PDA

View Full Version : Canon vs. Non-Canon...The Big One.


zebrakiller
10-22-2009, 10:17 PM
Alright this is it. i doubt anyone will jump on this since i find many ppl don't pay attention to my posts but here goes. An issue that has irked me all across the battlerounds is the inconsistency in the use of canonity as evidence to support ur argument. The definition of what is canon when discussing certain characters, universes, powers, etc. is hazy to say the least. So this thread is to debate what works and what doesn't, though i doubt we'll reach a consensus, probly have to agree to disagree. A few rules:
1. no neg repping (unless someone flames u), all opinions are welcome and appreciated.
2. no flaming or spamming, pure unadulterated politicking only plz
3. try to back up ur arguments with evidence wherever possible. if u can't post a link due to copyright or forum rules or w/e, try to refer ppl to the material so they can look it up themselves if so inclined.

rocklee...im calling u out in particular

round one wil begin with the following post...ding ding ding.

zebrakiller
10-22-2009, 10:22 PM
the biggest argument ppl seem to have is that if its not written/produced by the original creator then its not canon and therefore holds no weight. This doesn't stand up...particularly when u look at how ppl debate comics. For example, I've seen ppl saying big bad superman is an invincible omnipotent demi-god...but this isn't consistent with the "original creator" argument. Jerry shuster and joe siegels superman was "faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"... not massively FTL, universe busting...he couldnt even fly. the more epic S-man was pre crisis on infinite earths, in stories written by many different writers. post crisis we see a more vulnerable superman as well but still more powerful than the very original... this is inconsistency number one.

Naruto321
10-22-2009, 11:11 PM
I agree with you.

C4 Karura
10-24-2009, 08:41 AM
When it comes to Naruto, only the manga should count. I don't really care about the other series.

zebrakiller
10-24-2009, 02:45 PM
When it comes to Naruto, only the manga should count. I don't really care about the other series.
why should only the manga count tho?

kazzim13
10-24-2009, 05:53 PM
I feel that the manga leaves too much out. Looking at a fight that has happened in both the manga seems like the rough draft that the author made the ideas and put them in frames that leave many to speculate what happens inbetween. It's hard to judge time and distance in the manga in many of the fights. Also the anime uses just about every frame shown in the manga but it fills in the holes as well.

I also thought that everything that is shown in the anime filler included is approved by the author of the manga. If that's the case then I don't see any problem with using the information provided from the filler. If the author didn't agree with it he wouldn't have allowed it to be in it because it would cause issues with the story on down the line.

ChaosInuYasha
10-24-2009, 08:36 PM
I feel that the manga leaves too much out. Looking at a fight that has happened in both the manga seems like the rough draft that the author made the ideas and put them in frames that leave many to speculate what happens inbetween. It's hard to judge time and distance in the manga in many of the fights. Also the anime uses just about every frame shown in the manga but it fills in the holes as well.

I also thought that everything that is shown in the anime filler included is approved by the author of the manga. If that's the case then I don't see any problem with using the information provided from the filler. If the author didn't agree with it he wouldn't have allowed it to be in it because it would cause issues with the story on down the line.

That's where you're wrong. It's filler for a reason. It's made by the anime company so the author can get ahead with the story. Filler is non-canon since it doesn't happen in the manga. I mean Toriyama approved of Toei using his characters for GT but GT never happened officially since the manga ends at the end of DBZ. Also filler happens outside of the continuity so it doesn't cause problems with the manga.

zebrakiller
10-24-2009, 08:41 PM
That's where you're wrong. It's filler for a reason. It's made by the anime company so the author can get ahead with the story. Filler is non-canon since it doesn't happen in the manga. I mean Toriyama approved of Toei using his characters for GT but GT never happened officially since the manga ends at the end of DBZ. Also filler happens outside of the continuity so it doesn't cause problems with the manga.
"because it doesn't happen in the manga" isn't an explanation of why something's not canon...which is what we're debating here. all of this comes down to what u consider canon to be...its true the meaning of the word canon is " a set of literature deemed authentic by the author" but that doesnt mean that directly related material based on the source and often produced in collaboration with the author is undebatable.

ChaosInuYasha
10-24-2009, 08:44 PM
"because it doesn't happen in the manga" isn't an explanation of why something's not canon...which is what we're debating here. all of this comes down to what u consider canon to be...its true the meaning of the word canon is " a set of literature deemed authentic by the author" but that doesnt mean that directly related material based on the source and often produced in collaboration with the author is undebatable.

You just answered your own question. Filler is not canon since it was not deemed authentic by the author. GT is not canon for the same reason.

deidara330
10-24-2009, 08:46 PM
I don't like the use of Non-canon in debates. Like Ino, there was a huge debate between whether Ino could defeat Konohamaru or not and most of it was based around Mind Destruction Jutsu. Ino can't use Mind Destruction Jutsu, because it was anime only.

zebrakiller
10-24-2009, 08:46 PM
yeah i know that... but im saying that doesnt apply here...the author isnt an anime producer so obviously the anime can't be part of his "canon" body of literature...but the author approves the anime and contributes to it for a reason...and there are far more consistencies between animes and mangas than there are inconsistencies

ChaosInuYasha
10-24-2009, 09:28 PM
yeah i know that... but im saying that doesnt apply here...the author isnt an anime producer so obviously the anime can't be part of his "canon" body of literature...but the author approves the anime and contributes to it for a reason...and there are far more consistencies between animes and mangas than there are inconsistencies

Yeah most of the anime is canon. Fillers are NOT canon though. They never were canon. They are made by the anime studios for 1) a buffer between the anime and manga and 2) entertainment.

Vatanui AKA Pride
10-24-2009, 09:40 PM
Yeah most of the anime is canon. Fillers are NOT canon though. They never were canon. They are made by the anime studios for 1) a buffer between the anime and manga and 2) entertainment.

Yep, FILLER, also mentioned as "Non-Canon", isn't real. It never really happened, and was only made for~

A) To give the author enough time to catch up on his/her work.

B) To give side-characters more screen time

and

C) To lengthen the timeline of the anime, and to entertain.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 08:34 AM
Yep, FILLER, also mentioned as "Non-Canon", isn't real. It never really happened, and was only made for~

A) To give the author enough time to catch up on his/her work.

