Unpopular DB opinions

[EvilSeru]

17 and 18 seem like popular DB characters but I never liked them. Would have preferred that 19 and 20 stuck around for the duration of the android saga.

[Kid Buu]

Tree of Might is the worst DB movie. Not because of the plot, or the animation, or the music, or unoriginality, or anything like that, but because it's sooooo boring. The movie cannot hold my interest at all, and, in comparison, I've been able to sit through and enjoy Bio Broly and Lord Slug. ToM just goes on and on, and I get the same feeling that I have during that last 30 minutes of Return of the King when the movie ended but just kept going.

I agree. The whole thing with Oozaru Gohan just drags so much. I've only actually finished this film once.

[MarCas92]

THERE IS NO CANON!

I'm sorry there just isn't. No matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you reason, it doesn't matter. There isn't a canon and there will probably never be. I honestly wish canonical debates would just stop. They never go anywhere and any conclusion anyone comes to other than "there isn't one" is just personal preference. STOP IT!

"But MarCas92! There are separate continuities! One for the anime, another for the manga and others for movies and OVA's blah blah blah so there are a lot of canons!"

That kind of defeats the purpose of having a canon then doesn't it?

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't think about where certain pieces of the story fall where. Not only is that fun, but it can lead to some interesting discussion about what if's, the franchises history and future possibilities. But if you say something like "This is canon because blah blah blah", then I'm sorry, but in my humblest of opinions, you're just a stupid fanboy.

[Doctor.]

THERE IS NO CANON!

I'm sorry there just isn't. No matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you reason, it doesn't matter. There isn't a canon and there will probably never be. I honestly wish canonical debates would just stop. They never go anywhere and any conclusion anyone comes to other than "there isn't one" is just personal preference. STOP IT!

"But MarCas92! There are separate continuities! One for the anime, another for the manga and others for movies and OVA's blah blah blah so there are a lot of canons!"

That kind of defeats the purpose of having a canon then doesn't it?

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't think about where certain pieces of the story fall where. Not only is that fun, but it can lead to some interesting discussion about what if's, the franchises history and future possibilities. But if you say something like "This is canon because blah blah blah", then I'm sorry, but in my humblest of opinions, you're just a stupid fanboy.

Is the manga not canon?

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

THERE IS NO CANON!

I'm sorry there just isn't. No matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you reason, it doesn't matter. There isn't a canon and there will probably never be. I honestly wish canonical debates would just stop. They never go anywhere and any conclusion anyone comes to other than "there isn't one" is just personal preference. STOP IT!

"But MarCas92! There are separate continuities! One for the anime, another for the manga and others for movies and OVA's blah blah blah so there are a lot of canons!"

That kind of defeats the purpose of having a canon then doesn't it?

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't think about where certain pieces of the story fall where. Not only is that fun, but it can lead to some interesting discussion about what if's, the franchises history and future possibilities. But if you say something like "This is canon because blah blah blah", then I'm sorry, but in my humblest of opinions, you're just a stupid fanboy.

In a sense you are correct because TOEI has never done a Lucasfilm and come fort to state what is canon and what isn't.

For a long time most people accepted Toriyama's 42-volume manga to be the definitive canon for the series as that was the story as it was originally intended, but now it's become more complicated because of everything that has happened in recent years from Toriyama changing the ending of the manga to the inconsistencies Dragon Ball Minus created, and let's not forget Battle of Gods was originally said to be part of the "official history" but now that's been rewritten too, so which version should be taken as the de facto storyline?

It's all just fan speculation unless TOEI make everything clear, which, as you say seems very unlikely at this point.

[Cure Dragon 255]

So yeah, never underestimate the ability of the offended to be offended by anything and everything

I would never dream of that after this year where people got offended by EVERYTHING. Good lord, how long has the confederate flag been around and now there's a huge fuss over it?

I know there will always be a small vocal minority who get up in arms over things, but the operative word there is "small" not "vocal".

