• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

A new approach to Pokémon Canon

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
3,042
2,577
Introduction
As some might already know, I'm going to work with Pokémon Blogs (Alongside my Digimon Blogs), so I need to be sure of how the canon of the franchise works here. Luckily we have this blog to explain that, however, I think that the Pokémon Canon has a lot more to it than the blog shows (In fact, I would say that it's because of the standardized concept of canon that doesn't work with some franchises, as I explained in this blog).

So, I decided to do my own "Canon Analysis: Pokémon" blog. This thread will discuss two possibilities of what to do with Pokémon's canon.

Add more to what already is accepted

The current accepted Pokémon blog considers the following pieces of the Pokémon franchise as canon:

1) Core Games series;
2) Spin-off Games and other Tie-in media connected with the Core Series (Such as the Pokémon Ranger game series or the Twilight Wings anime series);
3) Pokémon Anime;
4) Pokémon Adventures manga;
5) Detective Pikachu and TCG (With less validity than the others).

The idea is that it's canon what is connected with the game series or was made with direct instructions from the Pokémon Company.

If nothing changes, we can at least add to this: Pokémon Masters; Magikarp Jump; Detective Pikachu (Game), Dengeki Pikachu and possibly Pokémon Conquest.

The blog has all the information for why those need to be considered as well. All of them have the same characteristics as the Pokémon anime and the Adventures manga, they were made with the overall rules of the series in mind and they needed to be sure that everything there fits with the world of Pokémon. The only that isn't the case is Pokémon Conquest, that at best has a tie-in event with the Core Game series and Nobunaga's Rayquaza is an available character in the B/W series, so it fits with the same rule as the spin-off games and tie-in media that is connected with the Core series.

What if we changed
One of the things that the original blog already considers is that a work can be considered canon, or at least "usable", if it was made with all the rules of Pokémon in mind. This is something that I explained in greater detail in my blog about Canon as a whole, but basically there are multiple ways of using the multimedia medium to tell the story of a world, and is perfectly possible to have totally not in-continuity stories and they still being valid to the world itself. Think of the world itself as the stage of a theatrical play, different versions of the script (Even ones that are 100% different from each other), but still the same material as a whole.

In these cases, it's not even necessary to have a multiverse to make every piece of a multimedia work canon in a way, it's simply unnecessary to have the very concept of "canon" there, as it's possible to have totally different stories taking place in the same "world". So, you can use any work to understand the world that the series takes place in and cross over the concepts through the works to know the big picture.

Since we already accept that certain concepts cross over from the manga and anime as canon, it is already an example of scaling the “setting”/“worldview”. In fact, the very idea of scaling the different versions of the games (Multiple versions plus their remakes) is already based on that idea. We don’t care about the continuity, the individual characters or anything like that. What we scale are the Pokémon themselves and the Pokémon World as a whole.

We accept the Core games, Anime and Adventures to work on that way because we have interviews that explain how they work on that subject. However, two interviews (From Detective Pikachu and Magikarp Jump) show that isn’t the case for only those products, but for any “Pokémon” work. All of that information is in the blog, but I’ll paste the info here so everyone can check.

First from Magikarp Jump with the director of the game, Koya Nakahata:

――People who have played Pokemon games have the image that Pokemon has some kind of worldview (世界観). When I played "Splash! Magikar" I thought if you were conscious of expressing the unique world of Pokémon. Were you aware of that?

Nakahata: We wanted to express the world view well, partly because we love Pokémon. I think that our "Splash! Magikarp" has elements that Pokemon hadn't so far, such as being able to laugh at it, seeing a slightly ridiculous side, and making mistakes. But this is the part that we put our own colors in it. On the other hand, when a Pokemon game comes out, Pokemon fans want to get in touch with the world of Pokemon. This game is a game that you can play as many times as you want in a day, and I think it's great for fans to be able to enjoy the world of Pokemon many times a day. That's why we wanted to give Pokemon fans a solid sense of the world of Pokemon. We wanted to bring out both our own colors and the worldview of Pokémon, so we were conscious of the original Pokémon setting.

Here the interviewer explained that from the player point of view, there’s a setting/worldview that is the world of Pokémon. Nakahata explains that it’s expected from the fans to have every new Pokémon game being a part of that world of Pokémon. As such even if Magikarp Jump, a Spin-off game, has some unique details, it still needs to fit with the original Pokémon setting.

Complementing this, we have interviews with Hiroyuki Jinnai. He works at Creatures Inc and worked at the setting of multiple Pokémon games, and was also Producer, Supervisor and Advisor in multiple Pokémon games (Both Core games and Spin-offs) as well as for the Pokémon anime itself. I even found two new interviews that will help me here, one from Observador and another one from Famitsu.

――Observador: In relation to canon and continuity, Detective Pikachu is its own universe, or is something more ?
HJ: In the world of Detective Pikachu, the Pokémon doesn't come out of Pokéballs, nor do they battle with other Pokémon, therefore, we fell what happens here is distant from the rest of the original world. However, we tried to add many elements to the game, that would make the player feel that there's a connection between the two worlds. We would want that the players find and identify that moments.

--Famitsu: I'm going to go back and forth a bit, but what was the first image you had of the game as a whole?
Jinnai: The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime. That's why I purposely eliminated the battle element in this work and focused on depicting the lives of people living together with Pokémon.

As you can see the concept of the Pokémon "worldview" (世界観) is very important to the franchise, and as Jinnai explained, it's in fact multi-layered (重層). It has the main series that is the basis for everything, but the anime and other games, each having their own unique aspects (As explained by Toshihiro Ono about the differences between the Pokémon anime and its manga adaptation) shows a different world, a different view of what the "Pokémon Worldview" is, making the world more and more rich.

And finally in an interview for The Verge (It's in the blog), we have Jinnai being very clear about having to follow rules, and how that isn't an expection or anything like that.

For Japanese game and toy maker Creatures, which is best-known for the Pokémon trading card game and multiple series spinoffs, the outlandishness of Detective Pikachu took a lot of convincing. “We really started with the concept of making Pikachu talk,” says Hiroyuki Jinnai, the producer of Detective Pikachu, who’s worked on the Pokémon franchise with creator Game Freak for more than two decades. The goal was to surprise people and alter the perception of the franchise’s most well-known face, Jinnai adds, in celebration of Pokémon’s 20th anniversary. “We really worked hard to come up with a justification and setting to make that work.” Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built. Executives at the game company, which operates as an independent entity with a stake in the Pokémon license alongside Nintendo and Creatures, often stopped writers on the TV program from taking liberties with pokémon, like imbuing the pocket monsters with too many human-like qualities. “It took a lot of convincing to let us break the rules,” Jinai says. The result is an utterly bizarre and yet lovably quaint video game that will no doubt find its place in the ever-expanding Pokémon canon.

