General "Canon/Filler" Debate/Discussion

[Luso Saiyan]

Well, let's see. Trunks: The Story (the manga chapter) was released on August 11, 1992.

Defiance in the Face of Despair!! The Remaining Super Warriors -- Gohan and Trunks (the TV special based on it) premiered on February 24, 1993.

So, yes. You have reason to be afraid.

Finally! I was surprised and unaware at how much misconception there was around this. I thought 'everyone' knew the special was based on the manga.

Yo! Son Goku and his friends return OVA: I consider its manga version to have a chance to be canon as it wasn't drawn by Toriyama himself, but based on his idea.

If that story is to be taken in consideration, I'd say the manga is Toriyama's preferred version:

Toriyama: "(...) so I’m confident that she’s made a work that’s even more interesting than the original anime, which had a few weak(?) spots."

Ooshi: "Having Toriyama-sensei personally look at my storyboards and offer me advice (...)"

[Kakarot9001]

Well, let's see. Trunks: The Story (the manga chapter) was released on August 11, 1992.

Defiance in the Face of Despair!! The Remaining Super Warriors -- Gohan and Trunks (the TV special based on it) premiered on February 24, 1993.

So, yes. You have reason to be afraid.

Not really. I still consider more TV Special 2 than that manga chapter, but is my opinion. Now basing in the rule of "What came first" the manga is canon instead of the Special, how unfortunate.

So, Vegeta has a power level of 20,000 after his zenkai from his beating from Zarbon then?

What's your point?

[sintzu]

This topic shows that there shouldn't be any debate over what and what doesn't count as part of Toriyama's story yet for some reason there is.

[Bullza]

Dragon Ball Minus -> Jaco -> Dragon Ball -> History of Trunks Bonus Chapter -> Yo Son Goku 2008 OVA -> Battle of Gods -> Revival of F

Is what's canon.

The other movies are said to take place in a different dimension (so not canon) and for simplicities sake I group GT and most other stuff with taking place in this same dimension.

[Dyno]

Yo! Son Goku and his friends return OVA: I consider its manga version to have a chance to be canon as it wasn't drawn by Toriyama himself, but based on his idea.

If that story is to be taken in consideration, I'd say the manga is Toriyama's preferred version:

Toriyama: "(...) so I’m confident that she’s made a work that’s even more interesting than the original anime, which had a few weak(?) spots."

Ooshi: "Having Toriyama-sensei personally look at my storyboards and offer me advice (...)"

I think it is pretty much safe to say if Tarble ever appear in a Toriyama's material someday, he will have Vegeta's hair just like in the manga. That would be cool, he is cooler in that way.

[Kamiccolo9]

Dragon Ball Minus -> Jaco -> Dragon Ball -> History of Trunks Bonus Chapter -> Yo Son Goku 2008 OVA -> Battle of Gods -> Revival of F

Is what's canon.

The other movies are said to take place in a different dimension (so not canon) and for simplicities sake I group GT and most other stuff with taking place in this same dimension.

Why does the other movies being in a "different dimension" result in them not being "canon?"

So, Vegeta has a power level of 20,000 after his zenkai from his beating from Zarbon then?

What's your point?

The original manga had an error in which Vegeta's power level was reduced to 20 thousand instead of increasing to 30 thousand after being beaten by Zarbon. The Kanzenban fixed this error. According to the logic you've been citing, we should ignore the Kanzenban's correction, because it came out later.

[Bullza]

Why does the other movies being in a "different dimension" result in them not being "canon?"

It doesn't. They're just non canon because they're not canon.

[Kamiccolo9]

Why does the other movies being in a "different dimension" result in them not being "canon?"

It doesn't. They're just non canon because they're not canon.

Why aren't they "canon?"

[Bullza]

Why does the other movies being in a "different dimension" result in them not being "canon?"

It doesn't. They're just non canon because they're not canon.

Why aren't they "canon?"

You know full well why they're not so don't waste my time dragging into me this whole "there is no canon nonsense" again.

[Kamiccolo9]

You know full well why they're not so don't waste my time dragging into me this whole "there is no canon nonsense" again.

I'm not. I want to know why it's not "canon."

[Dyno]

It is like asking why humans have to breathe... Well, I hope there is someone out there with such time to explain it and to get things cleared up.

[Kamiccolo9]

It is like asking why humans have to breathe... Well, I hope there is someone out there with such time to explain it and to get things cleared up.

So, "it's not canon because I say so," then?

[rereboy]

They are not canon (to us) because they are not part of the same continuity. But if we believe they are part of the same continuity, they are canon (to us).

Marvel and DC just have a nice sci-fi way of relating those non-continuity stories to the real/main continuity by saying that they exist in a parallel universe, following the parallel universe theory from physics, which provides them with a nice explanation for whenever they want to bring those non-continuity stories and characters to the real/main continuity temporarily or permanently.

[Dyno]

Dunno. Why would movies and GT be canon if it is obvious that the manga doesn't accept them?

