The Energon Pub

Now, for the benefit of those who don't understand what canon actually means, can people please explain that their description of canon in Transformers is. (Not to be confused with what things are considered canon in Transformers, but a definition of what the term means.) I ask this simply because there are some people out there who won't listen to others when they explain what canon is, because they think they know better.

Canon is the authoratative list of works authorized under license from Hasbro or Takara. Anything published or produced under license past and present, and thus part of official TF continuity, is canon, along with any retcons made by Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees.

Just one error in that, it's continuities. There is more than one.

Btw, if I'm from a country where certain stories never got published or liscenced, does this mean there aren't canon for me? What about hashed up stories, i.e. The Movie being the pilot of the series, "More than meets the Eye" never happening and the episdoes from all G1 cartoon season all jumbled around to creat one series?

Sarri wrote:Just one error in that, it's continuities. There is more than one.

Btw, if I'm from a country where certain stories never got published or liscenced, does this mean there aren't canon for me? What about hashed up stories, i.e. The Movie being the pilot of the series, "More than meets the Eye" never happening and the episdoes from all G1 cartoon season all jumbled around to creat one series?

It wasn't an error. I'm talking overall TF continuity, not individual continuities. Canon isn't determined by each country, but by Hasbro and Takara.

Tramp wrote:Canon is the authoratative list of works authorized under license from Hasbro or Takara. Anything published or produced under license past and present, and thus part of official TF continuity, is canon, along with any retcons made by Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees.

Yeah, even though Hasbro and Takara don't do any retconning, the writers of the stories do, as you've been told before, but don't seem to want to listen or are just too stupid to understand.

Oh, and for the other people who want to know MY definition of non-canon, (The definition that seems to be the general census amnongst most fans) something non-canon is something that is generally ignored as a source of information (Car Show Blow-up, children's storybooks or characterisation, or that is generally agreed on as a bad source of information with too many inaccuracies. (Ultimate Guide, MTMTE guides)

The novel series, like Hardwired, etc, are non canon also.

Yes, Hasbro and Takara do make retcons. They have done it a number of times. Secondly, fans don't determine canon. Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees do.

How about you stop arguing all the time? Part 2 wasn't directed at you, part one was. All you had to do was answer part one, shut up and leave.

Dam, seriously. If you have a problem with Tramp go talk to a Mod about it. Don't resort to petty name calling, childish insults and rude remarks. THAT is a good sign of a troll and I highly doubt you're that.

Damolisher wrote:How about you stop arguing all the time? Part 2 wasn't directed at you, part one was. All you had to do was answer part one, shut up and leave.

Peace..... cool down, man.

Tramp wrote:Canon is the authoratative list of works authorized under license from Hasbro or Takara. Anything published or produced under license past and present, and thus part of official TF continuity, is canon, along with any retcons made by Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees.

Speeking in General, Just because a body of work is authorized under license by its owner dos not dictate wether or not it is canon.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tramp wrote:Canon is the authoratative list of works authorized under license from Hasbro or Takara. Anything published or produced under license past and present, and thus part of official TF continuity, is canon, along with any retcons made by Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees.

Speeking in General, Just because a body of work is authorized under license by its owner dos not dictate wether or not it is canon.

Unless otherwise stated officially, as is the case with Star Trek, yes it does. Star Trek is an exception because they specifcally exclude anything other than the live-action TV shows and movies from canon. That is very rare. Lucas licensing's policy is completely different. With them, everything is canon except for materials marked Infinities, which are intentionally out of continuity. As a general rule, if it is officially licensed, it is part of the official canon unless otherwise stated by the owner of the license. This falls under the definition of "the works of an author which have been accepted as authentic", and an "officially recognized set" of stories. Here is the definition from the Mirriam Webster's online dictionary in regards to literary canon (definitions b and c)—

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary By those last two definitions, any and all material officially licensed and approved by Hasbro, and/or Takara is canon unless specifically stated otherwise by them.