Looking at the Pokémon Company webpage, this is stated:

I am often asked in interviews, “What does The Pokémon Company do for Pokémon?” When I answer, “We are a company that produces Pokémon,” I am often met with puzzled looks and asked, “What does it mean to produce Pokémon?” When this happens, I explain, “Imagine something like a talent agency. Talent agencies decide what jobs to give the people they represent, how to nurture their skills, how to cultivate them. In much the same way, our job at The Pokémon Company is to produce Pokémon, meaning that we think about what types of media our characters, such as Pikachu and Charizard, should appear in, what products to use them for, and how to nurture them,” and then the interviewer seems to grasp what it is that we do to a certain extent. But while this is an easy way to explain a part of what it means to produce Pokémon, it isn’t everything.

And in an interiew with Junichi Masuda at gamefreak, the following was stated:

Pokémon is owned by a number of companies, leading to a complicated relationship for the valuable brand and its parents. When asked if he could explain the relationship between Game Freak, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company, co-founder Junichi Masuda turned to a white board behind him to draw out his explanation. After drawing circles for Game Freak, Nintendo, and former producer Creatures, Masuda explained. “Game Freak? We develop all the main Pokémon games. Originally, Creatures, they were the producers of the game. Nintendo was the seller of the games – the distributor. So that was the original structure of Pokémon games. In terms of who owns the rights to the games, it’s these three companies.” These days, Creatures mostly handles the Pokémon card game, and The Pokémon Company was formed in 1998 – shortly before the release of Pokémon Gold and Silver – to manage the brand and all of its assorted merchandising. In terms of genuine ownership, Masuda says it’s one-third each for Game Freak, Creatures, and Nintendo. “It’s a little more complicated than that in certain scenarios, like for example, the producing role that Creatures originally held went to The Pokémon Company, and a percentage of the rights went with that so there are certain complications, and it depends on the project, but there is no situation where Nintendo and The Pokémon Company will put pressure on Game Freak or something like that,” Masuda says.

The reason for why most multimedia franchises don't have most of their products accepted by their fandom as "canon" is due to the idea that spin-offs aren't canon by nature, or at least that there's no way that a company can handle all of that. This, however, isn't the case with Pokémon. As you can see from all the information in the blog and the new information from this thread, the existence of the multilayered Pokémon Worldview with content being shared among all the spin-offs and the idea that rules are needed to be followed, with the exceptions needing explanations to show why such difference exists, is accepted among everyone that worked in Pokémon in the recent years. Not only this simply something that everyone seems to accept, but the "Pokémon Company" exists to be sure that everything Pokémon-related fits with the Pokémon World always being in check with everything, if something goes to a direction that the Pokémon Company doesn't like, it can't happen.

We already accept the Pokémon anime and the Adventures manga (As well as some spin-offs and tie-in material) as canon due to "needing to follow the rules and show more of the Pokémon world", so with this we can be sure that this isn't something exclusive to a few material, but simply the very nature of how Pokémon works as a franchise.

Of course, this doesn't mean that "everything is canon in the same level", only that most of the multiple Pokémon material shows complementary information that explains how the multilayered "Pokémon World view" works. There are a few differences. Masuda even explained that one particular difference between the rules of the games and the anime is that in the games, Pokémon do not speak their own names, while the anime takes place in a universe where the Pokémon do speak their own names and maybe this is why the Pokémon are called by what they say by humans, something that didn't happen in the game world (At least a bit, since Pikachu does say its own name and now the same happens with Eevee, so how does that even work now ?).

It's also important to say that Pokémon still is a franchise with the concept of a "mystery uncertain lore" that does not explain everything in the world and multiple staff agree in simply leaving lots of question to the fans to try to answer. So there's a lot of complicated stuff here that we need to analyze to be sure that we can use the most about Pokémon.

TL;DR and Conclusion

Due to how Pokémon works as a franchise, if we remain with the rules that we already have, we should at least add games such as Detective Pikachu or Pokémon Masters to canon due to the same reasons that we already accept the anime and Adventures.

However, as I showed so far, Pokémon is a franchise with a multilayered world that has each product intended to make the world more rich and the Pokémon Company exists to make sure that everything fits as it's intended. However, there are still some differences in some works and things that does not cross over between works (Such as the Pokémon cries), but those are very few in number in relation to each individual work. I do think that having all of the Pokémon media being analyzed with "Canonicity Levels" (Such as with how the Holocron Continuity Database worked before the changes).

Since there's no official word on how that would work, I decided to give my own opinion on that.

[*]Core Canon: The core "Pocket Monsters" series that is mainly created by Game Freak or at least that has Gamefreak helping in the production;
[*][*]Example: The entire "Pocket Monsters" series
[*]Direct Complementary Canon: The spin-off games and tie-in material that are directly connected with the core series.
[*][*]Example: The Pokémon Stadium series (Includes Colosseum and XD Gale of Darkness), Pokémon GO, Pokémon Rangers, Detective Pikachu, Pokémon Masters, Pokémon Twilight Wings, etc
[*]Adaptations Canon: The manga and anime adaptations of the franchise.
[**]Example: The TV Anime "Pocket Monsters" Series, Pokémon Adventures, The Electric Tale of Pikachu, Pocket Monsters: The Origin, Pokémon Generations
  • Complementary Canon: All the spin-off games and tie-in material that aren't directly connected with the core series
  • Outdated/Non-canon: As the series evolved, some information was retconned, and is still being retconned, constantly. Some information even from the Core Canon might not be canon anymore, or in the future, due to that.

Of course, this is only one suggestion, and isn't even the one that I agree the most. For example, I don't see any reason to have Core Canon or the spin-off and tie-in material that are directly connected with the series as different canon, as they are simply supposed to be "something that takes place in a region far away" , so they are still mostly the same world.

Anyway, this is how I think that we could work with Pokémon with the premise that Pokémon is a franchise in the unique position of having everything being in a way canon, so everything works to make the multilayered worldview of Pokémon more and more rich, and we should respect that.
 
Last edited:
Considering I wanted to make a canon thread later to discuss Pokemons canon and you beat me to the punch, definitely following.

And would also like your opinion on one of the main issues I was going to address Ex.
 
Finished reading it, and all I can say is this is abso-*******-lutely amazing. One things for sure, I never would've been able to find anywhere close to such in-depth information as this, and put it in a coherent blog.

Really incredible job here by Ex.
 
So I'm assuming this means the mystery dungeon series would remain non-canon?
The basis for the thread and blog is that Pokémon is a series where mostly everything can be considered canon for its "Multilayered worldview" with a few differences between each work being there because of differences between production teams or even simply being a different media.

