Were you surprised by Super?

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

Seen this in a Star Wars forum and thought I'd post here as Dragon Ball is a similar example.

Basically before Super was announced did you ever expect there would be a new series (not counting Kai), and were you surprised when it was.

Personally from the time (around 2004/5) I realized GT ended in 1997 I thought the franchise was done because it had been so long without any new content being produced.

Neither Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return, nor Jaco convinced me as I had assumed they were just an occasional short instalments that TOEI would make now and again, and the thought of Battle of Gods gave me the same impression, until I saw that movie.

Battle of Gods didn't entirely convince me there would be a new series but when I saw it and heard Beerus telling Goku there was 12 universes it dawned on me that a new manga/anime series was not entirely out of the question. With Resurrection F my anticipation for a new series was heightened by things such as Whis teaching Goku and Vegeta, and the window being left open for both saiyans to team up in another future fight.

When Super was announced I wasn't surprised at all, but more ecstatic at the thought that a new anime series would finally be a reality, and here I am super excited to see the next episode .

Then again I thought Xiaolin Showdown was the least likely of all my favourite shows to get a new series.

[Cipher]

As soon as Dragon Ball proved itself to be a renewable property in the 2000s, it was practically inevitable we'd see more animated series at some point (Kai being the first attempt to make sure something "new" was on the air).

What was surprising was that it would be new content set within the timeline of the manga and involving the original author. I'd expected remakes and spin-off material, which are still things that will probably happen down the line.

[ekrolo2]

I figured if the movies proved profitable they'd probably make one eventually, especially when it seemed less feasible that they'd even do a series of films of the multiverse unless it was annual. Then they basically announced they'd be doing the series in the most ass backwards way possible and the rest is history.

[Hellspawn28]

I think everyone was when the news broke out in late April of this year. I did knew that we would get a new series sooner or later. It was bound to happen some point since you can't keep Dragon Ball dead forever.

[jamiljamtheman]

I was surprises by the fact that the show is retelling the movies. I figured that the success of the films would beget a series eventually, but I thought it would be entirely new. Instead I'm just here waiting for when they'll make new material because I have a strong feeling I will be bothered by supers pacing compared to the films, just by nature of being an episodic show instead of a feature film

[Bullza]

I was surprised to an extent, when the announcement was made I was shocked but with how popular the series is and how well the movies were doing I did expect that there would likely be another series one day.

[Araki]

I was really surprised, especially by how the news came out just days after RoF premiered as a big hit. There wasn't enough time to take in that the 2nd movie was an even bigger success than the first, definitely leading up to new instalments.

[Chuquita]

Yes, I was surprised. I thought we were going to get one final movie after F (hell, during production I was half-certain that F was going to end on a cliffhanger and that the theorized third movie would be its second half) and that would be the final hurrah.

[precita]

I don't think anyone ever believed we would get a new series after GT (not counting Kai), so Super was indeed a huge shock. What I thought was going to happen was that Toei would start releasing a new movie every year after Battle of Gods was a success and Return of F was announced. I expected a new movie to be announced for 2016...not a series.

Remember how in the early 2000's everyone used to joke about a new Dragonball series being made and everyone used to say, "After GT bombed Toei would never make another series" and with Toriyama sick of the franchise at the time it seemed incredibly unlikely.

[garfield15]

I honestly thought GT and Kai sort of had killed the idea of Toei ever making a new television series again and would just stick to OVAs and movies.

The shocker on top of shockers was Toriyama actually being involved

[precita]

I honestly thought GT and Kai sort of had killed the idea of Toei ever making a new television series again and would just stick to OVAs and movies.

The shocker on top of shockers was Toriyama actually being involved

Not to mention it being a canon continuation of DBZ after all these years, and not some alternate re-telling or remake.

[Cetra]

I honestly thought GT and Kai sort of had killed the idea of Toei ever making a new television series again and would just stick to OVAs and movies.

The shocker on top of shockers was Toriyama actually being involved

Not to mention it being a canon continuation of DBZ after all these years, and not some alternate re-telling or remake.

Anf of course the fact that this was never said.

[Araki]

Anf of course the fact that this was never said.

