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

[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!