|
|
Post by cadmus on May 4, 2008 14:50:35 GMT -5
Now, to the point of the thread: canon is what was aired on TV, i.e., the 87 broadcast episodes. That's it. Period. No less an authority than Bob Schooley has said as much. While I believe special consideration should be given to what Mark, Bob, and Steve have said about post-series life for Kim, Ron, and the gang, those comments are not canon, they're apocrypha. I know I'm pretty much resurrecting a dead horse here, but the only reason people here believe that canon=on screen is because Bob Schooley one day made a comment that he agreed with a member saying if it's not on screen it's not canon. THIS RULE only applies to Kim Possible (at this point in time), not any other show. Personally I feel it was a mistake for Bob to say on screen=canon, regardless of what I or any other VIP says. IMO if your a creator of a tv show, you never ( channeling The Rock ;D) AND I MEAN NEVER, tell the fanbase that your opinion of what happens off screen doesn't matter. Because after that nobody will take your opinion about what happens on the show seriously. Never give your fanbase an excuse to say my opinion doesn't matter. And never tell anybody that the power of a show belongs to fans 100%. Because in all actuality, it makes your opinion less valuable. There's a reason why you don't hear a politician saying "my opinion doesn't matter." I know Bob's intention was probably just to give one answer to about 100 questions, and to avoid having to answer these questions. But IMO Bob taking the easy way out in that thread, felt like Homer Simpson trading his soul for a donut without thinking of the consequences of his actions. |
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Nov 22, 2008 17:12:31 GMT -5
It's funny when someone comments on how you portray Kim & Ron as out of character when you have Kim & Ron together. It's even more hillarious when these people have a few characters portrayed as gay when they are really straight and hate each other. Some people just make you shake your head like. Wow. It makes you say to yourself "This person thinks I have Kim and Ron out of character? This person? This person? I have Kim out of character? lol." Personally I feel it was a mistake for Bob to say on screen=canon, regardless of what I or any other VIP says. I think that what Bob, Mark, and Steve said is canon. People will see what they want but it's obvious why Bob said what he did. It's Canon. ;D Steve Loter is also a Word Of God so I don't believe we can dismiss with he said. I don't call what bob said a contadiction to what steve said or else Bob would have called him on it in the finale review thread. Bob had no problem in that thread with what Steve said. Bob just got really ticked at a few peoples questions that he wanted to silence the haters. I don't think there was any consequences from that though...It just makes for more debates then need be but thae points bob and mark made still mean the same. Kim Possible and Ron Stoppable were meant to be together from the start. Kim Possible and Ron Stoppable will be together forever.  |
|
|
|
Post by pengychan on Nov 22, 2008 17:19:42 GMT -5
It's funny when someone comments on how you portray Kim & Ron as out of character when you have Kim & Ron together. It's even more hillarious when these people have a few characters portrayed as gay when they are really straight and hate each other. Some people just make you shake your head like. Wow. It makes you say to yourself "This person thinks I have Kim and Ron out of character? This person? This person? I have Kim out of character? lol." I think that what Bob, Mark, and Steve said is canon. People will see what they want but it's obvious why Bob said what he did. It's Canon. ;D Uhm...I think you're missing an important pointy here: the pairing has nothing to do with the whole IC/OOC thing. If I wrote a fic in which Kim and Ron are a couple BUT she is some weak and weepy good-for-nothing while Ron is a total jerk...well, they would be both OOC, no matter if they're a couple or not. It's completely different. |
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Nov 22, 2008 17:23:01 GMT -5
It's funny when someone comments on how you portray Kim & Ron as out of character when you have Kim & Ron together. It's even more hillarious when these people have a few characters portrayed as gay when they are really straight and hate each other. Some people just make you shake your head like. Wow. It makes you say to yourself "This person thinks I have Kim and Ron out of character? This person? This person? I have Kim out of character? lol." I think that what Bob, Mark, and Steve said is canon. People will see what they want but it's obvious why Bob said what he did. It's Canon. ;D Uhm...I think you're missing an important pointy here: the pairing has nothing to do with the whole IC/OOC thing. If I wrote a fic in which Kim and Ron are a couple BUT she is some weak and weepy good-for-nothing while Ron is a total jerk...well, they would be both OOC, no matter if they're a couple or not. It's completely different. Oh I agree that they can be portrayed as ooc if you have them as a couple...I'm just saying how dare this other person claim that when they have straight characters gay? Tha'ts all i'm saying. It's like HOW DARE THEY bring it up. It's one thing if it was coming from somebody who kept the characters IC. In this case it's not coming from someone who does it so it's being a hypocrit. I agree with you though on the one point though. |
