Canon vs. Non-Canon...The Big One.

[Phoenix Wright]

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

Originally Posted by rocklee_112713

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]

STOP IGNORING ME!!!

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ChaosInuYasha

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]

Originally Posted by zebrakiller

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deidara330

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]

Originally Posted by Trueborn_Uchiha

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?