It's a question that I've been wondering lately, but a lot of people here tend to say that the movies are not canon, and that only the books are, or that canon is divided into B-Canon(Book Canon/Main Canon) or F-Canon(Movie Canon). My question is whether or not the new Harry Potter spinoff film series written by JK Rowling herself, will be considered part of canon, or if you prefer, B-Canon, considering who just happens to be writing it.

 

The "Hogwarts Library Collection," Pottermore, and the books are the actual canon. The writer of the screenplay doesn't really matter, in the film universe, Harry snaps and tosses the Elder Wand IIRC. That's the worst thing ever, and anything that validates it is a joke.

I'm excited for the movies but I certainly won't consider them canon. If she wants that, then she can put the info on Pottermore.


Also, FBAWTFM? What's the M at the end? The last words is them :/

 

Depends on if she involves Harry Potter characters in it.

I'm caught between dread and excitement over what may come. I personally hope its more 'stand alone' with Harry Potter's beasts, tempting us with small bits of backstory, while framing the conflict to come without giving us so much that we're forced to change our perception of what happened in Harry's Hogwarts years. For example: Newt Scamander does his thing, but he never runs into Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, one of the Potters or anything like that. Beasts are covered in more detail, but any mention of Grindelwald/Dumbledore is brief or non-existent.

As for me personally, I don't take anything Rowling says nowadays as 'canon', unless there's an obvious blurb about it in the book. IMO, the many, many plot holes cannot be filled by crafting another story to help plug the gaps. Making another movie (even if its awesome) will not change how I feel about HP canon, though I'm sure some feel differently.

 

In my view, the requirements of canon are the item must be:

a) published
b) in an official source
c) coming directly from JKR herself
d) cannot fundamentally contradict an item higher in the canon hierarchy

Hierarchy is determined thus:

a) Novels over "non-fiction"
b) Text over non-text
c) Paper over digital
d) Where there is a minor contradiction between canon, earlier publication takes precedence over later publication
e) Where there is a clarification of canon (something previously ambiguous made clear), later publication takes precedence over earlier publication

Fundamental vs. minor contradiction depends on whether the contradiction relates to the plot/crucial information (fundamental), or whether it is a subsidiary piece of world building (minor).

An example of a fundamental contradiction is when Harry receives his Firebolt in PoA book vs. movie. It's a completely different timeline. An example of a minor contradiction would be the name Wizards Council vs. Warlocks Council.

And so canon is as follows:

1 Harry Potter books 1-7
=2 Fantastic Beasts
=2 Quidditch Through the Ages
=2 Tales of Beedle the Bard
5 Pottermore/JKR's old website

And the following are not canon:

Interviews (published but not in an official source, occasionally contradicts the books)
Movies (not from JKR herself, definitely contradicts the books)
Video games (not from JKR herself, definitely contradicts the books)

However, I would say that non-canon works either coming from JKR or published by an official source are persuasive. I.e. where they don't contradict canon you can take inspiration from them, but you're not strictly bound by them.

Fantastic Beasts: The Movie will therefore be canon in my view, albeit only the dialogue. JKR is only writing the script, she's not designing all the props and won't be directing the action or special effects. Further, it will be at the bottom of the hierarchy and so if it contradicts anything above it, the earlier publication rules.

 

Oh, your right, my mistake, didn't even notice. It should have been T, not M. Can someone fix that?

 

I think when a franchise grows enough to have "what is canon?" arguments, it's best to just ignore it and consider canon to be whatever you don't find retarded. Works for Star Wars.

 

The Star Wars canon is explicitly stated as the six main films, TCW/Rebels CG shows, and any works not under the Legends imprint published after April 25 2014.

 

Guess how many people actually give a shit? My point is that "canon" is a guideline at best. HP doesn't compare to Star Wars yet but it's the same principle in my mind. It's just not worth fussing over.

 

Ironically, I think the movies had the right of it in this instance. If Harry wanted to prevent the Elder Wand from being misused, he should have snapped it. In the books, everyone knows about the existence of the elder wand and any sufficiently determined individual should be able to find it.

On this topic, I consider the movies as canon as long as they don't contradict the books. Its just an individual preference, there are certainly no hard rules as to what constitutes canon.

 

The books are canon. Everything else doesn't really matter to me. Like, what in the movies do I want to be canon that isn't in the books? Nothing comes to mind, unless you're really desperate to have the random 'extra' blonde Slytherin girl that appears for five seconds in once scene really be your picture for Daphne Greengrass.

Also, if you really want Harry to break the Elder Wand, you can always just write that into your fanfiction, since that's sort of the point of fanfiction. It's canon up until the point it's not.

 

By those requirements The Casual Vacancy is canon. It has been published by a real publisher, comes from J. K. Rowling and nothing in other canon sources contradicts the happenings of Pagford.

I'd add a fifth criteria, e) has to be written to be part of the Harry Potter Book Universe

It is this last point under which I'd argue the Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find there Movie is not canon. Rowling is presumably writing it as part of the movie universe, which is different from the book universe because it follows its own internal continuity separate from that of the books. Much as she is able to write the The Casual Vacancy as separate from the Harry Potter books, she is presumably able to write in the movie universe if she so chooses.

 

I considered that requirement rather implied. We're talking about what is Harry Potter canon, after all.

Though it would be amusing to say that Pagford is part of the HP universe too. It just happens that there were no wizards in the story.

 

Funny how Taure's definition of canon is quite similar to Kelsen's Normative Pyramid. On purpose? As a law student that pleases me, and I shall adopt it. Seriously, always thought about canon in similar terms, so I can agree with that.

I loved Fantastic Beasts, probably my 5th favourite book in the HP Universe, it will be interesting seeing more Dragons and Nundus.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the books in the HP world are canon, including Fantastic Beasts and the like. Anything else, be it the movies, pottermore, or interviews with JK, in my opinion occur outside the real Harry Potter world and are therefore not canon.

However, it's a matter of personal preference. There isn't one universally accepted definition of HP canon, so just go with what feels right to you.

 

I consider JKR's interviews as fully canon even if they contradict the books because she's the author and the creator of the Harry Potter universe, therefore she knows best. I simply assume that the contradictions are retcons.

As such, since Jo wrote this movie, then it is canon in my view if we're talking plot and dialogue.

 

I view interviews as expressions of intent, not of content. I don't think JKR would much like the idea that she's bound by what she says in her interviews, so I think it's no insult to her to say that interviews are non-canon. As interviews are merely expressions of intent as to what she will make canon in the future, she's perfectly free to change her mind. Contradicting something that has already made it into canon, however, is correctly seen by readers as a fault on the part of the author. Inconsistency in fictional worlds is bad writing.