|
|
|
Post by pengychan on Nov 22, 2008 17:30:24 GMT -5
Uhm...I think you're missing an important pointy here: the pairing has nothing to do with the whole IC/OOC thing. If I wrote a fic in which Kim and Ron are a couple BUT she is some weak and weepy good-for-nothing while Ron is a total jerk...well, they would be both OOC, no matter if they're a couple or not. It's completely different. Oh I agree that they can be portrayed as ooc if you have them as a couple...I'm just saying how dare this other person claim that when they have straight characters gay? Tha'ts all i'm saying. It's like HOW DARE THEY bring it up. It's one thing if it was coming from somebody who kept the characters IC. In this case it's not coming from someone who does it so it's being a hypocrit. I disagree: sexuality is not what makes a character. If I were lesbian, my personality and character wouldn't be any different - why should it be different for fictional characters? It is possible to portay characters with different sexual preferences from canonical ones (after all, a few homosexuals I know realized they were attracted by their same sex quite late and after having some experioences with the oppisite sex already) without changing either their characters and personality. I've read fics in which the characters' sexual preferences were different from the actual show/movie/whatever, and they were still so perfectly portayed that I could easily picture the story as an episode. Giving a character a different sexual orientation doesn't necessarily mean going OOC. |
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Nov 22, 2008 17:41:45 GMT -5
I disagree: sexuality is not what makes a character. If I were lesbian, my personality and character wouldn't be any different - why should it be different for fictional characters? It is possible to portay characters with different sexual preferences from canonical ones (after all, a few homosexuals I know realized they were attracted by their same sex quite late and after having some experioences with the oppisite sex already) without changing either their characters and personality. I've read fics in which the characters' sexual preferences were different from the actual show/movie/whatever, and they were still so perfectly portayed that I could easily picture the story as an episode. Giving a character a different sexual orientation doesn't necessarily mean going OOC. I have to disagree on that last point. Don't get me wrong i have no problem with gays or lesbians but I just don't pick and choose what I want out of character to mean though. If we take the term OOC literally then changing a persons sexual preference is technically OOC. I mean the character in the show is either straight or gay...if you turn that character gay or straigh in the fan fic then it is what it is...OOC. I like Girls. I would not be the same person if I liked Guys. I don't know how you can say for sure that you would be the same person if you liked the same sex. I believe you are either born gay or born straight. Rather you think thats true or not just think of the term out of character. It's changing anything or any part of the character. My point is if you don't consider that Out of Character then that means you consider it In Character. Which would not be true because in the show it's not. I guess the point is it depends on how you define Out Of Character. In my mind I can't see more than one definition for Out Of Character but if you do then thats cool. I hope you at least get where i'm coming from. How the character acts in the Show (In Character) If it changes anything or any part of the character in fanfiction or fanart (It's OOC) I see it as black and white. |
|
|
|
Post by pengychan on Nov 22, 2008 18:12:42 GMT -5
