leather jackets and TV canon

[lobelia321]

crysothemis posted a most excellent pictorial investigation into the Question of the Leather Jacket in SGA 5.06, 'The Shrine'. (The leather jacket. Folks wot have seen the ep know what is meant!)

And as a response, reedfem posted this behind-the-scenes picture as proof of the exact make and cut of Rodney's leather jacket on the pier.

Now this made me think about:

The Nature of Canon in TV Fandom.

What is canon in Lord of the Rings? a) The books written by J.R.R. Tolkien. b) The movies directed by Peter Jackson. c) Additional 'director's cut' scenes on the DVDs.

What is canon in Harry Potter? There is a) book canon, and b) film canon, and c) a thing called interview canon.

Now, I am a purist. I do not recognise interview canon as canon at all. To me, anything JKR says outside of the books does not count as canon.

Ditto Stargate Atlantis. To me, and I'm not sure to what extent this is a widely-held view as I'm only just now starting to think about this, so-called "behind-the-scenes" stuff is not canon at all. For me, the canon of TV-based fandom is what you see on the screen as aired. It's the editing and the mise-en-scène and the composition of the shots and so forth of the actual episode. It is not interviews with actors, pronouncements by powers that be, or photos to do with 'The Making Of...'.

So in my canon world, the photo of the 'making of' the pier does not count either towards or against any kind of leather jacket theory. It is cute but it is not canon.

Is this the generally accepted view of TV canon? Or is this something I just made up 5 minutes ago?

And is it sane to feel so strongly about this issue, one way or another??

Comments

[bugchicklv.livejournal.com]

Canon is anything I want it to be, as long as someone in charge (one of The Powers That Be) or an actor had a hand in it.

Sometimes it includes the interviews, the DVD commentaries, convention anecdotes, original shooting scripts (including unfilmed/cut scenes), and anything else the writers want to give us (like what WOULD have happened in the case of a canceled show, or what they WANTED to write but the network/studio wouldn't let them).

And sometimes it is the original source and the original source ALONE. It depends on the fandom. Most of the time I am NOT one to fangirl canon relationships (they're there, but I don't read about or write them)--for instance, Zoe/Wash in Firefly. I just don't care about what IS. I'd rather speculate on the WHAT IF or the WHAT COULD BE (like River/Jayne, Mal/Jayne, Jayne/Simon or Simon/Mal). Especially if the people are pretty (as in that case, they most definitely are)!

When it comes to Stargate...I'm flexible. I prefer slash relationships (McShep, McBeck, Ronon/John, Lorne/ANY MAN ON ATLANTIS OMG!) in that fandom, but I'm not opposed to some well-written Elizabeth/John. And Jennifer/Ronon is SIMPLY OMFG HAWT. (I surprised myself when I threw up a little in my mouth at Rodney's taped "I love you," though since it seemed to come from out of nowhere and she and Ronon have TONS of chemistry where she and Rodney do not. Because John and Rodney are so doin' it. Period.)

SG-1? Cam/Daniel all the way. And I can justify it with canon IF I WANT because Joe wrote a scene with them as lovers (for the "Ripple Effect" copies). And I wouldn't mind a little Vala thrown in to mix it up, but not because she or Daniel is so head-over-heels in love as the season finale would have us believe could happen. Just...no.

Now, in direct opposition to this: I REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANY OF THE XMEN MOVIES AS CANON. Particularly the last one. Especially the Wolverine/Jean "romance" (*dry heave*) or any suggestion that there could EVER BE Rogue/Wolverine. No. Nononononononono. Only canon couples for me in this 'verse. Namely: Jean/Scott and OMFG ROGUE/GAMBIT -- MOST AWESOME COUPLE EVER.

But, as with everything in fandom, your mileage may vary. I am weird, and I know it.

(And no, it is not insane to feel strongly about this. I am a viciously rabid hater of all things not comic/cartoon canon in XMen. Don't ask me how I reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions, though. Not enough time/space for that diatribe!)

[junalele.livejournal.com]

No idea what the generally accepted view is. For me canon of a tv show are all scenes where we get to see characters and not actors interact. Thusly, no behind the scenes, making of, interview counts for me. It's all outside the fictional universe so nah. Maybe somebody should invent another -on word for it because it's neither canon nor fanon which might bring on the confuzzlemnt? Maybe metan as it's kind of a meta to the canon? Heh.

[sheldrake.livejournal.com]

For me, canon is as you say. Other stuff can be added into the mix depending on whether I like it or not. So, I'm perfectly at liberty to believe that Dumbledore is gay, but Jack is not the Face of Boe. Oh wait... that last one was apparently canon. Ok, forget this entire theory, I obviously make up my own canon!

