Would the non-Disney+ MCU shows be considered Canon Discontinuity at this point? (Or Schrödinger's Canon, for that matter)
Edited by AndreskX
Canon Discontinuity currently says "Insomniac Games confirmed that the two PSP Ratchet & Clank spinoffs are non-canon," and the source listed is a dead link. (This source is also cited on other pages.) http://insomniac.games/community/showthread.php?56339-Did-Insomniac-Ever-Outright-Confirm-SM-and-SAC-Were-Non-Canon&p=1421220&viewfull=1#post1421220
However, the official Insomniac Games Twitter account says that the games actually are canon. http://twitter.com/insomniacgames/status/818582634951380993
James Stevenson, the Community Director at Insomniac Games, also says that they are canon. http://ratchetandclank.fandom.com/wiki/Ratchet_%26_Clank_Wiki:Bulletin_board/Interview_with_James_Stevenson
I can't find an archive of the dead link but it seems to be deleted for a reason, possibly due to an Insomniac employee misunderstanding their outline for canon. Do these games still qualify for the Canon Discontinuity trope?
[[I don't know wtf is going on with these links. I'm new to TV Tropes and the text formatting here is the weirdest of any wiki I've seen. The links are valid, you just gotta copy them to your search bar, it keeps thinking they're internal links.]]
Edited by Tesseradical17
New paragraph:
- This trope can be misused, there are times where a work that was liked by fans and critics gets axed and leaves the fans unhappy with this decision because it was done with no reason, there are times when a work is disliked, but fans may still claim that removing it from continuity is going too far and it should have stayed as canon even though they still think it's bad, especially when good stories treated it as canon, and there are many examples when something is discontinued because it was disliked and everyone agrees, but the new story meant to replace it and become the "real" follow-up turns out to be just as bad or even worse.
They said it was obvious complaining, but I don't think it is.
Sometimes, a work is removed from continuity when fans liked.
Sometimes, a work is removed from continuity because fans didn't like it, but they didn't think it should be removed from continuity.
And many times, a work is removed from continuity because fans didn't like it and they agree with it, but the new work meant to replace it turns up to be just as bad.
Hide / Show Replies
First, keep in mind that this cannot actually be misused, at least not by the creators or companies. Trope misuse, as defined here in the wiki, pertains cases when we (the tropers) say something is a trope when it isn't, either because of a misinterpretation of the trope's meaning, or because of a deliverate shoehorn. If a creator declares something non-canon, then it's an actual case, regardless of whether fans like it or not.
Secondly, it is complaining because it is not compliant with Tropes Are Tools (despite you trying to pothole it as if it was). In my experience, there aren't that many cases of creators discontinuing something just to piss off fans. They do have understandable reasons for it. It may be an Old Shame for them. It may have been a huge flop and/or target for bile reception. It may have created many grave contradictions or plot holes to a prior story. It may not even have been involved the creator or company themselves and thus not fit the vision they have for the work.
And in the majority of the cases, fans agree. The only case I can recall about them disagreeing was when Yoshio Sakamoto "wanted to de-canonize" the Prime games from the Metroid series with Other M, but that was later rectified. What are the other "many times" it happened?
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
- While fans are usually glad that this happens, it is not always the case, there are times where a work that was liked by fans and critics or was just divisive instead of universally disliked, gets axed and leaves the fanbase unhappy with this decision, and there are many examples when something is discontinued because it was universally disliked and everyone agrees, but the new story meant to replace it and become the "real" follow-up turns out to be just as bad or even worse, making the fanbase prefer the old version or ignore both.
Better now? Or needs another change?
Edited by VictorDamazio
While I think the new wording is better, I would look for a bigger consensus. Try asking in the Trope Description Improvement Drive in the forums (I can't link it here because these discussion tabs are buggy).
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Superman Returns doesn't really count as discontinuity. Bryan Singer wrote it to be a homage of Christoper Reeve's films, not in line with them, as this film is not set in the '80's.
Edited by Rbrtblnk
About the Sonic 4/Mania part: Didn't the latter have the Phantom Ruby warping space-time? I just assumed that accounted for the appearance of stuff that shouldn't be there such as Flying Battery (which should have crashed in S3&K), Metallic Mandness (which exploded in the ending of Sonic CD), or Metal Sonic in Present Stardust Speedway. If you're assuming Sonic 4 was decanonized because of the Metal Sonic tidbit, wouldn't you be assuming the same of Sonic CD, in which Metal Sonic ended up destroyed in the Future?
Also, where does Sonic 4 state that Knuckles' story in Sonic 3 & Knuckles happened concurrently with Sonic and Tails'?
Edited by Dere
Does this cover episodes that were never intended to be canonical — parodies, crossovers, specials, that kind of thing? For example, the Simpsons Halloween Specials exist in Negative Continuity, but that trope doesn't apply to the series as a whole (at least, not to the same extent — dead characters stay dead).
Is the comment that "X-Men: First Class officially throws X-Men Origins: Wolverine out the window" based on Word of God? I wanted to add a comment about how it's even harder to reconcile First Class with the first and third X Men movies (to my knowledge, the only problem with reconciling Wolverine and First Class is the presence of a younger Emma Frost in Wolverine, which is set after First Class, but nothing rules out the character in Wolverine - who I don't think is ever even given a name outside the closing credits - being a daughter/niece/younger sister/clone (don't laugh - Emma Frost in the comics has three teenage clones)/etc. of the character in First Class), but the use of the word "officially" makes it seem like the person who added that example may have heard the producers disown Wolverine without disowning the first three movies.
