GT - Canonical or not?

[DOOODGE]

First off, I apologize for asking this because I have to imagine that this has been asked nine hundred million times before (at least), but I can't seem to find a solid answer elsewhere, so I figured I'd ask here.

Secondly, I'd like to apologize for bringing up a continuity question. Because I know that few things anger geeks (a term I use lovingly as I count myself among their ranks) more than continuity debates. I've never been to a Star Trek convention, but I'm well-informed enough to know that if you go to one and shout the words "THE MENAGERIE!" out loud, be ready to f***ing duck and cover.

Having said that...I cannot deny that I'm curious about an official answer.

[RoarkVegeta]

In short? No.

In long----? Maybe!

Toei made the idea for GT. And the "canon" statement means "It's in the manga? It's canon! It's not the in the manga? Screw off! That's filler!"

But Toriyama made designs and ideas if IIRC.

[Bussani]

The term canon can't be used without context. Canon to what?

If we're talking, let's call it 'Toriyama canon' (that is, what 'happened' in the story from Toriyama's point of view), then we'd only consider the manga canon. Things that weren't written by Toriyama, such as GT, filler and the movies, don't usually come under this. This is usually the canon Dragon Ball fans are referring to when they just say if something is canon or not. Usually.

Some fans like to have a separate 'anime canon' which they try to fit different things like GT and some of the movies into. Or even 'personal canon' which, to be honest, I don't see the point of other than for fun.

Long story short, whether something is canon to something else or not only matters when you really start analyzing things, like, "in GT Golden Oozaru is the most powerful thing (and SSJ4 by extension). Also in Dragon Ball Z there's part where Vegeta explains the legend of the Super Saiyajin and it shows a Golden Oozaru. Therefore, Golden Oozaru is the legendary Super Saiyajin." But, of course, neither of these things were written by Toriyama himself, so it's fair to assume that the Golden Oozaru wasn't what Toriyama imagined the Super Saiyajin of legend being.

[Rod]

but I'm well-informed enough to know that if you go to one and shout the words "THE MENAGERIE!" out loud, be ready to f***ing duck and cover.

Having said that...I cannot deny that I'm curious about an official answer.

I need to know. Why? who is he/she/it?

[Bussani]

but I'm well-informed enough to know that if you go to one and shout the words "THE MENAGERIE!" out loud, be ready to f***ing duck and cover.

Having said that...I cannot deny that I'm curious about an official answer.

I need to know. Why? who is he/she/it?

It's a Star Trek episode that some fans would like to consider non-canon. But as far as Paramount is concerned, every episode is 'officially canon', so yeah..

[Eddie]

Is GT cannon? Of course not! What in the world does GT have to do with weaponry?

As for the whole continuity thing, we may never know. Hopefully DBO (if it ever comes out) or a future special will clear things up.

[Bussani]

Is GT cannon? Of course not! What in the world does GT have to do with weaponry?

As for the whole continuity thing, we may never know. Hopefully DBO (if it ever comes out) or a future special will clear things up.

This brings up an interesting point; whether something is canon or not can change. We generally consider GT non-canon to the manga because Toriyama didn't write it. But if Toriyama then wrote a continuation set after GT, that made references to GT events...opinions might change. But then, would GT be canon to the original manga, or only canon to the new manga?

Canon is confusing.

[B]

What makes GT any more or any less canon than a fanfic? Because some Japanese executives jumped through some hoops and signed some papers and held some meetings?

Dragon Ball as a whole is tough to have a strict canon thanks to:

A) Originally being a gag manga, where rabbits an breathe in space, but the hope of the universe can't. Or, he lost the ability too...
B) Toriyama not really caring.

However, if you have to have some sort of canon, which you sort of do to partake in Dragon Ball discussion(if you don't, you could just say any old thing with no backing or reference, like Goku's father being a scientist.), I'd go with the manga, the original and only source for a little over a year until the anime reared it's head, and guidebooks, since they're supposedly supervised by him. But even then, I've seen people question those with "Well, HOW supervised were the books? Did they ask Toriyama to come up with this? Or was it their idea and then got Toriyama's approval to print it as a guide?"

[Teclo]

What makes GT any more or any less canon than a fanfic? Because some Japanese executives jumped through some hoops and signed some papers and held some meetings?

Because Toriyama was involved and actually approved it? It's like saying what's the difference between the Hellboy movies and a Hellboy fanfiction - but Mike Mignola did designs and approved Guillermo Del Toro's take on it, even though the stories weren't written by Mignola himself.

[Olivier Hague]

The term canon can't be used without context.

It can, actually. It's just that there's no objective/official Dragon Ball canon, just fan-made ones.

