What is canon anyway?

[stgulik]

In eight or ten generations, after The Fall of Civilization, when humankind rebuilds itself from the ashes and the Harry Potter series supplants all major world religions, scholars will argue over canon in ways that make our bickering on LJ seem amateurish.

But until that fateful time, I'd like your opinion on movie canon. Is it as authentically canon as the books? When the movie version of HP7 Part 2 doesn't make it clear that Snape is not Harry Potter's father by Lily, does that idea become alternate history, or just a curiosity that ought not to be taken seriously as book canon?

Let's hear from you:

[Poll #1962449]

Do me a favor and share this poll around, because I don't have a lot of followers and I'd like some decent polling numbers on this, for science.

Comments

[smallbrownfrog.livejournal.com]

I clicked "The books are more canon than the movies." However, I'm also okay with the idea that the movies and the books are simply two seperate canons, neither of which is AU. (I do like to be told when a story is using movie canon, since I assume book canon unless told otherwise.)

[tamlane.livejournal.com]

LOL @ your intro paragraph!

For me, canon is the text of the books and only the text of the books. So a definite no to the movies as canon. And while I enjoy the bonus content from interviews and Pottermore (especially when it suits my porny purposes ;D), I don't consider such content to be canon, either.

[arcanetrivia]

Funny you mention LotR in the last option, because don't Tolkien scholars have this kind of situation, where they must consider "how canon" are the various pieces available? (Although I assume they would never be asking the question of "how canon are the films"!)

[garonne.livejournal.com]

I only consider the books as canon myself (because I haven't seen the movies! ;D), but there is an argument to be made for the movies being canon too. I mean, in other fandoms you can often see fic marked as either "book canon" or "movie canon" (never seen that in HP for some reason) and if the fic was written with the movies in mind… well, then, you could say the movies are canon for that fic!

[delphipsmith]

...in other fandoms you can often see fic marked as either "book canon" or "movie canon" (never seen that in HP for some reason)...

I have seen it occasionally (mostly when referring to characters vs actors, e.g. book!Snape vs movie!Snape). But you don't see it often, you're right. Perhaps that's because the movies don't diverge in major ways from the books? Nobody acts out of character, scenes aren't invented out of whole cloth, the arc for each of the characters matches what happens in the books, etc. So there's very little conflict between book canon and movie canon.

Unlike, say, Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit, which diverge wildly from the books at many, many, many places.

[kittylefish.livejournal.com]

i think that the movie of book six diverges wildly from canon when it has snape put his fingers over his lips and harry keep quiet. i don't think that would ever have happened and it pisses me off to this day and makes me hate that movie. every time i think i've got past it, when i watch that scene, i'm just as aggravated as i was the first time.

[delphipsmith]

Forgot about that bit. Yeah, that was definitely not in the book. In the book I think Dumbledore petrificus'es Harry and then throws the Invisibility Cloak over him, so he couldn't do anything no matter what. I guess I don't find it particularly OOC, since we know Snape was in fact trying to protect Harry all along, but it isn't particularly IN character for him to be that open about it either. it's a good example of why I rank the movies as less canon than the books.

[kittylefish.livejournal.com]

it's not just that i think snape is ooc here - i think harry is totally ooc. he would never *not* have *done* *something* *unless* he was petrificus totalified, lol - that's his gryffindor nature to charge in and be the hero.

[delphipsmith]

Good point!

[delphipsmith]

I was really tempted by option 4 lol!

It is an interesting question, especially if (as in this case) the author of the books is intimately involved with the movies. I'm fine with referring to "movie canon" as opposed to "book canon," to indicate that they are separate versions of canon, but I don't rank them the same: I put the books as "more canon" than the movies.

Some people might argue, "If the author herself approved the screenplay, doesn't that sort of automatically make it equal canon?" I would say not; the pre-existing story which was purely words had to be reworked for a different format (visual), therefore it was a forced alteration based on considerations other than pure authorial intent, and to me that drops the movies below the books, if only slightly.

On the other hand, I'm emphatically not in favor of using the terms "book canon" and "movie canon" with LotR, because that film version was entirely Peter Jackson's creation, even though he used Tolkien as the basis. To me Tolkien only has book canon :)

Where it gets a bit tricky, I think, is when the author actually admits that they made a mistake in the books. Like JKR saying that Hermione and Ron weren't really suited for each other after all. What does one do with that twist??

