DVD movies and canon
Mar. 5th, 2006 08:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethCanon is already a complicated and contested area. But mostly, if we're talking Buffy canon, we're talking the episodes that were broadcast on television, pretty much in the form they were originally shown in on the channel that paid for them (so the edited versions that were on the BBC aren't the canon versions, especially where the edits make changes to plot or motivation, ie Katrina).
Sometimes I have read that the DVD versions are different than the versions first shown on TV. I can't prove it from here though, since I wasn't in the USA and only have the DVDs. But I heard for instance that in 'Lie to Me' a bit of music had to be replaced for the DVD release because there was a rights issue.
If there are differences, are TV shown eps more canonical than DVD? At this point I'd have to say no. TV is mostly ephemeral, in that it is shown once and then you have to remember it. Lots of people record it, but not everyone. DVDs reproduce the exact same episodes over and over, with every set having the same episodes on. TV reruns and hacks new chunks out for whatever reasons. So DVD is more canon.
Are deleted scenes canon? Usually I say no. Usually in fact I find myself very glad they were deleted. I'm thinking mainly of Andromeda, when one scene was shown with the deleted OMG it makes classic WHO costumes look good alien left in. But also actually of Serenity, where I think the cuts all helped the film tell a coherent unified story.
But what if the DVD is the *only* form that product is available in?
Is everything on that disc then canon? Even deleted scenes?
By calling them 'deleted scenes' the makers are saying 'ignore these scribblings, we dont think they count'. BUT, unlike on a DVD that started as TV or cinema, everyone has equal access to theses 'deleted' scenes. The only thing that would distinguish them from the main film would be the maker saying so.
Does the maker get that kind of say?
Well, yes and no. There are many many times when some particular maker - be it writer, actor, show runner, or creator, or head writer who got fired - comes up with some comment on the show. It gets in magazines, or on the web, and then people have Opinions on it. But is it canon? Got to say no, not least because often subsequent events contradict it. (They wouldn't kill Tara.)
So if they are presenting us viewers with a DVD full of content featuring our favourites, do they get to say 'and only half of this counts as real'?
Commentaries aren't canon. Generally speaking. Word of writer is fun, but not canon. Word of actor is even further from canon.
Does it make a difference if the commentary is part of the *original* presentation of the episode? If everyone who can see that episode can see it with the commentary on?
See I'm thinking most of these questions I'm raising, the answer is still going to be not-canon.
Because canon isn't about what is official, its about what affects the characters in any future stories.
But that definition gets complicated by things like Dawn or Connor and the accompanying massive retcons. Are they retcons in a comics sense, where in theory the new truths are the only truths that are remembered in-world? No, because the in-world characters find out they've been retconned. Messes that definition up all over the place it does.
My usual working definition is 'canon is the bits that fits'.
In Highlander that means that Zeist never ever ever existed in any way shape or form. But in other shows, say Buffy where Joss jossed himself about Spike's origin, it isn't exactly that straightforward. Because Spike said Angel was his sire, and Xander would still remember that (if he ever found it particularly memorable), and so would Spike and Angel. It wasn't retconned out of happening, and it isn't so wildly out of whack with everything around it you have to ignore it to get a consistent universe, so the question ends up being 'why would Spike say that?' And the answer doesn't boil down to 'writers had bad brain day', it instead gets into all sorts of character possibilities.
My new 'Key concepts: Cultural Theory' has a different definition of canon, one not quite like the way fans use it.
canon: Typically, the term is used to encompass what are generally recognised as the most important works in a particular artistic tradition
So that definition made me have a different set of thoughts. Like, I've always had to prioritise canon, say that words the characters speak are more important than what the subtitles say the characters said. (Logic being that in-world the characters remember saying stuff, not reading their own subtitles). And there are times when episodes work perfectly well as long as you ignore time-date-place captions, or what the props say if you pause and zoom in. So there's a hierarchy of canon, from 'things we see and hear that are part of plot' down through 'things we see that are made by props guys and not expected to be read' and to 'things we read made by subtitlers who may or may not have a clue'. So canon, by the definition generally recognised as the most important, would be the big actions and words bits that everyone sees.
