Are there other "uptight" canon arguments among Whovians?
Where to start?.....
Doctor Who does not have any official statement on Canon (well beyond the statement that the BBC produced Games produced to tie in with season five were canon)
So fans have debated what constitutes canon back and forth.
In the Early nineties, the Doctor Who New adventures were published by Virgin books, and touted as the official continuation of the series, fully authorised and and approved, Following the TV movie the BBC, seeing a market took back the books and published their own official BBC Doctor Who novels these novels largely were written by the same authors and shared continuity between the two series.
Then along came the Audios that you mentioned and at one point they were implied to be in a separate continuity to the competing books ( with regard to the then current Eighth Doctor at the very least).
With the new series, fans argue endlessly about the canon status of the books and the Audios - as well as yes, the charity skits that have been produced for CIN etc. Hilariously arguments based on chronology or continuity fall flat, since there is no one criteria that fits anything neatly.
So there are those who espouse only the TV series ( with problems due to the Charity skits and the aforementioned games - which had continuity issues with the series as well) Those who champion the books and or the audios ( a rallying cry of "ITs All Canon" (leading to arguments about continuity problems galore, not least that the Story Human nature would have occured twice with two different Doctors )
Also those that dispute the TV Movie ( but not the eighth Doctor himself ), or indeed the new series.
Some perhaps savvier fans have taken to the position "there is no Canon"
Star Trek fans have it easy compared to that, with a body of work that is considered official. As far as I can see canon wise the only real points of contention are the tie-ins to the Abramverse and the Animated Series, and even with the Animated series despite Gene Roddenbury denouncing it ( as he did for STV and STIV though no one takes that seriously) It certainly seems to be canon with it being referenced in Enteprise ( and with more to follow if they had carried on allegedly).
BTW if you saw the Tennant story Utopia, in Season 3 THAT was where Jacobi played the Master... for about five minutes before regenerating into John Simm.
Ohcripes. Where do I
First... it annoys me no end to see this "Season 1, 2, 3, etc." applied to the series as a whole when referring to Doctors #9, 10, and 11. William Hartnell was the Doctor during the first 3 seasons. Then it was Patrick Troughton for the next 3. Jon Pertwee for the next 5. Tom Baker had 7 seasons. And so on. The traditional way to keep track of the stories within each Doctor's tenure is (for example) "the 6th season of the 4th Doctor/Tom Baker's 6th season".
I'm unfamiliar with any Doctor Who games, except for a board game (4th Doctor) and a couple of RPG gaming guides produced for the 5th and 7th Doctors. I assume the ones you're referring to are computer games or online?
I've seen the New Adventures books, and avoided any that don't have companions I saw on TV. To me it just doesn't feel "right" to consider any Companion to be official if I haven't seen
that individual on TV. I'm sure people who don't mind that, though, appreciated the continuation of the stories.
I have a lot of other Doctor Who books that say "This adventure takes place between the TV stories ____ and ____." I do enjoy those.
But for canon-bending weirdness, what about the novel Who Killed Kennedy
? I defy anyone to make THAT one fit in anywhere!
Add me to those who love the Eighth Doctor himself, even like the potential Companions Grace and Chang Lee, but loathe the actual plot of the movie. The crap portrayal of the Master (who should never be played by a non-British actor), the scientific illiteracy (even for Doctor Who, which tends to rely a lot on Whovian technobabble), the whole "magic" crap of the Millennium, which wasn't even the real one, and this sudden, "Oh, btw, I'm half-Human" nonsense... I prefer to think the Doctor regenerated into the very dashing Paul McGann, who spent the rest of the movie in a really bad hallucination.
What Roddenberry did or did not consider canon is something that changed over the years. As some have said here, sometimes it depended on which company owned which rights, and which products were actually making money. I always considered TAS to be canon, which is why I cannot consider Enterprise to be canon since it violates so much of what was established in TAS (ie. Captain/Commodore April). And I applaud anyone
who disavows the mess that was Star Trek V.
And no, I haven't seen the Tennant story you mention. There are some of his stories I have never seen, either because at the time they were shown I didn't have a working TV, or because I might have had a working TV but no access to the channel it was on. And anyway, Doctor Who ceased to be "must-see" for me after it all turned into a soap opera All About Rose (that's a similar reason why I don't tend to like most of the Sylvester McCoy stories - they're All About Ace). The only Who stuff I've seen the past couple of years is when there's been a holiday marathon (yes, I sat through over 20 hours of Tennant and Smith episodes over Christmas/Boxing Day).
EDIT: Wanted to ask: What is the canon status of the Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover comics?