• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Canonicity of RWBY x JL Crossover Comic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deagonx said:
This is a 32 minute video. Can you provide a time-stamp?
Click to expand...
He has told me in Discord that he's not going to post a time stamp because he doesn't know where in the video it was said. I'm not going to sift through a half hour of video to look for such a statement, that's a really inappropriate expectation to have of someone.

Notably however, Kerry did directly describe the movie as "canon-adjacent" so it appears that it isn't actually canon either.
 
Last edited:
Bleh, i sit down for five minutes, blink and its 5 in the morning

Full response pending, me and Deagon talked in private about stuff so i'll just post this for now


You've recently launched RWBY Vol 9. How was it figuring out where this movie takes place within the series' timeline?

"It had been fairly straightforward. I can't say exactly where it is. Otherwise, it might give some spoilers away, but we had a few places that we talked to Meghan about where we thought it could fit pretty well. We're referring to this movie as "canon-adjacent," which we do for a few of our properties. Everything about it is pretty canon. The characters are going to act as they should. It just means we're probably not going to reference their run-in with Wonder Woman later in the series.

It's meant to be our characters at certain instances. That's why we call it "canon-adjacent." After you watch it, I think you'll know where this fits in, and some things make more sense, like why is Yang in her classic outfit with her robotic arm? With that, I think a lot of people thought we were being lazy or made a mistake, but as you watch it, you'll find out that was very intentional and a part of where it's at."

Kerry confirms that the movie fits in line with the canon of the series, referring to it as 'canon-adjacent', or "Canon until it contradicts something", which puts it in the same vein as Ice Queendom (ie. canon).

Theres also this from the same site, but its not an interview so im not sure where theyre sourcing this information from:


"Of course, Super Heroes & Huntsmen will not be the first time the world of DC has collided with that of Rooster Teeth's RWBY. The animated film is based on the comic book limited series RWBY/Justice League, which launched as a DC digital-first title in 2021. That said, the film will not be a one-to-one adaptation of the comic. Whereas the comic takes place in an alternate version of RWBY canon where versions of the Justice League characters already exist in the show's universe, the film includes the plot point of the beloved superheroes being transported to the World of Remnant and having to adjust to their new environment."

If Deagon would be so kind as to find where this information comes from, it would be appreciated.

Theres also the official RWBY twitter confirming that the film expands on the crossover with a wholly original story.

 
WeeklyBattles said:
What? What do you mean? Thats the video i was given and told proved that the movie was canon

Edit: So it appears i was also mislead about this, my apologies
Click to expand...
It is pretty ridiculous that you would link a half hour video with no time stamp that doesn't mention canon status at all and claim after the fact that you were merely told it did, and you left out that you hadn't personally confirmed or checked.


WeeklyBattles said:
"It had been fairly straightforward. I can't say exactly where it is. Otherwise, it might give some spoilers away, but we had a few places that we talked to Meghan about where we thought it could fit pretty well. We're referring to this movie as "canon-adjacent," which we do for a few of our properties. Everything about it is pretty canon. The characters are going to act as they should. It just means we're probably not going to reference their run-in with Wonder Woman later in the series.

It's meant to be our characters at certain instances. That's why we call it "canon-adjacent."
Click to expand...
Yeah, so like we discussed with @Sir_Ovens and @Wokistan earlier, the fact that the author refers to it as "canon adjacent" means that it isn't canon, similar to the Naruto movies or other such things.

Given that every single piece of information meant to confirm the canonicity has turned out to be a lie, and we now have direct confirmation from the author that the movie isn't canon, it's very clear that neither of the crossovers are canon at all.
 
We have more than enough staff votes to conclude this then, but since Firestorm, Ovens, and Damage still wanted to contribute I will wait until they have time to do so.
 
Deagonx said:
Yeah, so like we discussed with @Sir_Ovens and @Wokistan earlier, the fact that the author refers to it as "canon adjacent" means that it isn't canon, similar to the Naruto movies or other such things.

Given that every single piece of information meant to confirm the canonicity has turned out to be a lie, and we now have direct confirmation from the author that the movie isn't canon, it's very clear that neither of the crossovers are canon at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I think I'm agreeing with Deagonx on this now.