[kita0610.livejournal.com]

Ha! My canon is the same as yours. Uhm. Shared canon-ish?

[crysothemis.livejournal.com]

I'm a semi-stickler for canon, and for me, canon is only what's on the screen. So no, behind-the-scenes stuff doesn't count. If (for a completely made-up example) David Hewlett has a birthmark on his hip, but we've never seen it in canon, there is no reason to believe that Rodney McKay has it.

That said, I took the behind-the-scenes photo that reedfem posted not as canon, but as confirmation that I really was seeing what I thought I was seeing. Which gets us to a thornier problem. If something is visible in HD but not in standard video, is it canon? What if it's only partially visible? What if I have to squint?

Dunno if I know the answers, but I do enjoy asking them. ::g::

[viva-gloria.livejournal.com]

I'd only count as canon what's actually on screen. (Not even sure about deleted scenes: do they have deleted scenes in SG:A?) But I would take other input, behind-the-scenes or Mallozzi's blog or actor interviews, as Fodder: comments about what they were trying to do or wanted to do, which might give me a different interpretation of a differently-good* episode, or clarify what a mere canon-viewer might see as inconsistency.

Hmm. interesting, and I suspect I redefine it constantly. LotR_RPS was different. The behind-the-scenes stuff was the canon, though it occasionally gave insight into the intentions vis LOTR_movieverse canon.

* i.e. bad

[deird1]

Hmm. I'm a Buffyverse writer, and I'd tend to say that there are multiple canons available.

For instance:
- Movie Canon (which includes the original movie, and nothing else)
- Show Canon (just Buffy the Vampire Slayer - all seasons)
- Spinoff Canon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, AND Angel the Series - all seasons)
- Comics Canon (both shows, and the old comics)
- Season 8 Canon (both shows, and the new "season 8" comics)
- ATF Canon (both shows, and the After The Fall comics)
- Fray Canon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, up to season 5, and the Fray comics)

With each of these, the canon includes everything necessary for the main focus to be canon.
"Spinoff Canon" for example, needs both shows - because Angel simply doesn't work as a show unless the original show also exists.
Same with the "season 8" comics - they need the tv show as relevant backstory.
"After The Fall", on the other hand, doesn't need the season 8 comics at all.
And the original show can easily stand alone.

If someone was writing a fic that only included seasons 1-5 before going AU, I'd call that... well, an AU. Reason being that the show clearly had a start and an end, so it's one unit.

It's sort of like Spiderman, in a way. "Amazing" Spiderman is different to "Ultimate" Spiderman, who is different to "movie" Spiderman. Basically, every time they
a) change medium (comics to movie, movie to tv show, tv show to comics)
or
b) change title (BtVS to AtS, "Amazing" to "Ultimate", "season 8" to "After The Fall")
I'd count it as a new canon.


Hopefully that made some kind of sense...


[ETA: as far as interviews or commentaries go, I'd say they're not canon, but can still be kinda fun to play with.]

here via metafandom

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way you do about canon. However, I also feel that if you're writing fic or meta, it's smart to know your audience. If it's an audience that tends to rely heavily on outside material such as interviews (I'm looking at you, HP), then if you're going to go against what people have seen in outside material, you'd better have a good reason for it and good backing for it so that it gets over people's "wait, but JKR said this..." barrier. So, I wouldn't bother trying to make Ginny Weasley's full first name anything but Ginevra (or did that finally become canon? I don't remember). If I were trying to write Dumbledore in an opposite-sex relationship, I'd feel a certain need to sell people on the possibility, even though canon doesn't actually preclude it. So, I might portray him as young and not having figured out his sexuality yet, or experimenting, or under a spell, or whatever.

[elayna88.livejournal.com]

does not count either towards or against any kind of leather jacket theory

What is the leather jacket theory?

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

You need to click on the links at the top of the post to find out.

[callmesandy.livejournal.com]

To me, canon is what you see, complete, within the medium. Buffyverse is the episodes as aired. No deleted scenes, no Joss commentary. The comics are not canon, no matter how much Joss calls them "season 8" because it's a different medium. (Or, the comics plus the television are a separate canon from just the television shows.)

Esp. since TV shows/movies are the results of MANY MANY people from editors to writers to producers to directors to actors - it feels like saying one of their views as "canon" is too hard. (Plus, what the special effects are capable of, the unexpected loss and changes in actors.)

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

After a decade of hanging out in fandom forums, mailings lists, etc etc.

This is my way of listing things (specifically for television and movies);

Canon: Only what is seen in the movie, the television show, extended scenes also count when they come up later on the DVD.

Secondary canon: Spinoff books, comics, DVD commentary, writer/actor/director/producer/crew interviews.