So, mostly Mystery Dungeon could be considered canon, as a official piece of Pokémon work that takes place in a unknown world with Pokémon and no trainers. It would still need to follow certain rules, but it still can be its own thing. Mostly can be used as supportive evidence for things of a higher canonicity, but as it has some different rules, it'll have some aspects that aren't valid for the crossover nature of the settings.

So, yes. It could be considered canon. Still, is something that needs to be discussed more. And, the focus on the blog is mostly on production interviews and the intent of expanding the Pokémon world, so it has mostly nothing to do with any game, anime or manga individual plotlines. This is only about the rules and setting being used by all media with just a few differences.
 
I have no issues with this kind of approach. My understanding is that you wish for all licensed media to be considered canon as long as it's consistent with the worldview of the primary canon? (correct me if I'm wrong).
 
I have no problem with the media themselves, my fear is to end up with a mess of scaling and feats, as the sources currently considered as canon already contradict each other on multiple instances.

(Also, wonderful work, Executor)
 
Last edited:
I have no issues with this kind of approach. My understanding is that you wish for all licensed media to be considered canon as long as it's consistent with the worldview of the primary canon? (correct me if I'm wrong).
Yes, In a way that is what I'm trying to do. Since we are already accepting some Pokémon spin-off/tie-in material with the idea that "they are an exception to the rule", I thought that bringing evidence that what the Pokémon Company does is a thing for every single Pokémon product, then we should be more open to what can be accepted. We already have lots of games spin-off and manga/anime tie-in mentioning that Pokémon Company does a big "We'll check everything and you can't do anything about it", and then they say "This is something that they always do to everything", then we have to start thinking that Adventures or the Anime aren't an exception to the rule, it's simply what happens with Pokémon.

I have no problem with the media themselves, my fear is to end up with a mess of scaling and feats, as the sources currently considered as canon already contradict each other on multiple instances.

(Also, wonderful work, Executor)
That is a thing that'll happen. From my point of view, I try to write my blogs (When they aren't calculations) from an "outside VsDebating" PoV. So what I wrote is something that you could write a script with and do a "What is the Pokémon Canon" youtube video for the common viewer from in and out of the Pokémon fandom. So consistency with scaling and feats wasn't a thing that I tried to explain, only about how the lore/worldview/setting is applied to the franchise.

Of course, from the VsDebating PoV that is why I said that the levels of canon would help a lot. But, the very source material isn't that consistent with power levels (Unless we are now accepting that Giovanni is stronger than Cyrus and every citizen from Pasio is universal because Cyrus is there battling alongside the player), so it's really not a matter of canonicity that feats and scaling are inconsistent, Pokémon simply never cared enough about those things.

However in order to make our job easier, I think that using the "not main canon material" as more of a support evidence or as a source for things that aren't contradicted, works very well. For example, although there are lots of problems with scaling in "Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventures!", I don't think that using it as evidence that Dialga can stop time makes no sense. That is of course, what I'm trying to do.

Elements that don't contradict the main canon, could be used. Contradictory information is considered an "unique element of that particular world", just like Pokémon saying their own name is a "particular element only valid for the Anime world", but other things can still be scaled to it.

So, a lot of case-by-case thing, so it's why we need to put some rules to make our job easier.

For example, according to the author of Pokémon Adventures, they had much more freedom with the world in the early years of the franchise, before Pokémon Company started being overprotective about the franchise. So that already is a point that we should take in consideration, if something seems to be very contradictory and is very old (I suppose Gen 1~2 era), then it was before the rules were solidified and can be disregarded now.

I'm too lazy to read, which media are not canon
Case by case thing, that we still need to chose what to accept.

But basically, no material is 100% non-canon, the "complementary information" from then can be or not canon depending on how consistent they are with the Core Games. What is consistent can be seen as "elements of the world that the Games couldn't show" (Such as the Pokémon World having wars with humans and Pokémon, that was shown in the Lucario movie and only later mentioned in X & Y), while elements that are mentioned to be a "unique thing" or are very contradictory (According to Masuda, the Pokémon speaking their own names is a unique element of non-Core Game worlds), then it can be considered not canon.
 
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.

First thing first: Detective Pikachu and Pokemon Masters being canon isn't a problem to me, at least with the evidence given here.

-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.

For that reason, I'm against Electric Tale and most Pokemon manga being considered as canons.
Although if there's a greater involvement depending on the subject, it can work on a case-by-case basis.

-For Conquest, it's flat out said to be nor Nobunaga nor Pokemon above anything. So I would just not include it (also although it has an event pokemon, they are made for litteraly every occasion like Tanabata, and it being canon wouldn't work with the developpers' explanation).

-For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.

-Magikarp Jump I don't really know. Guess it could work? It's not like it changed being part of the cosmology like some others stuff.

-And on translation subject, as a game translator myself, I can say that it would still be ill-advised to take something that isn't in the original (like Pokemon Masters' 2-A statement), since while you have to keep the original idea, you still have some liberties to an extent.
 
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.

First thing first: Detective Pikachu and Pokemon Masters being canon isn't a problem to me, at least with the evidence given here.

-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.

For that reason, I'm against Electric Tale and most Pokemon manga being considered as canons.
Although if there's a greater involvement depending on the subject, it can work on a case-by-case basis.

-For Conquest, it's flat out said to be nor Nobunaga nor Pokemon above anything. So I would just not include it (also although it has an event pokemon, they are made for litteraly every occasion like Tanabata, and it being canon wouldn't work with the developpers' explanation).

-For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.

-Magikarp Jump I don't really know. Guess it could work? It's not like it changed being part of the cosmology like some others stuff.

-And on translation subject, as a game translator myself, I can say that it would still be ill-advised to take something that isn't in the original (like Pokemon Masters' 2-A statement), since while you have to keep the original idea, you still have some liberties to an extent.
Elaborate on the follow the rules because tf did that even mean
 
-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.
And now, here I will be voicing my issue on why I disagree with this take from Yuri.

For one, we all need to stop using other verses as a basis to deny something from another, because that's the first thing used as a basis here from Yuri. "It's just a thing pretty much any series has" doesn't and shouldn't matter here. Why? Because we are speaking in the context of Pokemon and its canon, not what another series does or what their canon does for their works. Canon across verses is an extreme case by case basis concept. No work is going to find something acceptable or unacceptable the same way across the board, so we shouldn't be giving a universal treatment of canon to all fictions.

Going even deeper from that, as explained here, the canon for Pokemon and how its treated via "following the rules" is in relation to the larger Pokemon world itself and not any specific storyline or individual character. As such, a character being portrayed as different in one iteration does not mean that it's anymore correct or wrong than another version, as they are both apart of the same "world".