Edited by LoserTakesAll
I'm an Irene!
Something bothers me about the Sonic entry. Could somebody actually site this to prevent Flame Wars? It's a very heavy topic to just declare that a TON of Sonic games are out of continuity...
Quest 64 thread Hide / Show Replies
I agree. I don't know where that came from, either. All I can say it this: Cite where you found it or don't mention it at all!
Edit: Other articles relating to the franchise have this problem as well. It's getting to where I'll just remove them unless they can cite where they came from!
Edited by SamMax
Yeah. And clearly Sonic 2006 MUST be canon, since it was mentioned in Sonic Generations. Or, at the very least, the game did happen, just was time-warped out of continuity, if you will.(as in the events didn't take place besides Sonic and Friends visiting)
Anybody find it odd that Silver is in Generations, but Omega is not, though? Er-hem, this does bug me quite a lot. I can believe everything below it, but we both know that if Sonic 2006 isn't canon, then clearly Generations is not.(which, yeah, I doubt that)
Quest 64 thread
Whoever put it up the Canon Discontinuity the first place is either an official at Sega, or confused this somewhat with Fanon Discontinuity
It seems to be gone, now. Who's the troper who put it up? Probably the same guy who put up the rumors of those graphic novels that were allegedly to be sequels and prequels to the Super Mario Bros. film.
Non Serial Movies are by definition not in canon's continuity. Does that mean the case of the original work ignoring any change to the canonical universe by a Non-Serial Movie not a case of Canon Discontinuity?
Scientia et Libertas | Per Aspera ad Astra Nova
What the hell is "The events of 2 Fast 2 Furious and The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift seem have been completely forgotten in The Fast And The Furious series. Especially notable in the fact that none of the characters introduced in the second film (and one in the third film) appeared in the more-known Fast and Furious and Fast Five." talking about? Yeah, none of 2 Fast 2 Furious is included in Fast Five. Except, you know, for the multiple characters from 2 Fast 2 Furious that appear in Fast Five. And the references to the events from 2 Fast 2 Furious in Fast Five. And Tokyo Drift has not been "forgotten," it takes place in the future. And even within that context, there's a reference to it at the end of Fast Five, from the character that is (wait for it) in both Tokyo Drift and Fast Five (and Fast and Furious). Literally nothing from the Fast/Furious franchise has even been softly retconned, let a-fucking-lone made "canon discontinuity." Seriously. What?
Wizzard
It's worth noting at this point that it's well known that RTD dislikes the movie - it's brought up and mocked in his series Queer As Folk
Hmm. I've often thought that TV shows should have a little disclaimer: "The opinions of characters are not necessarily those of the writer". In his column in Doctor Who Magazine #344, Rusty refers to McGann's "glorious, heartfelt Doctor", describes the TV Movie as "a fine version of this brilliant show", and dismisses the furor that even caused Philip Segal to doubt whether the Eighth Doctor "counted" as the work of "lonely loudmouths" and "frothing pedants", before concluding "Of course he's the Eighth! Of course he bloody is!"
I think this trope means that Word of God is stating that certain points either never happened in-universe or aren't really that important to the plot.
Somebody work the pun Canon DIS Continuity into the Zelda C Di games.
Ummm... for the picture, shouldn't the Superman Returns poster be "X"-ed out as well? I mean, a lot of fans hate that movie too, what with Superman becoming the world's worst deadbeat dad and all.
Hide / Show Replies
The picture is illustrating canon discontinuity. Superman Returns is sort of a sequel to Superman II, ignoring the intervening movies.
Wizzard
I notice Trouble has been zapped because "It was never intended to be in continuity". Actually, Marvel were vague on that point, probably because it was published during a period when "continuity" was practically a dirty word in in the Bullpen.
The Other Wiki says "Complaints from fans were so strong that Marvel later declared that the story was not part of the "official" Marvel continuity", and links to an interview where Bill Jemas says "I hope that Marvel readers will be proud to call Trouble the origin of Spider-Man" (with, admittedly, the get-out-clause that if they aren't, it won't be - Schrodinger's Discontinuity?)
I zapped the entry about the Clone Saga. Not referencing a story again isn't Canon Discontinuity. Canon Discontinuity requires either an official statement a story never happened or a deliberate contradiction without the benefit of a Retcon.
In fact, the revelation that Norman Osborn survived his death in Amazing Spider-Man #121 (or was that #122) was part of the Clone Saga. Osborn is still around today, and if the Clone Saga was Canon Discontinuity, he wouldn't be.
I have to say, I'm greatly confused as to that the LOST entry is getting at. I've never heard of whatever the hell they're going on about when it comes to Stranger In A Strange Land, and Nikki and Paulo were NOT retconned away, just killed off.
Hide / Show Replies
What exactly was so bad about Paranoia 5th Edition? Un-product ranting aside, it's like a big Noodle Incident.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Why is this subjective?
, started by Mandemo on Jan 30th 2011 at 10:19:05 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman