|
|
Post by Kieran on May 14, 2011 20:25:04 GMT 2
Tell me what do you think of these? Here are my views of sensible and logic definitons for this fandom, (or any fandom that is.) - CANON = the first film's content. As in the authentic The Lion King.
---> The commentary track from the Laserdisc and DVD could be considered as canon the same, as it is a more detailed information on the creators' visions of the film's content. Call the commentary track "tier 2 canon" if you will.
- SEMI-CANON/SUB-CANON = That which is not in the first film but is tied in to it by the film's makers - or downright created by them.
---> Because a thing can't possibly carry the word 'canon' in its definition if it has not been tied into the actual canon content by the canon content's creators. This means that absolutely nothing in this fandom can be defined as officially semi-canon/sub-canon.
- OFFICIAL = Anything that has Disney's stamp on it as in has been approved by The Walt Disney Company.
- SEMI-OFFICIAL = That which is generally official but is unofficial to the movie universe. As in that which has been approved by The Walt Disney Company BUT has not been tied into the movie universe by any of the film makers, (such as the books and comics.)
- OFFICIAL FANFICTION = That which is made up by fans and approved by The Walt Disney Company. Such as the books and comics which totally were not created by The Walt Disney Company but only approved by it. Whether the authors were actual fans or just outsiders doesn't really make a difference. This is still the closest definiton to the books and comics.
- OFFICIAL STORYLINE = That which is said and shown in the movies The Lion King and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride. Or, if you will, just The Lion King while TLK2 completely ignored.
---> Naturally the first film's story remains the most official - but since it all started from a movie, the entire movie universe becomes the most official universe of the fandom. And naturally what is not said or shown in the storyline can not officially be part of it. "The Lion King 1½: Hakuna Matata" can't be counted as part of the official storyline because it's a parody and not a prequel.
- FANON = That which is made up by fans and does not exist in any official Disney material as in has not been approved by The Walt Disney Company.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.) What does this make of Kopa?- Not canon nor semi-canon but official in general - Unofficial to the movie universe - Not part of the official storyline - Not the cub at the end of the first film - Official Fanfictin in essence 2.) What does this make of Kiara?- Not canon nor semi-canon but official in general - Official to the movie universe - Part of the official storyline - The most official identity to the cub at the end of the first film - The cub at the end of the first film in the official storyline |
|
Gemma
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by Gemma on May 18, 2011 14:27:50 GMT 2
This seems to make a lot of sense.  There are just a few little things I'm wondering about: Could semi-canon/sub-canon refer to content that was created by the original film makers, but not used in the film? Such as Mheetu and the other characters that were discarded during preproduction? I was a little unclear on the meaning of that one. At first I wasn't sure about the difference between "official" and "semi-official", but I think I might have it now! Is "official" referring to anything approved by Disney that is involved in the movie universe (e.g. Kiara) while "semi-official" refers to anything approved by Disney that is ignored in the movie universe (e.g. Kopa, and anything considered "official fanfiction")? Also: "The Lion King 1½: Hakuna Matata" can't be counted as part of the official storyline because it's a parody and not a prequel. Does this go for the whole movie, or just the parody scenes? I've noticed that people generally seem to accept certain aspects of this movie as official (such as Timon's family, and some of the events that happen before Simba is born). So when it comes to the parts that don't conflict with the original movie, I was wondering where they stand? Haha, well that was more than I was expecting to write!  So much for wondering about "a few little things". XD |
|
|
|
Post by Kieran on May 18, 2011 21:12:43 GMT 2
Could semi-canon/sub-canon refer to content that was created by the original film makers, but not used in the film? Such as Mheetu and the other characters that were discarded during preproduction? I was a little unclear on the meaning of that one. There's one little thing though; those characters were never intended into the version of canon that we see in the film. So in that sense they're not purely semi-canon in my logic. But I think even so, the most sensible term for Mheetu & co. would be semi-canon, because they were once canon by indeed being created by the canon's makers and being intended into early versions of the canon. Could they be called "tier 2 semi-canon" or "tier 0 semi-canon"? =DD Nah, I think semi-canon is close enough.  At first I wasn't sure about the difference between "official" and "semi-official", but I think I might have it now! Is "official" referring to anything approved by Disney that is involved in the movie universe (e.g. Kiara) while "semi-official" refers to anything approved by Disney that is ignored in the movie universe (e.g. Kopa, and anything considered "official fanfiction")? Well, kinda. I defined Official to be literally anything with Disney's stamp on it. Meaning that books and their characters are generally official no matter what. But because they're also ignored and denied in the most official universe of the fandom, they become also semi-official. So my point tries to be that even though the books are generallyoffficial, they'd best be refered to as semi-official because that's what the most official universe's denial makes them in the end. Also: "The Lion King 1½: Hakuna Matata" can't be counted as part of the official storyline because it's a parody and not a prequel. Does this go for the whole movie, or just the parody scenes? I've noticed that people generally seem to accept certain aspects of this movie as official (such as Timon's family, and some of the events that happen before Simba is born). So when it comes to the parts that don't conflict with the original movie, I was wondering where they stand? I personally think it's all or nothing in official terms. Because if you have to pick and choose, it naturally becomes your personal preference instead of official entity. So no, I don't think any bit of TLK1½ ought to be treated as official to the official story. Also because I think if that parody's makers really meant anything of their film to be taken seriously, they wouldn't have made it so parody weighted. Did this clear my visions at all? |
