pepd wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 pmif "canon" is Toriyama's story and he didn't make this hypothetical continuation, it would be non-canon, yes. Not according to anyone, but according to its definition (the "canon" definition of this premise and the one is usually implied). It would still be the official continuation of the canon tho.
But for that to be a thing we would first need to live in a reality in which everyone's in agreement that only what Toriyama does is canonical (and it would be even better if we had an official statement saying as much). Since that reality is but a dream, things won't be that easy.
Also, we already have people ignoring/hating works that are supposedly "non-canonical", imagine if we got to that point. Would those people simply stop following Dragon Ball because everything would not be canonical? That would be really sad and moronic...
pepd wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 pmWe can't say Neko Majin is canon because it's a gag manga, and we haven't gotten to that point of the story (like we have with DBS) to know if Toriyama will consider it part of his story or if it was mostly or fully just a gag that didn't really happen (I sure hope most of it is canon).
I don't get much the "it's just a gag" argument, but following people's logic, "only what Toriyama does is canonical", then Neko Majin should be considered canonical by default, it is done by Toriyama. Or is there another standard/rule here?
pepd wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 pmWith DBO, we also haven't gotten to that point of the story to know if it will be considered, properly developed, or completely ignored, and there is also that we don't really know how much involved he was, or if it he made it just for the game.
Yeah, it's even more tricky here, but we do know Toriyama was involved for five years in its production. It's almost the same amount of time he spent doing Neko Majin. Dragon Ball Online was created and intended to be a sequel tied to the manga. This is important because it separates the game from Dragon Ball GT, which is also meant to be a sequel, but not tied to the manga.
As for Toriyama's role, you have him doing the initial designs for the main cast which I doubt it took him very long, and you also have Bardock's personality in the game much more closer to Toriyama's Bardock (in the story, Bardock helps the Time Patrol because Goku was in danger, so he cares a lot about him). A mere coincidence of the developers? Toriyama's input? Certainly a hint, though.
pepd wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 pmThe dictionaries serve the language and communication, not the other way around, even less an arbitrarily specific definition that, while valid as any other, is not the definition of the word people are referring to (fictional canon).
The "fictional canon" that you still want to rely on is in itself very contradictory. Even if you want to say "canon and continuity are the same thing" and that becomes accepted and acknowledged by the dictionaries,
according to the Wikipedia that you used the last time, it says: "the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base", but this is not something that will become a norm. Fanbase does not determine what is canonical and what is not (unless the author or someone with such power give them that right to do so).
The "fictional canon" should at least be rooted in: "the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its author/right holder(s)/official entity" for it to make any sense at all. Once you give the power to the fanbase, things are doomed right from the start, there won't be a consensus, not everyone will agree to what others may say.
Hell, let's already apply that to Dragon Ball, let's give the power to deem works canonical or not canonical to fans: I will say Dragon Ball Online is canonical.
VegettoEX will say the original ending of the manga trumps that other ending. There will be people saying Dragon Ball GT is canonical (if there are people in this very forum who would do that, please do speak up! Don't shy away, you are entitled to have that opinion!) and so on, but you'll have people disagreeing with some or all that. So no, you can't have the fanbase to say what's canonical and what's not. Under any circumstances!
But that Wikipedia page also says that "
in other times", canonicity
can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s)". So which one is it? What is the true meaning? To be acknowledged by the fanbase or by the author? How do we know and when is the time a work is to be considered by a fanbase or by the author? See, not even a consensus here!
pepd wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 pmbut for Toriyama canon we just don't know enough production details to know.
Shouldn't "Toriyama canon" be the movies to begin with? Or are you saying we don't know if the very lines that mention Tarble in both movies came from Toriyama? Because that would raise even more questions to be asked and more points of view to be discussed and analyzed.