Why do people argue about 'canon'?

[MediaFanGirl93]

People may argue over canon when it comes to defending their favorite characters against "non-canon" arguments about them, in my opinion.

[Polyphase Avatron]

The same reason people argue about power levels, who could beat who in a fight, which saga/villain/hero is the best, etc.

[RandomGuy96]

I love when people argue about canon, if only so I can point out how there actually is no canon, so I can watch the subsequent whining and rage.

[KentalSSJ6]

I love when people argue about canon, if only so I can point out how there actually is no canon, so I can watch the subsequent whining and rage.

Only difference between canon and non-canon? 3 letters and a hyphen.

[DBZ Mick]

I think most people just do for the usual 'I'm right and you're wrong' crap.

But I think it's also handy in the case of Dragonball so we know Toryiama's side to things.

[Logan]

I think our esteemed webmaster nailed it on the head. People like to talk about things they are passionate for. Canon is useful in discussion because it keeps things organized and concrete. I'm a canon nut, myself. In the case of Dragon Ball, however, I think it's better to throw that into the wind. Not all renditions of mythology or fairy tales fit together nicely, either. I think Dragon Ball follows that tradition.

[ChiChiFan]

I have no idea either! I hate how everyone argues over filler as well. I love filler! Why wouldn't I love more adventures and such in a series that I love so much!? I know someone out there is thinking ''Well by that logic you must love GT?'' to use against me. and I say that I don't hate GT. I'm just not a huge fan of it.

I love fillers, too.

[Bussani]

However, when it comes to GT, still to this day, I have never seen an official source declare that it's NOT canon. It's always coming from fans that dislike/hate it.

I don't think that's necessarily true. People form their own canons, whether they're simply fans or creators who are actually involved in a franchise. If someone--say, the writer of an official Dragon Ball spin-off, as an example--decided that only Toriyama's manga and nothing else (no filler, no movies, no GT, not even Toriyama's interviews) was the only thing he or she was going to consider canon for their purposes, then GT wouldn't be canon to them or to the story they were creating.

I don't hate or dislike GT. I've watched it all the way through more than twice as many times as the rest of the anime, in fact. But even I, for the purpose of debate, might try to define what I think Toriyama's canon was, and GT may not fall into that.

This is the purpose of canon, really. It's a tool for looking at the story in a certain way. Beyond that it's pretty pointless, and because you can define as many canons as you like, arguing what is and isn't "absolute canon" is pretty silly. Even an "official canon" like something like Star Trek has is just the canon the creators have decided on. And what do you do when two equal creators from the same franchise turn out to have slightly different canons when asked later on? It happens, and it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

I never see Naruto fans saying the filler characters and stories are canon to the manga.

I think the highlighted word is another important factor. For something to be canon, it has to be part of a canon--that is, canon to something. Something can't just be canon by itself. So we can definitely say that GT isn't part of the manga's canon, for instance, if we wanted to. Why? Because if we wanted to have a discussion about the story as it exists in Toriyama's mind, only considering things that he himself wrote makes sense. Like I said, it's just a tool we can use to look at the story in a particular way.

[dbboxkaifan]

I guess it makes them feel like they're more knowledgeable than the rest.

While at it, is that angry monkey called Broli canon or not?

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

I only feel its necessary to argue canon against people who use fallcious bias to prove something for or against a non canon argument, like people who use dub lines to confirm things never said in the manga, or those who use filler to decide how a character should behave. Then there are others who consider certain things selectively based on appeal to character preferences just because they like certain things like SSJBardock despite it being a bad creation.

Of course there are others who use canon to bash anything that Akira himself doesnt confirm like the movies, or GT despite being good for what they are.

[TheGreatness25]

I think wanting to argue using canon is a very logical approach to most things. It's logical to want to know the real reason behind something that happens in the story. Usually in a story there's ABC and XYZ is wrong. If Batman wore a yellow symbol to distract the villains and make them aim towards his heavily-guarded chest, then it's not because he washed the Batsuit with his yellow thong. If Superman's faster than a speeding bullet, he's not slower than a cheetah. If Spike, Jet, Ed, and Faye eat Ramen Noodles because they can't afford anything else to eat, they don't eat the noodles because they heard it was the key to being fit.

What's all that got to do with anything? It's simple. In a lot of stories, there is a right and a wrong. Most things that happen in a story are explained and have a very basic truth behind them. It may be just a book or just a cartoon or just a movie, but there is always a reason behind something. And pople want to know what that reason is. However, Dragon Ball is not the thing to do it with, I feel. It's a story made by a guy who forgets characters, forgets the names of characters, forgets his own "canon" so to speak. Then it's translated into an anime that has filler in it to pass time (they basically needed the filler to produce the show at the speed it was done because they relied on Akira Toriyama to finish his story for the week so they can do their episode). Then, you have a bunch of spin-offs (movies, etc.). Then you have the popularity of the thing, so everyone has an opinion. And of course, the real fans dive right into those inconsistencies in the story. And that's where "canon" comes into play. There are many things out of whack with the story, but at the same time, there are many things that are still very solid. The die hard fans, who love the series want to find those truths, just like any other story. The problem with the Dragon Ball franchise is that the truth is not as obvious as other stories, so many fans turn to what's canon and what's not. If I told you that Superman's hair grew while he was "dead" because so much time passed, you'd say, "Yeah, of course it did." But then if I told you that Vegeta was able to grow a mustache, you might not be so quick to agree.