Because there were murders over a nutjob who worshipped the racist ideology that flag represents, complete with photos of it in his murderous manifesto? And then another nutjob killed even MORE people over the fuckers desire for a race war?

Seriously.

Ok back to Dragon Ball, Karina Altamirano isnt as bad as people made her out to be and she doesnt deserve scorn. Neither does Edson Matus but I dont think he's a better Goku than Mario Castañeda or Karina better than Laura Torres.

GODDAMN I want to punch those "Christians" who were offended by TMNT.

[Polyphase Avatron]

GODDAMN I want to punch those "Christians" who were offended by TMNT.

What's this about?

[Cure Dragon 255]

Link by Gyt Kaiba.

http://tmntentity.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... rtles.html


Dont read it, it will piss you off.

[precita]

17 and 18 seem like popular DB characters but I never liked them. Would have preferred that 19 and 20 stuck around for the duration of the android saga.

Android 19, really? He was literally one of the most boring characters of the show, he was just meant to be fodder for the first android fight.

[rereboy]

Is the manga not canon?

Has there been any official word establishing what is and what isn't canon? No? Then there is no actual established canon. You believing that the manga would obviously be considered canon if there was any official word regarding that only means that you have that expectation, not that there is an established canon. In short, all there is is headcanon, fancanon and fan's expectations regarding what the canon would be, but there is no actual established canon.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Is the manga not canon?

Has there been any official word establishing what is and what isn't canon? No? Then there is no actual established canon. You believing that the manga would obviously be considered canon if there was any official word regarding that only means that you have that expectation, not that there is an established canon. In short, all there is is headcanon, fancanon and fan's expectations regarding what the canon would be, but there is no actual established canon.

Some forums I know of go by the standard that 'If there's no official statement of what's canon or not, then only work directly written by the original creator of the franchise is canon'.

Some others go by 'Everything officially published in any capacity is canon unless it's specifically declared not to be'.

[rereboy]

Some forums I know of go by the standard that 'If there's no official statement of what's canon or not, then only work directly written by the original creator of the franchise is canon'.

Some others go by 'Everything officially published in any capacity is canon unless it's specifically declared not to be'.

Fans can't actually declare what is canon and what is not, no matter how much sense it makes to them and how much they would want to.

The only people who can establish canon are the people actually responsible for the franchise.

Those fans are merely confusing their expectations for what would or should, in their opinion, be considered canon, with actually established canon. Or they just mistakenly think that they can, somehow, declare or establish what is canon for a franchise just because they are fans of it.

[Doctor.]

Is the manga not canon?

Has there been any official word establishing what is and what isn't canon? No? Then there is no actual established canon. You believing that the manga would obviously be considered canon if there was any official word regarding that only means that you have that expectation, not that there is an established canon. In short, all there is is headcanon, fancanon and fan's expectations regarding what the canon would be, but there is no actual established canon.

If there's no official canon, then the manga isn't canon either. And if the manga isn't canon, then that's absolutely nonsensical because a canon must exist for every franchise. The manga IS canon, regardless of what anyone thinks, after that is where things start to get fuzzy.

[rereboy]

If there's no official canon, then the manga isn't canon either.

No, it simply means that no canon has been declared or established. As in only the people responsible for the franchise can declare what is and what isn't canon and the fans can only guess it and suggest what it would or should be.

And if fans can only guess it, you can't conclude that the manga isn't canon, since you don't know what they would declare as canon, you can only guess. The logic you used to conclude that the manga isn't canon just because there is no declared or established canon doesn't make much sense.

And if the manga isn't canon, then that's absolutely nonsensical because a canon must exist for every franchise.

That is simply not true. Franchises are works of fiction, and, as such, a franchise can have multitudes of events, retellings and continuities which contradict one another without there ever being a declaration of what actually takes priority over the rest (aka declaration of canon).

Fans can guess and make suggestions about what the canon, in those cases, would or should be, but they are just guesses and suggestions because they are just fans, not the people responsible and in charge of the franchise who can actually declare what is and what isn't canon.