B) To give side-characters more screen time

and

C) To lengthen the timeline of the anime, and to entertain.
You can't really say "it never happened"...because it did, u saw it happen, i saw it happen...theres some legitimate character development that goes on during filler...i dont think we can ignore that.

deidara330
10-25-2009, 08:39 AM
You can't really say "it never happened"...because it did, u saw it happen, i saw it happen...theres some legitimate character development that goes on during filler...i dont think we can ignore that.
If it happened why didn't Ino use Mind Destruction on Hidan during their fight? ANd why has Naruto never use the jutsu with the toads outside of the filler arc? It didn't happen in the manga, so the manga can't have it. And if the manga doesn't have it, it's not a part of the original Naruto storyline.

Vatanui AKA Pride
10-25-2009, 10:58 AM
If it happened why didn't Ino use Mind Destruction on Hidan during their fight? ANd why has Naruto never use the jutsu with the toads outside of the filler arc? It didn't happen in the manga, so the manga can't have it. And if the manga doesn't have it, it's not a part of the original Naruto storyline.

Yep, it was only made for the reasons I posted earlier.

Manwe Sulimo
10-25-2009, 12:14 PM
There can be different "versions" of comic characters, depending on who the author was at the time. That's why it is useful for the thread starter to specify the version. Like with Superman- Original version? Pre-Crisis? Post-Crisis? Current? Thread starters need to specify to avoid ambiguity.

As for manga-based anime like Naruto, the anime can have inconsistencies and add stuff the manga author never wrote or intended to write. That's why the manga should always be considered over the anime in case of a inconsistency, and is in general a better source for feats and arguments. Of course, thread starters can say stuff like "Anime feats are allowed" or "Manga feats only" and people who post in the thread should go by that rule.

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 07:01 PM
I would've posted some rant about how this thread ignores the facts of canon logic, but I was beaten to it.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 08:16 PM
There can be different "versions" of comic characters, depending on who the author was at the time. That's why it is useful for the thread starter to specify the version. Like with Superman- Original version? Pre-Crisis? Post-Crisis? Current? Thread starters need to specify to avoid ambiguity.

As for manga-based anime like Naruto, the anime can have inconsistencies and add stuff the manga author never wrote or intended to write. That's why the manga should always be considered over the anime in case of a inconsistency, and is in general a better source for feats and arguments. Of course, thread starters can say stuff like "Anime feats are allowed" or "Manga feats only" and people who post in the thread should go by that rule.
i understand those arguments. but take for example dragonball...the original series was basically the manga on film...granted there was filler but the db storyline was less rigid anyway so the continuity didnt suffer. Then dbz came around, under direct influence from toriyama...but dbz laid out so much new material, new character developments, new story... the anime became as much a part of the dbz universe as the manga. ppl act like gt doesnt exist because theres no manga, but it builds so closely off the previous anime it extends the universe that much further. when u make a thread like "dbz verse vs. narutoverse" both those universes encompass more than just the manga...the anime, the movies its all part of the evolution of these types of media. u can't limit it to "what the author intends" or even what he has done already...its bigger than just the author. i sound like a structuralist...

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 08:19 PM
i understand those arguments. but take for example dragonball...the original series was basically the manga on film...granted there was filler but the db storyline was less rigid anyway so the continuity didnt suffer. Then dbz came around, under direct influence from toriyama...but dbz laid out so much new material, new character developments, new story... the anime became as much a part of the dbz universe as the manga. ppl act like gt doesnt exist because theres no manga, but it builds so closely off the previous anime it extends the universe that much further. when u make a thread like "dbz verse vs. narutoverse" both those universes encompass more than just the manga...the anime, the movies its all part of the evolution of these types of media. u can't limit it to "what the author intends" or even what he has done already...its bigger than just the author. i sound like a structuralist...

What you don't realize is that GT and filler not only fail, but have many inconsistencies. Just because they add extra material doesn't mean it's better or canon, it just means that they used it to let the manga get time to release and made up some random material to entertain fans while this happened. As for GT, it was some random junk made by the anime company for no apparent reason, it wasn't that great either.

The original material is what is canon, and that's what you don't get. It doesn't matter whether the author never got a chance to do something the anime did, if he wanted to so much, he would've done it. Honestly now, filler is filled with inconsistencies but somehow you ignore that and think it's canon, if only because you like it.

Phoenix Wright
10-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Yeah alike Naruto, if its anime only and not filler at the same time, it's still non-canon, and the basic rule is it fails in a debate. Goku shouldn't be able to go SS4 unless you state it yourself, Akira never made that himself. It was Anime only where Sasori used a sand clone, but not filler, it's debatable that he can use it, although a main rule that is nearly 100% True is that if you don't show it you don't know it.

The direct creator would have to have thought of the ideas, or had it in mind. Yes that includes comics, and Superman is massively FTL.

Example: Yuukimaru is the host of the Sanbi in a filler. But for real, later on, Yagura is the host iirc. So you can't say Yuukimaru would fight anyone, etc.

Better Example: Goku SS4 vs Naruto. Goku stomps (Duh) but since it's been state, you can use the anime version. If it was ordinary Goku from the start, it's non-canon.

Stan Lee was affilated with the making of the movie Spiderman, although Spiderman can single out ANY Naruto character, if this competes with the movie version it's clear even Konohamaru could stomp.

Being canon or not does show good in a debate, anyone can back it up with feats and facts.

Example: Sasori vs Suigetsu.

Person A: Sasori wins.
Person B: No, how does he win?
*Long debate about iron sand*
Person B: Then how would he dodge that attack? *Talks about the attack*
Person A: He would use a sand clone.
Person B: That's non-canon, he hasn't shown it, read the manga.

As you can see, he can back it up by saying because it's non canon he hasn't shown it, "read the manga" can also back it up.

I've explained enough for now.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 08:55 PM
What you don't realize is that GT and filler not only fail, but have many inconsistencies. Just because they add extra material doesn't mean it's better or canon, it just means that they used it to let the manga get time to release and made up some random material to entertain fans while this happened. As for GT, it was some random junk made by the anime company for no apparent reason, it wasn't that great either.

