CANON

[Kalikimaka]

Lotsa people seem to toss this word around. Usually when they're trying to defend an argument. "X work is canon". "X work ISN'T canon." Who decides? I've played lots of Nintendo games, they're pretty loosely plotted. Games don't really flow from one to the next. Mario never deals with what happened after Bowser's last downfall (except sometimes as a gag in the RPGs). Zelda's kingdom doesn't even look the same between games, even if sharing characters and places. I'm always confused/annoyed when people try to use a "canon" argument for a series that's so nebulous and loosely plotted. But here's what I've gathered from some more vocal fans over the years:

• Starfox 64 is a remake of Starfox 1, because Andross is the bad guy again. Ganondorf dies all the time. Bowser dies all the time. Dedede, Ridley, Robotnik, King K. Rool--you get the point. They love to come back and rag on the heroes again.
  
• The Nintendo Power comics don't exist, because it ties into the first game. And it's cheesy - pasteurized 1990s cheesy. But the new game references a planet from the strip, so it's not like they're denying it exists. They just choose bits that do/don't work to reference.
  
• The Starfox Adventures tie-in comic exists. Well, the game's story was pretty much down to Rareware, the British producer. The comic was only made as a promotional tie-in by the Japanese distributor.
  
• The player's guide for Starfox 64 - it's mostly sentence-long tangents about why Bill knows Fox and whatever, but people like it a lot.
  
• Starfox Command is the last game, because all the sad, sad endings don't leave room to continue. I know this is what the QGames guys said, but they also said they weren't likely to touch Starfox anymore, so I don't think the next bidder on the franchise is going to play by the rules set up by the producers of a game that reviewed above-average at best.
  
• Ships and characters look different between games because they've actually changed - art style?
  

My point is, people refer to a Starfox "canon" that's some kind of black-and-white, linear authority on what can or can't be referenced in discussion of the series. It's kinda ambiguous and arbitrary, and I don't believe for a second that the creators really care about consistency if they can make a quick buck on some new software. In the end, the company's for producing gameplay, not creating a thickly-plotted, living, breathing world that exists outside of when you plug in a game disc.

[DZComposer]

Lotsa people seem to toss this word around. Usually when they're trying to defend an argument. "X work is canon". "X work ISN'T canon." Who decides? I've played lots of Nintendo games, they're pretty loosely plotted. Games don't really flow from one to the next. Mario never deals with what happened after Bowser's last downfall (except sometimes as a gag in the RPGs). Zelda's kingdom doesn't even look the same between games, even if sharing characters and places. I'm always confused/annoyed when people try to use a "canon" argument for a series that's so nebulous and loosely plotted. But here's what I've gathered from some more vocal fans over the years:

Actually, Star Fox is more linear than most Nintendo titles, and does in fact have an established canon.

What makes an established canon is that there is a documented chronology of events in the series. Mario and Zelda games, for instance, aren't serial and thus do not have a true canon. Star Fox, on the other hand, IS serial. SF64 happened first, then about 8 years later SFAd happened, and a year later SFAs happened. SFC happens sometime after that, as it references events in SF64, SFAd, and SFAs.

I'll grant you that there are people who misuse the term "canon," but that does not mean there is no canon.

• Starfox 64 is a remake of Starfox 1, because Andross is the bad guy again. Ganondorf dies all the time. Bowser dies all the time. Dedede, Ridley, Robotnik, King K. Rool--you get the point. They love to come back and rag on the heroes again.
  

Metroid aside, all of the series you mention aren't serial. And Metroid is a bit of an oddball because there is a serial part of the series and there are non-canon side-games.

I agree that the claim that SF1 is not canon because Andross appears again in SF64 is fallacious, but the conclusion is quite true. SF64 is a remake. It's been said by Nintendo employees, for one. But that aside, SF64 makes some pretty major changes to the underlying backstory. What happened to Fox's father, for instance.

• The Nintendo Power comics don't exist, because it ties into the first game. And it's cheesy - pasteurized 1990s cheesy. But the new game references a planet from the strip, so it's not like they're denying it exists. They just choose bits that do/don't work to reference.
  