This is the case with Dragon Ball. There has been no official word regarding it, so there's no declared/established canon, there's only fans guessing and suggesting what the canon would be, and coming up with headcanons and fancanons.

The manga IS canon, regardless of what anyone thinks, after that is where things start to get fuzzy.

So, if Toriyama decided to make the last chapters of the manga non-canon due to what was introduced in BOG, ROF and Super, and declared a canon along with that notion, according to you, that part of the manga would still be canon, because you, as a fan, think so, regardless of the people who are actually responsible for the franchise declare?

No, in such a case, those chapters would indeed be non-canon and all you could do about it would be to disagree with that decision and come up with a headcanon that still included it, but that wouldn't be the canon. The canon would still be the one declared by the actual people in charge of the franchise.

For example, fans of Star Wars can argue all they want that Han Solo shooting first is what really happened and that Darth Vader's appearance at the end of Episode VI is of an old guy, not the appearance of Hayden Christensen (aka argue that that is the canon, not the changes introduced later on) but at the end of the day they are just fans, not the people in charge of the franchise, so they aren't the ones deciding what is canon and what isn't, the people in charge are, and if they actually say that the canon is that, then it is canon. The fans can only like or dislike that decision and come up with headcanons and fancanons.

[ABED]

Has there been any official word establishing what is and what isn't canon? No? Then there is no actual established canon.

No, does there have to be? Does every story that existed before the term came into popular usage remain non-canonical because it was never explicitly stated? Many don't say it because it doesn't have to be said, it's implied.

Did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle have to say his Sherlock Holmes stories were canon for them to be so? What does that make them if they aren't canon? What do you call them in such a case?

I can understand why there's an issue fans have when they wonder which is canon to Toriyama, the old ending or new one, but that doesn't throw out the rest of the story as unofficial.

The fans can only like or dislike that decision and come up with headcanons and fancanons

This, I wholeheartedly agree with.

[rereboy]

No, does there have to be? Does every story that existed before the term came into popular usage remain non-canonical because it was never explicitly stated? Many don't say it because it doesn't have to be said, it's implied.

Canon status is only relevant for franchises where they might be inconsistencies due to retellings and similar. In other franchises, talking about canon doesn't make sense because there's no order of priority to be established at all.

As for franchises where there actually are inconsistencies due to retellings and similar, the canon status of any particular element before the people in charge of the franchise declare a canon, is simply not determined (because the people in charge of the franchise didn't declare it either way yet).

So, no, things aren't non-canon when a canon hasn't been defined yet. For something to be non-canon, there would have to be an established canon first to check if that thing is included in the canon or not, and only then, when it's confirmed that it's not included in that canon, would it be non-canon.

In short, before a canon is actually established, things aren't either canon or non-canon, they just exists and are all part of a franchise. Fans can give more importance to a few of them, they can give priority to a number of them, in an attempt to guess a canon, guess which would be canon and which wouldn't, but that's just guesses since the fans aren't the ones who determine what is canon and what isn't.

[ABED]

Where did you get all that?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the term first originated in reference to Sherlock Holmes. The term comes from either a greek or latin word meaning "standard".

"Ronald Knox used the term in a 1911 essay "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" to distinguish Doyle's works from subsequent pastiches by other authors"

In other franchises, talking about canon doesn't make sense because there's no order of priority to be established at all.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that it doesn't need to be said.

So, no, things aren't non-canon when a canon hasn't been defined yet.

It doesn't need to be explicitly defined. It would be like of JK Rowling came out and said her Harry Potter novels are canon. Well no duh, what the hell else would they be? The only issue would be whether things like the forthcoming play is considered canon because it's in another medium and not simply an adaptation. In this case, the books would be the standard or "canon"

[rereboy]

Where did you get all that?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the term first originated in reference to Sherlock Holmes. The term comes from either a greek or latin word meaning "standard".