I can say that simply because I know I would be the same person - would like people of my same sex, but aside from that, nothing would be different. My personality would stay the same: personality just doesn't change because of sexual orientation. Aside for the fact that, as I said, I know people that had their good share of experience with people of the opposite sex before realizing they were interested in their same gender...bisexuality exists. One can like both men and women - there isn't always "black and white" here  No, I don't consider being homosexual or not either "IC" or "OOC". It depends on the situation, and how it's written: of course, if at some point we had, say, Bonnie suddenly beginning to send flowers to Kim and sighing dreamily each time she meets her, it would be undeniably OOC. But if the writer managed to keep them both true to their characters and makes the behave just like themselves, THEN it is IC, no matter the sexual orientation. Developing a character differently from canon and still keeping it IC is extremely difficult, but it can be done. Of course, it wouldn't be canon (NOTHING we write is canon: one could write of a canon pairing, but whatever they write about said canon pairing wouldn't be canon, since it's always fanwork we're talking about) - but that wouldn't mean it would be OOC. Besides, even if someone writes something different from the show, it doesn't mean it's automatically OOC. For example, Kim couldn't cook before Ron taught her - and this is a canonical fact. If someone wrote a fic in which she could cook even before that it WOULDN'T respect canon, but it WOULDN'T mean she's OOC either: what does someone's character have to do with someone's abilities in cooking? Not everything that isn't canon leads to OOC, at least in my opinion  But I think you got the main reason of the (friendly, I hope ^^) disagreement: ...while I don't, but I'm glad you said it's cool with you - I know you easily get heated up whenever this topic is discussed, so it's good to see you're taking it easy without stressing out. I hope things are getting better with your OCD |
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Nov 22, 2008 20:15:32 GMT -5
|
|
cpneb
Yellow Trout
Posts: 69
|
Post by cpneb on Dec 10, 2008 11:37:29 GMT -5
I can say that simply because I know I would be the same person - would like people of my same sex, but aside from that, nothing would be different. My personality would stay the same: personality just doesn't change because of sexual orientation. Aside for the fact that, as I said, I know people that had their good share of experience with people of the opposite sex before realizing they were interested in their same gender...bisexuality exists. One can like both men and women - there isn't always "black and white" here No, I don't consider being homosexual or not either "IC" or "OOC". It depends on the situation, and how it's written: of course, if at some point we had, say, Bonnie suddenly beginning to send flowers to Kim and sighing dreamily each time she meets her, it would be undeniably OOC. But if the writer managed to keep them both true to their characters and makes the behave just like themselves, THEN it is IC, no matter the sexual orientation. Developing a character differently from canon and still keeping it IC is extremely difficult, but it can be done. Of course, it wouldn't be canon (NOTHING we write is canon: one could write of a canon pairing, but whatever they write about said canon pairing wouldn't be canon, since it's always fanwork we're talking about) - but that wouldn't mean it would be OOC. Besides, even if someone writes something different from the show, it doesn't mean it's automatically OOC. For example, Kim couldn't cook before Ron taught her - and this is a canonical fact. If someone wrote a fic in which she could cook even before that it WOULDN'T respect canon, but it WOULDN'T mean she's OOC either: what does someone's character have to do with someone's abilities in cooking? Not everything that isn't canon leads to OOC, at least in my opinion But I think you got the main reason of the (friendly, I hope ^^) disagreement: ...while I don't, but I'm glad you said it's cool with you - I know you easily get heated up whenever this topic is discussed, so it's good to see you're taking it easy without stressing out. I hope things are getting better with your OCD We have had some very interesting discussions regarding canon and fanfiction on Zaratan's forum in ff.net. Going to a public source: a commonly accepted (and documented); it can be found in Wikipedia (see below) at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction:"Fan fiction (alternately referred to as fanfiction, fanfic, FF or fic) is a broadly defined term for stories about characters or settings written by fans of the original work, rather than by the original creator. It is often parodied, such as in websites like Best Fanfiction Ever. The term usually applies to works that are not commissioned and unauthorized by the owner/creators and publishers of the original and always works of which are not professionally published. Fan fiction is defined outside of original fiction, which exists within its own discrete, professionally published universe, and therefore, as long as it's related to the subject, can be completely outside of canon works within that universe.