[Bussani]

The term canon can't be used without context.

It can, actually. It's just that there's no objective/official Dragon Ball canon, just fan-made ones.

In those cases, I would think 'official canon' would be the context. You just don't have to spell it out that way for most people.

[Teclo]

The term canon can't be used without context.

It can, actually. It's just that there's no objective/official Dragon Ball canon, just fan-made ones.

In those cases, I would think 'official canon' would be the context. You just don't have to spell it out that way for most people.

But that's just it, though. There isn't an official canon that's accepted by the fans. GT is technically canon but many fans don't accept it as such. Anyway, as has been said, canon is a pretty useless concept in Dragon Ball. When Goku puts the rabbit guy on the moon, his staff extends all the way there - so it's "canon" that his staff can extend for many thousands of miles. No one would really accept that as a fact, though, citing that as "just a gag". So in that sense, even something that really did happen "canonically" can be ignored by the fans.

One of the reasons fans say GT isn't canon is the plot holes. Apparently one example is how it's said that once someone is dead, they can't doe again whereas in the Buu Saga it's said that they can die again and will be gone for good. So, they say, that means GT isn't canon. But I'm wondering, don't they also say that the dead can't die again all through DBZ? I'm not sure if they gave some special reason in the Buu Saga (gotta love retconning...) but if not, that would eliminate this argument.

[Bussani]

GT is technically canon

...Why? Canon to what?

What I was saying is, in some cases (Star Trek) there is an 'official canon'. So if someone says 'Star Trek canon', you automatically assume that's what they're talking about. It's still a context. If you say "this book is canon" when talking about Star Trek, you know they mean "the official canon, canon to the series/movies."

GT can't just be "Dragon Ball canon" because there is no such thing. It has to be canon to something.

One of the reasons fans say GT isn't canon is the plot holes. Apparently one example is how it's said that once someone is dead, they can't doe again whereas in the Buu Saga it's said that they can die again and will be gone for good. So, they say, that means GT isn't canon. But I'm wondering, don't they also say that the dead can't die again all through DBZ? I'm not sure if they gave some special reason in the Buu Saga (gotta love retconning...) but if not, that would eliminate this argument.

Only filler says that you can't die again when you're dead, I believe. Except for things like, "it's not like you will starve to death," since you don't need to eat when you're dead.

[VegettoEX]

Stealing from desirecampbell, who thinks he stole it from Duo:



Correcting thread title .

[Teclo]

GT is technically canon

...Why? Canon to what?

Well it's a confusing thing ultimately, because canon itself more or less means something like "official", so by saying "official canon" we're saying "what's officially official?"

GT is certainly official, it was produced by Toei with Toriyama's designs, concepts, permission and finally approval. Then again, DBE is also official but is clearly almost entirely unrelated to Toriyama's creation. He said himself that he considers it a "New Dragon Ball" that's in a "2nd dimension" or something along those lines. He didn't say the same about GT, though, instead giving his full support to it - but then even that's ambiguous because Japanese people tend to publicly act like that anyway; you wouldn't really see a Japanese person saying "Those bastards fucked up my beloved creation!" or something like that.

I don't think one can base this all on plot holes and inconsistencies because the manga was full of them, as was the anime, as are the films. Just the other day I realised how maddeningly ridiculous it is that Goku sends Trunks to get the Dragon Radar while he himself goes to hold up Buu. Goku gets to Buu by teleporting... So why didn't he just teleport to Capsule Corp himself and get the radar that way? Because that can be put down to "silly Goku", it wouldn't enter into a canon argument, but I think that it just goes to show how badly thought out the various events are in DB (Toriiyama even admitted that he gave no thought to what was going to happen next) to the point that, in my opinion, as long as it's all officially endorsed, it's canon. Even if it's shit and you don't want it to be.

[Rory]

long as it's all officially endorsed, it's canon. Even if it's shit and you don't want it to be.

Cool story man. Except, if it's not fully woven into the timeline, I don't consider it canon.
So, I don't want it to be.. and it isn't canon!

[Bussani]

because canon itself more or less means something like "official", so by saying "official canon" we're saying "what's officially official?"

as long as it's all officially endorsed, it's canon.

That's not what canon means at all. It isn't another word for 'official'. Not in the sense you're talking about anyway.

When talking about fictional universes, canon is a group of related works that take place in the same continuity. It doesn't matter if it was written by a professional writer or an amateur. Companies produce plenty of officially sanctioned products that they admit aren't canon to their main continuity.

For instance, there are literally thousands of officially produced Star Trek novels, none of which (except maybe a very select few) are canon to the series.

[Olivier Hague]

GT is technically canon

...Why? Canon to what?