The thing about canon as we fans use it is that its the shared definitions of our shared 'verse. The stuff that we all agree existed, that brings us together here to talk about it. So the definition that focuses on important actually helps, because we agree on xyz important things and can therefore talk about them.
But if canon is the stuff we all agree happened, that would kind of mean that stuff most of the fandom hasn't seen yet hasn't happened.
Which is a new way of looking at if Firefly and Serenity are the same 'verse.
And harks back to my old Highlander allegiances, with "Never saw it never happened" being a big motto.
So I guess canon for a particular group are the bits that they collectively decide fit.
Seeing as even within a particular fandom we are many groups, is no wonder there is much arguing of canon.
Sometimes I have read that the DVD versions are different than the versions first shown on TV. I can't prove it from here though, since I wasn't in the USA and only have the DVDs. But I heard for instance that in 'Lie to Me' a bit of music had to be replaced for the DVD release because there was a rights issue.
If there are differences, are TV shown eps more canonical than DVD? At this point I'd have to say no. TV is mostly ephemeral, in that it is shown once and then you have to remember it. Lots of people record it, but not everyone. DVDs reproduce the exact same episodes over and over, with every set having the same episodes on. TV reruns and hacks new chunks out for whatever reasons. So DVD is more canon.
Are deleted scenes canon? Usually I say no. Usually in fact I find myself very glad they were deleted. I'm thinking mainly of Andromeda, when one scene was shown with the deleted OMG it makes classic WHO costumes look good alien left in. But also actually of Serenity, where I think the cuts all helped the film tell a coherent unified story.
But what if the DVD is the *only* form that product is available in?
Is everything on that disc then canon? Even deleted scenes?
By calling them 'deleted scenes' the makers are saying 'ignore these scribblings, we dont think they count'. BUT, unlike on a DVD that started as TV or cinema, everyone has equal access to theses 'deleted' scenes. The only thing that would distinguish them from the main film would be the maker saying so.
Does the maker get that kind of say?
Well, yes and no. There are many many times when some particular maker - be it writer, actor, show runner, or creator, or head writer who got fired - comes up with some comment on the show. It gets in magazines, or on the web, and then people have Opinions on it. But is it canon? Got to say no, not least because often subsequent events contradict it. (They wouldn't kill Tara.)
So if they are presenting us viewers with a DVD full of content featuring our favourites, do they get to say 'and only half of this counts as real'?
Commentaries aren't canon. Generally speaking. Word of writer is fun, but not canon. Word of actor is even further from canon.
Does it make a difference if the commentary is part of the *original* presentation of the episode? If everyone who can see that episode can see it with the commentary on?
See I'm thinking most of these questions I'm raising, the answer is still going to be not-canon.
Because canon isn't about what is official, its about what affects the characters in any future stories.
But that definition gets complicated by things like Dawn or Connor and the accompanying massive retcons. Are they retcons in a comics sense, where in theory the new truths are the only truths that are remembered in-world? No, because the in-world characters find out they've been retconned. Messes that definition up all over the place it does.
My usual working definition is 'canon is the bits that fits'.
In Highlander that means that Zeist never ever ever existed in any way shape or form. But in other shows, say Buffy where Joss jossed himself about Spike's origin, it isn't exactly that straightforward. Because Spike said Angel was his sire, and Xander would still remember that (if he ever found it particularly memorable), and so would Spike and Angel. It wasn't retconned out of happening, and it isn't so wildly out of whack with everything around it you have to ignore it to get a consistent universe, so the question ends up being 'why would Spike say that?' And the answer doesn't boil down to 'writers had bad brain day', it instead gets into all sorts of character possibilities.
