General "Canon/Filler" Debate/Discussion

[Kamiccolo9]

The thing is in fiction you really could say by now that the term of canonicity has been re-defined and set similiar to "being part of the continuity". If that is the consensus for a words definition in some context then I see no problem with it as people here also do not mean "it is not official". Really fantasizing is when people say "only made by author, don't like it so doesn't count, not part of the manga" or something like that.

Anyway, yes. For both the official thing and the continuity thing every bigger legal owner with some significant role playing for it can decide.

Except no accepted definition of "canon" is remotely like what people are using it as. If that changes in the future, so be it, but for now, it is incorrect usage.

For what it's worth, I'm extremely active in numerous other franchises that have similar "issues" to Dragon Ball, and the term "canon" is hardly ever used in the way it is by this fanbase. It's almost always either "in-continuity" or "out of continuity."

You know, I am active in FF (people not accepting Ultimanias and spin-offs), KH (KH Chi's canonicity being debatable), Detective Conan (people insisting the movies are not canonical), Star Wars and everything and everyone uses "canonical" to describe part of continuity, sometimes simply for the official part to state if something is an actual explanation (like the Ultimanias). And if people know that they talk about the same thing I am perfectly fine with that. I couldn't care less if they use the word pineapple for it if they just talk about the same thing. What is not okay is saying only person a can decide or only something being in the mainstory means it did happen or we didn't like it or it was full of errors so it did not happen. That is going against logic and how law works. But really, if someone uses "canonical" for "in-continuity" is no problem as long as we talk about the same thing. Often "official" and "in-continuity" goes together.

The problem with that is that incorrect usage of words should not be excused just because it is understood what is being said. As a teacher, if a student is writing a paper, and uses the word "lay" instead of "lie," I'm still going to correct them, and would be expected to, even though it's obvious what was intended.

A canon is unaffected by in universe contradictions because it is an out of universe concept; contradictions are irrelevant to what is official or not. A continuity, on the other hand, is an in-universe concept that relies on the story.

[dbzfan7]

For me canon is basically this

DB-(Really hate to include this shit)/Jaco/Dragon Ball Manga/History of Trunks (Manga, but the anime was better imo)/JSAT Special(Tarble is mentioned in BOG, it's unlikely they don't want people to make connections to the special)/Battle of Gods/Fukkatsu No F

That's the canon for me at least. Technically there is no real established answer. Though the Choezenshu timeline included some movies right?

[Cetra]

[
The problem with that is that incorrect usage of words should not be excused just because it is understood what is being said. As a teacher, if a student is writing a paper, and uses the word "lay" instead of "lie," I'm still going to correct them, and would be expected to, even though it's obvious what was intended.

A canon is unaffected by in universe contradictions because it is an out of universe concept; contradictions are irrelevant to what is official or not. A continuity, on the other hand, is an in-universe concept that relies on the story.

That basically means "I know what someone says but I still will answer to the error and look for disturbance of communication" which is bad for communication psychology. Of course a person is to blame for misusing a word or appearing in front of someone with easily misunderstandable behaviour and not getting the reply but if you still manage to look through that and still intentionally do not give the answer wanted for a successful communication then the whole conversation is no good at all. Like someone asks you "do you know what time it is now?" and you just say "yes" and walk away even though you did correctly interprete what the person wanted: They wanted you to tell them what time it is. You might tell a person a general meaning but still did not answer to what you knew that person meant.
Really - if general consensus adds another meaning to a word in a certain context then it is totally fine. That is how language develops. What is not good for the development is people knowing the part which has been decided by consensus and still individually adding some stuff (like the ones that do not work if you consider legal situations and such).

[Sandubadear]

(To me,) Everything is canon (even including games), but there are like 5 or 6 continuities. I even made a list of continuities so I could keep my head organized, but I don't remember where is it. I'll link it here once I find them.

[Kamiccolo9]

[
The problem with that is that incorrect usage of words should not be excused just because it is understood what is being said. As a teacher, if a student is writing a paper, and uses the word "lay" instead of "lie," I'm still going to correct them, and would be expected to, even though it's obvious what was intended.

A canon is unaffected by in universe contradictions because it is an out of universe concept; contradictions are irrelevant to what is official or not. A continuity, on the other hand, is an in-universe concept that relies on the story.

