Talk:Origins 1

From Super-wiki
Revision as of 18:17, 9 December 2009 by IsaacSapphire (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is "Origins" considered canon? I think either way, the information should probably be in here somewhere. IsaacSapphire 02:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's places where the comics contradict the show—I'm thinking in particular of the scenes with Lilith (though I think those are in Rising Son instead of Origins) because 4x22 makes it clear that Lilith was in hell until 2x21 and was therefore not playing games with the pre-series Winchesters, but that's far from the only example—and at least in those places the comics are not canon. Otherwise I'd say it's at viewer's discretion (in my world, the comics are fanfic), and the pages dedicated to the comics should definitely include summaries of same (though I refuse to be the one to do the summarizing), though I don't think pages elsewhere in the wiki should include comic canon. Unless those pages specifically label it as comic canon, but maybe not then. —EllieMurasaki 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


The place of tie-in material in relation to the "main" cnaon is one of endless debate in many fandoms! Although I think in SPN the aired epsiodes are held as the only canon, partly because far elss people have read the comics or novels.

I have no problem with material from the comics or novels being included on other entries as long as it is clearly labelled. eg The story of John 'killing' Doc Benton from 3.15 Time Is On My Side is told in Origins 4. With Lilith a note could be made that a character by that name, appears in Rising Son 4, Rising Son 5 and Rising Son 6.

Also there is a broad definition of the term here: Canon

--Missyjack 06:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got some friends who are in the Star Wars fandom (which suffers from a lot of what-is-cannon issues), which was a lot of why I asked this question. I know there was also an issue of the comic originally contradicting the show about when John got the Impala. Has there been any sort of Word of God statement at one of the conventions or in an interview that anyone knows of? Thanks guys. IsaacSapphire 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes,. the "impala" controversy is documented here: Category:Origins - which I love bc they they actually changed it in the subsequent release of the comics in TB form, but mroe based on the fannish meta arguements than on its contradiction of canon. Kripke hasn't made any statement about where he sees this things sit in canon heirarchy. I have a vague memory that maybe Keith De Candido who has written some of the novels (and thanks the Suepr Wiki in the acknowledgements!!) made a comment about them being canon compliant. I will be interested to see the next series of Comics bc it will go right up to Sam leaving for Stanford, a period of intense fannish interest.

I think after the TV show finishes, the tie-ins may gain more 'status" as cnanon. this certainly happened in Buffy fandom.--Missyjack 00:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Candio would say he's cannon and he wasn't doing his job at all if they weren't at least cannon compliant(and there are plenty of fanfics that are "cannon compliant").

I hadn't heard anything about the upcoming comics, although they do sound very interesting. I'd be more interested if the art hadn't always been eye-gougingly male-aimed and apparently intentionally both hard to read and ugly (and yes, I know that's at least partly a matter of opinion...) Hope they pick an artist based on who their audience actually is for the new comics. IsaacSapphire 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)