On Air vs Director's Cut - What's canon/retcon, what's not?

[NAveryW]

Because a sequel is another work of art that is related to and expands on the original. Something like The Philosophy of Time Travel feels like an instruction manual to the film. It exists solely to explain the mystery that the director presented to begin with. What's the point? The core idea would've been extremely easy to state in the film, so why make such an intriguing mystery that's all about tone and then produce something that just explains away all the mystery? It totally defeats the point of the film itself.

Unless you're the type who wants to know everything about how everything works. The Philosophy of Time Travel exists for that purpose. If you're not interested, don't bother reading about it. Just don't discount it if, for some reason, you end up debating canon.

At what point does the work cease to become JUST the artist's to fuck with as they please and become something that the audience can experience and have the privilege of their own input that doesn't get overruled by something external to the work itself?

By definition, canon belongs to the creator(s) and will never belong to you, unless you end up writing officially sanctioned expanded universe material (which indeed happens quite a bit in comic books and Star Wars). If the creator ruins his work by screwing with the canon in ways you don't like, then the canon is ruined. You can't do anything about that. The previous two sentences are not expressing a relative opinion, but are inherently true by the definition of "canon". If you choose to ignore the creator's bungles, saying they're not canon because it ruins the artwork or for any other reason, then you're taking fanon and incorrectly calling it canon. But it doesn't matter if the canon is ruined, because fanon is what's important for the sake of enjoying it. Canon is only important for the sake of discussing the creator's intentions with other people.

The canon should be contained inside the work and nothing more. Simple as that.

That's your opinion that many creators don't share. If an author insists that your favorite chapter in a book was just a dream and never happened, then that may ruin the book for you, but canonically, it never happened. Because, again, "canon" is, by definition, the creator's ideas and intentions. But it shouldn't ruin the book for you even if you disagree with the canon, because it's not real anyway and your personal version of this fictional world can be whatever you want it to be and it's no more real than the creator's version.

The question is whether or not they should be considered by anyone and to what extent. It's not really fair that just because the majority chooses to accept it that means they are somehow official canon.

The majority doesn't decide what's canon. If everyone hates a particular episode of a show and decides to pretend it didn't happen, then that's just popular fanon. The exception is if the creator(s) decide(s) to retcon the story because the fans don't like it (or the creator(s) do(es)n't like it). An example of this is the Star Trek Voyager episode "Threshold", which the creators dislike to the point of deliberately contradicting it later on to show it isn't canon.

And it's really that intention - of making a series that is about something personal; something that's deeper than just a fictional lie or entertainment - that I feel is being violated by things like the CI. I understand it, I can accept it to a certain extent, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by while people try to justify it as some kind of God's word on how the series should be approached.

If you want to keep NGE personal, that means that if spoonfeeding is presented to you, you should refuse it. Which is absolutely fine. Insisting other people shouldn't be spoonfed because it ruins the personal element that they may or may not care to maintain is stupid... not to mention hypocritical, as you're denying people a personal choice.

[NemZ]

While you might (sorta, kinda, just barely) have a point there regarding certain issues per the original broadcast of the series, that has no validity at all with regard to the post-broadcast version (#21'-24', and EoE), with which the CI is entirely consistent, and which, after all, is the final canonical version.

that's easy enough to deal with. Just be perfectly happy with the original broadcast version and mark down 21'-26' as an alternate universe/retcon that is no more or less relevant to your enjoyment than Rebuild, the manga, or any of the other many spinoff projects.

[Legendary]

So all Director's Cuts are, in fact, alternate universes? That's... definitely not the way that canonicity should be approached.

[Allemann]

The DC episodes do not alter the plot; they just add more detail.

[NemZ]

I'm getting really tired of having to keep arguing this point in various places lately, so I'm just going to explain this as clearly as I can all at once and move on.

Okay people, listen up; If a director's cut consists of scenes that were filmed with the rest and trimmed from the theatrical release, then no, it's not a retcon. Only if something is added/removed/altered after the fact does it qualify.