So while i'm personally not saying that just everything should be taken and leaving it at that, this idea that a form of media following the main media, which already has the practice of allowing other medias that follow it to be considered canon, somehow not be acceptable is baseless and doesn't have an actual basis for disqualifying it.
 
For one, we all need to stop using other verses as a basis to deny something from another, because that's the first thing used as a basis here from Yuri. "It's just a thing pretty much any series has" doesn't and shouldn't matter here. Why? Because we are speaking in the context of Pokemon and its canon, not what another series does or what their canon does for their works. Canon across verses is an extreme case by case basis concept. No work is going to find something acceptable or unacceptable the same way across the board, so we shouldn't be giving a universal treatment of canon to all fictions.
Your first point is just wanting to change how canon is. Make a CRT about it then. Canon has a definition, and we deal with it.

Also saying that Pokemon (or any verse, for that matter) is incomparable to everything is really just a way to shut down any comparison showing why a particular work doesn't fit as canon.
Going even deeper from that, as explained here, the canon for Pokemon and how its treated via "following the rules" is in relation to the larger Pokemon world itself and not any specific storyline or individual character. As such, a character being portrayed as different in one iteration does not mean that it's anymore correct or wrong than another version, as they are both apart of the same "world".
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc... Anecdotes of "we had to remove this" or "we couldn't add this" because the original publisher didn't like it are pretty common.

So while i'm personally not saying that just everything should be taken and leaving it at that, this idea that a form of media following the main media, which already has the practice of allowing other medias that follow it to be considered canon, somehow not be acceptable is baseless and doesn't have an actual basis for disqualifying it.
And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.

Also I'm pretty sure that these points were already brought up and discussed when first blog was made.
 
Your first point is just wanting to change how canon is. Make a CRT about it then. Canon has a definition, and we deal with it.
And that definition can be wrong, or being misused in the wrong manner. Ex even has made a blog voicing his issues with this universal treatment that Canon somehow brings, so im not even sure a thread for that will be needed if that blog goes anywhere.

Just because something has a definition doesn't mean we ignore what common sense is and treat all cases the same by disregarding context.
Also saying that Pokemon (or any verse, for that matter) is incomparable to everything is really just a way to shut down any comparison showing why a particular work doesn't fit as canon.
Or it also means that this is just a way of having no real argument to knock something away from one series and that your treatment of the other series, is in fact, incorrect.

Just as we don't use other verses to disqualify feats, we shouldn't be using them to disqualify the use of canon for a specific series. "Whataboutism" isn't a strong approach to this when all you'd be doing is calling the series you're comparing to this into question. Or its just a false equivalency at the end of the day.
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc...
And those series you named do not treat their canon in this same fashion as Pokemon does. Dragon Ball most definitely doesn't anyway.

And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Again, has that verse's canon ever had the practice of treating adaptations as acceptable works for their canons like it is here? If not, then that's a false equivalence right there.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.
Key word: everything, which I said that isn't what im pushing for with this personally speaking.
Also I'm pretty sure that these points were already brought up and discussed when first blog was made.
And those points can be wrong with newly updated arguments, which is kind of the case here.
 
In the absolute worst case scenario here, most spin-off titles would end up being supporting evidence to the primary canon being supported here anyway. I'm thinking that accepting that the Pokémon Company overseeing every project done with their IP would make them arguably more canon can and should be implemented, with very high marks being given to Executor for the obvious hard work he's put in.
 
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.
1) It's in fact, how things might have to work. As I explained in my Canonicty Blog, the point that I'm trying to make is about Setting and World, and is what all of those interviews were about, rules of setting. The problem of Detective Pikachu was a setting problem, Pokémon speaking human language isn't a thing per the setting rules, so they needed an explanation for how that would fit with everything in the Pokémon world. If it was just "common sense rules about what should or not appear in a Pokémon story", then it would be fine. But that isn't the case, all of those interviews were about setting rules, about fitting or not in the world of Pokémon and how the Pokémon setting is "multilayered" with each work making said worldview. The crossover is about setting and worldview, so the world itself, the Pokémon as general entities and so on.

And in fact, there's nothing different from Adventure and Eletric Tale in that regard. What special thing Adventure has that Eletric Tale doesn't have ? Both were overseen by the Pokémon Company and both used the manga environment to expand on the world of Pokémon. The only thing that Adventure has more than Eletric Tale is more chapters and the same statement about "show what the games couldn't show" being repeated more times.

In relation to overall rules that aren't contradicted between works, isn't really that different. And that is the point in all of this. It's scaling of setting and general things. All of the statements about overseeing was about setting and its rules, so this is what I'm talking about.

2) Yes, and ? Again, setting and its rules is what I'm talking about. The world of Pokémon Conquest is it own world, of course. Yet, it seemed to be made with some Pokémon rules in mind, and if those rules are respected, what is wrong with using a well executed animation or description of a move that doesn't contradict anything from the main world ? When Arceus uses Judgement there, it's basically how Judgement works, if it isn't clear if an addition from there can be accepted, what isn't changed... is the same thing.

And of course, even with it being its own world, if it has at least some degree of compatibility with the main world, the things that are compatible are the ones that I'm talking about.

About the events, it's a question that we need to know where to draw the line. As far as the games go, the Regiggigas from the Movie 11 is necessary to release the Regis from the Sinnoh region in-game event, just like Arceus from Movie 12 is necessary to do the Hiker event where it searches for the plates around Sinnoh and write its book about them, and is also the one used for the HG/SS event with the Creation Trio. If we know that Pokémon Conquest exists as its own world, and the player form B/W can have a Black Rayquaza from Pokémon Conquest that has Nobunaga as its trainer, then it's something that exists within the "world of Pokémon", and are those things that I'm interested with.

What makes the other ones valid in the world, but not Nobunaga's Rayquaza ? As far as we know, the process is the same and other than being used in a in-game event, there's nothing different from them. And not being used in a in-game events, isn't really a reason to make something not canon, as those things aren't necessarily related.

3) I didn't mention that as a reason to make MD canon.

4) Again, what makes Magikarp Jump different to any other of those works that "needed to follow the Pokémon Worldview"? In fact, the context of the Magikarp Jump interview was exactly how that was a expected thing for any Pokémon work, so they needed to always be sure that the Pokémon Worlview was being taken in consideration.

5) Nothing different from anything that I already stated there.
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc... Anecdotes of "we had to remove this" or "we couldn't add this" because the original publisher didn't like it are pretty common.
Are you sure ? Then let's see what all of those interviews were about.

The one from Magikarp Jump was about "Worlview" (世界観), the structure of the world of Pokémon and how things should happen.

The one from Detective Pikachu was again about that, was about how making Detective Pikachu was hard because the rules of the world said that Pokémon shouldn't speak the same as humans and so they needed an explanation for how that was possible. And in that same context, it was said "Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built."