The original material is what is canon, and that's what you don't get. It doesn't matter whether the author never got a chance to do something the anime did, if he wanted to so much, he would've done it. Honestly now, filler is filled with inconsistencies but somehow you ignore that and think it's canon, if only because you like it.
i know exactly what canon means...read the earlier posts in the thread before replying please...i didnt say gt was good it was pretty terrible but it furthered the dbz universe regardless and u cant deny that...im saying the onus isnt on the manga or "catching up" or w/e, the anime is a legitimate piece of work that adds depth to the characters and story...and offers a lot of tangible evidence esp. when debating powers and abilities

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 09:04 PM
i know exactly what canon means...read the earlier posts in the thread before replying please...i didnt say gt was good it was pretty terrible but it furthered the dbz universe regardless and u cant deny that...im saying the onus isnt on the manga or "catching up" or w/e, the anime is a legitimate piece of work that adds depth to the characters and story...and offers a lot of tangible evidence esp. when debating powers and abilities

So what? GT is still non canon, filled with inconsistencies, and technically never happened in the Dragon Ball universe. And yes, it's common sense that filler is made to allow the manga to advance the story, do you think that the Naruto anime creators seriously made around 100 episodes of filler to "entertain" the fanbase? Because it was a pretty pathetic attempt to entertain imo, and if anything, only like 3 or 4 arcs of it were any good. And no matter how much I like a certain filler, it is still non canon because it never truly happened.

The anime may add more exciting details or depth to a character's background, but the matter of fact is that it's still non canon and never truly happened. It doesn't matter whether it was good, bad, interesting, or whatever, it never happened so it can't be used in a debate.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 09:09 PM
So what? GT is still non canon, filled with inconsistencies, and technically never happened in the Dragon Ball universe. And yes, it's common sense that filler is made to allow the manga to advance the story, do you think that the Naruto anime creators seriously made around 100 episodes of filler to "entertain" the fanbase? Because it was a pretty pathetic attempt to entertain imo, and if anything, only like 3 or 4 arcs of it were any good. And no matter how much I like a certain filler, it is still non canon because it never truly happened.

The anime may add more exciting details or depth to a character's background, but the matter of fact is that it's still non canon and never truly happened. It doesn't matter whether it was good, bad, interesting, or whatever, it never happened so it can't be used in a debate.
you see ur not debating...ur simply stating that its not canon so it cant be debated because it doesnt exist...the point of this thread is to question: 1) why do u think it can't be debated (and the answer "because its not canon" doesnt work) and 2) why u think it doesnt exist ( when ive been telling u how it has added to the universe and imo does exist and should be debatable.

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 09:16 PM
you see ur not debating...ur simply stating that its not canon so it cant be debated because it doesnt exist...the point of this thread is to question: 1) why do u think it can't be debated (and the answer "because its not canon" doesnt work) and 2) why u think it doesnt exist ( when ive been telling u how it has added to the universe and imo does exist and should be debatable.

You're not debating either, you say because the anime creators made it, it exists even though it's an ADAPTATION of the original, meaning it is a copy in color and moving format.

I've told you multiple times, filler has INCONSISTENCIES, meaning they use a lot of junk that defies the original manga and was never created officially to begin with.

It doesn't exist because the original, official source of the series never used it. Sorry, but you can't prove that it existed in the canon universe, know why? Simply because it didn't. Them's the breaks around here, if you don't like it then too bad, the problem is with you, not me.

Just because the non-canon, unoriginal form of the series has material doesn't mean it follows the original. Filler never existed, mainly because it never was intended to be created and defies the laws of proven manga evidence. Now if this was a debate on Gurren Lagann, we use the anime because that is canon. However, Dragon Ball and Naruto are not Gurren Lagann, and originated from the manga.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 09:27 PM
You're not debating either, you say because the anime creators made it, it exists even though it's an ADAPTATION of the original, meaning it is a copy in color and moving format.

I've told you multiple times, filler has INCONSISTENCIES, meaning they use a lot of junk that defies the original manga and was never created officially to begin with.

It doesn't exist because the original, official source of the series never used it. Sorry, but you can't prove that it existed in the canon universe, know why? Simply because it didn't. Them's the breaks around here, if you don't like it then too bad, the problem is with you, not me.

Just because the non-canon, unoriginal form of the series has material doesn't mean it follows the original. Filler never existed, mainly because it never was intended to be created and defies the laws of proven manga evidence. Now if this was a debate on Gurren Lagann, we use the anime because that is canon. However, Dragon Ball and Naruto are not Gurren Lagann, and originated from the manga.
im not saying the non canon stuff does follow the original (though it usually does) see like i said in the first post that argument breaks down with comics...the original creator hardly ever writes and plans the stories but when arguing about them everyone jumps to the strongest version of every character...manga is a static medium, u have to go from frame to frame so u cant cover everything simply because it would make a tremendously long book...anime can move thru the original material quickly like u said and so has more opportunity to expand on it. there us as much consistency as inconsistency...and clearly kishimoto has signed off on the use and adaptation of his story and characters. it shouldnt have to be 100% from the creators pen to be called "existent"

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 09:37 PM
im not saying the non canon stuff does follow the original (though it usually does) see like i said in the first post that argument breaks down with comics...the original creator hardly ever writes and plans the stories but when arguing about them everyone jumps to the strongest version of every character...manga is a static medium, u have to go from frame to frame so u cant cover everything simply because it would make a tremendously long book...anime can move thru the original material quickly like u said and so has more opportunity to expand on it. there us as much consistency as inconsistency...and clearly kishimoto has signed off on the use and adaptation of his story and characters. it shouldnt have to be 100% from the creators pen to be called "existent"

Comic canon is not the same as anime canon. Even if the original author stops, the same company is working on the same story. This does not apply with anime because unlike with comics, the anime team is a completely different group from the manga creators.

You still haven't proven how filler is good for debates. All you're doing is assuming that the author somehow "didn't have time" to write all of the material in filler so you make up some junk that it's automatically canon somehow because it is still affiliated with Naruto when that's not the case. And the only reason anime has consistencies is because it's BASED off of the show, honestly now what do you think this is, Full Metal Alchemist? It's based off the same story but makes up a lot of material that never happened in the manga and defies feats.

You still haven't countered how the anime makes up for the multiple inconsistencies besides saying that it has "as many consistencies" when that's only because the storyline is the same. The story in the anime doesn't make up for the feat contradictions.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 09:45 PM
Comic canon is not the same as anime canon. Even if the original author stops, the same company is working on the same story. This does not apply with anime because unlike with comics, the anime team is a completely different group from the manga creators.

You still haven't proven how filler is good for debates. All you're doing is assuming that the author somehow "didn't have time" to write all of the material in filler so you make up some junk that it's automatically canon somehow because it is still affiliated with Naruto when that's not the case. And the only reason anime has consistencies is because it's BASED off of the show, honestly now what do you think this is, Full Metal Alchemist? It's based off the same story but makes up a lot of material that never happened in the manga and defies feats.

