AxelTheBunny wrote:The issue with never using fanon is it leaves holes. .
AxelTheBunny wrote:As I stated, its the type of thing you need to take on a case by case basis. Look at the way most people describe Ki in Ranma stories. It is used to explain some techniques, like the moko takabisha, and it's easy to insinuate that other techniques utilize it as well. But most of what is usually used as the description of what one can do with Ki is pure speculation, as well as what it actually is. One could assume that Ki is the reason these martial artists can do physically impossible, superhuman feats however I dont recall this ever actually being said in canon.
AxelTheBunny wrote:It's fine if you personally dislike all use of fanon, but saying that your tastes are the definitive "good quality." Much of the speculation involved in most fandoms have been used to explain problems. A good example is the disguise field in Sailor Moon. As far as Im aware there is no canon equivalent, but it does explain how the main characters are not recognized despite their rather distinctive features.
AxelTheBunny wrote:Taking a puritanical view of fanon/canon is silly, because there are simply things that do fit within the world, but were not canon. As well as things in Fanon which yes do go against canon and should be avoided. I'm not going to go around being the fun police and shouting "you cant say that because the original canon didnt establish that/say that."
AxelTheBunny wrote:I do agree with PCHeintz that alot of people take this stuff too seriously, I've had people give me flack on PM for the fact I dont make my stories overtly comedic, because it "isnt canon" with the tone takahashi often writes.
AxelTheBunny wrote:I do agree with PCHeintz that alot of people take this stuff too seriously, I've had people give me flack on PM for the fact I dont make my stories overtly comedic, because it "isnt canon" with the tone takahashi often writes. I always consider canon to be what was explained in series, or linked material such as in related material but I do agree that if the author didnt put it into the official material, then it cant very well be considered Canon. A good example is in Harry Potter with the Dumbledore being gay thing. It's not really necessary for the story, nor is there anything in the story that indicates one way or the other. It was simply a retroactive change so I can't really consider it canon, because one wouldnt be able to glean this reading any of the related official materials or the actual books. While I have no problem with people running with this interpretation, nor any problem with the idea itself I can't really consider retroactive changes outside of the official material to be canon.
Concider that "confirmed bachelors" from the late 1800s early 1900s were basically closeted gay men.
And discounting author intent is silly. Every author has aspects of a characters history and thought-process that didn't get put down to paper but informs their actions.
I can tell you right now with very reasonable certainty that what you did was have characters act like they were in a story with Takahashi's average tone but having the story treat the characters like they weren't. Takahashi herself would tone down characters actions in more serious scenes, so you need to do that.
I do agree with PCHeintz that alot of people take this stuff too seriously
I do not care, as I care if I like the story, not where the material came from... that does not make it canon.
Yes you would actually, Dumbledore has a complete lack of any romantic history. The closest person he's shown to have been to in his past is Grindelwald. Concider that "confirmed bachelors" from the late 1800s early 1900s were basically closeted gay men.
AxelTheBunny wrote:
I don't particularly care how Takahashi writes, I'm a completely different individual with a different writing style, and I consider myself a fan of her work because of the ideas and characters in them, which I do strive to portray accurately. The idea I need to also follow her writing style is silly, because if I wanted to read "more takahashi" I'd simply go read one of her other manga.
AxelTheBunny wrote:I doubt you'd change your own position, as most of the matters of whether or not it's ok to utilize fanon which we disagree off are obviously purely a difference in taste, so I'd rather just agree to disagree. Im merely stating that not all fanon is the same, you need to take it on a case by case basis whether or not you agree with this is your business. At the end of the day.
Fanon Ranma characters do not act like Ranma 1/2 characters.
PCHeintz72 wrote:I thought the Ranma cast in it, of what was shown, reasonably in character. It seems to avoid or not harp on the bulk of anime fannon cliches, and be a fairly nice slice of life on their rocky relationship as friends, with Nabiki actually wanting to help Ranma out of a slump based on actions of her sister. They blunder through things, and make mistakes, and not make mistakes. Their characterization seems to fit considering the situation the events of the story have made for them...
PCHeintz72 wrote:Thus is not a canon type story or canon type feel and the situation is thus fannon.
PCHeintz72 wrote: nowhere do those two get a couple days like this of comparative 'normal-ness' without all the other characters rushing in to make their various claims/demands/etc...
PCHeintz72 wrote:Then... is the story bad?
PCHeintz72 wrote:Many by authors that are controversial (VimesEnthusiast, PixelWriter1, Ozzallos, Brian Randall(Durandall), Jeffrey OneShot Wong, Innortal, even Josh Temple to name a few)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users