You should also realize that a retcon does not have to actually change or remove something from the original to quality as such. Adding additional scenes that by their presence change the meaning/interpretation of others definately counts as well. You don't have to just take my word for it though:

Webster's
Wikipedia
TV Tropes

21'-26' contain examples of scenes being added or reanimated, dialog being altered, overlay images removed, and a total rewrite of 25 and 26 into something that may or may not even work in parallel to the original*. Given all that, I don't understand how this is even remotely arguable. The only reasonable alternative is to blatantly say that the original version is now officially void, in which case you aren't arguing if it's a retcon but rather about whether a creator retains absolute rights to vis creation even after release.**

*Let's skip going back to that argument yet again for another time, k?
**I leave this point to Jimbo's care, since he already started defending it.

[esselfortium]

I'm getting really tired of having to keep arguing this point in various places lately, so I'm just going to explain this as clearly as I can all at once and move on.

Okay people, listen up; If a director's cut consists of scenes that were filmed with the rest and trimmed from the theatrical release, then no, it's not a retcon. Only if something is added/removed/altered after the fact does it qualify.

You should also realize that a retcon does not have to actually change or remove something from the original to quality as such. Adding additional scenes that by their presence change the meaning/interpretation of others definately counts as well. You don't have to just take my word for it though:

Webster's
Wikipedia
TV Tropes

21'-26' contain examples of scenes being added or reanimated, dialog being altered, overlay images removed, and a total rewrite of 25 and 26 into something that may or may not even work in parallel to the original*. Given all that, I don't understand how this is even remotely arguable. The only reasonable alternative is to blatantly say that the original version is now officially void, in which case you aren't arguing if it's a retcon but rather about whether a creator retains absolute rights to vis creation even after release.**

*Let's skip going back to that argument yet again for another time, k?
**I leave this point to Jimbo's care, since he already started defending it.

That's just, like, your opinion, maaaan.

[Ornette]

Okay people, listen up; If a director's cut consists of scenes that were filmed with the rest and trimmed from the theatrical release, then no, it's not a retcon. Only if something is added/removed/altered after the fact does it qualify.

You should also realize that a retcon does not have to actually change or remove something from the original to quality as such. Adding additional scenes that by their presence change the meaning/interpretation of others definately counts as well. You don't have to just take my word for it though:

Who was saying it wasn't a retcon? I thought we were talking about canonicity.

[AyrYntake]

21'-26' contain examples of scenes being added or reanimated, dialog being altered, overlay images removed, and a total rewrite of 25 and 26 into something that may or may not even work in parallel to the original*.

Saying "something that may or may not even work in parallel to the original" is the same as saying "something". It's like saying "this glass may or may not be full of water". What exactly are you driving at?

Prove definitively that 21'-26' are in direct conflict with 21-26, then we talk.

[Mr. Tines]

Prove definitively that 21'-26' are in direct conflict with 21-26, then we talk.

Over here
http://forum.evageeks.org/viewtopic.php?t=8141
or perhaps here
http://forum.evageeks.org/viewtopic.php?t=8122
please.

[AyrYntake]

Nothing conclusive, nothing shown. If we haven't yet made the decision of whether they're concurrent or not we obviously can't argue a next step to that point. Besides, even if you take the stance of no concurrency and say "A happens in one and B in the other", it's a moot question to ask which happens, A or B. Obviously they both happen, one in EoE and the other in EoTV. Unless you think Evangelion is a prediction of what Earth will really look like in the future, I see no reason for further discussing the logical equivalent of "which is truer, Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica?"
With regards to canonicity, then, no-concurrency supporters will simply have to split the storyline into two and apply the CI to one of those lines (unless, of course, your aim is to postulate an Eva-multiverse), and the concurrency camp can just take things as they stand.

[NemZ]

Split from here.
______

It was one of the NPC that was kept even in Death True^2 thus we can easily conclude that it's canonical;

Not so much, no. EoE is an alternate ending, as pointed out in the theatrical trailer (Red cross book), and the new scenes in death are just an incomplete collection of the retcons in the NPC episodes made with the movie ending in mind.

Besides, Death isn't canonical; it's just a rehash for the audience's convenience if they don't remember or didn't watch the series.

[NemZ]

The Director's Cuts should be considered to supersede the canon presented in the televised version in contradictory places.

I disagree.

So Rei I seeing Kaworu as she dies has no bearing on canon?

Why would it? Doesn't make any damn sense anyway.

[Hyper Shinchan]

I disagree.