Obviously no one will ever flat out say that, that's something only hardcore fans bother with. But the fact Toriyama is directly involved - first his movie works being adapted, followed by an entirely original plot written by him - and GT is being completely ignored, also how the new show was announced, it can be safely seen that way.

The biggest confirmation we'll ever get is when Toryama says he writes new things "as a continuation from the manga", which he usually does.
Anyway, in my personal view, anything written by the original author can be seen as canon by default, unless stated otherwise by the person him/herself.

[Cetra]

Anf of course the fact that this was never said.

Obviously no one will ever flat out say that, that's something only hardcore fans bother with. But the fact Toriyama is directly involved - first his movie works being adapted, followed by an entirely original plot written by him - and GT is being completely ignored, it can be safely seen that way.

The biggest confirmation we'll ever get is when Toryama says he writes new things "as a continuation from the manga", which he did for the movies.

The original author being involved or not involved in something has nothing to do with automatically being canonical or not. And fans have to learn that this little made up rule by them is exactly what I just said, just made up by them. A company that has the rights to expand the story and which actually has the intention to do that - that is the only thing canonicity needs. It is all up to law and property. Imagine a person makes a story but sells the rights and later helps with the story. That person's involvement will still not make something canonical. Akira Toriyama of course still also owns Dragon Ball but he is not the only one. Even these "no side-story" and "continuation" comments are ambigious. Akira Toriyama once even considered (more like mentioned during a joke) to make a manga based on GT, what does that mean? GT is also made as a continuation, what does that mean? Dragon Ball has no official canonicity. There are too many people involved who do not care other than one company that does only one series of events with prequels and sequels that are obviosly made to only create one story.

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

These canon arguments are becoming so pointless. When Battle of Gods was released everyone was going on about it being canon, and now Super is basically rewriting and retelling the same story, that in itself defeats the argument about the original source (in the case of the series pre-2013 the 42 volume manga) being legitimate. Don't be surprised if anything about Super is retconned down the line.

[Nafno]

The original author being involved or not involved in something has nothing to do with automatically being canonical or not. And fans have to learn that this little made up rule by them is exactly what I just said, just made up by them. A company that has the rights to expand the story and which actually has the intention to do that - that is the only thing canonicity needs. It is all up to law and property. Imagine a person makes a story but sells the rights and later helps with the story. That person's involvement will still not make something canonical. Akira Toriyama of course still also owns Dragon Ball but he is not the only one. Even these "no side-story" and "continuation" comments are ambigious. Akira Toriyama once even considered (more like mentioned during a joke) to make a manga based on GT, what does that mean? GT is also made as a continuation, what does that mean? Dragon Ball has no official canonicity. There are too many people involved who do not care other than one company that does only one series of events with prequels and sequels that are obviosly made to only create one story.

I don't normally write in the forum (as you can see by the numbers of messages I have...), and English is not my native language so I wouldn't want to start a discussion I would not be able to follow, but reading you over and over again with the same arguments, and judging by your signature that this is an important and even itchy topic, I just thought I had to write.

You keep repeating that canon is sort of a legal thing. "It is all up to law and property". Well, actually, it is quite the opposite.

The concept of canon was first used (aside from the biblic use, of course) by Sherlock Holmes fans to distinguish the stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle from the rest of stories written by a bunch of authors, even if they were legal. I repit, even if they were legal.

So, imagine this crazy example (just for the sake of the argument). Toriyama has some problems with Shueisha and loses the rights of Dragon Ball, but he starts an online Dragon Ball manga by himself. He doesn't have the rights, so it is, in fact, illegal. On the other hand, Toei starts a new TV show called Dragon Ball GT Yeah baby. The canon would be Toriyama's work, not DBGT Yeah baby.

This example is actually not that fictional, it happened with the Gargoyles franchise. Greg Weisman, the original creator, was out of the show in the third season (which is not considered canon). After that, he actually had to pay to Disney in order to make a comic continuation ignoring the aforementioned 3rd season. After some money issues he had to stop making them, but even nowadays, his interviews in which he gives little tidbits of information are considered canon. Third season isn't.