This isn't about "Ash can't be a cannibal because it would look bad for the brand", it's "Detective Pikachu shouldn't talk like a human because it was against the rules, so we needed an explanation. Also, the Pokémon Company is very serious about said rules of its worldview and historically stopped any project that went to any direction that was against the rules of the world, unless it was explained how it could fit in said world."

Every interview about Pokémon Adventures, Pokémon Masters, the anime and even Pokémon GO mentioned said things. Always mentioning "setting", "worldview" and "rules".

I don't get where you got this "It's only about not being bad for the brand", when literally every single interview was about worldview, setting and their rules.

Adventures, Maters, Anime and even Go mentions how the process is made. Detective Pikachu and Magikarp Jump also mentions that, and also how that isn't an exception, is an expectation that needs to be meet.

And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.

And, that is really not a bad point of view. Even more when some franchises, do work in that way. And going by what was said so far in all of those interviews, yes, it's how it happens. It's a franchise with crossover about Setting and worldview, they have their own unique aspects and even entire different continuities that goes in totally different routes, but when we are talking about the world itself and general points, then yes, it's how Pokémon works. And going from what Junnai said "The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime."

Going by all of the interviews, all the mentions of setting, worldview and their rules, how they exist to complement each other and show different aspects of the "world of Pokémon" and examples of when some things are exception (Such as Pokémon saying their own names in the anime) and others that aren't, then we can have a very good instruction of how to deal with Pokémon and how it's different from what most people would expect to see.

And being sincere, Pokémon is even more easy to analyze knowing all the points, because we at least have some rules and examples of what to do. And this is what I'm trying to suggest. Showing that Adventure or the Anime aren't unique in regards of "they show more of the world of Pokémon", it's what every Pokémon product does.
 
1) It's in fact, how things might have to work. As I explained in my Canonicty Blog, the point that I'm trying to make is about Setting and World, and is what all of those interviews were about, rules of setting. The problem of Detective Pikachu was a setting problem, Pokémon speaking human language isn't a thing per the setting rules, so they needed an explanation for how that would fit with everything in the Pokémon world. If it was just "common sense rules about what should or not appear in a Pokémon story", then it would be fine. But that isn't the case, all of those interviews were about setting rules, about fitting or not in the world of Pokémon and how the Pokémon setting is "multilayered" with each work making said worldview. The crossover is about setting and worldview, so the world itself, the Pokémon as general entities and so on.
Detective Pikachu talking was more because it's kinda an important plot point tho. First pokemon manga litteraly had talking pokemon.
And in fact, there's nothing different from Adventure and Eletric Tale in that regard. What special thing Adventure has that Eletric Tale doesn't have ? Both were overseen by the Pokémon Company and both used the manga environment to expand on the world of Pokémon. The only thing that Adventure has more than Eletric Tale is more chapters and the same statement about "show what the games couldn't show" being repeated more times.
Countless statements Electric Tale could only dream of?
Again it's litteraly going back to "it shows a pokemon, it's canon"
2) Yes, and ? Again, setting and its rules is what I'm talking about. The world of Pokémon Conquest is it own world, of course. Yet, it seemed to be made with some Pokémon rules in mind, and if those rules are respected, what is wrong with using a well executed animation or description of a move that doesn't contradict anything from the main world ? When Arceus uses Judgement there, it's basically how Judgement works, if it isn't clear if an addition from there can be accepted, what isn't changed... is the same thing.
That's litteraly asking what is wrong with using a non-canon work portrayal of a move...
Using One Piece movies/games or Eyes of Heaven stuff isn't accepted for moves despite being litteraly written by authors, Pokemon somehow bypassing every rules is as wrong as it sounds
About the events, it's a question that we need to know where to draw the line. As far as the games go, the Regiggigas from the Movie 11 is necessary to release the Regis from the Sinnoh region in-game event, just like Arceus from Movie 12 is necessary to do the Hiker event where it searches for the plates around Sinnoh and write its book about them, and is also the one used for the HG/SS event with the Creation Trio. If we know that Pokémon Conquest exists as its own world, and the player form B/W can have a Black Rayquaza from Pokémon Conquest that has Nobunaga as its trainer, then it's something that exists within the "world of Pokémon", and are those things that I'm interested with.

What makes the other ones valid in the world, but not Nobunaga's Rayquaza ? As far as we know, the process is the same and other than being used in a in-game event, there's nothing different from them. And not being used in a in-game events, isn't really a reason to make something not canon, as those things aren't necessarily related.
Most of them aren't valid tho. You litteraly need to have a Regigigas to unlock Regigigas. Which obviously isn't how it works in lore.
4) Again, what makes Magikarp Jump different to any other of those works that "needed to follow the Pokémon Worldview"? In fact, the context of the Magikarp Jump interview was exactly how that was a expected thing for any Pokémon work, so they needed to always be sure that the Pokémon Worlview was being taken in consideration.
Magikarp Jump is just me being tired of explaining stuff even for the most useless little games.
The one from Magikarp Jump was about "Worlview" (世界観), the structure of the world of Pokémon and how things should happen.

The one from Detective Pikachu was again about that, was about how making Detective Pikachu was hard because the rules of the world said that Pokémon shouldn't speak the same as humans and so they needed an explanation for how that was possible. And in that same context, it was said "Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built."

This isn't about "Ash can't be a cannibal because it would look bad for the brand", it's "Detective Pikachu shouldn't talk like a human because it was against the rules, so we needed an explanation. Also, the Pokémon Company is very serious about said rules of its worldview and historically stopped any project that went to any direction that was against the rules of the world, unless it was explained how it could fit in said world."

Every interview about Pokémon Adventures, Pokémon Masters, the anime and even Pokémon GO mentioned said things. Always mentioning "setting", "worldview" and "rules".

I don't get where you got this "It's only about not being bad for the brand", when literally every single interview was about worldview, setting and their rules.
Worldview just means things have to fit with the idea of Pokemon the brand has. That's like, kinda the meaning of it. The things in your blog go that way too.

Also first Pokemon manga litteraly has talking pokemons despite Game Freaks also checking it.

They are protective about how Pokemon should be portrayed (the "worldview" of Pokemon), which is litteraly what I explained.

And, that is really not a bad point of view. Even more when some franchises, do work in that way. And going by what was said so far in all of those interviews, yes, it's how it happens. It's a franchise with crossover about Setting and worldview, they have their own unique aspects and even entire different continuities that goes in totally different routes, but when we are talking about the world itself and general points, then yes, it's how Pokémon works. And going from what Junnai said "The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime."
See the point above.
Going by all of the interviews, all the mentions of setting, worldview and their rules, how they exist to complement each other and show different aspects of the "world of Pokémon" and examples of when some things are exception (Such as Pokémon saying their own names in the anime) and others that aren't, then we can have a very good instruction of how to deal with Pokémon and how it's different from what most people would expect to see.