"Ronald Knox used the term in a 1911 essay "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" to distinguish Doyle's works from subsequent pastiches by other authors"

Even in Wikipedia it's stated that the term "canon", and the way it is used, has it's roots in religion, namely in reference to biblical canon and other religious canons.

Speaking specifically of Christianity, there are several texts, namely several gospels and lives of apostles, that were rejected and thus not included in the New Testament. Texts rejected are, therefore, considered non-canonical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28 ... %29#Origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha#Christianity

This is EXACTLY what canon and non-canon is, even regarding fiction.

Whenever there's several texts or elements, and someone with authority declares a priority regarding them due to the differences or inconsistencies between them, that's when canon is formed. Biblical canon was formed when those other texts were rejected and considered non-canonical, while the others were considered canonical. In the same way, a canon regarding any franchise is also formed when someone with authority actually declares what is canon and what is non-canon. Before then there's no actual established canon, just like there was no actual established biblical canon before the rejection of those texts.

This judgment about priority regarding different elements, about what "counts" and what doesn't, is what canon is all about, and this judgment can only be made by people with actual authority over the issue.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just that it doesn't need to be said.

Not at all. Like I explained above, canon is about determining a priority between certain elements due to the differences and inconsistencies between them, which generally appear thanks to different retellings and similar. When its just one text, when it's just one element, it literally makes no sense to talk about canon.

It doesn't need to be explicitly defined. It would be like of JK Rowling came out and said her Harry Potter novels are canon. Well no duh, what the hell else would they be?

If JK Rowling actually wanted to make portions of her story non-canon or even rewrite it from scratch, making the new story canon and the old non-canon, she would be able to because she is the person in charge of the franchise and her story. You can argue "what the hell would the books be besides canon" all you want and that wouldn't mean a thing if JK Rowling answered your question by saying "actually, I've decided they aren't, this new rewrite I'm doing is".

This happens because you, as a fan, have no actual say over what is canon or not, you just have guesses, and it doesn't matter how sure you are of what the people in charge would consider canon because they can, literally, declare whatever canon they want no matter how much you disagree with it.

This is why the only thing that matters regarding actual canon is what the people in charge say about it. What the fans say about it, no matter how logical it is, how well thought-out it is, lacks any actual weight and only amounts to guesses about what the canon should or would be.

[ABED]

Speaking specifically of Christianity, there are several texts, namely several gospels and lives of apostles, that were rejected and thus not included in the New Testament. Texts rejected are, therefore, considered non-canonical.

In that case, you would need an official body to say "this is what is canon" since it's a lot of disperate books written by different authors". Just because in this particular case it needed to be said, doesn't mean canon by its nature has to be explicitly stated. In some cases it's obvious what is and isn't, in other cases, it's questionable. In those cases, until someone with authority states explicitly, then it's up in the air.

this judgment can only be made by people with actual authority over the issue

The author is the authority. The question arises in cases such as The Bible becuase there are many authors. It doesn't need to be stated out loud when there's ONE author.

canon is about determining a priority between certain elements due to the differences and inconsistencies between them

And in the case of a work like Harry Potter, there's the novels (now a play), if it was just the novels you wouldn't have to determine priority, it would be taken for granted that the book itself is the standard.

This happens because you, as a fan, have no actual say over what is canon or not, you just have guesses, and it doesn't matter how sure you are of what the people in charge would consider canon because they can, literally, declare whatever canon they want no matter how much you disagree with it. This is why the only thing that matters regarding actual canon is what the people in charge say about it.

I never said i have any say, but in cases where someone doesn't explicitly state it, it's taken as a given that the original work is canon. The fact that the question might never come up is irrelevant. Those in charge don't have to say anything, and in cases where they don't, that doesn't mean there isn't because the conclusion is obvious and I don't know if many authors care that much to get into these sorts of issues.

Let's take Friends for instance. The series is canon, however, the episode "The One that Could Have Been" isn't canon. It's a what if story. It's implicit that it never happened, but it falls into the category of non-canon.

[Cetra]

Finally an actually good meta discussion about canonicity. My respect. In an honest way.