Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5189655-20150205205704/@comment-5189655-20150212212650

Heimr: "Credibility" doesn't even have anything to do with this. And yes, I am perfectly aware that Wikipedia is an unreliable site, but it still largely contain a great deal of actual information. And still, the article's definition of canon is solid and supported by the examples it provides, and I was hoping it would make this discussion a little more clearer.

Yeah, but which people was it that created the franchise? Jen Lee and company, and not to mention how personal this movie and its contents were to the cast and crew behind it. And also, which people are behind the upcoming short? Jen Lee and company. I would not at all consider it common sense to take a certain product as canon merely because its release is allowed by the owners of the franchise. It is common sense though to consider all new products as alternate continuations, unless specified outright that they are part of the canon/original storyline/continuation. And as stated in the aforementioned Wikipedia-article, what is canon or not is often times not resolved.

Basically, your only support for the idea that the books are canon to the film is that they share the same brand, while OUAT's Frozen-arc also shared the same brand but was clearly stated to be an alternate continuity (however, any perceptive individual would understand that OUAT is an alternate continuation without it being expressed right at you). If somebody were to ask the people in charge of the franchise, I bet they would make all of this more clear, and you should be ready to hear their stance on the book-adaptations. And if you want to prove that the books are canon to the film, provide us with some clear official statements of that.