And being sincere, Pokémon is even more easy to analyze knowing all the points, because we at least have some rules and examples of what to do. And this is what I'm trying to suggest. Showing that Adventure or the Anime aren't unique in regards of "they show more of the world of Pokémon", it's what every Pokémon product does.
Aaaand if canon had something similar to NLF, this would be what it is.

Just as a reminder, works like Eyes of Heaven or One Piece games/movies written by the author themselves aren't accepted, and just "showing more of the world" never was related to canonicity in the first place. It's something even non-canon works can do.
 
And that definition can be wrong, or being misused in the wrong manner. Ex even has made a blog voicing his issues with this universal treatment that Canon somehow brings, so im not even sure a thread for that will be needed if that blog goes anywhere.
This blog would still deserve a thread. If you want to apply a new ruleset, change the rules first.
Otherwise I would already do countless threads as to why Immeasurable speed should disappear every single time a verse has this discussed
Just because something has a definition doesn't mean we ignore what common sense is and treat all cases the same by disregarding context.
If water's definition says that it is wet, common sense is that it is wet. Inventing our own meaning is even kind of the opposite.
Or it also means that this is just a way of having no real argument to knock something away from one series and that your treatment of the other series, is in fact, incorrect.
Comparison means no arguments? Time to invalidate half of the CRT made on this wiki.
Just as we don't use other verses to disqualify feats, we shouldn't be using them to disqualify the use of canon for a specific series. "Whataboutism" isn't a strong approach to this when all you'd be doing is calling the series you're comparing to this into question. Or its just a false equivalency at the end of the day.
We actually do. Doing otherwise as a name, and it's double standard.
And those series you named do not treat their canon in this same fashion as Pokemon does. Dragon Ball most definitely doesn't anyway.
We already had this issue debatted last time, and it's honestly starting to be really tiresome.
Just throwing "it's incomparable to everything in the world" is not how this wiki work for p much everything, no reason that Pokemon becomes the exception.
gain, has that verse's canon ever had the practice of treating adaptations as acceptable works for their canons like it is here? If not, then that's a false equivalence right there.
A lot of verses does, yet we don't consider spin-offs as canon for the sake of it.
Key word: everything, which I said that isn't what im pushing for with this personally speaking.

And those points can be wrong with newly updated arguments, which is kind of the case here.
Half of your arguments are the same as last time.
 
This blog would still deserve a thread. If you want to apply a new ruleset, change the rules first.
Otherwise I would already do countless threads as to why Immeasurable speed should disappear every single time a verse has this discussed

If water's definition says that it is wet, common sense is that it is wet. Inventing our own meaning is even kind of the opposite.
Hilariously bad comparison Yuri. Looking at something with a different context, which we know for a fact is a different context, is not at all the same thing as just inventing our own meaning.

And its ironic you mention this on a site that has a history of inventing new meanings for things anyway for the purposes of this site and its standards.
Comparison means no arguments? Time to invalidate half of the CRT made on this wiki.
And you'd be right to do so as im betting that's more or less exactly the case. And I don't care about what CRT gets invalidated or which ones do not.

Comparisons being the same across fictions here is next to non-existent, because context and case by case basis are both a thing. And they most certainly shouldn't be used as a shield when you have no other basis to go off of. Especially when, again, the other likely scenario is that the verse you use as an example is just being treated wrong and needs to be looked at instead of knocking something away from something else.
We actually do. Doing otherwise as a name, and it's double standard.
We don't. And I'll gladly name you staff members here who vehemently express "whataboutism" not being an argument at all.
We already had this issue debatted last time, and it's honestly starting to be really tiresome.
Just throwing "it's incomparable to everything in the world" is not how this wiki work for p much everything, no reason that Pokemon becomes the exception.
And im sorry Yuri, but I don't really care if this is becoming tiresome to you or otherwise. Im going to call a spade as a spade when I see it.

Something becomes the exception when its context and its situation speaks to it being the exception instead of getting this magical universal treatment you seem to think exists when it actually doesn't.
A lot of verses does, yet we don't consider spin-offs as canon for the sake of it.
Define "a lot" by actually naming examples, and not the false examples like you did before.
 
Last edited:
Detective Pikachu talking was more because it's kinda an important plot point tho. First pokemon manga litteraly had talking pokemon.
And so does the Pokémon speaking their own names in the anime, something that goes against the worldview of the games and Masuda directly addresses that every time that he can and gives an explanation for why such a thing could have happened in another world. It's still an example of how Pokémon company deals with the worldview of Pokémon.

Countless statements Electric Tale could only dream of?
Again it's litteraly going back to "it shows a pokemon, it's canon"
Countless statements that are just a repeat of "We want to show Pokémon from the point of view of a manga and Pokémon Company makes sure we follow their rule". The same that was mentioned in the Electric Tale interview, that directly mentions that in a universal way and the only difference is that we only have one interview about Electric Tale while Adventure had more interviews, what is expected but also means nothing.

That's litteraly asking what is wrong with using a non-canon work portrayal of a move...
Using One Piece movies/games or Eyes of Heaven stuff isn't accepted for moves despite being litteraly written by authors, Pokemon somehow bypassing every rules is as wrong as it sounds
If you want to go that route, then I ask you what is wrong when the worldview of a franchise is established in that way, such as Pokémon, work in that way. Really, what makes that such a universally wrong thing.

Most of them aren't valid tho. You litteraly need to have a Regigigas to unlock Regigigas. Which obviously isn't how it works in lore.
Yet the game still has the Regis in Sinnoh in unique spaces that you need to unlock. Is something from the games, so it's nothing more than the game having contradictory or incomplete lore ? Yet, it's there.

Magikarp Jump is just me being tired of explaining stuff even for the most useless little games.
The point is still there, it's information that needs to be analyzed.

Worldview just means things have to fit with the idea of Pokemon the brand has. That's like, kinda the meaning of it. The things in your blog go that way too.

Also first Pokemon manga litteraly has talking pokemons despite Game Freaks also checking it.

They are protective about how Pokemon should be portrayed (the "worldview" of Pokemon), which is litteraly what I explained.
In part yes, but you seem to ignore all the other things about that. Really every single spin-off and tie-in media currently accepted as canon is canon due to that, it's canon due to "showing more of the Pokémon world" and "it needs to follow the rules of the worldview", the interviews of Electric Tale, Magikarp Jump and Detective Pikachu talks about the same thing and they simply state how that is "normal", "expected" and "a thing in Pokémon".

