Sora Saiyan wrote:That’s very true, but at least this has gave a bit more clarity as to what is actually considered canon. There’s been a lot of arguments surrounding the matter, so it’s nice to see that the discussion has now been narrowed down a lot.Terez wrote:It's down to the fans either way. There are only a few things that (based on official statements) we can say are "canon" or "not canon". Beyond that point, there's still mass confusion. Like, Super is the "canon" sequel to Toriyama's manga (implying, along with other statements, that GT was not)... but there are 3 separate continuities for Super. Which one is canon? Are they all canon? Do we go with the movies or Toriyama's napkin outline for the anime/manga? There are diverse answers to these questions and therefore we're pretty much back to where we started, really.Sora Saiyan wrote:Does this “canon” thing but that debate to bed, or do some people believe it’s still down to the fans? Honestly I’ve been in the camp that Toriyamas continued story (BoG, RoF etc.) is what’s considered “canon”, and it seems Shueshia also believe that.
In the field who believed Super was canon there was always the argument over which version was canon like you mentioned.... but then on top of that there was also a fair few arguments about Super not being canon, and arguments about what takes it’s place.
Honestly, I didn’t ever really get involved in those discussions, but I’m glad now that when they take place people aren’t going in blind.
It becomes more clear if we differentiate story and execution. The execution differs within the different media, but it's the same storyline, just like DBZ differs from the original manga but it's still the same storyline, not a completely different story altogether like GT or the older movies.