Canon adjacent =/= Canon, as far as our profiles are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Firestorm also wanted to give his opinion, and Ovens wanted to follow up. Ovens stated fairly clearly in the Discord (as did Wok) that they didn't think it was canon but I don't want to go ahead with that without his confirmation.

I doubt it'll make a difference as this appears to be very straightforward but I'd like to avoid cutting corners
 
While "Canon-Adjacent" is a pretty loose term and just sounds like a weird statement. I am not sure if that means i looked up what "Canon-Adjacent" means and it basically means some people consider it canon but it was written in ways that have some continuity errors which is often due to writers not remembering some details from past works rather than them attempting to make it a different timeline. Copy/pasting exact description.

"Canon-adjacent materials are those which some may consider canon, but they may contain serious continuity errors or be put out by a different or altered source. Sometimes there is a central authority on what is canon-adjacent or not, but it's often ignored."

Based on the interview Weekly linked; he thought it was the video but misremembered but later found that interview. The interview said "Canon-Adjacent", but the sentence following it being, "Everything about it is pretty canon." kind of points to it being leaning towards canon. I am actually more neutral on it being canon now but I just wanted to clarify what "Canon Adjacent" means.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I am actually more neutral on it being canon now but I just wanted to clarify what "Canon Adjacent" means.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll mark you as neutral now.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
"Canon-adjacent materials are those which some may consider canon, but they may contain serious continuity errors or be put out by a different or altered source. Sometimes there is a central authority on what is canon-adjacent or not, but it's often ignored."
Click to expand...
This is from a reddit post on /r/anime right? I don't share that users perspective. To me canon-adjacent more or less means the versions of the characters are canon but on a non-canon adventure that won't ever tie into the actual canon continuity.

If it were canon he would've just said "canon" IMO.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
While "Canon-Adjacent" is a pretty loose term and just sounds like a weird statement. I am not sure if that means i looked up what "Canon-Adjacent" means and it basically means some people consider it canon but it was written in ways that have some continuity errors which is often due to writers not remembering some details from past works rather than them attempting to make it a different timeline. Copy/pasting exact description.

"Canon-adjacent materials are those which some may consider canon, but they may contain serious continuity errors or be put out by a different or altered source. Sometimes there is a central authority on what is canon-adjacent or not, but it's often ignored."

Based on the interview Weekly linked; he thought it was the video but misremembered but later found that interview. The interview said "Canon-Adjacent", but the sentence following it being, "Everything about it is pretty canon." kind of points to it being leaning towards canon. I am actually more neutral on it being canon now but I just wanted to clarify what "Canon Adjacent" means.
Click to expand...
It's basically "cannon until it's not" basically or a au, regardless the powers and stats from these aus or "cannon until not" stories can be used, even if they never bring up the events like the star wars movies not bring up most extended media
 
WeeklyBattles said:
No? Canon-Adjacent = canon going by our current standards
Click to expand...
The phrase "canon-adjacent" is not present anywhere on the wiki. When asked for such a standard you linked the "Canon" page which doesn't use that term at all.

So, no, that isn't the current standard.
 
Deagonx said:
Yeah, so like we discussed with @Sir_Ovens and @Wokistan earlier, the fact that the author refers to it as "canon adjacent" means that it isn't canon, similar to the Naruto movies or other such things.

Given that every single piece of information meant to confirm the canonicity has turned out to be a lie, and we now have direct confirmation from the author that the movie isn't canon, it's very clear that neither of the crossovers are canon at all.
Click to expand...
No? Canon-Adjacent = canon until it contradicts the source material going by our current standards
 
WeeklyBattles said:
No? Canon-Adjacent = canon until it contradicts the source material going by our current standards
Click to expand...
See my above comment. Can you link me to where such a standard is described? It isn't in the "Canon" page the way you claimed earlier.
 
I also searched in crossover in case you were implying it (while I know that both terms has nothing to do with it) and nothing is mentioned it.

You are aware that the term is not even consistent and has different meaning? DDM quotes one from Reddit, not a place for official definitions of terms.
There is one in Quora which pointed out that the term is new and has different meaning.

