Originally posted by Galan007to kill all bias
g007-psyduck
Here is my evidence
1. Alan moore and dave gibbons saying its not canon
2. It is a prequel that contradicts the original
Now we can be bias and call something canon because we want it to be. But that isnt evidence of why it is canon. Why isnt a cereal box comic canon? It is owned by Marvel and they didnt say it isnt canon.
So by you guys reasoning everything owned by the company is canon.
I gave reasons to support it not being canon. Gives reasons supporting it being canon while resolving the contradictions.
Even if it is canon then we must take the original story over the prequel since the prequel is based off of it as the primary source.
Originally posted by h1a8
to kill all biasHere is my evidence
1. Alan moore and dave gibbons saying its not canon
2. It is a prequel that contradicts the original
As has been stated many, many times:
1. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons don't own the rights, and therefore don't get to determine what's canon and what's not.
2. It's called a "retcon". Happens all the time.
Originally posted by h1a8
Now we can be bias and call something canon because we want it to be. But that isnt evidence of why it is canon. Why isnt a cereal box comic canon? It is owned by Marvel and they didnt say it isnt canon.
So by you guys reasoning everything owned by the company is canon.
Originally posted by h1a8The most recently published work takes precedence. The prequel being based on the original is something you just made up.
Even if it is canon then we must take the original story over the prequel since the prequel is based off of it as the primary source.
Originally posted by Cogito
As has been stated many, many times:1. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons don't own the rights, and therefore don't get to determine what's canon and what's not.
2. It's called a "retcon". Happens all the time.Only everything that takes place in the same universe.
The most recently published work takes precedence. The prequel being based on the original is something you just made up.
We don't own the rights either. Why is our say any greater?
Retcon's don't create contradictions, they resolve them. We know something is canon if it references the original universe. If it contradicts the original universe then how could it be canon?
Cereal box comics don't exactly go out of their way to say it is from another universe. Yet somehow we know they aren't canon.
Originally posted by h1a8
So contradicting the original story is ridiculous?
Why isn't a cereal box comic canon?
If you can't answer that then I should report you for trolling me.
I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.
If you can't use common sense to understand why a cereal box comic or an action figure comic is non canon in contrast to Before Watchmen, then I think it's time you took a step back from your PC, took a bit of a break from discussing comic books and maybe read a good book.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.If you can't use common sense to understand why a cereal box comic or an action figure comic is non canon in contrast to Before Watchmen, then I think it's time you took a step back from your PC, took a bit of a break from discussing comic books and maybe read a good book.
I know why cereal box comics aren't canon. But I was using an example of how we must use some type of rules to decide these things. My point is, everything D.C. or Marvel makes isn't canon. So the logic of them owning the rights doesn't prove canon. We look at how a story references what we already know to be canon. If we get contradictions then that is evidence supporting it not being canon (being from a different universe).
I'm being reasonable here and as objective as I can. No one can give me a straight answer. All I hear is BeforeWatchmen is canon because I said so, or it's canon because D.C. owns the rights. But D.C. owns the rights to games, cereal box comics, etc. and that doesn't make them canon. Now do you understand where I'm coming from?
There are rules about what's canon on KMC:
Originally posted by Digi
Debating Format
[b]No Non-canon Sources
Non-canon sources are invalid for evidence. With rare exceptions, comics not in continuity such as Elseworlds, What Ifs, or alternate universes are not used for evidence in debates of a particular mainstream character.A canon source is one that is regarded as being 'in continuity'. In the example of Star Trek; instances from the series and movies can be used, but books are definitely out. Comic book crossovers are usually unusable as they ignore common sense most of the time (DC vs. Marvel is certainly unusable in some cases in our debates!).
This includes JLA/Avengers. Canon or not, people just aren't going to agree on it in most cases. Besides, there should be plenty of other comics with which to make your point.
Comics released strictly online or on web sites will not be considered proof in the Comic Book Versus Forum.
An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.
This principle extends to characters with multiple versions, alternate timelines, etc. Unless specified by the thread starter, only current-version canon feats are allowed. [/B]
Edit: And there is no discussion about this either. If people need to use feats from cereal or action figure boxes and their defense is that it doesn't contradict what's shown in comics then this will end badly. Find the feat in a canon comic, or don't bring it up.
Manhattan takes this. Saying his powers are "energy-based" is a misrepresentation of his power. He is one with the universe. He is a sentient fundamental force, like gravity or electromagnetism. He has awareness and control over all the particles of the universe (including Doomsday'😉 and can do with them what he pleases. The only way to pose any kind of threat to him was to generate tachyons, and even if Doomsday can do that, even then that didn't harm DM physically, only block his precog, there's no proof that Doomsday can generate a particle which can actually physically harm a sentient fundamental force, because he'd have to be a reality warper at that point.
As far as forcibly teleporting people, I'm sure the angry crowd who were teleported into their own homes did not go willingly. Not saying these people were Doomsday level, but still an impressive show of power.
As far as "Doomsday beating the shit out of him", how's he going to do that. Assuming he can even harm Manhattan (who can alter his physical features anyway he pleases), Manhattan will only reform, considering his physical body is merely a manifestation of his universe-tied disembodied consciousness.
How does Doomsday win here?
Originally posted by Badabing
IU have the issues but didn't read them yet. Any reason it wouldn't be canon? It's not like there's much else to use aside from the original comics.
H1a8 has two arguments against it:
Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.
Originally posted by BadabingThe only person who has an issue with the canonicity of Before Watchmen is h1(imagine that.)
IU have the issues but didn't read them yet. Any reason it wouldn't be canon? It's not like there's much else to use aside from the original comics.
He believes that Gibbons' and Moore's comments in a weberview(in which they said BW is non-canon), is law. What h1 fails/refuses to understand is that neither Moore nor Gibbons own the rights to the Watchmen franchise these days, thus any statements they make pertaining to the aforementioned series are no more credible than carver trying to make an official statement to the masses regarding Hulk. ie. people who don't own the rights to a series and/or characters do not get to choose what is canon and what isn't. That said, DC owns the rights to Watchmen, and they made it quite clear that BW is 100% canon-- it simply expands upon the original series.
You see, this 'debate' doesn't require a mod ruling, imo. It simply requires a little(just a smidge/tad/dab/pinch) of common sense. 👆
Originally posted by Galan007That's it then. I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen.
The only person who has an issue with the canonicity of Before Watchmen is h1(imagine that.)He believes that Gibbons' and Moore's comments in a weberview(in which they said BW is non-canon), is law. What h1 fails/refuses to understand is that neither Moore nor Gibbons own the rights to the Watchmen franchise these days, thus any statements they make pertaining to the aforementioned series are no more credible than carver trying to make an official statement to the masses regarding Hulk. ie. people who don't own the rights to a series and/or characters do not get to choose what is canon and what isn't. That said, DC owns the rights to Watchmen, and they made it quite clear that BW is 100% canon-- it simply expands upon the original series.
You see, this 'debate' doesn't require a mod ruling, imo. It simply requires a little(just a smidge/tad/dab/pinch) of common sense. 👆