That basically means "I know what someone says but I still will answer to the error and look for disturbance of communication" which negative for comunication psychology. Of course a person is to blame for misusing a word or appearing in front of someone with easily misunderstandable behaviour and not getting the reply but if you still manage to look through that and still intentionally do not give the answer wanted for a successfull communication then the whole conversation is no good at all. Like someone asks you "do you know what time it is now?" and you just say "yes" and walk away even though you did correctly interprete what the person wanted: They wanted you to tell them what time it is.
Really - if general consensus adds another meaning to a word in a certain context then it is totally fine. That is how language develops. What is not good for the development is people knowing the part which has been decided by consensus and still individually adding some stuff (like the ones that do not work if you consider legal situations and such).

No, what's negative to communication is incorrect usage of language in the first place. That's why we teach people how to communicate via proper speech in the first place. If getting intent across was all that was important, then proper grammar, spelling, and communication would be unnecessary. If someone improperly asks a question, and doesn't get the type of answer they wanted, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who responded to them.

And consensus doesn't determine correctness. At one point, the consensus was that the world was flat, that black people were intellectually inferior to white people, that video games would just be a "fad," that the Bible should only be written in Latin, etc.

[Cetra]

No, what's negative to communication is incorrect usage of language in the first place. That's why we teach people how to communicate via proper speech in the first place. If getting intent across was all that was important, then proper grammar, spelling, and communication would be unnecessary. If someone improperly asks a question, and doesn't get the type of answer they wanted, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who responded to them.

Seriously not. Communication is a mutual process. It is the person's fault if they are misunderstood but if someone actually does understand them and still chooses to not give them the answer then the one who replies is also to blame. Axiom 4 of Paul Watzlawick: Communication consists of digital and analogue modalities. That includes our language. If you already have succeeded in understanding what your communication partner wants from you and you still do not respond properly you are as guilty of causing a disturbance as your partner is. You could choose to give that person the right answer and tell them what was wrong about the wording but instead you are completely talking at cross purposes.

And consensus doesn't determine correctness. At one point, the consensus was that the world was flat, that black people were intellectually inferior to white people, that video games would just be a "fad," that the Bible should only be written in Latin, etc.

Except that is a wrong example. If people would have decided that the word "flat" would have had the same meaning as our "round" today, they would have very well been right. We are the ones to decide what a word means. Words to not exist in nature. They are simply the "body of information". So if someone defines "canonical" as "in-continuity" it is totally fine and therefore asking for something to be canon with that meaning also can lead to a desired answer. You cannot say "canonical" does not mean "in-continuity" because that already has been a globally accepted meaning. You should bother about the rest of what people fantasize about canonicity.

But seeing as you go completely against Communication Psychology I will no longer post here so don't bother wasting your time.

EDIT: You see? Right now you are not better with communication with others. So struggle against axioms but it will not help for successful communication. Is that something to reach out for? No.

[Lord Beerus]

Dragon Ball: Yo!! Son Goku and His Friends Returned! is not confirmed canon. BoG just confirmed that Vegeta does indeed have a brother named Tarble. That's it.

Nope.

Bulma was the one who first mentioned the idea of Vegeta calling his brother to be the final Saiyan required for ritual for Goku to become a SSJ God. Bulma only knew about Vegeta's brother after seeing him in the 2008 OVA. So Dragon Ball: Yo!! Son Goku and His Friends Returned! is technically canon.

This is what I view as the official canon of the Dragon Ball franchise:
- Jaco The Galactic Patrolman
- Dragon Ball Minus
- Dragon Ball Manga (Including the Future Trunks Sidestory)
- Dragon Ball: Yo!! Son Goku and His Friends Returned!
- Battle Of Gods
- Revival Of F

[fadeddreams5]

Nope.

Bulma was the one who first mentioned the idea of Vegeta calling his brother to be the final Saiyan required for ritual for Goku to become a SSJ God. Bulma only knew about Vegeta's brother after seeing him in the 2008 OVA. So Dragon Ball: Yo!! Son Goku and His Friends Returned! is technically canon.

*Covers ears and eyes*

Lies...LIES!!!


*cries*

[Kamiccolo9]

No, what's negative to communication is incorrect usage of language in the first place. That's why we teach people how to communicate via proper speech in the first place. If getting intent across was all that was important, then proper grammar, spelling, and communication would be unnecessary. If someone improperly asks a question, and doesn't get the type of answer they wanted, that's their own fault, not the fault of the person who responded to them.