The Itoh Comic is non-canon by virtue of it being derived from something that is not canon. Also, the reboot caused by SF64 contradicts some of the events in the comic. However, there are people who take a more lax view of the canon and tend to accept things in the comic that aren't contradicted later. For instance the Itoh comic explains what happened to Fox's mother, something which is never touched again.

Papetoon, if memory serves, was actually first mentioned in the Japanese manual for SF1. There are actually some minor, but noteworthy, differences between the English canon and the Japanese canon. I don't have the list in front of my at the moment, but I'm sure someone will back me up.

• The Starfox Adventures tie-in comic exists. Well, the game's story was pretty much down to Rareware, the British producer. The comic was only made as a promotional tie-in by the Japanese distributor.
  

Contradictions exist between this comic (Farewell beloved Falco) and later games, thus the comic is not canon.

• The player's guide for Starfox 64 - it's mostly sentence-long tangents about why Bill knows Fox and whatever, but people like it a lot.
  

It is published by Nintendo, and has not been majorly contradicted in-game. It goes into backstories that no other publication goes into, thus it is a pretty reliable source about what happened in Lylat before SF64. The only thing it got wrong is that it classified Solar as a star.

• Starfox Command is the last game, because all the sad, sad endings don't leave room to continue. I know this is what the QGames guys said, but they also said they weren't likely to touch Starfox anymore, so I don't think the next bidder on the franchise is going to play by the rules set up by the producers of a game that reviewed above-average at best.
  

The endings of SFC are not canon. This comes straight from Dylan Cuthbert and Takaya Imamura, two very influential people in the development of the series. Curthbert right out stated that there is no canon ending to SFC in those terms.

SFC's failure is actually a much bigger letdown that you'd imagine. Most of the talent at Q-Games worked at Nintendo EAD during the development of SF1, SF2, and SF64. These were the same people that made the good games. The terrible control scheme (the game was made back when Nintendo was shoving touch control down DS developer throats) and overly-emo story is what turned most fans off of it. Other than that, it wasn't that bad of a game.

• Ships and characters look different between games because they've actually changed - art style?
  

I'll give you that one. I get annoyed when people call the SFAs Arwing "Arwing II"

My point is, people refer to a Starfox "canon" that's some kind of black-and-white, linear authority on what can or can't be referenced in discussion of the series. It's kinda ambiguous and arbitrary, and I don't believe for a second that the creators really care about consistency if they can make a quick buck on some new software. In the end, the company's for producing gameplay, not creating a thickly-plotted, living, breathing world that exists outside of when you plug in a game disc.

While that's not an invalid point, we're fans of the series here. Telling us to ignore the story is just silly. Yeah, most broader Nintendo fans and gamers don't care, but we do.

If you think we're crazy, you should see what some Zelda fans are trying to do. They're trying to find a chronology for the series. That doesn't work so well, so their going theory is that there are multiple Links in different eras of time.

See? This is the crazy shit us fans do. We need something to talk about between games, and trying to better understand the canon is a good way to do that.

[Robert Monroe]

DZ hits most points on the head. Star Fox, for all its suckage nowadays, at least has an easier to follow canon than some things, being basically the games and official tie-in products.

•The Nintendo Power comics don't exist, because it ties into the first game. And it's cheesy - pasteurized 1990s cheesy. But the new game references a planet from the strip, so it's not like they're denying it exists. They just choose bits that do/don't work to reference.

Being cheesy isn't a virture to make it non-canon, you whiny baby. The entire series is cheesy.

Papetoon, if memory serves, was actually first mentioned in the Japanese manual for SF1. There are actually some minor, but noteworthy, differences between the English canon and the Japanese canon. I don't have the list in front of my at the moment, but I'm sure someone will back me up.

Here's what I know off the top of my head:

-Star Wolf has drastically altered ages (Pigma is only about 36 in SF64, and Andrew is -12-). I don't remember if the North American localizations ever gave official ages to them, though, so this could be flexible.

