--Toei or Shueisha (?) has to agree too. Chances are, they would, but I personally don't take anything the man says in a random interview as the new canon.

Imagine if Stan Lee claimed Spider-Man actually gained his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids before biting Peter Parker in his sleep. Yeah, no. lol.

Yes but if all of them agree it is no longer canonical. That is what retconning is. Basically they could retcon all 42 vols. if they wanted.

The manga is still canon within itself, and is the original source material. When we argue canonicity, we are basically pondering over what external material is canon to that original source material.

If they were to all agree that, say, the manga is not canon to the new content, and the new material is the official canon, that is quite literally the same as saying, "the new stuff is not canon to the manga." So basically, it's all pointless as far as building a timeline goes because fans only care about what fits in with the manga (or non-filler adaptation of it).

[Cetra]

The manga is still canon within itself, and is the original source material.

When they decide to retcon the manga, the version that you know right now is no longer canonical to anything, not even itself because it is written out of existence when it comes to what is meant, like when you say "You have nice eyes, oops, no, I meant nose" or when someone changes his opinion and overrides the former content of his opinion with it. Do the versions of those books still exist? Yes. But it has no value when it comes to the informative part of Dragon Ball anymore as it is like I edit this post and give the signal "guys, that stuff that stood here before has no value". It then is just a letter that you throw away to write a new one or something that you tell the world just to say later "nah, forget that from before". Babidi talks about his father in the manga, That statement will always exist. But it has no value, as it is retconned. If people complain about something that actually no longer is "officially meant" then the entire complaint is not justified. One guy once asked me about Babidi and Bibidi, he did not know that the story was retconned but he knew it was no use to talk about the old lines anymore. Maybe you get what I mean. And when they come out one day and say "all of it is retconned now" then all of it, even the 42 vols. because they can, can be retconned and their official information is changed.

[rereboy]

Honestly, I have to disagree. Besides the fact that that portion of the manga would still be canon to the manga itself,

Thats not how canon works. If it worked that way, then everything would be canon to something, we would just have to specify to what, and all meaning of saying that something is canon would be lost. For example, movie 7 is canon (to a continuity that includes it). You could do the same to anything in the series. That's not really it's intent or it's point.

Canon is simply the main or real continuity of events, officially described and stated as such, distinguishable from other events that aren't part of it. And there's nothing stopping a portion of a manga from suffering a retcon and the official word being that the changes are canon, aka part of the main continuity, while the old stuff is not.

Toriyama doesn't have the final word in this matter since he doesn't have full ownership of the series. For example, he can't just say GT is non-canon--Toei or Shueisha (?) has to agree too. Chances are, they would, but I personally don't take anything the man says in a random interview as the new canon.

Imagine if Stan Lee claimed Spider-Man actually gained his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids before biting Peter Parker in his sleep. Yeah, no. lol.

If the author and the company that owns the story and characters disagreed, that just means that there wouldn't be a single unified official word regarding canon. That's all. In those cases you would either choose which official position should be held in higher regard, or you would consider that a unified official position is required regarding canon.

And you finding the changes to spider-man's story ridiculous wouldn't matter at all if the people responsible for that made them official and declared them canon. So, what you feel about spider-man gaining his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids is rather irrelevant towards it being canon or not.

[fadeddreams5]

When they decide to retcon the manga, the version that you know right now is no longer canonical to anything, not even itself because it is written out of existence when it comes to what is meant, like when you say "You have nice eyes, oops, no, I meant nose" or when someone changes his opinion and overrides the former content of his opinion with it. Do the versions of those books still exist? Yes. But it has no value when it comes to the informative part of Dragon Ball anymore as it is like I edit this post and give the signal "guys, that stuff that stood here before has no value". It then is just a letter that you throw away to write a new one or something that you tell the world just to say later "nah, forget that from before". Babidi talks about his father in the manga, That statement will always exist. But it has no value, as it is retconned. If people complain about something that actually no longer is "officially meant" then the entire complaint is not justified. One guy once asked me about Babidi and Bibidi, he did not know that the story was retconned but he knew it was no use to talk about the old lines anymore. Maybe you get what I mean. And when they come out one day and say "all of it is retconned now" then all of it, even the 42 vols. because they can, can be retconned and their official information is changed.