Seriously not. Communication is a mutual process. It is the person's fault if they are misunderstood but if someone actually does understand them and still chooses to not give them the answer then the one who replies is also to blame. Axiom 4 of Paul Watzlawick: Communication consists of digital and analogue modalities. That includes our language. If you already have succeeded in understanding what your communication partner wants from you and you still do not respond properly you are as guilty of causing a disturbance as your partner is. You could choose to give that person the right answer and tell them what was wrong about the wording but instead you are completely talking at cross purposes.

And consensus doesn't determine correctness. At one point, the consensus was that the world was flat, that black people were intellectually inferior to white people, that video games would just be a "fad," that the Bible should only be written in Latin, etc.

Except that is a wrong example. If people would have decided that the word "flat" would have had the same meaning as our "round" today, they would have very well been right. We are the ones to decide what a word means. Words to not exist in nature. They are simply the "body of information". So if someone defines "canonical" as "in-continuity" it is totally fine and therefore asking for something to be canon with that meaning also can lead to a desired answer. You cannot say "canonical" does not mean "in-continuity" because that already has been a globally accepted meaning. You should bother about the rest of what people fantasize about canonicity.

But seeing as you go completely against Communication Psychology I will no longer post here so don't bother wasting your time.

Except, if I am speaking from a position of authority, or as an educator, or as someone otherwise trying to inform somebody, and I transmit the information incorrectly, the blame is totally upon myself, regardless of whether my general intent was understood or not. If I am observed teaching by a peer, and I give incorrect information by mistake, and later, students perform poorly on one of my exams because of the misinformation I provided, that's on me, not them, even if they knew that I was wrong, and gave the wrong information regardless, due to not wanting to offend someone in a position of authority over them.

If Julian or Herms were to put out a totally incorrect, just completely, flat-out wrong translation of something, and a community member knew this, but didn't tell them out of fear of offending one of the people running the site and the community, it is not that member's fault for not correcting this information, it is on the translator for not doing their job properly (Not saying this would happen, or that it is in any way an accurate depiction of the characters of these two, this is just an example.)

Finally, if I am going to make an informative topic on a subject that's already misunderstood (in numerous different ways, mind you) by an fanbase extremely fractured on said topic, and I don't provide an objective, accurate definition of what that topic actually means, then I am in the wrong for doing that, not the community who are misinformed to begin with.

[Dyno]

As I explained, until Toriyama come up with the "real" Tarble's story, that OVA is canon.

My personal canon:

Dragon Ball Minus
Jaco, the Patrolman
Bardock TV Special
Episode of Bardock
Dragon Ball manga
Trunks TV Special
Tarble's OVA
Movie 14
Movie 15

I used to consider Dragon Ball Online, now I don't have a choice but to desconsider it. I consider Time Kaioshin to exist in the main series, she only happens to not appear yet. I also consider Towa as Dabura's sister.

[SSJGFrieza]

I wish Minus wasn't canon. I mean Jaco is cool but AT either forgetting or deciding to change Goku's whole reason for coming to earth was terrible.

And the only movies that are canon are BoG and FoF.

[Kamiccolo9]

I wish Minus wasn't canon. I mean Jaco is cool but AT either forgetting or deciding to change Goku's whole reason for coming to earth was terrible.

And the only movies that are canon are BoG and FoF.

Why isn't, for example, Movie 9 "canon?"

[DBZGTKOSDH]

About the JSAT, I would say that what Toriyama considers canon about it is most likely the manga version of it, since he said that he liked that more, and he talked as if these 2 manga chapters were extra chapters of his manga. And since he mentioned Tarble in BoG, it is safe to assume that he considers it part of his continuity, unless he contradicts it with something new (like he did with Bardock).

As far as the rest of the stuff go (DB/Z/GT/Kai/Heroes/Etc Episodes/TV Specials/Movies/Games/Etc), it sounds like Toriyama considers all these stories as separate from his story, set in different dimensions, as he leaves them to do whatever they want, and ignores them in his stories.

So, it sounds like Toriyama's continuity consists of:

• Jaco The Galactic Patrolman
• Dragon Ball Minus
• Dr. Slump [?]
• Dragon Ball (Kanzenban)
• Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)
• Dragon Ball Z: God & God/Battle of Gods - Special Edition
• Dragon Ball Z: Revival of F
• Neko Majin [?]
• Manga guidebooks & his interviews

As for Dragon Ball Online, it's something like the Star Wars Expanded Universe: it's disregarded, but still exists as a resource.

