• 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.

The My Little Pony Comics Should be Considered Canon Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
As I have mentioned before, the comicbooks tend to reference the TV show a lot, but the TV show systematically ignores and contradicts the comicbooks.

I am not at all comfortable with turning the profiles into composite versions, and insert lots of likely very unreliable backstories and similar, but you are probably free to create ones for the comicbook versions of the characters. Why do you consider that such a problem in comparison?
Click to expand...
Because the show doesn't have to follow the comics. Like a databook, the canon manga can contradict what is stated and doesn't have to follow the databook. If the comics are canon until contradicted, then that means; by all definition, the show is allowed to contradict them. This again, this does not break the logic that Hasbro is using. You keep telling me this as if it breaks Hasbro's logic when it is following their logic perfectly fine.

Why would it be unreliable? Why are the changelings coming from a cursed tree so bad?

@Bold Um, because we have been told that Hasbro itself considers them canon excepting specific circumstances? We have statements of confirmation from the tops, and we're essentially ignoring it because it breaks standard protocol; amongst other reasons. That's my problem.

This thread wouldn't even exist if I hadn't realized that Hasbro; not Andy, was calling them canon.
 
Hasbro executives are not directly involved in the process of making the comicbook, and likely do not care either way, as long as they get to sell lots of toys, and we do not even have an official company statement, just an unreliable Twitter reply.

What matters is that common sense logic, and our rules for handling all situations like this for all fictions, dictate that we should not consider two continuities that constantly contradict each other as identical. It would set a terrible precedent, and it is not acceptable to apply a nonsense standard that we do not use elsewhere, just because you are longing for applying massive upgrades to a fiction that you happen to like.

I am very tired of arguing about this, and do not have available time and energy to continue to waste on it, but again, I would greatly appreciate if you immediately and permanently drop this subject, and rather focus on creating profiles for the separate comicbook continuity instead.
 
GokuSparkle said:
I kinda agree. I think sepate profiles for comic characters is a better idea.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I completely and vehemently disagree with seperate profiles. Are we seriously arguing that Hasbro's statement is too "unofficial" when we use a gmail response as primary justification for the Sun being Sun sized? I mean, we can still infer that the Sun is Sun sized based on Solar System models, but that's not the point. Its still used as primary justification, yet suddenly we have problems when I use something similar for the comics?

There is nothing I have been shown or told that contradicts Hasbro's logic here, and there is nothing that is "too hard" about managing comic feats and which ones get to be canon. But sure, lets make a carbon copy of nearly every character in the cartoon, but with comic feats. Surely that won't take any work in comparison.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making the profiles. Both because I personally feel that it is intellectually dishonest to dimiss Hasbro's opinion based on the current arguments and because I have summer classes crammed into my schedule, with work due every half week. I've got time to make a small calc, or make comments, but not setting up a dozen profile templates. If you or anyone else want to take a crack at it then fine, but I am both unwilling and unable.
 
I mean, this is kind of similar to an issue we had with doctor who

Personally i think if word of gods stated it's canon like this then the lack of show paying attention to the comics is more because of individual writers than anything
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
I mean, this is kind of similar to an issue we had with doctor who
Personally i think if word of gods stated it's canon like this then the lack of show paying attention to the comics is more because of individual writers than anything
Click to expand...
Exactly. It also doesn't matter how involved Hasbro is with the comics or not. Hasbro still pays them to write for them, so Hasbro is clearly more involved than what is implied in this thread. We're arguing pure semantics by this point.
 
We have official rules that state that we can only use q&a or Twitter replies when they confirm and give extra weight to what has been shown within or can be inferred from a fiction itself, which holds true for the sun size.

In the case of using a casual Twitter reply to warrant merging together two continuities that constantly strongly contradict each other, which would be completely against our standard regulations for these types of situations, that is completely unacceptable, period.

Again, I would greatly appreciate if you permanently drop this subject, and never ever mention it again, as doing what you want would be strongly against our rules and set a terrible precedent. In addition, I am ridiculously tired, overworked, and stressed out, and do not have the time and energy to waste on this.

Ask Azathoth if you wish. He is the only one who might be able to convince me otherwise.
 
Thank you for the support. My apologies about being testy. It is the combination of being extremely overworked and repeatedly having to deal with something stupid in combination.
 
Firstly, I've checked the rules, I do not see that rule. Which section is it in? Secondly: How am I supposed to "give weight" to whats been shown in the fiction? In this specific situation it appears to be an impossible task. The comics and show are mostly seperate from each other, so how am I supposed to provide something that supports what is implied by the show? What would even qualify in this situation?

This isn't like an author claiming character A can destroy universes when they've only destroyed planets, or character A is superior to character B despite them never interacting, or vague statements about a character or technique being ftl. This is simply the guy making the comics telling us what Hasbro told him. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not the same situation as the former and statements should be treated on a case by case basis, not generalization.
 
Oh, and there's nothing stupid about this. I get you're working hard, but calling the argument stupid and calling me "thirsty for upgrades" (yes Ant, I saw the edit) is entirely unwarranted.
 
I am way too tired to deal with this, but here:

Editing Rules

"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements from them that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable.

When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former. The statement need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered invalid.

Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate."

You can also read here:

Cano

Alternative Canon and Composite Profiles
 
Anyway, it is possible that we should clarify our rules better, or expand their descriptions, to avoid more situations like this in the future, but it should be self-evident that we cannot treat two different mediums that constantly strongly contradict each other, as part of the same continuity based on a casual Twitter reply without further confirmation, so my apologies, but yes this is stupid, and I would greatly appreciate if you would permanently stop pestering me about it.
 