You still haven't countered how the anime makes up for the multiple inconsistencies besides saying that it has "as many consistencies" when that's only because the storyline is the same. The story in the anime doesn't make up for the feat contradictions.
filler is good for debates because it encompasses a lot of characterization let out of the manga, thats my argument plain and simple. i dont assume the author didnt have time to write filler material i dont care who wrote it just like with comics (btw what u said about comics is completely false most original comic characters start with their own "company" or are started in a mashup comic which is then bought up by a company like dc). manga creators most definitely work with anime teams, specific example db and toriyama, toriyama supervised the production of all 3 animes. im saying the manga doesnt "defy" feats because the feats are "proven" in the anime...the two should go hand in hand.

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 09:49 PM
filler is good for debates because it encompasses a lot of characterization let out of the manga, thats my argument plain and simple. i dont assume the author didnt have time to write filler material i dont care who wrote it just like with comics (btw what u said about comics is completely false most original comic characters start with their own "company" or are started in a mashup comic which is then bought up by a company like dc). manga creators most definitely work with anime teams, specific example db and toriyama, toriyama supervised the production of all 3 animes. im saying the manga doesnt "defy" feats because the feats are "proven" in the anime...the two should go hand in hand.

The thing is, it wasn't in the manga and never existed in it, so it's not canon. I don't understand how you don't get it.

Okay, so what's your point about the comics? The original creator joins a company, and their work becomes part of it, so when they leave the story made by another is still canon. You didn't prove anything and are just trying to act smart.

Even if the manga creators "work with" the teams, they let the anime creators write their own stories and create their own characters. The writers don't really create the filler, they guide the animators with what they need. I don't see how you think that because Toriyama "supervises" the animation, that it is suddenly canon and completely his work, when the animators did like 95% of the material anyway.

Phoenix Wright
10-25-2009, 09:54 PM
filler is good for debates because it encompasses a lot of characterization let out of the manga, thats my argument plain and simple. i dont assume the author didnt have time to write filler material i dont care who wrote it just like with comics (btw what u said about comics is completely false most original comic characters start with their own "company" or are started in a mashup comic which is then bought up by a company like dc). manga creators most definitely work with anime teams, specific example db and toriyama, toriyama supervised the production of all 3 animes. im saying the manga doesnt "defy" feats because the feats are "proven" in the anime...the two should go hand in hand.

The answers to your questions like you said in a previous post, are for one, it's not canon and fails because it doesn't exist in the first place, and I don't think it exists because it's not like Masashi agrees with Yuukimaru being a character yet completely defies it in the manga.

It does add to character development, but to the main storyline it does get defied either way; it's non-canon. As for the defy feats, they don't go hand in hand. With an exception of Guren Lagann, the manga is usually ahead of the anime, and if the anime somehow proves the manga wrong, that's another inconsistency in the Anime because the original creator doesn't have anything to do with it and later on disproves it. It simply can't happen, if the anime says something, the true creator can say the opposite BAM right there and end that point.

Akira Toriyama ended before SS4 was made, it adds to the story yet it's a filler onto the story, excluding the copyright claim, which Akira had to give permission, Dragon Ball Z Sounds a hell of a lot like Dragon Ball. With the same character names? Hell yeah.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 09:58 PM
The thing is, it wasn't in the manga and never existed in it, so it's not canon. I don't understand how you don't get it.

Okay, so what's your point about the comics? The original creator joins a company, and their work becomes part of it, so when they leave the story made by another is still canon. You didn't prove anything and are just trying to act smart.

Even if the manga creators "work with" the teams, they let the anime creators write their own stories and create their own characters. The writers don't really create the filler, they guide the animators with what they need. I don't see how you think that because Toriyama "supervises" the animation, that it is suddenly canon and completely his work, when the animators did like 95% of the material anyway.
i didnt make any of the claims u just made...i understand ur whole "it wasn't in the manga and never existed in it, so it's not canon" i just dont agree with it. for the comics, take batman for example created by bob kane in 1939 but he turned over ownership almost immediately. he wrote quite a few stories but additions like robin and batgirl and tons of villains were never really his call...by ur definition basically all of batman would be non canon...but still debatable..? doesnt make sense to me. i didnt say the filler is all of a sudden canon i said it should be debatable...

Miles Edgeworth
10-25-2009, 10:00 PM
i didnt make any of the claims u just made...i understand ur whole "it wasn't in the manga and never existed in it, so it's not canon" i just dont agree with it. for the comics, take batman for example created by bob kane in 1939 but he turned over ownership almost immediately. he wrote quite a few stories but additions like robin and batgirl and tons of villains were never really his call...by ur definition basically all of batman would be non canon...but still debatable..? doesnt make sense to me. i didnt say the filler is all of a sudden canon i said it should be debatable...

DC got rights to Batman and is therefore the current authority on its canonicity (is that even a word? xD), so if the original author turned his rights to other companies then it's not really his anymore, or at the least, the new owners can create material that is considered canon. But manga authors haven't done that.

zebrakiller
10-25-2009, 10:02 PM
DC got rights to Batman and is therefore the current authority on its canonicity (is that even a word? xD), so if the original author turned his rights to other companies then it's not really his anymore, or at the least, the new owners can create material that is considered canon. But manga authors haven't done that.
how do u figure? if they are making an anime based on their work then the author would have to have given them some rights...

Phoenix Wright
10-25-2009, 10:09 PM
STOP IGNORING ME!!! :evil:

Okay, now anyways..

Akira never gave authority or sold his original DBZ, he gave the copyright permissions to the people and they started a new, non-canon anime. Everything from DC/Marvel from previous times is canon, many people buy it out time after time, it's all still canon. Now read my other posts, shame on your for completely ignoring my awesome posts.

ChaosInuYasha
10-25-2009, 10:22 PM
In my opinion the anime that follows the story is canon. Like if X character fights Y character in both the anime and manga and the fight goes along the same lines as it does in the manga it should be considered canon alongside the manga. That's just my $.02 though.

Phoenix Wright
10-25-2009, 10:40 PM
In my opinion the anime that follows the story is canon. Like if X character fights Y character in both the anime and manga and the fight goes along the same lines as it does in the manga it should be considered canon alongside the manga. That's just my $.02 though.

What you said already is canon, and already happened in the manga. The same thing with Sasori vs Chiyo+Sakura. Except Sasori using Sand Clone is non-canon.

