So, does anyone here know how Character Model Sheets are called in Japanese? They are called Setting Document Collection (設定資料集, Settei shiryōshū) and this is a good example of what I mean. When a character is designed, depending on the depth of the setting document there might be a lot of details about its inner workings that aren't represented in a show. For example, Ulforce V-Dramon X was designed by As'maria, but only a standard image that lacks some details, to the point that
new setting documentation needed to be made in order for the 3D Models in a 3D game in order to respect the official setting. What is a part of not of the official settings can include things like special moves, such as the character Charismon whose official profile makes no description of how their moves work, but
the setting documentation describes what those moves do and what they look like.
In certain cases, multimedia franchises do work on the premise that even though most works aren't really in continuity or have contradictions, they still should be counted as one single thing when trying to understand the world.
Let's take a look into some series that were mentioned here before as evidence that such a thing doesn't exist/isn't accepted. First, Transformers. In regards to the inner workings of the multiverse, I think that taking the "
Aligned continuity family" is a good example of what I was talking about. As this was a project of creating a single solid continuity where much of the background story and rules of the universe were pre-defined in the series' bible and each product would reveal a part of that lore. However over time, those products would start to contradict each other even with the official vision being of a single continuity until it was stated that yes, while it was still just a single continuity, each product could still develop the story on its own and even contradict each other because the idea was of a single continuity, the fans could ignore the contradictions while looking into a single story, or looking for then and seeing the differences that they each had. They could work both as individual works, or also as a single story if you chose to ignore what was contradicted (Not that fans could accept that such a thing was a valid understanding after all).
So yes, contradictory individual products, but with a single overall backstory that you are supposed to ignore the contradictions to be able to look into the bigger picture that explains the world, sounds familiar? Of course, such ideas are only going to live while there's creative intent for them to continue to be valid. Talking about the larger multiverse, there were multiversal concepts that were supposed to be singular between all the products, but some products were so contradictory to that concept that it was decided to erase the overall idea of multiversal singularities in order to not have to deal with fans complaining about inconsistencies instead of just accepting that contradictions exist.
Of course, contradictions are just the main reason for why such things aren't accepted as being able to cross between different works, but that is mostly because some products go against certain logic. Taking Marvel and DC as examples, in theory, much of What IFs stories should scale to main universe stuff. If the idea is "this is the same timeline until a different event happened that resulted in a totally different future", then all the stuff from before said difference or ones that are unrelated to said difference, should still be able to valid stuff for the main universe. The problem is that the general idea of "it's a different universe" and the expectation of "this stuff doesn't count" just killed this idea for What Ifs and they are mostly disregarded as "not related at all to the main universe, even if that is the opposite of the concept itself". Sometimes those differences are explained, such as Flashpoint's "time boom" or Marvel's "the past is constantly changed by decisions made in the future" during Ultimates (I would say that having to explain why this happens is in fact a point to the opposite being the norm most of the time, but as I said, the reason for why it's not is the constant inconsistencies and common acceptance that different universe stuff shouldn't be used to the main universe).
Another generic example of this would be games with different routes that although they might end with totally different characters making totally different choices, the general world remains the same. Such as "The Witcher 2" even though has a very clear divide in two routes and various other different small choices, still is the same overall "world" and some mysteries are only solvable if you use things from both sides, even if there are some contradictions and overall impossible differences because you are supposed to not think too much on what isn't consistent, but on what is consistent.
Take Ben 10 as another example. This one is very interesting because of all of the different opinions of the staff on what "counts". But only talking about setting documentation, we know that there's a lot of background lore that is never touched by the series itself, instead, you can look at them in cards or toys, or even in comic books that even though are not really canon, the background lore that is presented can is a part of that background, for example, some elements that are introduced in the "Alien Data Files" are most likely form setting documents, as some information that is
introduced there also exists in other sources
like cards and official websites. Although you also have the big problem of contradictions, such as the choices in AF/UA of changing some pre-established lore and creating those contradictions, even within the same season.
Talking about the reboot, it's also an interesting thing because, in concept, the reboot is made as "
not a redo" of the original series, but as "
adventures we couldn't see before", of course, it had its big differences,
but it was made in the idea it was still the same Ben as before. With much of the lore in the reboot being in fact from the original series,
basically, everything from the original series is valid for the reboot,
and the reboot is 80% just content from the old series, including elements that were originally present in the setting documentation and
used in spin-off material, being used
in-story.
The big problem with a lot of multimedia franchises is the lack of consistency or just knowledge of the material being expanded. For example, the secret behind Hawkgirl in the DCAU wasn't shared with the other branches of the franchise, so many tie-in products expanded a false backstory as true, making those stories essentially impossible to coexist with what is definitely canon. But such contradictions aren't exclusive to tie-in products, as some people only see "canon" as a good guideline that can be disregarded if that means creating a better product...
even when it's by making contradictions in the same continuity.
But, what about Pokémon? Well, now that I gave the entire context of how none of this is simple with the very examples that people are giving on "it's just not acceptable", let's see the statements about the series.
Form Junichi Masuda's interview with
GameInformer:
So, there isn’t war in the world of Pokémon where armies of Pokémon are fighting for the ideals of their leaders?
Masuda: Long ago, there may have been wars. Actually, if you look at one of the movies featuring the character Lucario, there are maybe some hints about the past of the Pokémon world.