Canon to some people. ^^

The whole idea of "canon" is to separate what "counts" (= what is canonical) from what doesn't (= everything else). There is no "grey area" (or there shouldn't be, as that would defeat the entire concept).
But when there's no official take on canon (as is the case here), people will have different opinions regarding what's canonical.

I know Star Wars (among others) has the idea of "canon levels", but really, it doesn't change much. For example, if I don't care about the "Expanded Universe" (i.e. the novels that take place before, in-between and after the movies, that kind of thing), that will mean the higher level of canon is the one that concerns me, and the other levels don't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.
Ultimately, the "different canon levels" thing is just an admittedly clever, if somewhat cynical, way of milking the franchise while attempting not to alienate those who don't like the Expanded Universe.
To those who don't like the Expanded Universe, they're saying:
"The Expanded Universe is canonical.
-Really? Well, that sucks. I hate those books.
-Er... Well, y'know, they're only canonical on some relatively low level. Ultimately, Lucas could come out and contradict everything in the novels.
-Oh, that's cool, then."
To those who do like the expanded Universe, they're saying:
"The Expanded Universe is canonical.
-Cool! I love those books!
-... until Lucas says it's not...
-What was that?
-Nothing!"

What I was saying is, in some cases (Star Trek) there is an 'official canon'. So if someone says 'Star Trek canon', you automatically assume that's what they're talking about. It's still a context. If you say "this book is canon" when talking about Star Trek, you know they mean "the official canon, canon to the series/movies."

Yes, when there's an official canon, it makes things quite a bit easier.

Well it's a confusing thing ultimately, because canon itself more or less means something like "official"

Not really, no. If it did mean that, things would be a lot simpler. ^_^;
Those talks of canon are about separating what "counts" from what doesn't among the official material.

DBE is also official but is clearly almost entirely unrelated to Toriyama's creation. He said himself that he considers it a "New Dragon Ball" that's in a "2nd dimension" or something along those lines. He didn't say the same about GT, though, instead giving his full support to it

Well, he did call it a "side story" when he could have said it was a sequel...

even that's ambiguous because Japanese people tend to publicly act like that anyway; you wouldn't really see a Japanese person saying "Those bastards fucked up my beloved creation!" or something like that.

It's pretty rare, indeed.

[Bussani]

GT is technically canon

...Why? Canon to what?

Canon to some people. ^^

Yeah, that's what I mean. When there's no official canon you can't just say "this is canon, this isn't." For something to be canon, it has to be canon to a group of works.

Take Tenchi Muyo! for example. There are tons of officially produced series' that have no relation to each other what-so-ever. So if you just said, "the Tenchi TV series is canon," it's kind of nonsensical. Canon to what? Canon to this series? Canon to that series?

Another Star Trek example. As we know, Paramount has a plainly spelled out canon policy, which makes things nice and easy. The novels are not part of the official, Paramount canon. However, some novels may be canon to each other, such as some of the books written by Mr Shatner, which take place in the same continuity.

For the record, I find explaining the term canon extremely hard.

[B]

What makes GT any more or any less canon than a fanfic? Because some Japanese executives jumped through some hoops and signed some papers and held some meetings?

Because Toriyama was involved and actually approved it? It's like saying what's the difference between the Hellboy movies and a Hellboy fanfiction - but Mike Mignola did designs and approved Guillermo Del Toro's take on it, even though the stories weren't written by Mignola himself.

Toriyama designed characters, but that was it. Character designs have no bearing on canon; story does. And since:

A) Lots of crap in GT doesn't make sense,
B) Toriyama didn't actually write any of it...

I don't think one can base this all on plot holes and inconsistencies because the manga was full of them, as was the anime, as are the films. Just the other day I realised how maddeningly ridiculous it is that Goku sends Trunks to get the Dragon Radar while he himself goes to hold up Buu. Goku gets to Buu by teleporting... So why didn't he just teleport to Capsule Corp himself and get the radar that way? Because that can be put down to "silly Goku", it wouldn't enter into a canon argument, but I think that it just goes to show how badly thought out the various events are in DB (Toriiyama even admitted that he gave no thought to what was going to happen next) to the point that, in my opinion, as long as it's all officially endorsed, it's canon. Even if it's shit and you don't want it to be.

It's just basic human reasoning, dude. The show is full of plotholes AND it wasn't written(nor were the individual episodes or storylines approved) by Toriyama; two great reasons to consider it not canon. It's got nothing to do with it being shit or not, or that people "don't want it to be canon"; Movie 7 is fucking great and it can't be fit into any sort of canon spot of the manga OR anime without treading on serious water. By excluding GT, talking about Dragon Ball in-universe and explaining it to someone else becomes a whole lot simpler.