The correct definition of canon is official, something the original creator thought up and put into play, so on and so forth. The anime such as filler follows the story as well, but merely advances it for character development. It's easily non-canon and facts to prove it are when the creator disproves it such as Masashi. Like Lee said, 95% Of Anime rely on themselves, they don't even consult Kishi.

In that case, like when Kishi proves them wrong, Yuukimaru = Sanbi, it's non-canon. Since Kishi hasn't proved the sand clone wrong it's still non-canon however, going with what Lee said and the fact Kishi never showed him use it in the manga anyways.

Dudes, your ignoring all my posts. Seriously.

Miles Edgeworth
10-26-2009, 03:48 PM
how do u figure? if they are making an anime based on their work then the author would have to have given them some rights...

You just said it yourself, they BASE if off the author's work, but that's not the case with comics. It's not basing it off of something if they're the ones creating the original story.

And I like how you ignore T_U's points but only debate mine.

deidara330
10-26-2009, 04:10 PM
What a fierce debate! *Grabs popcorn*

Since I just posted that, i might as well actually contribute something while I'm at it. I simply think that anything that happened in the anime but didn't in the manga is non-canon. I figured this to be common knowledge, and I find it considered as such among many people. I should think that, unless the creator of a debate thread specifically states that non-canon can be used, it shouldn't be.

Miles Edgeworth
10-26-2009, 04:13 PM
What a fierce debate! *Grabs popcorn*

Since I just posted that, i might as well actually contribute something while I'm at it. I simply think that anything that happened in the manga but didn't in the anime is non-canon. I figured this to be common knowledge, and I find it considered as such among many people. I should think that, unless the creator of a debate thread specifically states that non-canon can be used, it shouldn't be.

You mean anything that happened in the anime but didn't in the manga, right?

C4 Karura
10-26-2009, 05:11 PM
Yeah alike Naruto, if its anime only and not filler at the same time, it's still non-canon, and the basic rule is it fails in a debate. Goku shouldn't be able to go SS4 unless you state it yourself, Akira never made that himself. It was Anime only where Sasori used a sand clone, but not filler, it's debatable that he can use it, although a main rule that is nearly 100% True is that if you don't show it you don't know it.

The direct creator would have to have thought of the ideas, or had it in mind. Yes that includes comics, and Superman is massively FTL.

Example: Yuukimaru is the host of the Sanbi in a filler. But for real, later on, Yagura is the host iirc. So you can't say Yuukimaru would fight anyone, etc.

Better Example: Goku SS4 vs Naruto. Goku stomps (Duh) but since it's been state, you can use the anime version. If it was ordinary Goku from the start, it's non-canon.

Stan Lee was affilated with the making of the movie Spiderman, although Spiderman can single out ANY Naruto character, if this competes with the movie version it's clear even Konohamaru could stomp.

Being canon or not does show good in a debate, anyone can back it up with feats and facts.

Example: Sasori vs Suigetsu.

Person A: Sasori wins.
Person B: No, how does he win?
*Long debate about iron sand*
Person B: Then how would he dodge that attack? *Talks about the attack*
Person A: He would use a sand clone.
Person B: That's non-canon, he hasn't shown it, read the manga.

As you can see, he can back it up by saying because it's non canon he hasn't shown it, "read the manga" can also back it up.

I've explained enough for now.
Rep up for making a clever, funny case, while everyone else is making generic "Filler is Bad" cases. Anyway, I've seen the anime, and I never saw Sasori make a Sand Clone. What episode was that?

C4 Karura
10-26-2009, 05:30 PM
What you said already is canon, and already happened in the manga. The same thing with Sasori vs Chiyo+Sakura. Except Sasori using Sand Clone is non-canon.

The correct definition of canon is official, something the original creator thought up and put into play, so on and so forth. The anime such as filler follows the story as well, but merely advances it for character development. It's easily non-canon and facts to prove it are when the creator disproves it such as Masashi. Like Lee said, 95% Of Anime rely on themselves, they don't even consult Kishi.

In that case, like when Kishi proves them wrong, Yuukimaru = Sanbi, it's non-canon. Since Kishi hasn't proved the sand clone wrong it's still non-canon however, going with what Lee said and the fact Kishi never showed him use it in the manga anyways.

Dudes, your ignoring all my posts. Seriously.
How has Kishi proved "Yuukimaru = Sanbi" wrong? Yuukimaru wasn't a Jinchuriki to begin with, he just had that really lame "Stop-Three-Tails" ability, and even if he was, it still wouldn't be "proved wrong". All Kishi's said is that The Fourth Mizukage was the Sanbi's Jinchuriki at some point in the past. Saying Yuuki was a Sort-Of-Jinchuriki in the present doesn't create a consistensy error. (That's not to say I think it's canon, I just say it hasn't been disproven.)

deidara330
10-26-2009, 07:20 PM
You mean anything that happened in the anime but didn't in the manga, right?
LOL major typo. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Vatanui AKA Pride
10-26-2009, 07:54 PM
LOL major typo. Yeah, that's what I meant.
Lol, everybody makes mistakes. xDDD

zebrakiller
10-26-2009, 08:10 PM
like i said at the beginning, we'll probly have to agree to disagree...i think the anime contributes legit., meaningful material and therefore should be grounds to draw evidence from...by limiting all "true knowledge" to what has occurred in the manga we cut out a lot of useful material... its not like we can call up kishi everytime we wanna know who roflstomps who...

narutosagetoad
10-26-2009, 09:07 PM
Canon for the winin

Phoenix Wright
10-27-2009, 05:37 PM
Okay *I haven't read the third page, but I must say this before I go on.

Lee, thanks for at least mentioning me, and to you, it might be funny. To me, it's taboo. Freaking taboo. Come on Zebra! Show me your moves! Falcon Kick! Yeah! Bring it on.

And Karura, thanks, and I'm not sure what episode it was. It wasn't filler, but it was anime only.

Phoenix Wright
10-27-2009, 05:40 PM
How has Kishi proved "Yuukimaru = Sanbi" wrong? Yuukimaru wasn't a Jinchuriki to begin with, he just had that really lame "Stop-Three-Tails" ability, and even if he was, it still wouldn't be "proved wrong". All Kishi's said is that The Fourth Mizukage was the Sanbi's Jinchuriki at some point in the past. Saying Yuuki was a Sort-Of-Jinchuriki in the present doesn't create a consistensy error. (That's not to say I think it's canon, I just say it hasn't been disproven.)