It can't be listed anywhere in the standards.
 
Originally I was going to address the old points but in light of new evidence I'll just respond to that.

Deagonx said:
Notably however, Kerry did directly describe the movie as "canon-adjacent" so it appears that it isn't actually canon either.
Click to expand...

A line from the above interview states this:

It had been fairly straightforward. I can't say exactly where it is. Otherwise, it might give some spoilers away, but we had a few places that we talked to Meghan about where we thought it could fit pretty well. We're referring to this movie as "canon-adjacent," which we do for a few of our properties. Everything about it is pretty canon. The characters are going to act as they should. It just means we're probably not going to reference [URL='https://www.cbr.com/justice-league-rwby-super-heroes-hunstmen-wonder-woman/']their run-in with Wonder Woman[/URL] later in the series. It's meant to be our characters at certain instances. That's why we call it "canon-adjacent." After you watch it, I think you'll know where this fits in, and some things make more sense, like why is Yang in her classic outfit with her robotic arm? With that, I think a lot of people thought we were being lazy or made a mistake, but as you watch it, you'll find out that was very intentional and a part of where it's at.

Now regardless of what source you pull the meaning of "canon-adjacent" from, it doesn't matter. What matters is that WoG gives the definition we will be using for RWBY. Said definition clearly states how "canon-adjacent" is being used in this context and it's just canon interpretations of RWBY characters in situations that likely won't be brought up in the main series.

Now you might see this and give the argument that it's spin-off content and thus should be canon. However, spin-off material is always hard canon. If the main intent of this crossover was hard canon, it would have just been labeled as such, no? But the roundabout way they decided to word it barrs it from being anything but canon; at least for now. I'm not sure what the future holds for the franchise and there very well may canon continuity for the crossovers later down the line. But as it stands, the movie is not canon.

Also as an aside, Ice Queendom was also labelled as "canon-adjacent". Perhaps we should evaluate all the other side content for RWBY and look at the verse with more scrutiny.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Also as an aside, Ice Queendom was also labelled as "canon-adjacent". Perhaps we should evaluate all the other side content for RWBY and look at the verse with more scrutiny.
Click to expand...
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
That seems to be the best option in light of this new evidence.
Click to expand...
We are extremely scrutinized with how we handle RWBY content. Everything has already been thoroughly evaluated. Perhaps you should look into a verse that has actual issues rather than try to dismantle a verse with none to speak of.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
With all due respect, that's not up to you to decide.
Click to expand...
Youre right, its for the writers of RWBY to decide, with them labeling all of the things we currently use for the verse as outright canon. Its quite funny, if this were any other verse thi wouldnt even be a discussion, but because its RWBY, a verse that i specifically work on, people are happy to tear down my work as a joke.
 
I don't think staff members has any personal issue with the verse. This is a bit far-stretched assumption.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Youre right, its for the writers of RWBY to decide, with them labeling all of the things we currently use for the verse as outright canon. Its quite funny, if this were any other verse thi wouldnt even be a discussion, but because its RWBY, a verse that i specifically work on, people are happy to tear down my work as a joke.
Click to expand...
The same thing I told Deagonx I will say to you right now: Avoid this types of accusations. You have past history of creating unnecessary drama when questioning your verses. If you are incapable of having proper discussion, I suggest you avoid these threads entirely.

I know nothing of RWBY, but given the issues that have become apparent in this threads, I think a more thorough look is warranted. You disagreeing is fine, but don't act like there's some hidden agenda against you.

I have done this even for verses I'm known to have bias for. Which you might remember given some of our past interactions. I appreciate you taking the courtesy of respecting my conclusions, even if you disagree with them.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Snip
Click to expand...
I did always take that as meaning a what if scenario or whatever. These situation never happened in RWBY but could've happened. Ice Queendom is not accept as canon, since the plot that happens there never happened in the actual series. It's very clearly a different world/timeline or whatever you want to call it.

I believe there were discussions of Ice Queendom profiles at some point?

I'm unfamiliar with the state of what is canon in RWBY in the wiki beyond what I've read in the discussion threads. Just giving my own two cents on this. While I'm a fan of RWBY I've mostly been lurking for some time and only occasionally check back on the verse in this wiki when something catches my interest.