[1] Most fan fiction writers assume that other fans are reading their work, so their readers have knowledge of the canon universe (created by a professional writer) in which their works are based." The citation (1) is ^ Schulz, Nancy. "Fan Fiction - Literature". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved on 2008-04-24. One theme that I see from posters there is constant. If they did not like the show, they would not be writing KP fanfiction; they'd be over on Harry Potter, or Stargate, or somewhere else. How they choose to show their enjoyment of the show is writing fanfiction; however, the stories that they write are as diverse as the population of the world we live on and in. There are stories that not all people will like or want to read, and I can understand that. It is a person's prerogative to read what they want, as it is a person's prerogative to write what they want, subject of course to the site's Terms of Service and basic guidelines. As a writer on the site now for over two years (a long tme for some, but a rookie by comparison to Commander Argus and MrDrP and CaptainKodak1), I have watched writers come and go: the one thing that I have seen is that good writing stands on its own merits. I am bordering on 1 million words of KP fanfiction that I have written and expect to cross that border by the end of the year. I admit that I have written a KiGo story, but the preponderance of my almost-million-word portfolio is based around the fact that Kim and Ron are a couple (in some form or other: friends, dating, engaged, married). I tend to focus on the background characters: those that other writers, in the past, have ignored. For some reason, they're coming out of the woodwork now in other stories, as are stories about Kim and Ron that are either prequel or far-post graduation: an excellent example of the latter is set in the "KP 2.0" 'verse (as she is calling it) by kt of the jakt writing team in her currently-ongoing Christmas story A Christmas Sitch (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4689058/1/A_Christmas_Sitch). One could say that kt's story has Kim and Ron OOC: well, they are, for the simple fact that they have grown up in her story. Married late-20-somethings don't always act like they did in high school. I have Kim and Ron, in the 'Define, Hell' 'verse, somewhat different to start, mainly because Kim is going through trauma and crisis major in her life. Ron 'stepped up', as do several of Kim's friends, because they care about Kim and they love her, all in their own different ways (I know this is shameless self-promotion, but the example is there). Canon is the show. Fanfiction is just that: fiction written by fans that started with a show as its basis: canon. What the writer chooses to do with it is the writer's choice. Read, or no read, is the mantra. Stories that are not read will not survive, and stories read will: it's that simple. So far, I've been read by a few folks, and I thank you for that. My hope and intent is to continue producing material that is read. ...cpneb |
|
|
|
Post by sweetpixiesmile on Dec 16, 2008 21:57:25 GMT -5
I think canon is the most important thing, because with out it, there would be no fanfiction.
That being said, the touchier subjects of sexuality, relationships, character and suspension of disbelief are important in that some people believe specific statuses of these issues are essential elements of what is considered canon.
I think we all agree that all fanfiction is non-canon. Disagreements arise because some people, who are neither the original writers of the show, nor involved in the canonical episodes, have the audacity to become offended on a personal level when they encounter something that either challenges, ignores or, in their personal opinion, denigrates aspects of what they prefer, or consider essential for them to enjoy said fanfiction. They set themselves as judge jury and executioner of such things. I believe when this happens they suffer from something I call anti-canonitis.
For instance, I write KiGo. For certain this is a non-canonical pairing; I would never claim that I am writing canonical material (that's impossible as stated above). I write it because I find the pairing interesting to explore. I enjoy writing. I don't write them because I want to piss anyone off. Believe me, I've had my share of discrimination, being obviously ethnic in a Caucasian city. If it offends you please believe that my intent is not to create an antithesis of the KPverse. We all enjoy KP, that's why we write.
Let's not confuse personal preferences in the enjoyment of fanfiction with the importance of canon.
And what is good fanfiction to me? All fanfiction, if they define themselves as such, should make the characters recognizable, in familiar or unfamiliar settings and situations. So if a Ron is a smart, efficient, intelligent, quiet individual, and not all randomly emo, then that Ron is completely OOC, IMO, because one could slap another name on him and I'd never in a million years say, "Hey, that's Ron Stoppable!"