That point is also already taken in consideration in my blog. The author of Adventures literally stated how in the start of the franchise he had much more creative freedom and could do "whatever he wanted", then the Pokémon brand started to grow, the Pokémon Company was created, and now the brand is much more serious about its setting rules.

The first Pokémon manga had much more freedom, it's expected. The franchise had just been created, they never had the expectation to need a very concise worldview across its many spin-offs and tie-ins. Nowadays that has changed. There are rules to be followed and explanations how the spin-offs and tie-ins are expected to fit together. You saying that about something created before all the mentions of my points were made (With an explanation to how that changed), means nothing to all the points that I made. It's really "They do that and are supposed to do that, but before they did that, they didn't do that. So now they doing that means nothing"

And again, every single spin-off and tie-in of Pokémon that is accepted as canon, is as such because of "following the worldview" as stated in every single interview that I reunited in my blog. The Magipark Jump and Detective Pikachu interviews state the same and goes on to say "it's basically the same for every Pokémon product". But for some reason you seem to accept them as canon due to the reasons in the interviews, but the statement that turns said process universal across the brand, that is literally in the same context and even line, isn't accepted. It's really "We worked here with Pokémon Company to be sure that everything fits with the worldview of Pokémon, also this happens with every Pokémon product".

See the point above.
Other than changing the concept of what I'm talking about (Basically saying that worldview has nothing to do with the lore and the crossover of concepts in the franchise), you point really had nothing to do with anything that I said.

Aaaand if canon had something similar to NLF, this would be what it is.

Just as a reminder, works like Eyes of Heaven or One Piece games/movies written by the author themselves aren't accepted, and just "showing more of the world" never was related to canonicity in the first place. It's something even non-canon works can do.

Okay, if this is really what you are trying to talk about, let's talk about canon. In fact, interesting that you talked about works that were written by the author (Of course you didn't define what "author" means, but I think that I understand here), so what means that something is canon ? if being wrote by the author isn't enough, then what makes something canon ?

Does canon have to do with continuity and a timeline? Well, Masuda literally said that Pokémon has no timeline (Maybe a reference to some people in the fandom saying that Let's GO isn't canon due to not fitting in the timeline), so I think that the main games aren't canon because the timeline is a lie (Good to know, it's non canon just like the DCAU is to itself).

I don't think that I reach any conclusion just picking random concepts and saying "that is canon?", so let me be a bit more precise. You said of works that aren't accepted as canon due to a reason that doesn't make anything canon to begin with. Just because I started a fictional universe doesn't mean that everything I start writing using that fictional universe as a basis is canon now. The two things are unrelated. Canon is about acceptance and use, nothing more and nothing less.

If I decide to write a work where a character die and two other characters start to travel together and this reveals a new thing about them, when I decide to go back and write a new story when the first character survives, this doesn't make the revelations about the world and past of the story where the character died not valid anymore. It's also not necessary that they are true (Although this would kill it really being a "what-if" based on the character surviving, so I would be selling a book that lies to the reader). Maybe I could even try to reveal that it's a multiverse, and the timeline was separated into two due to the character being killed or not.

I could go beyond, and do a story about them destroying a multiversal entity that will try to destroy the multiverse. The good guys defeat the villain, the multiverse is saved. However I release a new book, and with this book I show a what-if story when they are defeated, The multiverse is destroyed and recreated to the image of the villain and I go on to show how the villain would control the world. Of course this story couldn't exist in the same multiverse that the entity was defeated, because even if said entity existed in every single universe in the multiverse and was defeated in all of them but one, that single one win would mean the destruction of the multiverse. The two things couldn't coexist in the same multiverse. I could try to explain with a new word, it's a megaverse. But that really doesn't matter. I can write that story as something meaningless and nobody should care, or do that as a way to explain more about that multiversal entity, for that to matter, the information there needs to be valid in some way, even if the situation where they are shown isn't valid. Again, the situation itself has nothing to do with canon.


A non-canons story can have canon elements that the canon story couldn't reveal, maybe we should even choose new names. Let's call the "canon" stories as "in-continuity" or "sharing the same continuity" while the elements themselves are still "canon elements". Stories that don't share the same continuity, as I have shown here, can still share the same "canon elements". If the "canon elements'' are the information about the world, we could call it worldview or even setting. So, two works with different continuities can still share worldview/setting elements.

If the setting/worldview is supposed to be mostly the same, then even if the continuity is different, they can compared. Let's call that "cross continuity setting scaling".

Now that I defined what I'm saying, using mostly random universal examples, let's see why I'm trying to apply that to Pokémon.

So, I'm not trying to say that all those elements share the same continuity. Well, not even the core games share the same continuity and even the ones that are supposed to, still aren't related exactly in a timeline way, since it was stated that the timeline isn't how you should see Pokémon. And of course, I'm not even supposing that they are part of the same multiverse. Maybe Ash and the Lucario from Movie 7 don't exist in the game multiverse. That would still not matter.

When referring to my proposal, I'm talking about the setting/worldview of the franchise. You can say "it isn't about canon, it's simply about not making the franchise look bad due to spin-offs' ', you are right, but that still means nothing to my point. You can't say that all those interviews aren't about what I'm talking about, when they are used to make every single spin-off and tie-in that we accept as canon, canon.

About Pokémon Masters: We have worked with The Pokémon Company closely on details in the game, and they have of course checked our new details to make sure they fit in the world of Pokémon. One of the major new features of this game—and the content that we want to highlight—is the interaction between various Trainers. Players will be able to enjoy new and exciting interactions between Trainers who may not have interacted before. To create these interactions, we considered the personalities and backgrounds of these Trainers and made sure that our content did not deviate from that. If a character would never say or do a certain thing, we made sure that they do not in our game.

About Adventures: Working on Pokémon is difficult. Maybe the most difficult part is that we have to follow the story of another product, which is a video game. We can't afford to create a manga that people playing the video games don't like. On the other hand, if everything was exactly the same between the games and the adaptation, the manga would be boring. When you're playing a Pokémon game, you put yourself into the character, whereas an established character has to drive the story in a manga. We have to create good characters and surprise people as they're reading. That balance between what we have to change and what remains the same is probably the most difficult part.

The interviews about Magikarp Jump and Detective Pikachu were about the same thing, about respecting the worldview of Pokémon and needing to make sure that it made sense.

"But this needs to be the thing with every licensed product, it's saying 'has pokémon, it's canon"

Any problem with that ? If a franchise uses "cross continuity setting" with elements of the setting remaining the same even in different continuities, and it's literally said that the company overseeing the franchise takes care of making sure that everything under the name of the franchise follows the rules of said setting, then what can be done ? It's simply how things are.