Alright I read the third page. xD Finally someone comments on at least one of my posts -_-

It was just an example, there are a lot more inconsistencies. There are VERY rare cases if an anime episode shows someone do something they've never done before, and it ends up happening in the manga.

Yuukimaru however, as consistent as he may be, he's anime only for sure, but also filler. He has nothing to do with Kishi and simply doesn't exist. It adds to character development but Kish could disprove their personality and the like later on. I'd pay someone $500 if Kishi ever mentioned Yuukimaru in the manga.

yokokurama
10-27-2009, 06:12 PM
I don't want to get sucked into a huge debate, so I'm just going to give some stuff to consider. If you do, please consider all of it fully and thoroughly, not just a random sentence.

I will say is copyright is what is official. The people who hold a copyright to a given entity get to decide what happens.
Example: In the beginning, Superman was a much weaker character than he is now. The reason is over time new authors/writers gave him new powers, many of which have been accepted as canon. The new authors were given legal rights to write about Superman by Warner Bros, because the original authors are dead.

So the copyright guys have the official say LEGALLY. Note that our society is based on laws and legality. Don't believe me, try to write a story about Naruto and sell it. You will get sued because you don't have the legal rights.

If you want to say canon is what the fans decide, then listen to this:
General consensus of people don't read comics. General consensus (in USA) of DBZ universe fans watched the anime and never touched the manga. They accept DBGT as a legitimate show although they might have thought it was bad. They still accept it as what happen. So the general consensus accepts DB-DBZ-DBGT anime as canon, not what the manga says.
General consenus of naruto fans in the US actually do not read the manga, they watch the anime and accept the anime as canon.

The common theme is that most people do not read comics/manga. There are more people that watch shows about Transformers, Naruto, Superheros, etc, than those who read comics. The comic industry is a dying business, look it up. It makes millions each year yes, but it is dwindling. Marvel makes most of its money on movies, even though its a comic book company. So anyways, if you base canon on what fans believe, its 9/10 times whatever is visual. Shows just tend to be more widely viewed than written stuff. That's how it is. Its easier to watch a show than read a book or comic. Heck why do comic books even have pictures rather than just text? Cause images are easier to follow than words.

To those who want to stick with canon because "filler" introduces elements the original author didn't put in, you're just being silly for no reason.

My question for all those who think its the original's authors word only is....did you know every writer is told to change things by their editor, sometimes a lot? Did you know Naruto is not the exact way Kishimoto wanted it. There are changes the editors have forced him to make. That is how publishing works. The editors control what is allowed to happen. The author comes up with the ideas and story, but if the editors do not approve, then it does not go into print. So 99% of works are NOT the author's original writing. BECAUSE the editors and publisher signed contracts with Kishimoto, giving them some say over the story. They have a contract which gives them partial copyright control. Kishimoto cannot switch to a new publisher because he has signed a contract giving Viz Media partial copyrights. So in the end copyrights are what matter.

Similarly the manga is NEVER going to be exactly as the original author intended because of change in translating. There are some words that cannot be translated from Japanese to English, so the translators have to choose words to put in place, thus putting their own ideas in the story. Its in a very small way, but its still partly different from the original author's intention. So unless you read a manga in the original language (Hope you know Japanese) you are accepting a text that is NOT the author's 100% original work. So by your own standards that would make certain phrases "filler" because they were not translated into English by the original author.

yokokurama
10-27-2009, 06:40 PM
also just wanted to say that manga is inconsistent too at times. Like Gaara couldn't catch Deidara even with the shukaku inside him, but then afterwards he has supersonic sand. Did getting rid of the shukaku take off some xtra weight there?

deidara330
10-27-2009, 06:56 PM
also just wanted to say that manga is inconsistent too at times. Like Gaara couldn't catch Deidara even with the shukaku inside him, but then afterwards he has supersonic sand. Did getting rid of the shukaku take off some xtra weight there?
That's not an inconsistency, Jinchuriki retain their powers once the beasts have been extracted. He simply could've trained with his sand to make it faster, since it was no longer an automatic power.

zebrakiller
10-27-2009, 09:51 PM
Alright I read the third page. xD Finally someone comments on at least one of my posts -_-

It was just an example, there are a lot more inconsistencies. There are VERY rare cases if an anime episode shows someone do something they've never done before, and it ends up happening in the manga.

Yuukimaru however, as consistent as he may be, he's anime only for sure, but also filler. He has nothing to do with Kishi and simply doesn't exist. It adds to character development but Kish could disprove their personality and the like later on. I'd pay someone $500 if Kishi ever mentioned Yuukimaru in the manga.
i dont mean to ignore its just that i read threads top to bottom and i reply as soon as i see something i want to comment on so i kind of hopped all ur posts...ur points make sense but i dont agree.

I don't want to get sucked into a huge debate, so I'm just going to give some stuff to consider. If you do, please consider all of it fully and thoroughly, not just a random sentence.

I will say is copyright is what is official. The people who hold a copyright to a given entity get to decide what happens.
Example: In the beginning, Superman was a much weaker character than he is now. The reason is over time new authors/writers gave him new powers, many of which have been accepted as canon. The new authors were given legal rights to write about Superman by Warner Bros, because the original authors are dead.

So the copyright guys have the official say LEGALLY. Note that our society is based on laws and legality. Don't believe me, try to write a story about Naruto and sell it. You will get sued because you don't have the legal rights.

If you want to say canon is what the fans decide, then listen to this:
General consensus of people don't read comics. General consensus (in USA) of DBZ universe fans watched the anime and never touched the manga. They accept DBGT as a legitimate show although they might have thought it was bad. They still accept it as what happen. So the general consensus accepts DB-DBZ-DBGT anime as canon, not what the manga says.
General consenus of naruto fans in the US actually do not read the manga, they watch the anime and accept the anime as canon.

The common theme is that most people do not read comics/manga. There are more people that watch shows about Transformers, Naruto, Superheros, etc, than those who read comics. The comic industry is a dying business, look it up. It makes millions each year yes, but it is dwindling. Marvel makes most of its money on movies, even though its a comic book company. So anyways, if you base canon on what fans believe, its 9/10 times whatever is visual. Shows just tend to be more widely viewed than written stuff. That's how it is. Its easier to watch a show than read a book or comic. Heck why do comic books even have pictures rather than just text? Cause images are easier to follow than words.