Unfortunately for some people they cannot separate character from sexuality. You know what the funniest thing is? I know plenty of people who are gay. If you looked at them or talked to them, you wouldn't know they were gay. Gaydar would NOT work on them. Why? Because they're just regular people. They have two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, one nose, one mouth and genitalia. They require air, water and food to survive. They bleed red if you cut them, their eyes shine when they dream, they cry when they grieve and they have relationship problems the same as straights.
That's why to me, alternative pairings does NOT impact a person's basic character. It's proven that a person's basic personality is set by the age of twelve, typically long before sexuality is decided. Even a person with amnesia has a basic personality and skills to draw on. However, sexuality DOES play a role if it influences personal experience, such as persecution or encouragement.
For instance, I LOVE vanilla ice-cream. I will eat it, above and beyond any other flavour, in the haze of summer or the chill of winter. However, having suffered public ridicule for decades at the hands of others, I'm rather defensive about my obsession with the King and Originator of all flavours. But does me liking vanilla mean that I piss on all other flavours? No. I just LOVE vanilla ice-cream.
And if you must know, I'm straight, and I love my partner. I choose to love my partner, and I choose to only make love to my partner, because this is one way that I show the world that my partner is important to me, above and beyond anyone else. I think THAT is something that everyone can understand, even if they don't believe in it.
Of course, I'm just ranting here and trying to provide a lucid and hopefully cohesive reasoning for people to read. I'm not looking to change minds, but I am hoping for understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Dec 17, 2008 1:13:43 GMT -5
I have always believed gay people are born that way. People discriminate against gays mostly by saying they choose to be that way. I believe gays are born that way. If you believe gays are born that way then you would believe that turning someone straight to gay in fan fiction or anything is ooc. I can't believe some gays get mad for saying they are born that way. I mean i have had more gay people tell me they were born gay than those who say they choose to be gay.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweetpixiesmile on Dec 17, 2008 19:29:52 GMT -5
I have always believed gay people are born that way. Interesting point. If that's what you believe then what you say is true: those who are NOT gay cannot be gay. Am I right in undertanding that what you mean is that sexuality is inherited, and is not a choice? (not that it matters to me, in the sense of "If you're gay, then, hey! You're gay; so what?") I should point out that the "gay" gene theory has been discredited by scientific and medical communities. The experiments in 1993 and 1995 have not been replicated or confirmed by the rest of the scientific community. By the late 90's most geneticists believe that the theory is not proven as it is stated and that it does not exclusively predispose people to be "gay" or "not-gay". Just google "gay gene Xq28" and you'll see the articles. I should also point out that Dean Hamer (the originator of the "gay gene theory") also believes in a "god" gene, that makes people believe in a higher power. |
|
Aero Tendo
Yellow Trout
I'm a Ranma 1/2 fan too
Posts: 148
|
Post by Aero Tendo on Dec 24, 2008 6:24:11 GMT -5
Ok, what does being gay, lesbian, herm, shemale, blue, green, purple, or whatever have to do WHY we love the characters that we choose to love and write about from the KP universe? I have written an entire future universe where Kim and Ron not only have been married for a long time but they're STILL saving the world and with SIX kids no less! My point being is that any of us could write any of the characters as starting out with what is straight for their gender only to have it turned and STILL be straight in their new gender (Such as in my 'Tough being a girl story). So like sweetpixiesmile said, let's not confuse our personal preferences(I think meaning sexual but expertly avoided). I agree that Canon is important because it is THE SOURCE of all that comes to follow. It can be changed, and reimagined by anyone and everyone. So before this turns into a heated war. I would like to ask as politely and nicely as possible with no intent to offend *anyone* who wishes to add their 2 bits on previous postings. That we find a way to drop the whole gay issue. Issues like gay, politics and religion are all flame-inducing and I think we can all agree that KP is a show that makes us feel good. I propose this question instead about Canon. What IF the original posting of the show did NOT have certain music in it and then a reshowing of the SAME episode later includes that song. Is it Canon or not since stuff was added to the show for the viewers? Same could be said about additional or subtracted footage (due to commercials and such.) Is the original Canon or the remixed show Canon? |
|
