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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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".
^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.
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.
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.
^"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.
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.
Well, that's the thing. With Conan Doyle, there's only one author whose work is the canon - and even then, it's not all his Holmes stories that are included, which seems weird. With a multi-author piece, it's much harder to draw the line, I feel. Still, I take your point of view, and I'm not here to argue about definitions. I think my original point still stands, that Who actively encourages alternate timelines, rewritten histories and parallel universes, and as a result, I think all depictions of the Doctor have equal validity - and in my view, are just as worthy of investigation as those seen on the telly.
There's some Canadian book series called "The Doctor Who Project" or something where it depicts an alternate reality if Doctor Who wasn't cancelled in 1989 and the classic series was still going today. The Curse of Fatal Death Doctors and the Cushing Doctor as already discussed along with the Shalka Doctor. Isn't there a Big Finish series with that guy who was offered the part of the 1st doctor but declined it as an alternate first doctor? Um, all sorts.
Oh yes, and there's these people on You Tube who made this series about a doctor between 8 & 9 that the doctor forgot about called "Doctor Who: The Forgotten Doctor" which features the first black doctor. I think his clothes were pretty similar to Atkinson's in Fatal Death actually. And I think Sylvester McCoy actually supports the series as I saw a picture of the DW:TFD crew with him. Also, the theme tune is awful. Like something from one of those awful low budget Sci-Fi's from the 1990s. Awful 70s guitar in it. Wasn't very Doctor Who at a;;.
Doctor Who Unbound, I believe is what you are pointing at. I think that's Geoffrey Bayldon you are speaking of specifically, he does 2 out of the 8 "Unbound" Stories as Doctor One. David Warner as Doctor Three also does 2, Arabella Weir plays a female version of Three, The Valleyard returns in one and I don't recall the other 2 offhand. I enjoy them all, except the Arabella Weir one (Not because she's female, I was looking forward to a female version greatly, but, the story was just one long belching, barfing binge).
I haven't run across those, but, there are a few animated stories of John Hall playing the Doctor (kind of has a Tennant era vibe to it) from DWTheWritersBlog that are kinda fun (Animation the way they move is a bit creepy, though, LOL)