Nafno wrote:
You keep repeating that canon is sort of a legal thing. "It is all up to law and property". Well, actually, it is quite the opposite.
No, it is in no way the opposite. And repeating the original meaning of canonicity will not help in this argument because over the years words get additional meaning depending on context. Whether you bring in the bible or Sherlock Holmes really is of no relevance here. If people who do not have any say in anything they can discuss as much like and dislike as much as they want, it will not objectively mean anything for the value of what happened in a certain continuity of the franchise or not. That also does not exclude Sherlock Holmes. In case of the original meaning of the bible it is a totally different case because by the end of the day that is not a topic about an author who wrote something and then had the rights to it and other people got the rights, et cetera. If you write a story I can like or dislike it as much as I want. I can say "I do/don't count it for myself" but it will never have the same impact on the absolute truth of the franchise/series/story. Which means, if you then bring out a sequel containing the elements of what I did not like I can dislike it as much as I want and complain about how stuff is included that is bad or did not count, it will still not be true.
Nafno wrote:
So, imagine this crazy example (just for the sake of the argument). Toriyama has some problems with Shueisha and loses the rights of Dragon Ball, but he starts an online Dragon Ball manga by himself. He doesn't have the rights, so it is, in fact, illegal. On the other hand, Toei starts a new TV show called Dragon Ball GT Yeah baby. The canon would be Toriyama's work, not DBGT Yeah baby.
And still DB Online is as overall canonical to the franchise, as everything else: Undefined. It has its base as everything in Dragon Ball and that's it. Nothing ever was said about that it happened together with element x in the continuity that everyone inisists so much on being the "main continuity".
Nafno wrote:
This example is actually not that fictional, it happened with the Gargoyles franchise. Greg Weisman, the original creator, was out of the show in the third season (which is not considered canon). After that, he actually had to pay to Disney in order to make a comic continuation ignoring the aforementioned 3rd season. After some money issues he had to stop making them, but even nowadays, his interviews in which he gives little tidbits of information are considered canon. Third season isn't.
Which still is just nothing but a claim based on what you think how canonicity works. Only if Disney or whoever owns the rights of this franchise chooses to declare it non-canonical it is non-canonical. If that guy who got the rights to write something, says x is not counted for his story, then it simply means it does not count for his story but it does not say anything about overall canonicity owned by those who own everything.
Nafno wrote:
The concept of canon has nothing to do with law an intelectual property and everything to do with art and storytelling, that's the purpose for which it was created.
Whether you like it or not, it has. Own the brand, own the rights. I know you don't agree with me. You're entire introduction of your post pretty much already made it no use answering (which is why I by the way reported the post - I mean, come on, you come in to provoke me, not only that the post is enough but you even admit it) but I still do because by the end of the day you have still not provided anything that actually has proven anything wrong but just given a few examples that included fan opinions, decided to ignore law and property just cause and thought it would be a good post to counter mine. But it still is not. Sorry. That is not even insultingly meant or anything but it is just this way. And if George Lucas comes out tomorrow and says stuff about Star Wars fans would consider it canonical, it would still not matter what fans and he think. Once Disney said "hm, okay (he is the creator of the original series,) sounds good, let's take that one" then it is canonical. Why is that? Because they can. Not you, not me, not anyone else. And the first part of your Gargoyle's paragraph actually has proven that already. The rest does not matter here because some things are not self-explanatory. Once you own something it is totally clear, who can and who cannot. And if the original creator has the right because he was given the right, then he can decide that,
because he is legally allowed by someone who legally owns it.
Nafno wrote:when you yourself are continuosly using invented rules about what is canon.
Which is a laughable claim, sorry. I simply bow to those who make the stuff, just as I accept (like and dislike but still accept as it will not change anything anyway) what those companies give me. I cannot just accept everything they give me and once I don't like it, go out and claim that just because I think x matters/does not matter, that it suddenly is like that. Some things are just axiomatic and even if you struggle with them, they will stay what they are. You insist so much on property meaning nothing, even though it does, not I am the one being disrespectful, you disrepect the rights people have. Just as I accept that people have the right to decide what counts for them personally, I respect that it does not mean anything about the actual truth concerning a franchise because I also respect and know even if I wouldn't, it would not change, that an owner has the right to do with his thing what he wants. So, if you really are that persistent with your argument then bring out a story about a franchise, try to make money with it and claim it is canonical. And then we see what happens. And the best thing, even if it would be considered canonical then even only, because the actual owners allowed it. But yes, law, property, all that stuff does not matter a thing. What you are talking about it known as "fanon" or "head-canon" but not "canonicity". There is a really easy way to not read my posts that you dislike - don't stop with your cursor there and then you do not need to bother. It is okay, if you think something based on ignoring important aspects that stand over everything else in a certain context. But do not think I will change my posts because you want me to have those incomplete thoughts that ignore such stuff I have no influence in.