[Kamiccolo9]

Dunno. Why would movies and GT be canon if it is obvious that the manga doesn't accept them?

Because that's irrelevant? A continuity and a canon are totally different things.

And the manga is an inanimate object. It's not going to "accept" anything.

[rereboy]

Because that's irrelevant? A continuity and a canon are totally different things.

Actually, its pretty much the same.

When we say that a story is canon to another story, we are stating that that story counts in regards to that other story, we are saying that its part of that story. In other words, that they both belong together, in a continuity.

And when we say that something is not canon, we are stating that that story doesn't count in regards to that other story, we are saying that its not part of that story. In other words, that they do not both belong together, in a continuity.

The term "canon" even originates from religion, in which, at a certain point, it was decided which works were regarded as true sacred texts and which weren't. The ones regarded as sacred texts, or, in other words, the true ones, started to be eventually refereed to as canon, while the others, by opposition, were not canon due to the fact that they were considered to not belong together with the canon ones, to not be part of the same. The tales that they contained were, therefore divided in true and not true, establishing a continuity between the texts considered true, and removing the untrue texts from that continuity.

Actually, the relation between Christian and Jewish religions and their texts are a pretty great example of considerations regarding canon. The Old Testament from the Bible is basically a version of the Hebrew Bible, which means that Christians take that as canon right alongside the New Testament, meaning that they consider it part of the same continuity. Jewish people however, don't consider the New Testament as canon, and thus don't consider it belongs with their texts, meaning that they don't consider it part of the same continuity.

When we get down to it, the discussion regarding DBGT being canon or not is basically the same discussion, and it all comes down to whether or not we consider it to belong together be part of the same continuity, or just be "untrue" and be something else that doesn't belong and is not part of the same continuity.

[ekrolo2]

They are not canon (to us) because they are not part of the same continuity. But if we believe they are part of the same continuity, they are canon (to us).

Marvel and DC just have a nice sci-fi way of relating those non-continuity stories to the real/main continuity by saying that they exist in a parallel universe, following the parallel universe theory from physics, which provides them with a nice explanation for whenever they want to bring those non-continuity stories and characters to the real/main continuity temporarily or permanently.

Exactly, I don't know why so many DB fans have such problems understanding this pretty simple concept. Or the concept of just because something may not be "canon" doesn't make it automatically bad as many do to GT these days. I mean why is canonicity suddenly a good way to judge the quality of something? A whole lot of comic fans would say that their various non-canon adaptation or AUs are far superior to many of their "canon" stories for differing reasons.

[Kamiccolo9]

They are not canon (to us) because they are not part of the same continuity. But if we believe they are part of the same continuity, they are canon (to us).

Marvel and DC just have a nice sci-fi way of relating those non-continuity stories to the real/main continuity by saying that they exist in a parallel universe, following the parallel universe theory from physics, which provides them with a nice explanation for whenever they want to bring those non-continuity stories and characters to the real/main continuity temporarily or permanently.

Exactly, I don't know why so many DB fans have such problems understanding this pretty simple concept. Or the concept of just because something may not be "canon" doesn't make it automatically bad as many do to GT these days. I mean why is canonicity suddenly a good way to judge the quality of something? A whole lot of comic fans would say that their various non-canon adaptation or AUs are far superior to many of their "canon" stories for differing reasons.

Canon and continuity are totally different concepts. A canon is an out-of-universe collection of works, a continuity is an in-universe history. A canon can be made up of infinite continuities.

And of course, canonicity and quality are totally unrelated.

[rereboy]

Canon and continuity are totally different concepts. A canon is an out-of-universe collection of works, a continuity is an in-universe history. A canon can be made up of infinite continuities.

No, they are not. You are tripping over terms. Fitting chronologically doesn't mean that its part of the continuity. Check the historical origin explanation regarding the term canon that I provided, as well as the example regarding the religions I mentioned.

[ekrolo2]

They are not canon (to us) because they are not part of the same continuity. But if we believe they are part of the same continuity, they are canon (to us).

Marvel and DC just have a nice sci-fi way of relating those non-continuity stories to the real/main continuity by saying that they exist in a parallel universe, following the parallel universe theory from physics, which provides them with a nice explanation for whenever they want to bring those non-continuity stories and characters to the real/main continuity temporarily or permanently.

Exactly, I don't know why so many DB fans have such problems understanding this pretty simple concept. Or the concept of just because something may not be "canon" doesn't make it automatically bad as many do to GT these days. I mean why is canonicity suddenly a good way to judge the quality of something? A whole lot of comic fans would say that their various non-canon adaptation or AUs are far superior to many of their "canon" stories for differing reasons.

Canon and continuity are totally different concepts. A canon is an out-of-universe collection of works, a continuity is an in-universe history. A canon can be made up of infinite continuities.

And of course, canonicity and quality are totally unrelated.

Tell that to all the DB fans calling GT utter trash because it's "not canon" therefore its garbage, evil, worse than Hitler and any number of dumb shit variations of the same comment I've seen all over the place these days.