Anyway, this is never going to pass on my watch, so I would much prefer if you drop the subject and do not bring it up again, but I apologise if I have been rude due to being too tired to deal with this.
 
Antvasima said:
Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience.
Click to expand...
Then what qualifies for that here? We're talking about two different continities, so what would qualify as "clarifying" what has been shown in the series? I need to know what would be counted as such before making any new reply.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
While I actually agree that they share a canon, I'd wait until azzy responds
Click to expand...
You should probably adjust the link you sent him. It takes him to a random comment in the thread. He needs to see the arguments as he scrolls down so he can form a better opinion. If he sees a random comment he might not know completely what is being argued for or the reasoning.
 
Please reread all of my replies, as I do not have the time to repeat myself over and over. The point is that given the many contradictions between the TV show and the comicbooks, it would take a lot of extraordinary evidence to warrant merging them into one whole, and a casual unconfirmed Twitter reply does not fulfill that requirement.
 
Antvasima said:
Please reread all of my replies, as I do not have the time to repeat myself over and over. The point is that given the many contradictions between the TV show and the comicbooks, it would take a lot of extraordinary evidence to warrant merging them into one whole, and a casual unconfirmed Twitter reply does not fulfill that requirement.
Click to expand...
You know, if you'd answer my previous question: "what counts as clarifiyng what has been shown in the series" I'd be able to prove (or not) that it's more than a casual tweet. How do you expect me to prove this if you won't answer?
 
Lightbuster30 said:
GokuSparkle said:
I kinda agree. I think sepate profiles for comic characters is a better idea.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I completely and vehemently disagree with seperate profiles. Are we seriously arguing that Hasbro's statement is too "unofficial" when we use a gmail response as primary justification for the Sun being Sun sized? I mean, we can still infer that the Sun is Sun sized based on Solar System models, but that's not the point. Its still used as primary justification, yet suddenly we have problems when I use something similar for the comics?
Click to expand...
The problem isn't that it's too unofficial, it's that the feats have been too different overall. Does it really seem possible that these ponies that are overwhelemed by country and world level threats could be mulitversal or whatever the top tier comic feats are?
 
Lightbuster30 said:
Firstly, I've checked the rules, I do not see that rule. Which section is it in? Secondly: How am I supposed to "give weight" to whats been shown in the fiction? In this specific situation it appears to be an impossible task. The comics and show are mostly seperate from each other, so how am I supposed to provide something that supports what is implied by the show? What would even qualify in this situation?
Click to expand...
You said it yourself. They're mostly separate from each other.
 
Lightbuster30 said:
Antvasima said:
Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience.
Click to expand...
Then what qualifies for that here? We're talking about two different continities, so what would qualify as "clarifying" what has been shown in the series? I need to know what would be counted as such before making any new reply.
Click to expand...
Again, you said yourself that they're two separate continuities, so you can't use a composite key for them. A composite profile with comic version as one of their keys? Sure, but not in the same key.
 
It absolutely is the problem. The entire reason Ant won't accept Hasbro's statement is because he thinks it is is too unofficial.

"You said it yourself. They're mostly separate from each other."

Yes. Because the comics are secondary canon. Canon that can be contradicted by primary source material.

"Again, you said yourself that they're two separate continuities, so you can't use a composite key for them. A composite profile with comic version as one of their keys? Sure, but not in the same key."

Sigh. Because one continuity is said to be canon to the other until contradicted. Have I not made my reasoning clear?
 
Lightbuster30 said:
It absolutely is the problem. The entire reason Ant won't accept Hasbro's statement is because he thinks it is is too unofficial.
"You said it yourself. They're mostly separate from each other."

Yes. Because the comics are secondary canon. Canon that can be contradicted by primary source material.

"Again, you said yourself that they're two separate continuities, so you can't use a composite key for them. A composite profile with comic version as one of their keys? Sure, but not in the same key."

Sigh. Because one continity is said to be canon to the other until contradicted. Have I not made my reasoning clear?
Click to expand...
Maybe that's true. I guess I meant that wasn't my problem with it.

What you say is all true, except that comic feats being applicable to the show is kinda contradicted by the craziness of the feats as I've already stated. It's like saying marvel comics can be used to back up MCU characters, when they've clearly been shown as much weaker. I know that's sorta different, but it's the same idea.
 
First I would like to apologise if I was being rude yesterday. I was extremely tired and found (and still find) this particular type of discussion exasperating to deal with.

Anyway, as I have stated previously, we cannot go against our standard praxis of not considering two separate mediums that constantly constradict each other to great degrees, both in terms of story and power-levels, as part of the exact same continuity.

The Twitter reply would only be considered as legitimate if it confirmed what was shown inside of the stories themselves, that is if the TV show and comicbooks constantly mutually made an effort to reference and not contradict each other.

The only issue here is that we likely need to rewrite the following rule, so it clarifies that the main reason for considering the two mediums as separate continuities is that they constantly contradict each other in multiple ways:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules#My_Little_Pony_Rules
 
Well, they were first presented in an extremely contradictory manner, which illustrates that the TV show does not care about what happens in the comicbooks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Realabod
my little pony cosmology possible upgrade
Replies
39
Views
3K
BestMGQScalerEver
BestMGQScalerEver
Ser_Hakim_Dayne
Terminator Franchise Resurrection: Canon and stats revisions
Replies
34
Views
2K
Ser_Hakim_Dayne
Ser_Hakim_Dayne
ArzCosmos_888
Scaling MLP Characters and other details.
2 3 4
Replies
126
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Killerdrone123
  • Locked
To be canon or not to be that is the question.A Dragon ball Super revision
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
11K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
PonePoster
Sizable Discord powers/abilities revision
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Back
Top