-General Pepper dies between Assault and Command.

-Leon keeps his suave and smooth voice, instead of rewriting him as some sort of crazy ass wretch with bad vocal cords.

Contradictions exist between this comic (Farewell beloved Falco) and later games, thus the comic is not canon.

That does not make the comic non-canon, it means aspects of it have been retconned. Really, the only contradiction anyway is how they find Sauria, which is more of an after thought at the end. Considering the comic was sanctioned by Nintendo and could be found on their official website (Japanese), the comic is largely canon.

While that's not an invalid point, we're fans of the series here. Telling us to ignore the story is just silly. Yeah, most broader Nintendo fans and gamers don't care, but we do.

If you think we're crazy, you should see what some Zelda fans are trying to do. They're trying to find a chronology for the series. That doesn't work so well, so their going theory is that there are multiple Links in different eras of time.

See? This is the crazy shit us fans do. We need something to talk about between games, and trying to better understand the canon is a good way to do that.

The Zelda fandom is out of its damn mind. Personally for that series I go "everything is canon. EVERYTHING", because lol theyre legends.

Back on topic, Star Fox DOES have to a degree of black and white canon to it. Anything not supported by the games is non-canon, and can/will fall under the baseless speculation and crackpot theories categories. What are things supported by the games? Namely character behaviors (when they're consistant) and events of the storyline. The levels of grey can come in when you get into the more vague shit like Krystal and Fox's relationship, but for the most part its pretty easy to tell whats what an whats not in Star Fox.

[Kalikimaka]

Being cheesy isn't a virture to make it non-canon, you whiny baby. The entire series is cheesy.

I never said I had issues with the comic. I'm a cheese connoisseury to tell you the truth. But every so often I'll see people who insist that the series be "deep" and I just don't see it.

That does not make the comic non-canon, it means aspects of it have been retconned. Really, the only contradiction anyway is how they find Sauria, which is more of an after thought at the end. Considering the comic was sanctioned by Nintendo and could be found on their official website (Japanese), the comic is largely canon.

I know it was sanctioned by Nintendo, it's just that the comic was published to tie into a game they had little or nothing to do with (other than slapping a big STARFOX sticker on Rare's game).

Star Fox DOES have to a degree of black and white canon to it. Anything not supported by the games is non-canon, and can/will fall under the baseless speculation and crackpot theories categories.

The point I was driving at more is that I think each piece is more of it's own self-contained "canon", and whether or not it references a previous work is the creator's prerogative. If they wanted to bring back Andross or Pepper out of the blue, for instance, I wouldn't complain or beg for an explanation, because as long as it works this once, I'm cool with it.

What makes an established canon is that there is a documented chronology of events in the series. Mario and Zelda games, for instance, aren't serial and thus do not have a true canon. Star Fox, on the other hand, IS serial. SF64 happened first, then about 8 years later SFAd happened, and a year later SFAs happened. SFC happens sometime after that, as it references events in SF64, SFAd, and SFAs.

I get that, but really it's always some throwaway line in the manual. It's never had much of a bearing on the characters, just been an excuse for why they're running out of cash (for Adventures, anyway, don't know the story for the other 2). It's not like they set you up for a cliffhanger at the end of one game and have you pick it up in the other. A handful of games I can think of, like Halo and Metal Gear do that.

See? This is the crazy shit us fans do. We need something to talk about between games, and trying to better understand the canon is a good way to do that.

Yeah, they really need a good developer to get their mitts on it. Shame Factor 5 went under. Their Rogue Squadron games kicked ass.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Thank God the SF Command game isn't considered canon. 

*loads a copy of the SF Command game into a cannon and fires the cannon towards a wall* 

But yeah, I'd agree with those who think/say the first SF Game was overwritten/rewritten with SF64.  Adventures, Assault, canon...the comics...debatable...

[Sabre]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fanon

"they tend to get riled up when a new fact is introduced which does not literally contradict anything canonical, but invalidates what were formerly the most obvious assumptions. " <-- describes a typical command hater.