I'm fine with a deeper look in RWBY canon if anything is in question. There is nothing wrong with just checking to see if everything is alright.

Like I said above my own knowledge isn't great so I'd actually appreciate getting caught up on this subject. But we can save that for another day.

I pretty much agree with what Sir Ovens and the others have to say.
 
"Canon compliant is fairly simple. These are stories which follow the original source material without making any significant differences to it: small gap-fillers, prequels or sequels based on intact canon, character studies, and so on.

Canon adjacent is a new term to me, but I would guess at two meanings.

A story which covers events that happened in canon, but were never fully described or shown, for example, in LotR, a detailed story of the three battles of Lothlorien, or of the resistance in the Shire led by Fatty Bolger, or in Harry Potter what Dumbledore’s Army did during Deathly Hallows.An extended gapfiller that temporarily ventures into AU territory before seamlessly merging back into canon. Some good examples of this in LotR are Thundera Tiger's “While the Ring Goes South”, Indigo Bunting's “The River”, and several stories by Budgielover.

Either of those could fit as “canon adjacent”, but it's possible that the place where you first saw the term might have had other ideas."

www.quora.com

What’s the difference between Canon adjacent and Canon compliant?

Answer: Canon compliant is fairly simple. These are stories which follow the original source material without making any significant differences to it: small gap-fillers, prequels or sequels based on intact canon, character studies, and so on. Canon adjacent is a new term to me, but I would gues...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Honestly I think it's better to basically list anything cannon adjacent as a AU, like the mcus what if series, meaning we can still get powers and Abilities and resistances from these aus unless they have different powers that don't fit into the cannon universe of the main series
 
TheRustyOne said:
I did always take that as meaning a what if scenario or whatever. These situation never happened in RWBY but could've happened. Ice Queendom is not accept as canon, since the plot that happens there never happened in the actual series. It's very clearly a different world/timeline or whatever you want to call it.

I believe there were discussions of Ice Queendom profiles at some point?

I'm unfamiliar with the state of what is canon in RWBY in the wiki beyond what I've read in the discussion threads. Just giving my own two cents on this. While I'm a fan of RWBY I've mostly been lurking for some time and only occasionally check back on the verse in this wiki when something catches my interest.

I'm fine with a deeper look in RWBY canon if anything is in question. There is nothing wrong with just checking to see if everything is alright to use.

Like I said above my own knowledge isn't great so I'd actually appreciate getting caught up on this subject. But we can save that for another day.

I pretty much agree with what Sir Ovens and the others have to say.
Click to expand...
There was a discussion yes, IQ was deemed 100% canon.

"since the plot that happens there never happened in the actual series."

My guy, everything in the extended media is retroactive, all of it was written well after the timeframe it is set in the series, yet all of it is blatantly stated to be canon by the writers. Ice Queendom was outright stated in an interview to be an additional story that happened during the Beacon arc.
 
This is from Quora, you guys only proving deagonx point currently, there is no solid definition of the term, and simply there are no standards for it either.
 
ImmortalDread said:
This is from Quora, you guys only proving deagonx point currently, there is no solid definition of the term, and simply there are no standards for it either.
Click to expand...
So we should probably make a slandered for it and basically treat "cannon-adjacent" stuff as either Au's or Cannon side story's depending on the context
 
I am going to be fair, but he stated his own perspective to the word. Again, it is not here the issue, the word itself is incongruous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Theglassman12
  • Locked
RWBY downgrade
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
6K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Elizio33
  • Locked
A very little revision of Doctor Manhattan
Replies
37
Views
2K
Elizio33
Elizio33
SilentLyfe
  • Locked
Minor Grimm and Other Stuff
2 3
Replies
80
Views
3K
Deagonx
Deagonx
SilentLyfe
  • Locked
Two Additions for Gods - RWBY
Replies
8
Views
855
SilentLyfe
SilentLyfe
DimeUhDozen
  • Locked
Powerpuff Girls DC Comics Canonicity
Replies
9
Views
1K
Propellus
Propellus
Back
Top