I don't see that there is one overall canon for Transformers. There are lots of individual canons for the various continuities. Those canons will be defined by the writers of the fiction with input from editors and Hasbro / Takara themselves.

One could also argue that even the toy lines have their own canons, given the bios and fiction printed on packaging and pamphlets. People say the bios for Movie Repaint Jazz isn't canon, while one could argue it isn't movie canon but is movie toy line canon.

It's not different canons, just different continuities withion canon. As for people saying that the toy bio for Movie jazz's G1 recolor not being canon, I have never heard that.

Tramp wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tramp wrote:Canon is the authoratative list of works authorized under license from Hasbro or Takara. Anything published or produced under license past and present, and thus part of official TF continuity, is canon, along with any retcons made by Hasbro, Takara, and their licensees.

Speeking in General, Just because a body of work is authorized under license by its owner dos not dictate wether or not it is canon.

Unless otherwise stated officially, as is the case with Star Trek, yes it does. Star Trek is an exception because they specifcally exclude anything other than the live-action TV shows and movies from canon. That is very rare. Lucas licensing's policy is completely different. With them, everything is canon except for materials marked Infinities, which are intentionally out of continuity. As a general rule, if it is officially licensed, it is part of the official canon unless otherwise stated by the owner of the license. This falls under the definition of "the works of an author which have been accepted as authentic", and an "officially recognized set" of stories. Here is the definition from the Mirriam Webster's online dictionary in regards to literary canon (definitions b and c)—

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary By those last two definitions, any and all material officially licensed and approved by Hasbro, and/or Takara is canon unless specifically stated otherwise by them.

Star Trek is not the only one that does not consider bodys of work from other mediims as a non canon source.I would say that the "general rule" is that unless stated by the owner most other types of works outside a propaties normal medium are not considered canon.I would say that ar wars is the exception.

Tramp wrote:It's not different canons, just different continuities withion canon. As for people saying that the toy bio for Movie jazz's G1 recolor not being canon, I have never heard that.

There's an example of someone saying the bio isn't canon here:

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... b1cb9772f3

and here's an example of someone saying they wonder if the bio will become canon, implying they don't think it's canon now:

http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php ... d=&f_year=

The issue with canon is one doesn't have to take separate texts as part of the same canon if one doesn't want to. For example, one doesn't have to accept that Wide Sargasso Sea is the official prequel to Jane Eyre, then again one could argue that it is part of the "Jane Eyre canon".

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Star Trek is not the only one that does not consider bodys of work from other mediims as a non canon source.I would say that the "general rule" is that unless stated by the owner most other types of works outside a propaties normal medium are not considered canon.I would say that ar wars is the exception.

Star Trek is the only one I know of that does that. Transformers doesn't have a "normal medium". It is a multimedia line equally spread between toys, cartoon,s comic books, and now movie. As a General rule, The definition provided by the dictionary is pretty clear that a sanctioned accepted work is canon. Every stroy licensed is sanctioned and accepted by Hasbro and/or Takara. byt that definitiion, it's canon.

Leonardo wrote:Tramp wrote:
It's not different canons, just different continuities withion canon. As for people saying that the toy bio for Movie jazz's G1 recolor not being canon, I have never heard that.


There's an example of someone saying the bio isn't canon here:

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... b1cb9772f3

and here's an example of someone saying they wonder if the bio will become canon, implying they don't think it's canon now:

http://www.seibertron.com/news/view.php ... d=&f_year=

The issue with canon is one doesn't have to take separate texts as part of the same canon if one doesn't want to. For example, one doesn't have to accept that Wide Sargasso Sea is the official prequel to Jane Eyre, then again one could argue that it is part of the "Jane Eyre canon".

If someone is arguing that an authentic book by a writer is not canon, then something is wrong, because that goes against one of the very definitions of literary canon. The toy bios are just as canon as any other material. They are produced specifically by Hasbro themselves. Why wouldn't they be canon?

Because, in the example that I gave, the two books are by two different writers from two different periods of time.