Speaking of the movies and consequently the TV show, do the cartoons and the movies and the video games overlap? Is that all one Pokémon world, or are they two separate universes?
Masuda: basically it’s the same place. Looking at it as a parallel world, or in some select spots being a parallel world might be more accurate.
The context is clear, they asked for a bit of information about the world of Pokémon and Masuda answered with the Lucario movie, when asked if they are separated worlds or just one Pokémon world, Masuda stated it was "basically the same places", or "some select spots being a parallel world". The idea is about it being a single basic Pokémon world that shares most of its history and elements while keeping what is different as being a part of a parallel world. Or "they are the same most of the time, but there are differences due to being parallel worlds", but within this context, Masuda implies you can take elements of one and use them in the other, as he just did in regards to the Lucario movie.
He explained more about that
on his personal blog:
Did everyone see this year’s Pokemon movie? In this movie, “Mew”, a Pokemon appeared in the first series, meets ‘Lucario’ introduced in Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. Unlike encounters in the game, you might feel some distance between the two Pokemon, but I liked the way they met in the movie, as two Pokemon in a movie. This movie begins with a war scene. And what with armors for Pokemon and others, it includes settings that we at Game Freak had tough time making decisions about. At the same time though, there is no certain opponent this time, and it includes many challenging ideas while keeping the world-view of Pokemon intact. So, I like it very much. It also brings you to tears. If ‘Lucario’ will grow in such a nice way, it might become very difficult for us to try to incorporate this Pokemon in a game. (it was very hard with Lugia…) But this time I came up with ideas like ‘Let’s do this, let’s do that!’ after I saw the movie. It’s a secret… You’ll be surprised when you play! In what part of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl does ‘Lucario’ appear? As you enjoy the movie, don’t forget to keep that in mind! By the way, do you remember that thing that looks like Mew’s family tree at the beginning of the movie. That’s based on Game Freak’s confidential documents about Pokemon Diamond and Pearl 
. See ya.
In regards to when the different products work together or not, Masuda himself gave an example of what works or doesn't work,
in another Game Informer interview:
Pokémon can only say their own name. Pikachu, for example, can only speak his name. Do they say their own name and then that's what humans decide to call them? Or do humans start calling them their names and then the Pokémon recognize that and start saying it?
Junichi Masuda: I don't really know actually. Honestly, though, that a separation of the main series RPGs from the animated series. It's the animated series in which the Pokémon are always saying their names like that. I think we decided to do that in the animated series to make it easier for audiences to understand which Pokémon it is. Maybe in that universe the Pokémon starting saying their names first and then humans went, "Oh, okay. That must be your name.s"
As you can see above, this is a very clear difference between the world of the games that aren't shared with the world of the anime. Does this mean that they are 100% different and you shouldn't cross-reference anything? Definitely no, Masuda himself was the one who first mentioned they being mostly the same world, he stated one of the differences between the two universes just complements what he stated before, there are differences between them, but the similarities far outweigh the differences. In regards to canon itself, we in fact have interviews with Detective Pikachu staff that does explain how that works. From an interview with
The Verge:
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.
The overall idea is that the Pokémon world across the many different products is basically the same, it has the same inner-working rules (Also called Settings/Settei) that make up the Worldview/Sekai-kan of the Pokémon series and you are supposed to look over certain contradictions that exist due to different media having different areas where they excel or just due to the limited freedom that they sometimes have.
I need to say that some contradictions mentioned here are a bit ridiculous to be taken seriously, because if that is the case then we can't even put different games in the same "canon" due to different movepools or Pokémon Encyclopedia profiles. The profiles themselves always had limited information from what is in the setting due to gameplay limitations, but that created the standard for the series.
There was even an official "Pokémon Encyclopedia" book released at the time of Reed/Green with expanded Pokémon profiles that explained a lot more about the backstory of the series, even showing how the data on the book is discovered by researchers and including lines of texts that would be used in later products, including some of them never being used in any game profile, but still being referenced in places like the anime. In fact, Takeshi Shudo made various mentions about said book on his personal blog and even had a character in the anime reading said book, and he mentioned how much Gamefreak controlled the worldview of the series and how they checked if there was any setting contradictions (As I explained
on my personal blog), even with he not really thinking this was necessary because he didn't think there was to be any connection between the games and the anime (That is, Shudo himself accepted the vision that the work as its own, while it was Gamefreak that look over by themselves to be sure that the lore was reflected in the anime and novel, although this is something that is contradicted from time to time as I gave examples before).
Even on the games themselves there are limitations that sometimes are explained in-universe or in interviews, Masuda once said that some old Pokédex have "
outdated information", and need to be updated. So yes, the games are going to have some changes for various reasons, although many of them can be explained in the universe, there are those who we are mostly supposed to just take as contradictions that are just bound to happen (Again, if the contradictions themselves are a reason for not to be accepted as being in the same "scaling", then the games themselves are never going to be accepted because each game has something that contradictions the previous ones).
In general, Pokémon seems to work under the idea that while each product really is a separated universe (The games themselves are basically never 100% the same universe), they do share mostly the same background and you are supposed to look beyond the differences for each work and look into the bigger picture to get a full grasp of the Pokémon world. At least is what I got from the interviews every time they mentioned the Pokémon worldview and Masuda's interviews with gameinformer.
About the profiles themselves, I don't really have a good idea of what to do with them as I'm more into the settings/lore than the profiles themselves, so people that work more with them know more than I do.
