Forum:Canon

Forums: Index > Brethren Forum > Canon

Which sources can be regarded as canon? It's clear that the movies are canon, the DVD features, and the Visual Guide too, and that Kingdom Hearts II and Akella's video game aren't canon, but what's with the deleted scenes, books, comics, the TCG, other games, websites and statements made by actors? At least some of the video games and most of the comic short stories seems to contradict with the movies... El Chupacabra 13:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my definition:

Films - highest level of canon; cannot be contradicted by other material.

DVDs - commentaries and to a lesser extent, interviews, are pretty much tied in with the films

Guide books - canon, just below the films.

Comics - the Disney Adventures comics haven't really been classified as canon or not, though I believe they can fit into continuity (I've started to address some perceived concerns here) except for extreme cases such as that one time-travel comic.

Books - Jack Sparrow prequel novels are canon, as I don't think they've (so far) contradicted anything. Jack's backstory as written for the films (EITC employ) comes after these stories.

Video games - loosely canon, as they obviously differ from the films because of gameplay. I think they can be taken as an alternative view of events, though "unseen" events (such as the Turkish prison level in AWE) can be worked into continuity as they expand on the films without necessarily contradicting them.

TCG - usually material like this conforms to canon; toy lines, for example, have provided information on some characters' birthplaces, which can presumably be taken as canon. As long as there's no clear contradiction, this info can be included.

Websites - official websites only are canon. "Pirates 101" is a good example: it's an official Disney site, and is about the only place to find Jack's backstory (developed for DMC and AWE but ultimately dropped). Keep to the Code and similar, while an "official unofficial site", are not canon, though it is possible to derive conjecture from discussions there (e.g., discussions can provide insights into the film, as long as they can be backed up).

Actors' statements - a tricky one. It could be an actor reflecting something that's in the film or script, or it could be their individual interpretation of the character, which might not be backed up by official material. For example, Geoffrey Rush has stated his interpretation of Barbossa's youth, but this doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the writers or film-makers, so it can't really be treated as canon unless found in officially published material.

- \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice guide there, Kwenn, but you forgot to add statements from people other than the actors. Don't you think quotes from the writers and directors could be useful too? ---Wanderingshadow

Ah, yes, that's generally a mix of "commentary" and "actor" comments. Generally, I accept anything said by the writers to be of higher canon than the actors and film-makers, though you still have to be mindful that what's intended in the script isn't always realized on screen, either because it's removed or because the director overrules it in favour of another interpretation. Generally, though, if they complement officially-released material, they can largely be considered canon, though perhaps with a note clarifying the source of the info - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but what's with the Ride and The Prisoner's last tale? El Chupacabra 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Images in the JS novels seems to contradict with the text:

1)The Faithful Bride as pictured in Book 1 looks much smaller then in the movies.

2)The Barnacle is a battered old fishing boat, but in Book 2 she's pictured as a large, three-masted ship. (looks more like the Grand Barnacle)

3)While the text of book 2 says that Arabella jumped overboard, in the picture it looks like if she would fall accidently.

El Chupacabra 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chalk it up to artistic license. They only illustrate the text, after all. The text itself is the main source of information - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this because you have requested this images. El Chupacabra 10:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Should the video games be considerd noncanon, Captain Kwenn? They do contradict the movie in parts, for example in the At World's End video game, Barbossa forced Jack Sparrow of the ship and into a boat. In the movie Barbosa steals the Black Pearl while Jack is ashore. - Captain J. Sparrow 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think they're cannon as long as they don't condradict the films. - 86.128.97.129 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Cajaan Robards; Pirate Lord of Wales86.128.97.129 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that they do seem to contradict the films. - J. Sparrow 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Games, like novelizations, are tricky. They obviously don't play out in the exact same way as the films -- the former for gameplay purposes, the latter to embellish particular points uncoverable on film. Most contradictions in games can simply be put down to gameplay mechanics -- for instance, if a player fails a mission and kills Jack Sparrow, it's not canon, but the overall storyline of the game is. And again, any contradiction means the film trumps the game on that particular point -- doesn't mean the rest of the game is suddenly non-canon - Captain Kwenn ^{– Talk} 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that parts of the games are canon, but since they are that-games-shhoulnd't we look at them as games based on the movies, or a legends based on "real" events, as they would be if the movies were fact. Or, as an ulterante vies, the video games could be cinsiderd to take place in an alterate universe. How canon are novelizations? For example, in the novelization of "At World's End", Sao Feng learned that Elizabeth Swann wasn't Clipso, in the movie he doesn't. The movies are ultimate canon, but where would that novel fit in. - Captain J. Sparrow 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, individual instances of inconsistency are treated as non-canon -- but the product overall is still canon. Just ignore inconsistencies and move on - Captain Kwenn ^{– Talk} 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked how canon deleated sceens are. Do we have a stand on that? - Captain J. Sparrow 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a little difficult, because certain scenes may only have been deleted because of timing issues in the film or something; not because they're no longer part of the story. Also, they could be referenced in other works (think the whole "is Will free of the Dutchman" thing in AWE, which is only resolved via a deleted scene): some still appear in scripts and novels, though of course some are contradicted outright (such as Jack's scars from Curse not being visible in the sequels). I think it depends on the individual scene.

Why do we need a backup from other sources for actor's statements? Unlike Lord of the Rings or Harry Portter PotC has no "Autor Nr. 1" who's intentions are the highest level of canonicy. An actor who portrays a original character can invent much of the character's personality (Many aspects of Jack Sparrow were invented by Jonny Depp, Jones get his scottish accent because of Bill Nighy, etc.) It's just logical that not plot-related background was invented by the actors, like Barbossas story and Pintel and Ragetti's relationship as uncle and nephew because there is no writer's intention. I think T&T wouldn't waste their time for inventing a detailed background for every single individual in the movies, so we should regard the statements as canon if they donesn't contradict to a source of higher canonicy.El Chupacabra 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, next week we'll presumbably improve Pintel, so we need to clarify the canonicy of actors's statements. By now nobody disagreed with my statement, so do we accept actor's statements as canon?

P.S. I'll regard silence as a "yes" El Chupacabra 15:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might as well, after all we regarded Geofrey Rush's comments about Barbossa's childhood as canon. - Captain KAJ ^{– Shipwreck Cove} 16:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, common sense, based on canonical information mind you, should tell you that their statements are false. As Kwenn stated above, Geoffery Rush's comments were an interpretation, whereas the other actors were just making things up. I do not consider the words of actors to be canon, unless, as in Geoffery Rush's case, they are making an interpretation.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And how can we decide who's "interpretating" and who's "making things up"? Of course, if a statement clearly contradict with the movie (or even with a writer's statement), it can't be canon, but if it doesn't contradict, we don't need a confirmation of this statement by any other source to see it as canon. El Chupacabra 08:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of their statements make sense. It goes against common sense. Besides, Geoffery Rush is a more respectable actor. The information you want to put in the Pintel and Ragetti articles is not canon. This discussion has already been settled, and I'm tired of it going on.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)