Thats not how canon works. If it worked that way, then everything would be canon to something, we would just have to specify to what, and all meaning of saying that something is canon would be lost. For example, movie 7 is canon (to a continuity that includes it). You could do the same to anything in the series. That's not really it's intent or it's point.

Canon is simply the main or real continuity of events, officially described and stated as such, distinguishable from other events that aren't part of it. And there's nothing stopping a portion of a manga from suffering a retcon and the official word being that the changes are canon, aka part of the main continuity, while the old stuff is not.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "canon." My point is the manga has its own self-contained timeline, as does GT. When we discuss what is canon, we are looking at the franchise as a whole and seeing what connects with what (i.e. Super to GT) to form an official timeline. Something non-canon is excluded from this timeline--it never happened within it.

In the case of DB, since the manga is the original source material, that is what we use to base what is canon and what is not by default; people want to know what is canon to THAT story. I'm not disagreeing that they can retcon the manga or even remove it from the canon altogether. I'm just saying that is incredibly stupid and wouldn't make sense since it's that timeline fans care about in the first place.

If the author and the company that owns the story and characters disagreed, that just means that there wouldn't be a single unified official word regarding canon. That's all. In those cases you would either choose which official position should be held in higher regard, or you would consider that a unified official position is required regarding canon.

And you finding the changes to spider-man's story ridiculous wouldn't matter at all if the people responsible for that made them official and declared them canon. So, what you feel about spider-man gaining his powers from a mosquito that first sucked the blood of ancient spider-like humanoids is rather irrelevant towards it being canon or not.

My original point was that Toriyama saying random nonsense in interviews doesn't change what actually occurred in the original manga. It's already there, and Toei and Shueisha have the higher authority.

My Stan Lee example wasn't about my personal opinion of retcons. If it's official, then it's official. What I meant was that Stan Lee stating something does not make it official. He's one man. A pioneer and legend, but he does not hold the rights to Spider-Man just because he created the hero.

[bjh13]

Thats not how canon works. If it worked that way, then everything would be canon to something, we would just have to specify to what, and all meaning of saying that something is canon would be lost. For example, movie 7 is canon (to a continuity that includes it). You could do the same to anything in the series. That's not really it's intent or it's point.

Actually, that's exactly how the term canon works. To give an example, the Roman Catholic Church considers the Book of Sirach canonical, the Southern Baptist Convention does not.

Canon is simply the main or real continuity of events, officially described and stated as such, distinguishable from other events that aren't part of it.

Considering no one officially involved with Dragon Ball has made any statements regarding canon, that would mean there is no canon. Generally, for simplicity sake, most people consider the manga canon, but for all all we know Toei may consider the television shows and movies all canon despite the continuity problems.

[rereboy]

Actually, that's exactly how the term canon works. To give an example, the Roman Catholic Church considers the Book of Sirach canonical, the Southern Baptist Convention does not.

Not at all. What you are describing is just a case akin to having more than one official word regarding canon, just like I talked about in my previous post. That's not what fadeddreams5 was talking about.

What fadeddreams5 was describing is a case where there is just one official word regarding canon and where certain parts of the manga are considered non-canon by that official word, but, despite that, fadeddreams5 argued that those parts would still form a canon regarding the rest of the manga.

Considering no one officially involved with Dragon Ball has made any statements regarding canon, that would mean there is no canon.

That is my point, yes.

Generally, for simplicity sake, most people consider the manga canon, but for all all we know Toei may consider the television shows and movies all canon despite the continuity problems.

People generally confuse their certainty that the manga and all its parts would be considered canon by an official source with it actually being canon. In other words, they confuse expectation with what actually is. As I've demonstrated, even parts of the manga can be easily be left out of canon.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "canon." My point is the manga has its own self-contained timeline, as does GT. When we discuss what is canon, we are looking at the franchise as a whole and seeing what connects with what (i.e. Super to GT) to form an official timeline. Something non-canon is excluded from this timeline--it never happened within it.

In the case of DB, since the manga is the original source material, that is what we use to base what is canon and what is not by default; people want to know what is canon to THAT story. I'm not disagreeing that they can retcon the manga or even remove it from the canon altogether. I'm just saying that is incredibly stupid and wouldn't make sense since it's that timeline fans care about in the first place.