[akatnamedeaster.livejournal.com]

For me personally, the films are not canon because they so drastically changed the character I was most interested in and the one I work with primarily on a fannish level. Snape in the books is world's apart from Snape in the films, so much so that, as you mention, it is not 100% clear to everyone that he is not Harry's father.

The books leave no ambiguity to that question.

I know JK was heavily involved with the scripts, but I've always held that the films changed/softened certain characters/situations on screen to make them more palatable to the audience.

I believe it's why Snape was turned into nothing more than a grouchy curmudgeon, and why we were spared Pettigrew's death as portrayed in the books.

Reading about certain things is much easier, and more removed than being hit with them in living color on screen.

Then you have bits like burning down The Burrow that were added to make the script more exciting. It's understandable, since books and films are very different mediums and require different things to make them work successfully. However, for me, the original source material will always be the one I defer to as canon, without exception.


Sorry for all the edits!

[squibstress.livejournal.com]

It's a bit of an arbitrary distinction, I think, but I'm a strict book-canon girl. I look at everything else--movies, Pottermore, JKR's interviews--as a bit of fanfiction. I use those things in my own fanfic when it suits me, but it's always about the books for me.

[lightofdaye]

Yeah, books are more canon. The films are less. if the books and films contradict. I'm never taking the film's word for it.

I think its interesting what view people take to information from films that expand upon the books without contradicting them. Though only two examples come to mind: Susan is often depicted as having red hair. The books only mention she wore in a plait but the actor in the films had red hair so it stuck.

The other is the fate of Lavender Brown. The books have her attacked and saved by Hermione and is left 'stirring weakly'. he film then depicts her dying of said injuries.

Now as a writer, I tend to take a broad strokes approach to canon. Books, interviews, films. I'll use any and all of it makes sense for the story. I'll even knick concepts from other books like the Dresden Files for magic if I want to. Because the aim is a fun piece of writing, not strict adherence to canon. (which of course people disagree on anyway)

[teddyradiator.livejournal.com]

I think of the books as canon because while I find the movies wonderful, I don't like some of the deviations and omissions they make from the original. I understand omissions are necessary unless you plan on doing a mini-series for each book (and then Game of Thrones teaches us that you can still deviate until the film and book are unrecognisable to one another), but I hate some of the deviations that were made.

And I must be a book-canon person, because when I see an author's note on fanfiction that says they've never read the books, only saw the movies, I immediately skip that fic.

And while I love the films, too much is left unsaid or misrepresented in them, in my opinion.

[delphipsmith]

And I must be a book-canon person, because when I see an author's note on fanfiction that says they've never read the books, only saw the movies, I immediately skip that fic.

I've never encountered a story with such a note, but if I did I'd probably skip it too. If you're going to write fanfic you should at least KNOW your original source material, even if you decide to ignore bits of it *koff*EWE*koff*

[darklotus1211.livejournal.com]

To me, the HP books will always be canon...BUT...having said that, I know that there are many people who came to HP via the movies and have never read the books, so, to them, I'd suppose that the movies would be theirs.

Then there are the fans, like my son, who read the books and also saw the movies and have incorporated the two. I've found some of his views on the story quite fascinating in the way he's melded the two. I don't always agree with him, but it makes for good conversation. The one thing we always agree on, however, is how much we love HP, so it never gets too contentious and as we're both of the opinion that Ron and Hermione never stood a chance of staying together, we have that in common.

He was very young when we started on the books as well, so much of his view of the book canon is through younger eyes than me. He's been thinking of re reading them now he's older and it will be interesting to see what he gets out of them when read through older eyes.

As to the possibility of Snape being Harry's father not being made clear in the movies, I never got that feeling - I thought it was quite clear in the movies that Lily and James were a truly devoted couple and that possibility never sprang to mind.

[beffeysue.livejournal.com]

I always think that the books are canon, but that doesn't stop me from reading a good story... in fact I probably love the AU stories the best.

SNAPE LIVES! And Snape and Hermione are together and very happy, thank you very much.