To those who want to stick with canon because "filler" introduces elements the original author didn't put in, you're just being silly for no reason.

My question for all those who think its the original's authors word only is....did you know every writer is told to change things by their editor, sometimes a lot? Did you know Naruto is not the exact way Kishimoto wanted it. There are changes the editors have forced him to make. That is how publishing works. The editors control what is allowed to happen. The author comes up with the ideas and story, but if the editors do not approve, then it does not go into print. So 99% of works are NOT the author's original writing. BECAUSE the editors and publisher signed contracts with Kishimoto, giving them some say over the story. They have a contract which gives them partial copyright control. Kishimoto cannot switch to a new publisher because he has signed a contract giving Viz Media partial copyrights. So in the end copyrights are what matter.

Similarly the manga is NEVER going to be exactly as the original author intended because of change in translating. There are some words that cannot be translated from Japanese to English, so the translators have to choose words to put in place, thus putting their own ideas in the story. Its in a very small way, but its still partly different from the original author's intention. So unless you read a manga in the original language (Hope you know Japanese) you are accepting a text that is NOT the author's 100% original work. So by your own standards that would make certain phrases "filler" because they were not translated into English by the original author.
finally someone who agrees with me. u cant all try to be guardians of the manga...example: im a big lotr fan, first the books and then the movies which have huge inconsistencies from the books, but they are still legitimate, just another representation of tolkiens universe...u cant try to keep the world static, the mangas wont last forever and i'll bet that as their popularity starts declining, manga creators will start moving to different medium i.e. anime to get their stories told.

Miles Edgeworth
10-27-2009, 10:02 PM
I don't want to get sucked into a huge debate, so I'm just going to give some stuff to consider. If you do, please consider all of it fully and thoroughly, not just a random sentence.

I will say is copyright is what is official. The people who hold a copyright to a given entity get to decide what happens.
Example: In the beginning, Superman was a much weaker character than he is now. The reason is over time new authors/writers gave him new powers, many of which have been accepted as canon. The new authors were given legal rights to write about Superman by Warner Bros, because the original authors are dead.

So the copyright guys have the official say LEGALLY. Note that our society is based on laws and legality. Don't believe me, try to write a story about Naruto and sell it. You will get sued because you don't have the legal rights.

If you want to say canon is what the fans decide, then listen to this:
General consensus of people don't read comics. General consensus (in USA) of DBZ universe fans watched the anime and never touched the manga. They accept DBGT as a legitimate show although they might have thought it was bad. They still accept it as what happen. So the general consensus accepts DB-DBZ-DBGT anime as canon, not what the manga says.
General consenus of naruto fans in the US actually do not read the manga, they watch the anime and accept the anime as canon.

The common theme is that most people do not read comics/manga. There are more people that watch shows about Transformers, Naruto, Superheros, etc, than those who read comics. The comic industry is a dying business, look it up. It makes millions each year yes, but it is dwindling. Marvel makes most of its money on movies, even though its a comic book company. So anyways, if you base canon on what fans believe, its 9/10 times whatever is visual. Shows just tend to be more widely viewed than written stuff. That's how it is. Its easier to watch a show than read a book or comic. Heck why do comic books even have pictures rather than just text? Cause images are easier to follow than words.

To those who want to stick with canon because "filler" introduces elements the original author didn't put in, you're just being silly for no reason.

My question for all those who think its the original's authors word only is....did you know every writer is told to change things by their editor, sometimes a lot? Did you know Naruto is not the exact way Kishimoto wanted it. There are changes the editors have forced him to make. That is how publishing works. The editors control what is allowed to happen. The author comes up with the ideas and story, but if the editors do not approve, then it does not go into print. So 99% of works are NOT the author's original writing. BECAUSE the editors and publisher signed contracts with Kishimoto, giving them some say over the story. They have a contract which gives them partial copyright control. Kishimoto cannot switch to a new publisher because he has signed a contract giving Viz Media partial copyrights. So in the end copyrights are what matter.

Similarly the manga is NEVER going to be exactly as the original author intended because of change in translating. There are some words that cannot be translated from Japanese to English, so the translators have to choose words to put in place, thus putting their own ideas in the story. Its in a very small way, but its still partly different from the original author's intention. So unless you read a manga in the original language (Hope you know Japanese) you are accepting a text that is NOT the author's 100% original work. So by your own standards that would make certain phrases "filler" because they were not translated into English by the original author.

What I got from that were two things. One, you think that the popular material is canon, and two, that because it's legal for the animes to exist, they're somehow canon. Canon is not about whether the anime is legal or not, it's about the original material that is judged as factual.


finally someone who agrees with me. u cant all try to be guardians of the manga...example: im a big lotr fan, first the books and then the movies which have huge inconsistencies from the books, but they are still legitimate, just another representation of tolkiens universe...u cant try to keep the world static, the mangas wont last forever and i'll bet that as their popularity starts declining, manga creators will start moving to different medium i.e. anime to get their stories told.

Yeah, you're gonna agree with the guy who flamed me because he didn't know half of Unicron's feats and claims that the material that fits his knowledge is canon above some of the most respected debaters in the forum. Uh-huh, yeah, simply because he agrees with you.

The anime is legitimate, but it's not canon. Nothing will last forever. You claim the manga won't last forever but what you don't get is that the same can be said about the anime. Besides, what the crap does that have to do with what's canon and what's not? Oh yeah I know now, NOTHING.

zebrakiller
10-29-2009, 09:07 PM
What I got from that were two things. One, you think that the popular material is canon, and two, that because it's legal for the animes to exist, they're somehow canon. Canon is not about whether the anime is legal or not, it's about the original material that is judged as factual.



Yeah, you're gonna agree with the guy who flamed me because he didn't know half of Unicron's feats and claims that the material that fits his knowledge is canon above some of the most respected debaters in the forum. Uh-huh, yeah, simply because he agrees with you.

The anime is legitimate, but it's not canon. Nothing will last forever. You claim the manga won't last forever but what you don't get is that the same can be said about the anime. Besides, what the crap does that have to do with what's canon and what's not? Oh yeah I know now, NOTHING.
i just saw this bro... u should leave ur past beefs with ppl behind...how am i supposed to know this guy flamed u b4..? i agree the animes wont last, things always change. ur still hung up on the word "canon", i've agreed that a lot of stuff isnt "canon" by definition...but i don't think that should mean its off limits when debating...we're all starting to sound like broken records.