Why? Simply saying I disagree isn't an answer, you know? I've always found weird that in Death True and True^2 they've removed most of them but they always kept them in the home video releases (even though they kept the TV version as well, but we know that in Japan they are really fixed with the quality and completeness of their releases that in change can cost you an eye and an arm); are you suggesting that all the NPC addtional scenes should be placed in the same "continuity" of EoE and the TV version is the "official" continuity for EoTV (for example 00 never turned into that White Giant Rei) using as an example the different previews of 24 and 24'?
Anyway according to the wiki: "The Director's Cuts are the final or official version and take precedence over the On Air version in the event of any theoretical contradiction. " (link); I'd actually like to know if there's an official statement about this by Gainax or Anno so that we could make a more solid statement about their status.

[NemZ]

I didn't mean to do this... Can we get this merged into This or a similar thread?

Why? Simply saying I disagree isn't an answer, you know?

It's as much an answer as his assertion, also just an opinion, deserves. Besides, I already provided a reason in an earlier post, above. For those who haven't seen it:

[code:1]Theatrical program book (red cross book), Commentary section, paragraph #3:

For the TV series, episodes 25 "Owaru sekai (The Ending World)" and 26 "Sekai no chuushin de ai wo sakenda kemono (The Beast who Shouted "I/Love" at the Center of the World)" were shown following episode 24 to conclude the series. Thus, the story of Evangelion branches into two after the last scene of episode 24. There is one ending as shown in TV episodes 25 and 26, while episodes 25' and 26' as shown in "THE END OF EVANGELION" are another ending. (Here, plain numbers are used to indicate the TV episodes, and numbers with apostrophes for the movie episodes)[/code:1]

are you suggesting that all the NPC addtional scenes should be placed in the same "continuity" of EoE and the TV version is the "official" continuity for EoTV (for example 00 never turned into that White Giant Rei) using as an example the different previews of 24 and 24'?

I'm saying there are two endings, both equally official. The wiki is wrong to say one is 'more official' than the other.

[Hyper Shinchan]

I'm not saying that you're affirming that one ENDING is more official than the other (I thought that this was clear) but that the EoE continuity includes the Director's episodes while the EoTV continuity doesn't (thus it includes the onAir episodes). And well you actually said clearly so in a post in this thread early so I can clear my stupid doubts (I didn't read this thread until our posts were merged here).
I'd still like to know if there's a source for Shin-Seiki's claim or if it was done simply with the idea that the newer will substitute the older or because there was an amply agreement about it (I actually like the idea that they supersede the OnAir version as well but there must be some source to make such a claim and at least this source is not mentioned in the wiki).
But as far as I know I must say that your theory is surely more solid than the one mentioned in the wiki.

[NemZ]

You might also want to take a look at THIS THREAD (begun by NAveryW, incidently), where a Gainax executive says that EoTV was the intended ending and EoE was an alternate take.

As we have Yamaga saying (several times) vehemently that NGE's TV ending was planned and I've seen nothing from any Gainax member that contradicts it, I think it's best to assume that the commonly held assumption that EoE was the intended ending is false.

[NAveryW]

You might also want to take a look at THIS THREAD (begun by NAveryW, incidently), where a Gainax executive says that EoTV was the intended ending and EoE was an alternate take.

You might want to read the whole thread. Episode 25' director Kazuya Tsurumaki said in the EoE theatrical guidebook ("Red Cross Book") that episode 25' was based on the script they'd intended to use for episode 25 but were unable to.

[AuraTwilight]

Yamaga is also infamous for being frequently full of shit.

[Hyper Shinchan]

I've already read that thread, tnx and I've come up with the idea that Yamaga should need some medical treatment XD

[NemZ]

You might want to read the whole thread. Episode 25' director Kazuya Tsurumaki said in the EoE theatrical guidebook ("Red Cross Book") that episode 25' was based on the script they'd intended to use for episode 25 but were unable to.

Yeah... and I'm the one who quoted it in that thread, as well as suggested that Yamaga might have been referring primarily to 26 in his answers.

In any case, we definately don't have the kind of certainty that would enable people to categorically toss the original episodes out as canonically obsolete.

Yamaga is also infamous for being frequently full of shit.

Do you have some argument to back up that claim besides the confusion about the interview in question?