Of course, it is not as simple as that, and every situation has to be studied individually. On one hand, not all intelectual properties are done by one author (even with help of his editors). TV Shows are done by a lot of people, so normally the canon is established by the person in charge of creating and having control of the story. Joss Whedon with Buffy Vampire Slayer would be a good example of that (I guess, I haven't watched the show).

On the other hand, companies have seen the potential of the canon concept and they've used it to their advantage, feeling entitled to say what is canon and what is not in order to sell more. But if a company try to tell me that apples are called bananas I won't start calling them bananas. The concept of canon has nothing to do with law an intelectual property and everything to do with art and storytelling, that's the purpose for which it was created.

I don't know why with Dragon Ball fans there's always this discussion, you should go to a Lord of the rings forum and say "Peter Jackson's additions to The fellowship of the ring are canon" and people with just explode laughing, but in the Dragon Ball community it is always a delicate issue because everyone wants their favorite show/move/manga to be canon, as if they couldn't enjoy it otherwise.

So you can totally enjoy GT (as it seems you do), and you can even think it is canon as far as I am concerned, but please stop saying things like the fans are using rules invented by them about what is canon when you yourself are continuosly using invented rules about what is canon.

[Cetra]

You keep repeating that canon is sort of a legal thing. "It is all up to law and property". Well, actually, it is quite the opposite.

No, it is in no way the opposite. And repeating the original meaning of canonicity will not help in this argument because over the years words get additional meaning depending on context. Whether you bring in the bible or Sherlock Holmes really is of no relevance here. If people who do not have any say in anything they can discuss as much like and dislike as much as they want, it will not objectively mean anything for the value of what happened in a certain continuity of the franchise or not. That also does not exclude Sherlock Holmes. In case of the original meaning of the bible it is a totally different case because by the end of the day that is not a topic about an author who wrote something and then had the rights to it and other people got the rights, et cetera. If you write a story I can like or dislike it as much as I want. I can say "I do/don't count it for myself" but it will never have the same impact on the absolute truth of the franchise/series/story. Which means, if you then bring out a sequel containing the elements of what I did not like I can dislike it as much as I want and complain about how stuff is included that is bad or did not count, it will still not be true.

So, imagine this crazy example (just for the sake of the argument). Toriyama has some problems with Shueisha and loses the rights of Dragon Ball, but he starts an online Dragon Ball manga by himself. He doesn't have the rights, so it is, in fact, illegal. On the other hand, Toei starts a new TV show called Dragon Ball GT Yeah baby. The canon would be Toriyama's work, not DBGT Yeah baby.

And still DB Online is as overall canonical to the franchise, as everything else: Undefined. It has its base as everything in Dragon Ball and that's it. Nothing ever was said about that it happened together with element x in the continuity that everyone inisists so much on being the "main continuity".

This example is actually not that fictional, it happened with the Gargoyles franchise. Greg Weisman, the original creator, was out of the show in the third season (which is not considered canon). After that, he actually had to pay to Disney in order to make a comic continuation ignoring the aforementioned 3rd season. After some money issues he had to stop making them, but even nowadays, his interviews in which he gives little tidbits of information are considered canon. Third season isn't.

Which still is just nothing but a claim based on what you think how canonicity works. Only if Disney or whoever owns the rights of this franchise chooses to declare it non-canonical it is non-canonical. If that guy who got the rights to write something, says x is not counted for his story, then it simply means it does not count for his story but it does not say anything about overall canonicity owned by those who own everything.

The concept of canon has nothing to do with law an intelectual property and everything to do with art and storytelling, that's the purpose for which it was created.

Whether you like it or not, it has. Own the brand, own the rights. I know you don't agree with me. You're entire introduction of your post pretty much already made it no use answering (which is why I by the way reported the post - I mean, come on, you come in to provoke me, not only that the post is enough but you even admit it) but I still do because by the end of the day you have still not provided anything that actually has proven anything wrong but just given a few examples that included fan opinions, decided to ignore law and property just cause and thought it would be a good post to counter mine. But it still is not. Sorry. That is not even insultingly meant or anything but it is just this way. And if George Lucas comes out tomorrow and says stuff about Star Wars fans would consider it canonical, it would still not matter what fans and he think. Once Disney said "hm, okay (he is the creator of the original series,) sounds good, let's take that one" then it is canonical. Why is that? Because they can. Not you, not me, not anyone else. And the first part of your Gargoyle's paragraph actually has proven that already. The rest does not matter here because some things are not self-explanatory. Once you own something it is totally clear, who can and who cannot. And if the original creator has the right because he was given the right, then he can decide that, because he is legally allowed by someone who legally owns it.

when you yourself are continuosly using invented rules about what is canon.