|
TheLionPrince
New Member
Crown Prince of the Pride Lands
Posts: 34
|
Post by TheLionPrince on Jun 25, 2011 1:10:13 GMT 2
A little confused,  but doesn't canon and official mean the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Kieran on Jun 25, 2011 1:42:47 GMT 2
A little confused, but doesn't canon and official mean the same. In the sense that canon is part of what's official. But everything that's official is not canon. --> The book "Friends In Need", its story says Zazu became Mufasa's counsellor by Mufasa's personal choice. --> One of the books in The Six New Adventures say Zazu would become the king's counsellor after his mother and Zazu's children after him and so on. ^Both of the books are official, but both can't be canon as they contradict each other and when you have to pick and choose, it becomes fanfiction chosen from official content. One (german?) comic strip has Scar with cub Simba and Timon as friends, all in Pridelands. This obviously can't be canon as in really connect to the original story as it totally alters every core element of it, but the comic strip is still official. The definition "canon" would not exist if it didn't have its very own concept and place in a fandom's official content. Hence the word 'definition'. |
|
TheLionPrince
New Member
Crown Prince of the Pride Lands
Posts: 34
|
Post by TheLionPrince on Aug 3, 2011 2:19:23 GMT 2
A little confused, but doesn't canon and official mean the same. In the sense that canon is part of what's official. But everything that's official is not canon. --> The book "Friends In Need", its story says Zazu became Mufasa's counsellor by Mufasa's personal choice. --> One of the books in The Six New Adventures say Zazu would become the king's counsellor after his mother and Zazu's children after him and so on. ^Both of the books are official, but both can't be canon as they contradict each other and when you have to pick and choose, it becomes fanfiction chosen from official content. The definition "canon" would not exist if it didn't have its very own concept and place in a fandom's official content. Hence the word 'definition'. Oh, I get it. Canon means made by the original filmmakers, while official means approved by the studio. One (german?) comic strip has Scar with cub Simba and Timon as friends, all in Pridelands. This obviously can't be canon as in really connect to the original story as it totally alters every core element of it, but the comic strip is still official. You're referring to the comic, "ROAAAR". I read it, and it did contradict The Lion King as Timon never encountered Scar, which is why he said, "I never met your tyrant, I mean uh, I mean uh, Scar..." in The Lion King II. How do you know Disney approved the comics as "official"? Disney may gave them permission to use their characters, but I don't they approved the comics. Finally, what does it of TLK1½. Semi-canon or Sub-canon? IMDb.com and the film credits credit Roger Allers (co- Lion King director) and Irene Meechi (co- Lion King screenwriter) as writing additional screenplay material for the movie. So, it is sub-canon or semi-canon, if I'm not mistaken? |
|
|
|
Post by Kieran on Nov 5, 2011 18:44:06 GMT 2
Sory this took so long. Your post had completely escaped my eye until now. How do you know Disney approved the comics as "official"? Disney may gave them permission to use their characters, but I don't they approved the comics. Disney approved them because they have Disney's stamp on them, and naturally through approval, the thing becomes official. Anyone has Disney's permission to use the characters so long as the use is non-profit and not published. But when the copyright holder slaps their mark on it, it's been published for profit. And through that it automatically becomes official and not just permitted. In such situation it simply can't not be official. Hence, the stamp turns it official, but not part of the official storyline. Because the story itself was not written by the copyright holder. There's a fine line between being official and being part of the official storyline. "Finally, what does it of TLK1½. Semi-canon or Sub-canon? IMDb.com and the film credits credit Roger Allers (co-Lion King director) and Irene Meechi (co-Lion King screenwriter) as writing additional screenplay material for the movie. So, it is sub-canon or semi-canon, if I'm not mistaken? Aren't semi-canon and sub-canon the same thing, just differently phrased? According to my definitions, that makes semi/sub-canon of the particular additional scenes they wrote but not necessarely the whole movie unless those two literally said that the whole movie is their vision (which I highly doubt seeing to that it's a parody.) I would call the 1½ rather just official movie and nothing more or less, seeing to that it wasn't entirely created/tied into the canon by the canon's makers. Do you know which scenes are those they wrote? |
|
TheLionPrince
New Member
Crown Prince of the Pride Lands
Posts: 34
|
Post by TheLionPrince on Nov 11, 2011 0:08:12 GMT 2
Sory this took so long. Your post had completely escaped my eye until now. It's okay just as long as I received a response from you. "Finally, what does it of TLK1½. Semi-canon or Sub-canon? IMDb.com and the film credits credit Roger Allers (co-Lion King director) and Irene Meechi (co-Lion King screenwriter) as writing additional screenplay material for the movie. So, it is sub-canon or semi-canon, if I'm not mistaken? Aren't semi-canon and sub-canon the same thing, just differently phrased? According to my definitions, that makes semi/sub-canon of the particular additional scenes they wrote but not necessarely the whole movie unless those two literally said that the whole movie is their vision (which I highly doubt seeing to that it's a parody.) I would call the 1½ rather just official movie and nothing more or less, seeing to that it wasn't entirely created/tied into the canon by the canon's makers. Do you know which scenes are those they wrote? Yeah, I think semi-canon and sub-canon mean the same, and I couldn't find any reliable information on the specific additional scenes Allers and Mecchi contributed to TLK1½. However, a blog site I found linked to the film's information on lionking.org has Bradley Raymond (director of TLK1½) stating they both "came in to help consult" on the film. Not enough information, but I wholeheartedly agree TLK1½ is nothing more than official. |
|
queen
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by queen on Jun 18, 2019 21:05:47 GMT 2
3)What does this make of Kion?
- Not canon, nor semi-canon but official in General
- Unofficial to the movie universe
- Not part of the Official Storyline
- Official to the General Universe (Consisting of TLK + SP + TLG)
Semi - Official in Essence
|
|
So much for wondering about "a few little things". XD
but doesn't canon and official mean the same.