The Energon Pub

A bit long, but I think it's worth a discussion.

I've been reading up online about some movies or stories--not for any research, but for fun--and noticing the regular Internet tough guy yelling at everyone about how a certain installment of series X is not canon and how he's the biggest fan of series X so he should know and everyone else's explanations are merely fodder for him to rip them apart and be insulting and condescending.

I'll take the example of Jason X, but there are rabid fanboys out there for every series. So everything I say here reflects just about everywhere it can be applied.

Now, I'm not a Friday the 13th expert. I've seen them all, but it's been way too long and I'm not a trivia master at it. The only ones I've seen recently are probably the last three (Freddy vs. Jason, Jason X, and the remake) and two of those only once. The others... way too long ago. But I do read and I can form an opinion based on what I read. Some people don't accept Jason X as a part of continuity because Jason is suddenly alive again after being sent to Hell. That's it. You'd figure that there is, what, 100 years between this and the previous F13 but, in that time, Jason can't come back somehow? Besides, Freddy vs. Jason (which, albeit, came after, but came out before the discussions I've read) bridged them nicely. But that wasn't good enough for this guy, who had about three or four people contradicting him. (He also said FvsJ wasn't canon. Really? Why not? He didn't give an explanation and challenged someone to find an interview where the director said it was. Are his reasons good enough for him to throw the movie out? Was he that guarded about his precious continuity?)

I think some people also complain about the shape of the mask being different and such. Okay, there's no explanation for the different shapes, but is that really enough to consider it non-canon? Are we seriously that nitpicky? It's just an update! By that token, nothing past the first installment of any series could be canon since there's always going to be some minute, inconsequential detail. Everything is going to be a reboot or non-canon.

This particular guy complained that this isn't in canon because the director didn't say it was. Is that what it comes down to? Do we have to wait for the director to confirm that a sequel is in canon? When a sequel comes out, is that not enough to imply it's in canon? It's a sequel! By this token, Spider-Man 2 isn't in canon because I don't think I've ever heard Raimi say it was.

I don't want to pick on this one guy because, as an Internet collective, I think we all do it: we find some reason to consider something non-canon. It's like we're looking, begging for a reason to.

Now, I do acknowledge that there are reboots. Star Trek among others. And sometimes there's just too much difference between two installments to reconcile them. I guess this means considering something in canon is up to each individual since "too much" means two different things to two different people. But, in other (most) cases, we're still being way too nitpicky. Just because of a piddly little detail or two doesn't mean something isn't canon.

And a slight sidebar: Retcon gets bandied about way too much. Now, maybe it's me and my understanding of the word (retroactive continuity, yes I know), but isn't a retcon a part of continuity that isn't explained or that is ignored in favour of current events? I think a lot of people use the word where it doesn't apply. Let's take Optimus Prime's death in G1. I've heard some talk that his death was retconned. But how can it be a retcon? We watched it happen! It was in the Return of Optimus Prime, i.e. there was an explanation and we saw it. He didn't just suddenly show up. Wouldn't that make it not a retcon at all but a resurrection instead? Someone tell me I'm wrong about the meaning of "retcon."

I'm not sure, but it made me think of this...

I've also been confused by retcon in terms of canon. To me, it's always meant--going back through and explaining stuff that didn't make sense the first time. More like an 'oops, I half assed that, let me fix it now'.

The big issue for me is the canon/fanon thing. Like, TF wise. Is there any actual references to the three flyers Skywarp, Starscream and Thundercracker as a 'trine'? Has that been acknowledged ANYWHERE within canon? I don't think so. Even 'Seeker' is a bit iffy. But in fanon, it's absolute that the three come together and have some special 'trine' ness about them. So, who's right there? Does it matter? Sometimes canon/fanon leads to a complete dereliction of creativity--let's rehash this same old plot because the canon-junkies will mutilates us if we try anything new.

Who has the ultimate authority to decide canon, which is what I think you're asking? Well, if we look at TF, it's a huge problem. Bay has not only chucked canon out the window, he's tossed out the rules of his own continuity from one movie to the next (like...do Autobots have heat signatures? No in 07 yes in 09, huh?)

I guess I've just embraced the whole postmodern ethic and say...go with what works to tell a good friggin' story. But within one consistent verse--bay's verse or the TFA verse or G1 or Shattered Glass, the rules set down for that 'verse should have internal consistency.

HK, my 'verse is disgustingly internally consistent.

I don't consider something non-canon unless it has major contradictions with the rest of the series, or just doesn't fit in. Usually, it's pretty clear when this happens. A retcon is kind of the same thing, contradicting another part of the story, but it does so while still being canon.

The thing with Canon and retcon is that we apply the terms to many francises, and many times when 'blowhards' get up in arms it's not about those, it's about (to again use a term I've used before on this site) "Personal Canon".

When has Hasbro ever said 'This is the actual story of Transformers/GIJoe/open property' everything else isn't canon? To my knowledge they never have. The closest is the diagrams on Takara's site trying to explain how everything is connected, or Fun Pub telling us the the creation of the Classics universe is somehow deleting the Go-bots universe from existence.

Some franchises have stated what is or isn't canon, and how things do or don't apply. Star Wars and Star Trek have some extremely detailed run downs of what's official. With Wars, you have the entire post-jedi novels and such that are all set as canon. With Trek, you have a number of possible canons depending on the books but a good look at where retcon and canon are actually used correctly.

Look at Enterprise, it changed the history of starship constuction, the creation of the Federation, and others. This is a proper retcon of Canon, because it did change the basis of things and has been adopted in the the 'history of the future'.

Where as the current Star Trek movie is not as much a retcon but a revamping of the franchise that will exist along side the original canon despite paradoxs that will eventually need to be addressed.

(however the biggest change in trek history is that the first Space Shuttle was named Enterprise after the NCC-1701, which in turn had to add
that same shuttle to it's history of the ship's namesake predecessors)

For TF's Retcon and Canon is thrown about in comments like the Bayverse is a retcon, or the unicron trilogy is retcon. These statements are wrong, again these are revamps. Beast wars does retcon some aspects of G1 hoeever and those are mostly for the betterment of the franchise seeing the original series was plagued by inconsistent writing and lack of overall editing to create a cohesive story (no surprise as it was made to sell toys and they didn't think people would be worrying 2 years later let alone 20) Screw the fact that the comics were giving other completely differing story(s)

But with a lack of that cohesiveness leads to Personal Canon where people pick and choose the aspects they perfer to keep. Unfortunately whether this personal canon is something well detailed or not, if the person at the heart of the discussion doesn't acknowledge the fact that they are working from that, they can get quite defensive when they are called on their geek-cred. It's easy to see why TF is so ripe to be a source for personal canon over the actual source material when you have so many different medias providing pieces of a puzzle with multiple combinations.

Figure out what works best for you, and by all means feel free to defend your choices, but if someone disagrees, is it truly worth the energy to argue about???

Editor wrote:Some franchises have stated what is or isn't canon, and how things do or don't apply. Star Wars and Star Trek have some extremely detailed run downs of what's official. With Wars, you have the entire post-jedi novels and such that are all set as canon.

Actually with Star Wars there's several "tiers" of canon, and in the event of a contradiction, the higher-up tier wins. The highest tier, of course, is the movies and what George Lucas has to say about the subject. In short, it's canon until George Lucas says it isn't.

If I recall, the Prequel Trilogy ended up contradicting a large amount of the Expanded Universe written beforehand, which a lot of people didn't like. Of course, this is George Lucas's story, everything else is just fan-fiction until he decides to make it canon.

For me Canon is what ever the actual maker states it is if I like it or not.

But there will always be people that state something is not canon even though it clearly is and the makers state so, like Extreme Ghostbusters some GB fans don't accept it as GB cartoon universe canon as it does not reference the movies, like not mentioning of Gozer, while it clearly references the previous cartoon and it's even made by the same team of the original cartoon, heck it even has a sequel episode to the Grundel episode of the first cartoon.

For me a retcon is something that's in canon but ignores or rewrites something that came before it, like that failed attempt of rewriting Spider-Man's creation in the early 2000's comics.

Also I don't get something else, one of the clerks at my local comic store has no interest of reading Spider-Man Reign or stuff like Powerless as it's not in continuity even thought hey are pretty awesome reads.

Oh well.

I'm guilty of this especially when it comes to StarTrek. I have to step back and remind myself that this was a badly written show in the sixties with plotholes big enough the fly the starship Enterprise through.