Which is a laughable claim, sorry. I simply bow to those who make the stuff, just as I accept (like and dislike but still accept as it will not change anything anyway) what those companies give me. I cannot just accept everything they give me and once I don't like it, go out and claim that just because I think x matters/does not matter, that it suddenly is like that. Some things are just axiomatic and even if you struggle with them, they will stay what they are. You insist so much on property meaning nothing, even though it does, not I am the one being disrespectful, you disrepect the rights people have. Just as I accept that people have the right to decide what counts for them personally, I respect that it does not mean anything about the actual truth concerning a franchise because I also respect and know even if I wouldn't, it would not change, that an owner has the right to do with his thing what he wants. So, if you really are that persistent with your argument then bring out a story about a franchise, try to make money with it and claim it is canonical. And then we see what happens. And the best thing, even if it would be considered canonical then even only, because the actual owners allowed it. But yes, law, property, all that stuff does not matter a thing. What you are talking about it known as "fanon" or "head-canon" but not "canonicity". There is a really easy way to not read my posts that you dislike - don't stop with your cursor there and then you do not need to bother. It is okay, if you think something based on ignoring important aspects that stand over everything else in a certain context. But do not think I will change my posts because you want me to have those incomplete thoughts that ignore such stuff I have no influence in.

[Hellspawn28]

The original author being involved or not involved in something has nothing to do with automatically being canonical or not.

Most people feel like it's a rule if the original author is not involved with something then it should not be canon unless stated other wise. Why do you think that people view the Tenchi Muyo! manga not canon because it was written by a different author unlike the anime. I don't know why you make it sound like if ignoring GT is a bad thing. Usually if something sucks then they ignore for it. Also GT ended 18 years ago. Think about the target audience for the series. Kids these days in Japan where not born when it aired and probably never seen it. I won't see a point on trying to link Super with GT just to make GT be more relevant. It won't surprise me if Super gets ignore in 10-20 years from now if they do another series just to keep things relevant with today's audience.

[Cetra]

The original author being involved or not involved in something has nothing to do with automatically being canonical or not.

Most people feel like it's a rule if the original author is not involved with something then it should not be canon unless stated other wise.

Which is where the problem starts. It does not matter what fans think.

I don't know why you make it sound like if ignoring GT is a bad thing. Usually if something sucks then they ignore for it.

Because of the wrong reasons. A person that ignores something or misinterpretes something because of a mistake or a wrong thought hates (or whatever) for something that does not exist in the way they understood it. Just like you can be mad at me for me saying "hi, you look good" and you think "oh, this crapbag insulted me 8uz0o98zu!", you would be mad at me for a simple misunderstanding. I do no care if people think GT was bad (for reasons that actually exist) but that's it. As well as they can like it (for reasons that actually exist). But an opinion based on a mistake - that is what I do not like. Like people continously hating on GT for reasons they accept in Z or stuff in GT they just did not understand or people continously thinking a person that is not the only one allowed to make something, not being heavily involved, automatically makes it not canonical (and the great thing here is people treat me like I say "GT is canonical!!!" while I don't even do that, I continously say that it is undefined and just hope that it becomes part of an established canonicity).

[Nafno]

As I said, I have no intention whatsoever to start a discussion, I just wanted to say some facts because you keep imposing everyone your "official = canon" over and over, and repeating it doesn't make it true.

BTW, reported means that you've called the mods or something like that? I am surprised that you find this offensive. I mean, you go here and there telling people that your conception of what is canon and what isn't is the only one valid, and when someone actually answers you with information, facts and without being disrespectful, you take offence. It wasn't my goal at all, just wanted to create a counterpoint.