Miles Edgeworth
10-29-2009, 09:29 PM
i just saw this bro... u should leave ur past beefs with ppl behind...how am i supposed to know this guy flamed u b4..? i agree the animes wont last, things always change. ur still hung up on the word "canon", i've agreed that a lot of stuff isnt "canon" by definition...but i don't think that should mean its off limits when debating...we're all starting to sound like broken records.

Oh right, let's just forget about all of the conflicts we've had with other people and believe that a bunch of noobs who might join the forum will one day become the best debaters in the world. It's not just the past, he STILL sticks to beliefs that because the anime has a copyright, it is somehow canon.

It should be off limits since it is not only nearly impossible to calc, but also boosts people wrongly. People call Neji a mountain buster because of the anime when he's much weaker in the manga. That aint right.

otacon
10-30-2009, 05:45 AM
Technically only the material originally written by the creator is Canon, and since alot is added in the anime (mostly to extend fights and use more time), it is not cannon. It is still legitimate, but anime should be enjoyed for what it is, and not confused with manga.

Phoenix Wright
10-30-2009, 10:08 AM
Yeah otacon, that's what we've been debating over the past couple weeks. Nice work. You've wasted your time to type in a post.

otacon
10-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Yeah otacon, that's what we've been debating over the past couple weeks. Nice work. You've wasted your time to type in a post.
Honestly, this topic is not worthy of such a leghthy debate. The manga is canon, Filler is non canon(this is not even arguable), and any small details added to canon parts of the anime can be taken either way. There is no point on expanding on a topic when it can be simplified. Or you could just argue for the next couple of weeks and see where it gets you.

Phoenix Wright
10-30-2009, 12:28 PM
That's still what we've already covered. Why reiterate it? You keep repeating things we've already said, theres no point to it. Read the thread next time rather than post and waste your time repeating things. And no things that have been added to the anime can't be taken either way, it's non-canon.

otacon
10-30-2009, 12:53 PM
That's still what we've already covered. Why reiterate it? You keep repeating things we've already said, theres no point to it. Read the thread next time rather than post and waste your time repeating things. And no things that have been added to the anime can't be taken either way, it's non-canon.
I disagree. For instance, if a fight that happened in the manga is slightely added upon (as long as no drastically new moves are assed) for the sake of making it a more realisting and freeflowing fight in movement, then i believe it should be considered canon. And no, I still havn't bothered reading the thread because there is honestly not much more to be said about this topic; everyone is entitled to there own opinion, it just so happens my opinion of this matter is apparently simmilar to earlier posts. You shouldn't insult me just because you can't find an agreable conclusion to this debate (which likely won't happen).

Phoenix Wright
10-30-2009, 01:55 PM
Which is exactly why you did the stupid thing as to reiterate what had just been spoken about, I could consider that spam.

No, Kishi has about nothing to do with the anime, if they add something on, in the manga world they never had shown that technique. That's the definition of canon, which even you said yourself, so I don't see why you disagree with it.

otacon
10-30-2009, 02:19 PM
Which is exactly why you did the stupid thing as to reiterate what had just been spoken about, I could consider that spam.

No, Kishi has about nothing to do with the anime, if they add something on, in the manga world they never had shown that technique. That's the definition of canon, which even you said yourself, so I don't see why you disagree with it.
I'ts called retaliation, and you followed suit by responding. Obviously a fight is going to be longer and more elaborate in actual motion as opposed to the manga ex Kakashi vs Hidan and Kakuza. Otherwise I agree with your definition of canon. I have somthing to do (seriously) and I will elaborate later.

Phoenix Wright
10-30-2009, 02:45 PM
I'ts called retaliation, and you followed suit by responding. Obviously a fight is going to be longer and more elaborate in actual motion as opposed to the manga ex Kakashi vs Hidan and Kakuza. Otherwise I agree with your definition of canon. I have somthing to do (seriously) and I will elaborate later.

No, retaliation is when you argue/fight/respond back. Reiteration is the act of repeating something. Get your facts straight. Yeah it will take longer in actual motion, although things that happen during it are non-canon, as simple as that, it's impossible to be debatable.

otacon
10-30-2009, 04:34 PM
No, retaliation is when you argue/fight/respond back. Reiteration is the act of repeating something. Get your facts straight. Yeah it will take longer in actual motion, although things that happen during it are non-canon, as simple as that, it's impossible to be debatable.
Nice wordplay. Although I still feel that any relatively insignificant additions to certain battles should be considered canon (there more fluent with it), manga is purely canon and should be thought of in the highest regard.

Miles Edgeworth
10-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Nice wordplay. Although I still feel that any relatively insignificant additions to certain battles should be considered canon (there more fluent with it), manga is purely canon and should be thought of in the highest regard.

Well didn't Neji learn a move that allowed him to "mountain" bust or something? I'm not so sure if that was a very significant part of the battle, but I don't think that should be considered canon. Then again, I'm not sure when this happened, if it was in a filler arc then it's completely non-canon altogether lol.

otacon
10-30-2009, 06:03 PM
Well didn't Neji learn a move that allowed him to "mountain" bust or something? I'm not so sure if that was a very significant part of the battle, but I don't think that should be considered canon. Then again, I'm not sure when this happened, if it was in a filler arc then it's completely non-canon altogether lol.
I don't recall Neji ever useing a "mountain" busting move in the Manga or Anime; It was probably a filler arc, which I don't even bother watching aside form the 3-tails/Yuukimaru arc. An no, somthing like that should definately never be considered canon.

Phoenix Wright
10-30-2009, 06:23 PM
Nice wordplay. Although I still feel that any relatively insignificant additions to certain battles should be considered canon (there more fluent with it), manga is purely canon and should be thought of in the highest regard.

Thanks.

Now what you're saying is that it should be considered debatable. Being canon is the meaning of it being official, I already said that you posted the definition.

Hey, someone up repped you! xD

It wasn't me, as to being serious, I was just pointing it out.

otacon
10-30-2009, 06:34 PM
Thanks.

Now what you're saying is that it should be considered debatable. Being canon is the meaning of it being official, I already said that you posted the definition.

Agreed

zebrakiller
10-30-2009, 11:25 PM
look the reason i started this thread is cus i got fed up with ppl trying to end debates by saying "thats not canon" rather than constructing a convincing argument to rebuttle with. i wont repeat everything else ive said tho...i just wanted to open up this can of worm so ppl could see it doesnt have to be this way.