Yes, I agree that the manga forms its own continuity, but anything can form its own continuity, basically. And yes, it probably would be stupid.

My original point was that Toriyama saying random nonsense in interviews doesn't change what actually occurred in the original manga. It's already there, and Toei and Shueisha have the higher authority.

My Stan Lee example wasn't about my personal opinion of retcons. If it's official, then it's official. What I meant was that Stan Lee stating something does not make it official. He's one man. A pioneer and legend, but he does not hold the rights to Spider-Man just because he created the hero.

He might be just one man, but he is arguably the man with most moral authority over the character, as well as having certain legal rights to him. That makes him an official source. If he actually introduced those changes seriously, not as a joke or just a thought, and no other official source contradicted that, all we can really say is that we don't like the changes. We can always have our own fan canon, but that would be irrelevant for the actual canon.

[Bullza]

I'd say he was canon as he was mentioned in Battle of Gods. I also think that movie is more canon than Super as well. Has Toriyama actually had any involvement with the BoG or RoF sagas?

He might just be working on the Universe 6 arc which is likely the intended follow up of the latest movie. What we've seen so far is likely just Toei's spin on it.

[Absolute Ice]

I'd say he was canon as he was mentioned in Battle of Gods. I also think that movie is more canon than Super as well. Has Toriyama actually had any involvement with the BoG or RoF sagas?

Probably not, if he had, we probably wouldn't see Gregory hanging around.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

1. There is no canon, none, nothing at all.

Can you and anyone else who says this please stop saying it cause all you're doing is spreading false information.

I agree. It's getting annoying.

What's canon then? We can agree that the original 17 movies, the Bardock Special, PtEtSS, EoB, GT, and the video games are not part of Toriyama's continuity I guess, since they no longer fit at all (unless you count XenoVerse & take the parallel worlds path). But what about the rest? Which version of the story is canon, the Tankoubon manga, the Kanzenban manga, the DB/Z anime, or the DB/Kai anime? The manga version or the anime adaptation of the Trunks Special? The anime or the manga version of the JSAT Special? The theatrical version, the Special Edition, the Super anime adaptation, or the Super manga adaptation of BoG? The script from Volume "F", the manga adaptation, the movie version, the upcoming Super anime adaptation, or the (presumably) upcoming Super manga adaptation of FnF?

[Relenanator]

Many people think the DBZ TV show form the 90's is canon when, in fact, they made many changes from the original manga. None of the movies are true canon. They are only canon to the DBZ TV series.

Now with that out of the way; I don't believe Tarble was ever canon but even if he was, he would only be canon to the Z timeline and not the new Super timeline.

[LSSJGODSSJ4Gogeta]

I wonder what Toriyama's "head canon" is XD

He seams to do one thing, but does another thing, like when people thought he considered the Bardock Special as part of the continuity to the manga. Heck maybe he DID and just wanted to tell his spin on it? To many X factors in things like power levels and canon in this franchise to be precise on anything. You can only really make educated guesses and have fun debating it. And I doubt anyone at Toei or Toriyama will give out an official canon(s) list. Fans debating power levels and canon all the time is like free advertising. They don't wanna stop that.

[SylentEcho]

I could outline in excruciating detail why I think several of the older DBZ films are not only good, but I may actually like them better than certain/corresponding parts of the "actual" story.

Sounds pretty interesting. You should do a thread about this.

I wonder what Toriyama's "head canon" is XD

He seams to do one thing, but does another thing, like when people thought he considered the Bardock Special as part of the continuity to the manga. Heck maybe he DID and just wanted to tell his spin on it? To many X factors in things like power levels and canon in this franchise to be precise on anything. You can only really make educated guesses and have fun debating it. And I doubt anyone at Toei or Toriyama will give out an official canon(s) list. Fans debating power levels and canon all the time is like free advertising. They don't wanna stop that.

In my opinion, I don't think he really cares what's canon and what isn't. He's just happy telling stories and he's happy with TOEI adding to them, as long as Goku and the rest of the characters are portrayed accurately. I'm sure back in his day, people weren't as particular about inconsistencies and what was considered canon as they are now.