My new 'Key concepts: Cultural Theory' has a different definition of canon, one not quite like the way fans use it.
canon: Typically, the term is used to encompass what are generally recognised as the most important works in a particular artistic tradition
So that definition made me have a different set of thoughts. Like, I've always had to prioritise canon, say that words the characters speak are more important than what the subtitles say the characters said. (Logic being that in-world the characters remember saying stuff, not reading their own subtitles). And there are times when episodes work perfectly well as long as you ignore time-date-place captions, or what the props say if you pause and zoom in. So there's a hierarchy of canon, from 'things we see and hear that are part of plot' down through 'things we see that are made by props guys and not expected to be read' and to 'things we read made by subtitlers who may or may not have a clue'. So canon, by the definition generally recognised as the most important, would be the big actions and words bits that everyone sees.
The thing about canon as we fans use it is that its the shared definitions of our shared 'verse. The stuff that we all agree existed, that brings us together here to talk about it. So the definition that focuses on important actually helps, because we agree on xyz important things and can therefore talk about them.
But if canon is the stuff we all agree happened, that would kind of mean that stuff most of the fandom hasn't seen yet hasn't happened.
Which is a new way of looking at if Firefly and Serenity are the same 'verse.
And harks back to my old Highlander allegiances, with "Never saw it never happened" being a big motto.
So I guess canon for a particular group are the bits that they collectively decide fit.
Seeing as even within a particular fandom we are many groups, is no wonder there is much arguing of canon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 08:21 pm (UTC)That's not necessarily true. The AtS ep Are you now... ran 10 minutes over in the first cut. The scenes that were cut were in keeping with the episode and potentially shedding more lite on various characters, but they were not essential to the plot and therefore could be cut while maintaining the episode integrity.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 08:29 pm (UTC)and yet, still not canon(?)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 08:46 pm (UTC)I think that deleted scenes that keep with the episode and with future canon are a good source of canon. Now in some shows scenes are reshot because something isn't working because the story needs revising or because it is showing a character/relationship in the wrong light. Those I would consider possibilities but not canon.
Interviews always have to be taken with a grain of salt. So many authors/creators are known for lieing, for having no perspective on their own work or not taking into account the intent they put into a script is not exactly what the author portrayed. Or worse yet, the writing staff has two different visions.
I think Wes-Lilah-Fred is a fine example of all that. The writers put in a provacative throw away scene of wes and lilah having sex. The actors sold it like there was no tomorrow (er... no pun intended ;-). The next season the writers went with it, allowing a relationship to develop where they were probably never planning on going again. Joss had a clear vision that Fred & Wes needed to get together.
The other writers played lip service to this but the vastly superior portrayal of Wes/Lilah - hot but can never last - over Wes/Fred - his crazy obsession that nobody understand because it's Joss' kink - underminded any Wes/Fred relationship. Add to this mixed signals. "It's not always about holding hands" Wes' swooing and pain when ever he saw Lilah even after she was dead. It all cause Joss to force fead us Fred/Wes in S5 in a way that was just not convincing. They can claim whatever they want in interviews about intent, but everything on screen was a set of contradictinos.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 02:34 am (UTC)Official matters not to me. In that case its a combination of been around longest, been watching since I was little, and makes the most sense.
Theres too many different versions of Star Wars, to the point where I'm never sure if a scene is actually missing or if I hallucinated it in the first place.
From the Star Wars mess I have decided going back to 'fix' things is not of the good. Clean up the print digitally, yaay. Change the film? Unyaay.
I wouldn't actually mind so much if it was like the Doctor Who DVDs. There some of them have cleaned up and computerised FX to replace the (proverbially shaky) original ones BUT both versions are on the disc, so you can watch whichever way you prefer. The Star Wars way of trying to retcon and retroactively edit peoples favourite films just really annoys me.
Yet Highlander doing the same with Zeist simply amuses. Probably because Highlander 2 in the original version... lets say if it had fans they're very well hidden.
I'm going off on one now and I'd decided to go sleep, it being 0230.
Opinions! Many of them! Loud!
;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 02:37 am (UTC)Han Shot First has its own wiki entry
cool