As for the toy bios, I think they are canon. What I'm saying is they aren't part of the movie canon because the events related weren't part of the movie. They are, however, clearly part of the movie toy line canon, which is a separate continuity.

Leonardo wrote:Because, in the example that I gave, the two books are by two different writers from two different periods of time.

Two different writers, but the same character. IF the books are both authorized by the publisher, who I gather owns the character and property, then why would the second book not be canon?

As for the toy bios, I think they are canon. What I'm saying is they aren't part of the movie canon because the events related weren't part of the movie. They are, however, clearly part of the movie toy line canon, which is a separate continuity.

The Toy bios are clearly meant to be part of movie canon. The events in the bio of movie Jazz (G1 paint shceme) is meant to take place after the movie, and gives a continuity reason for the paint job. Now, whether this plays out in the sequel is another matter all together, but regardless, "canon" refers to the entire body of TF lore, while "continuity" and "continuiities" refer to just the continuities/realities themselves.

Tramp wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Star Trek is not the only one that does not consider bodys of work from other mediims as a non canon source.I would say that the "general rule" is that unless stated by the owner most other types of works outside a propaties normal medium are not considered canon.I would say that ar wars is the exception.

Star Trek is the only one I know of that does that. Transformers doesn't have a "normal medium". It is a multimedia line equally spread between toys, cartoon,s comic books, and now movie. As a General rule, The definition provided by the dictionary is pretty clear that a sanctioned accepted work is canon. Every stroy licensed is sanctioned and accepted by Hasbro and/or Takara. byt that definitiion, it's canon.

Like I said I was speeking in general,I wasnt speeking on Transformers,I understand that its a multimedia medium.....if your looking for exsamples I'll give you a few.......Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, The X-files,Stargate,Dark Angel,Alien Nation.....I can go on but whats the point.

Tramp wrote:

Leonardo wrote:Because, in the example that I gave, the two books are by two different writers from two different periods of time.

Two different writers, but the same character. IF the books are both authorized by the publisher, who I gather owns the character and property, then why would the second book not be canon?

As for the toy bios, I think they are canon. What I'm saying is they aren't part of the movie canon because the events related weren't part of the movie. They are, however, clearly part of the movie toy line canon, which is a separate continuity.

The Toy bios are clearly meant to be part of movie canon. The events in the bio of movie Jazz (G1 paint shceme) is meant to take place after the movie, and gives a continuity reason for the paint job. Now, whether this plays out in the sequel is another matter all together, but regardless, "canon" refers to the entire body of TF lore, while "continuity" and "continuiities" refer to just the continuities/realities themselves.

No, repainting him gives a reason to sell twice as many Jazz toys. For all anyone knows the bio is just lip service to the fans to get them to buy it. Just like the repaint of Energon Skyblast and the real gear line. There was now continuity they were worried about

RE: the books. If someone else penned and published another prequel to Jane Eyre and the events in that prequel contradicted the first prequel, would they both be canon? Jast as a note, there are inconsistencies between Wide Sargasso Sea and Jane Eyre as it is, largely to do with when they're set and characters' ages. Does that make them the same canon but different universes?

RE: the toy bios. You're saying that there can't be more than one canon, regardless of how many continuities (or universes) there are. Have I got that right? If so, then I fully understand what you're saying, in that contradicting events from all continuities are part of the same canon. Yes, I see that.

I suppose that leads us back to the point of the thread: how is canon defined? I don't know if there's an 'official' or authoritative answer; it's not something I've really looked into. What I can say is that some people see canon as a single entity encapsulating everything (I think that's your position) while others may argue that separate continuities create separate canons. Let me chew on this.

Normal Organized Canon:


Transformers Canon:

Tekka wrote:Normal Organized Canon:


Transformers Canon:

Uh huh.

I thought it would save a lot of writing.

It's simpler to list what is NOT canon.

Anything that comes from the Fans in the forms of fictions and/or personal prefrences/theries on the world of Transformers.