You aren't wrong in saying that they do that with how the characters are portrayed. But just by saying that, you are already accepting what I'm saying. If Ash can't be a cannibal because it goes against what Pokémon is about, then you have a canon element between the continuities. If Pokémon can't speak human language without a good explanation, you have a canon element. All of this is about the worldview. Of course some things are just to make Pokémon, as a brand, consistent and always faithful to who can buy things from it

Yet, what Junnai said wasn't just about that, was about the world of Pokémon, was about its rules, about its setting. It isn't just "Pikachu can't do that because kids can't see that", it's "this can/can't happen because so are the rules of the universe. If a thing isn't/is happening, then we need an explanation for that so it can fit in the world once again". It's literally what Junnai said in three interviews and in two of them he talked about that as a universal thing, about "Pokémon" as a whole being in that way. It's literally an example that we use to show that something is "valid", but with the guy that works for the franchise saying "It's how the franchise works".

At best, it seems that you think that I'm trying to make Pokémon be some "exception to the rules" and "One of kind", when that is far from being the truth. First, even if this was the case, it wouldn't matter. The evidence for that being how the franchise works is there. So even if that is the case, it matters nothing. Pokémon would be a one of a kind franchise that uses "cross continuity setting scaling". But it isn't.

Let's pick "Pokémon" , remove the "Poké-" and add "Digi" and with that you have Digimon, a franchise that uses "Cross Continuity Setting Scaling" a lot. You have two works, "Digimon Xros Wars", the anime, and "Digimon Xros Wars", the manga. Both of them are totally different. Right there you might think "it's the usual anime non canon thing", but then you discover that the anime is the original material, and the manga was made after that. Then you have the guy who works for the main part of the franchise and oversaw both the anime and manga, and said "the setting/worldview is the same. Nothing in the manga was added from 0, it was a part of the setting and the author simply gave a new story to the same world". As you can see, it's the same thing with Pokémon.

Different stories, different characters, even some true setting differences, but still with some universal setting rules, that can't be changed and you should see the franchise as a whole as a multilayered world, that has each work being a part of said worldview. It's how Digimon is, and is also how Pokémon is. The difference is that Digimon is terrible with its setting consistency even with all of the production statements, while Pokémon has an entire company to do that.

There's nothing wrong with Pokémon having such a way of understanding its world. It's also nothing new. In fact in lots of those interviews they simply say "that is how the things are" and "it's how it works". It was always there.

From you examples of "if that was the case, X work should be different" and "Pokémon can't be done in that way, Y work has Z and still isn't accepted as canon" are perfect examples of tying to force a view on canonicity that goes against how the franchise itself, sees its world. I understand why someone would see everything in that, I still think it's how most of the multimedia franchises are dealt with. In reality, that is why I made my blog about canon, to make Cross Continuity Setting Scaling easier to understand and how that is a thing.

Of course, it's a thing that is full of problems. The very Core Series has problems by itself, the spin-offs/tie-ins that are accepted as canon also have, so simply saying "everything is canon" will also bring lots of problems (Even with that not being what I said). That is why I mentioned the need of a tier system for said canon and rules of how that would be applied. It's necessary for this environment, and I'm fine with that.

There are works that have contradictory information, said information can't be used in the Cross Continuity Setting Scaling. There is information that is outdated, so they can't be used as well and so on. However, you can't deny that is a thing.

Of all the points that you made, or it was simply going against the concept of Setting Scaling or even saying that such things as Setting/Worldview meaning the rules of the world and the lore isn't really what they meant. In both cases, you never showed your evidence that it isn't how it works.

If Setting Scaling is such a problem, then it's fine. I'll follow your suggestion and do a thread just about that. Of course that would affect the Canon page (Or not, the page literally mentions the existence of "uncommon canon systems") and I think we already have some major wiki-wide revisions, so this would take a lot of time to be done, even if it's just to start. But if it is necessary, we could simply close this for now and wait a few days/weeks/months until the "Setting Scaling" (I really liked this name) is dealt with. Of course, only if necessary.
 
I agree with the notion of adding any work that has been confirmed to have this supervision of Gamefreak making them follow an specific vision set as rules, but I disagree that everything should be canon. Unless there's the statements for it, canon shouldn't be assumed, it has to be proven.
 
I think many are taking the meaning of "canon" here wrong.
Canon usually means to something that did happen in a particular timeline, but the way the Pokémon series and our pages work in regards of it aren't limited to a single "canon".
Rather, every portrayal of the cast is something that is used as a way to perceive their potential in feats, rather than just measuring a single character in particular, we've simply standarized each portrayal in the way the Pokémon pages are right now, as the species pages, most notably, aren't based on a particular member of it nor are they "composite" profiles, each one contains the potential abilities they can have naturally.

Meaning that everything being "canon" here means more in the sense of "everything supervised by Game Freak is usable for indexing purposes", rather than "everything supervised by Game Freak is within a single timeline". Executor N0 even explains it well with the analogy of conflicting truths in the series and they aren't retcons or the like, but simply separate portrayals that display the potential of the cast, and something we base the profiles on.
 
For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.
I only came on the thread because I was mentioned on the thread. This was actually shared on the last thread, but you overlooked it for whatever reason. They directly imply in the official Nintendo Power guide for Red/Blue Rescue Team that the world of trainers (from the games) is the same as the human world, which is a canonically different universe from the Pokemon-only world in the Mystery Dungeon game series (albeit same cosmology obviously).

It's very clearly in reference to the games as well considering the caption beneath the heading literally mentions "previous games" in it. There's no argument about one-sided canonicity either like you tried claiming in the last thread for other details because this is just straight up from a Nintendo publication in general. I see literally no reason for Mystery Dungeon not to be canon given the multiple implications and intentions that seem to intrinsically tie it to the main canon.
 
Dude, not only are even the mainline games themselves already in different universes, as was proven to be the case not only for remakes with the Mega/non-Mega split but also between versions of the same Gen (like Sun & Moon), Masters isn't even a mainline game, so there's no reason to assume it shares universe with any other game.
 
I think many are taking the meaning of "canon" here wrong.
Canon usually means to something that did happen in a particular timeline, but the way the Pokémon series and our pages work in regards of it aren't limited to a single "canon".
Rather, every portrayal of the cast is something that is used as a way to perceive their potential in feats, rather than just measuring a single character in particular, we've simply standarized each portrayal in the way the Pokémon pages are right now, as the species pages, most notably, aren't based on a particular member of it nor are they "composite" profiles, each one contains the potential abilities they can have naturally.

Meaning that everything being "canon" here means more in the sense of "everything supervised by Game Freak is usable for indexing purposes", rather than "everything supervised by Game Freak is within a single timeline". Executor N0 even explains it well with the analogy of conflicting truths in the series and they aren't retcons or the like, but simply separate portrayals that display the potential of the cast, and something we base the profiles on.
@Ionliosite
 
Back
Top