Fanon: Things that are made up by the fans to explain gaps in canon, or because it's cool, even extropolation on ambiguous things characters say is fanon, and/or until it's verified on screen. Same with extropolation from secondary canon.

Of course, there can be contradictory canon, and there often is, especially in comics, but it's still canon, in that case the fans can pick and choose which version of events they want, and it's still canon.

here via metafandom

[tikatu.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with this particular viewpoint. My fandom has all of the above (except maybe DVD commentary on the show).

Our only caveat is that the TV show (with its contemporary movies) and the more recent live-action movie are considered separate canons. This is taken to mean, if you use the "created for the movie" characters, no matter how much of the TV-show/comic book/spin-off novels/authorized materials canon you may incorporate into your story, you're still considered to be writing movie-verse.

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

I started a series of fanon vs canon meta posts for SGA. ONe of the first things I had to do was state how I was going to define canon - primarily because I'd seen a discussion on a topic wherein someone cited the SGA novels to prove their argument. The SGA novels are official, but they don't have official input - ie not written by creators or writers of the show, therefore are in most people's view - not canon. (Also the show contradicts them - eg the idea that Ronon is immune to being fed on by the Wraith - contradicted in Broken Ties)

Here is the text of how I defined canon:

“Canon” will be defined as “shows of SGA and SG-1 that have aired at least once on a TV channel in some part of the world”. If SG-1 canon contradicts SGA canon, SGA canon shall be taken as canon.



Comments of the writer, crew and cast, in whatever format (interview, commentary, DVD extra, blog, season companion) may be taken as supportive of a particular POV but do not have the weight of canon. DVD and companion content shall be given greater weight as it more readily available to all, and more “official” in scope.



Fandemonium novels shall be considered as “fan fiction in published book form”. While the novels are “authorised” and members of cast and crew have been consulted concerning some of them, they do not come directly from anyone working on the show. "Rising" is excepted, and may be viewed as having similar weight to an interview.

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

Oh, and deleted scenes didn't exist for SGA when I wrote this, but as they are "DVD extras" they would be taken as such.

[erinptah]

Hellsing gets incredibly confusing.

There's the original manga, written by Kouta Hirano, about to end at the tenth volume.

There's the TV anime, which was produced when there were only three manga volumes; the first six episodes follow the manga loosely, adding their own material, and then the show goes off and does its own thing which has no relation to the manga - making some assumptions along the way which have since been Jossed all to hell.

There's the OVA (direct-to-video anime, meaning it doesn't have many of the restrictions that televised shows suffer), which follows the manga very closely, but throws in some things of its own (and cuts some things, too).

Not only do they all have different sequences of events, the characterization varies between each - sometimes dramatically.

As if all that weren't enough, a lot of Hirano's earlier work uses proto-versions of the characters. Oh, and it's mostly porn. An exception is the Cross Fire stories, which are actually collected as bonus features in the manga volumes, and which are so similar to Hellsing proper that you wouldn't know they're not supposed to be in the same universe . . . until Hirano said so in an interview, which does explain why one of the characters changes gender.

And then there's Hellsing: The Dawn, which is a manga series that serves as a prequel to Hellsing, and is in the same universe.

*breathes*

I like to know which bits of information come from where ("is this from the TV anime, is it manga-only, is it just fanon?"). As far as my fan writing goes, though, I mix and match with wild abandon.

Come to think of it, I bet the fact that at least one version canonically did this to another version (the TV anime based itself on the manga, then started making up its own stuff) makes me feel better about contradicting whatever version I'm working with at the time.

On a general note: I think I'm more likely to accept the Word of God as canon if there's only one creator behind a series. JKR made up Harry Potter all by herself, so she gets to make the decisions about what's canon. RTD is working with a series that already has decades of history (and plenty of internal contradictions), so I'm more likely to think of things he says as "just his opinion."

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I count the Real True Canon as what's onscreen/in the original book. But I count things in, say, the Star Wars Expanded Universe or author/actor interviews as being more weighty than fanon--but optional. So I'll use them if I like them and ignore them if I don't.

Now I'm wondering about 'canon' for a play, since two companies can interpret a play completely differently. Huh.

[aquaenumen.livejournal.com]

If the author created it, and it was told in a narrative format - as in, part of a story, for me makes it canon. Multiple canons based on different mediums are fine, but as long as the source creator had a major guiding hand in it, I consider it canonical. If it's a narrative that wasn't overseen by the original creator in any way (as in, the author was hired by the copyright holder that is an executive corporation) and the writing is terrible, I feel free to ignore it as canon.

Making of and interviews are not strictly canon, but it's okay if they become fanon.

Thankfully, I'm not terribly involved in comics canon, so I'm spared that headache.