[Kamiccolo9]

So, it sounds like Toriyama's continuity consists of:

• Jaco The Galactic Patrolman
• Dragon Ball Minus
• Dr. Slump [?]
• Dragon Ball (Kanzenban)
• Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)
• Dragon Ball Z: God & God/Battle of Gods
• Dragon Ball Z: Revival of F
• Neko Majin [?]
• Manga guidebooks & his interviews

Thank you so much for phrasing it that way. I was about to go on another diatribe about why what Toriyama likes doesn't matter in terms of canonicity, but then you got to this, and I calmed down

[TheGmGoken]

Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)

What's the difference between manga and anime

[Dyno]

Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)

What's the difference between manga and anime

Tarble's hair and Tenshinhan's appearance. I think it's all.

[Doctor.]

Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)

What's the difference between manga and anime

Tarble's hair and Tenshinhan's appearance. I think it's all.

And the fight itself is shorter, it has a shot of first Form Freeza when Tarble is talking about Abo and Cado's power and Goten and Trunks one shot them both. The difference relies more on the power aspect.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku & Friends Return!! (Manga Adaptation)

What's the difference between manga and anime

Not much.

• Bee, Mr. Satan's dog, doesn't appear.
• Tarble & Gure arrive with a two-seated spaceship, instead of two spaceships for each one of them, and they don't go through the city like in the special, they only pass from above.
• Kuririn is the one that says that someone with a large ki is coming, instead of #18.
• Goten & Trunks are chosen immediately to fight Abo & Cado, instead of drawing plants.
• Tenshinhan & Chaozu are in the party, and Tenshinhan is the one that identifies Tarble as a Saiyan instead of Kuririn.
• The whole scene with the reporters coming on Mr. Satan's hotel is gone.
• Goten & Trunks vs Abo & Kado is much shorter, with Goten & Trunks defeating them easily without having any problem.
• In the Gotenks vs Aka fight, Gotenks uses Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack instead of Yamcha's & Tenshinhan's techniques.
• When Aka gets angry & destroys the hotel, no one gets in danger, and none of the Z-Senshi do anything, except for Goku & Vegeta like in the special.

I think these are the main differences, from what I recall. There might be some small differences here & there that I didn't remember.

But by the way, Gregory still appears, but only in one panel in the background, so I guess he can be ignored.

[ekrolo2]

The new movies and maybe Yo Son Goku count count for the manga (along with the manga itself obviously), GT and possibly some of the films that can more easily fit into the timeline count for the anime. The films that don't are just alternate universes where one change altered events like movie 12 being in a universe where SSJ3 Goku kills Fat Buu & Babidi before returning to Other World.

GT doesn't work in the context of the manga, so trying to make it fit there doesn't work. Same thing with trying to put say BoG in the anime continuity where GT happens, it doesn't fit. As far as I'm concerned, Dragon Ball is just a big collection of different continuities that all co-exist in the same multiverse as one another. Not a far-fetched idea considering the whole Android & Cell Saga is basically caused by time travel that's essentially alternate universe hoping ala DC & Marvel comics.

[Cold Skin]

When it comes to Jump series, I tend to stick with the creator's work as Canon.

The original manga, of course, is canon.

Battle of Gods may not have started as his baby, but he certainly made it his own by the end, so it's canon. It also refers to Tarble, so I count Yo! Son Goku and Friends Return as canon until such time as Toriyama contradicts it.

Naturally, since I counted Battle of Gods, I'll also count Revival of F, since this is straight up his idea.

Jaco the Galactic Patrolman directly ties into Dragon Ball, so I count it as canon. DB Minus as well, bumping out the old Bardock Special (I also count the manga Trunks the Story over the Trunks Special).

I don't count the rest of the animated material (I still love watching it *except for GT*, but I just don't view it as the 100% canon way things happened) or stuff like Episode of Bardock (not Toriyama yeah, also I didn't really enjoy it too much).

Still iffy on the whole DB Online stuff, since Toriyama did come up with a lot of it, but this was before the new movies...if Toriyama does some revising and makes it into something official like a movie, then why not?

Your personal canon is totally in line with mine, mostly for the same reasons. The only difference is that I consider the Kanzenban manga canon (new ending), not the original manga.
Which is unexpected, since there are so many personal canons possible (so many products to consider one way or another for so many reasons) that I didn't think I'd see a canon that would exactly follow my logic anytime soon.

I will still enjoy other stories of course, including their appearances in video games, but what I consider the "real" core story truly depicting the author's intended universe is exactly what you said (except for the fact that I take the updated Kanzenban ending instead of the original one, as it is a "delete and correct" by the author himself).