The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Doctor Who (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   the non-canonical doctors in TV/film (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=222211)

sonak August 8 2013 10:46 PM

the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
I was wondering what people thought of the non-canonical Doctor Who. I've seen "scream of the shalka," but wasn't particularly impressed, either by the story itself or the Doctor in it. I've never seen the Peter Cushing doctor who movies, and have no idea what the fandom view of them wad, but I'm curious.

Davros August 9 2013 12:24 AM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Check out Curse Of The Fatal Death.

Green Lantern August 9 2013 01:44 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Quote:

Davros wrote: (Post 8486659)
Check out Curse Of The Fatal Death.

lol, I love this now. :P

Tom August 9 2013 04:31 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Why are there seats on a dalek ship? We will explain later. lol

I always loved CotFD, probably Moffets best work! LOL

Jonathan Pryce and Rowan Atkinson are gold in this!

Classic Fan August 9 2013 07:02 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Curse of The Fatal Death. I loved it when i originally saw it and still do. Glad this has come up again. Never tire of watching this. Moffs comedy writing at its best. Atkinson was awesome, as were Grant, E. Grant, Broadbent, Lumley.

So, non-canonical Doctors, well, Peter Cushing for starters.

All i can think about at the moment is parody scenes in other shows and sketches. If they count then the list is endless.

MacLeod August 9 2013 07:16 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Posted deleted

Andrew_Kearley August 9 2013 07:29 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Non-canonical is an odd term - if it's Doctor Who, then it's part of the story as far as I'm concerned. Whether it fits the continuity of the tv series is neither here nor there. Doctor Who's like a modern myth to me, it can have all manner of iterations that add to an understanding of the whole.

The Cushing films are great, lots of fun. I recommend them wholeheartedly.

Captaindemotion August 9 2013 07:39 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Then there's the Dr Who unbound series, which was a sort of 'elseworlds' with various actors essaying the Doctor, including Arabella Weir as a female Doctor.

sonak August 10 2013 05:31 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Quote:

Andrew_Kearley wrote: (Post 8489041)
Non-canonical is an odd term - if it's Doctor Who, then it's part of the story as far as I'm concerned. Whether it fits the continuity of the tv series is neither here nor there. Doctor Who's like a modern myth to me, it can have all manner of iterations that add to an understanding of the whole.

The Cushing films are great, lots of fun. I recommend them wholeheartedly.


I meant non-canonical in the sense of not being part of the "official twelve."

Andrew_Kearley August 11 2013 10:54 AM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Quote:

sonak wrote: (Post 8492308)
I meant non-canonical in the sense of not being part of the "official twelve."

I understood that. My take is that it's a series that actively allows for alternative timelines and history being rewritten, so I think we should regard the alternatives as being all part of the "canon".

Christopher August 11 2013 01:31 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
^Well, technically the word "canon" does not mean "right" or "real," regardless of how fandom abuses it. It just means the core work from the original creators or franchise owners as opposed to derivative works such as licensed tie-ins or fan fiction. One can choose to believe that tie-ins ("apocrypha") are consistent with the canon and could be treated as part of the same reality, but that doesn't actually make them part of the canon, because canon doesn't mean truth, it just means the core work. In this case, the two television series are the core work, while the Cushing movies, Big Finish audios, and the like are tie-ins. Not a value judgment, just a classification.

Captaindemotion August 11 2013 01:47 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Just like how Sherlock Holmes fans regard 'canon' as consisting solely of Conan Doyle stories; it's no aspersion on the many excellent novels which have been written by others since then.

Andrew_Kearley August 11 2013 04:59 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8495176)
^Well, technically the word "canon" does not mean "right" or "real," regardless of how fandom abuses it. It just means the core work from the original creators or franchise owners as opposed to derivative works such as licensed tie-ins or fan fiction. One can choose to believe that tie-ins ("apocrypha") are consistent with the canon and could be treated as part of the same reality, but that doesn't actually make them part of the canon, because canon doesn't mean truth, it just means the core work. In this case, the two television series are the core work, while the Cushing movies, Big Finish audios, and the like are tie-ins. Not a value judgment, just a classification.

That's an interesting interpretation. Like you, I certainly don't take "canon" to mean right or real, even if the majority of fans do - that's one reason why I don't like using the term full stop, it just leads to arguments and confusion about what precisely one means. But personally I've always taken "canon" to mean "the body of work that calls itself Doctor Who" so that would include the licensed tie-ins for me. Again, not a value judgement so much as a desire for inclusiveness, which seems to have become my life work's within this fandom.:eek:

Christopher August 11 2013 05:43 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
^"Canon" originally came from the church -- it meant religious writings that were officially approved by the church as genuine, as opposed to the Apocrypha, alternative texts that weren't considered legitimate doctrine. So it carries the intrinsic meaning of that which is officially approved or handed down from the source, in opposition to any divergent individual opinions or interpretations (which is why the fan notion of "personal canon" is an oxymoron -- "personal continuity" is a more appropriate term).

It was first used in fiction by Sherlock Holmes fandom, to refer to the 60 Holmes stories by Conan Doyle himself as distinct from the Holmes pastiches and sequels written by other authors in later years. So at its heart, in its purest sense, canon just means the original creator's work as distinct from others' works based upon it. It gets a little trickier to define with something like Doctor Who or Star Trek which is the work of many successive or concurrent creators rather than one person, but in those cases the canon is assumed to be that which is produced by the franchise owners in the original medium, as distinct from licensed tie-ins done by other creators in other media.

Allyn Gibson August 11 2013 07:06 PM

Re: the non-canonical doctors in TV/film
 
Quote:

Christopher wrote: (Post 8495731)
It gets a little trickier to define with something like Doctor Who or Star Trek which is the work of many successive or concurrent creators rather than one person, but in those cases the canon is assumed to be that which is produced by the franchise owners in the original medium, as distinct from licensed tie-ins done by other creators in other media.

That's not actually true, Christopher. Doctor Who doesn't have a canon in the same sense that Star Trek or Star Wars do. With one notable exception, no one working on the series has made a definitive Richard Arnold-like statement about what's authoritative and what isn't. The exception is the series of computer games about the eleventh Doctor set after series 5; that is the only Doctor Who work that has been explicitly said to be canonical. Not even the television series has been said to be canonical. :)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.