Craig Kyle, who produced and wrote both stories, confirmed that Wolverine vs. Hulk is a sequel story to Hulk vs. Wolverine.
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/g_man/kyle-and-yosts-hulk-vs-wolverine/87-33910/
Same Actor/Character in Different Continuities
- Thread starter Dick Whitman
- Start date
Craig Kyle, who produced and wrote both stories, confirmed that Wolverine vs. Hulk is a sequel story to Hulk vs. Wolverine.
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/g_man/kyle-and-yosts-hulk-vs-wolverine/87-33910/
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie featured many of the same actors from the TV series, including all 6 Rangers, Bulk & Skull, and, IIRC, the same voice actors playing Lord Zedd, Rita Repulsa, Goldar, & Alpha 5. However, the movie is most definately not in the same continuity as the TV series. The sets, costumes, & Zordon all look completely different. The story of how the Power Rangers got their Ninjetti powers was retold on the TV series in the "Ninja Quest" mini-series, which also included a different origin for the Tengu Warriors. And then there's Mordant, Lord Zedd's pig-man henchman, who suddenly showed up without any explanation in the movie, and then promptly disappeared and was never seen again.
At the very least, it would be kinda weird reconciling Dogma with Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back since the latter includes a scene where Ben Affleck & Matt Damon talk about being in Dogma.
Certainly the TV series is in a slightly different continuity from the 1st 3 movies. Highlander II & Highlander: The Final Dimension exist in different continuities because Brenda Wyatt died 2 different ways in the 2 movies. In Highlander II, she died of solar radiation poisoning. In Highlander: The Final Dimension, she was killed in a car accident (which Jacob Kell took credit for in one of the deleted scenes in Highlander: Endgame, which exists in a totally different continuity). Both Highlander II & Highlander: The Final Dimension want to exist in the same continuity as the 1st Highlander movie but neither is a perfect fit.
But I wasn't aware that there was any dispute that Highlander: Endgame took place in a different continuity from the TV series.
At the very least, it would be kinda weird reconciling Dogma with Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back since the latter includes a scene where Ben Affleck & Matt Damon talk about being in Dogma.
Certainly the TV series is in a slightly different continuity from the 1st 3 movies. Highlander II & Highlander: The Final Dimension exist in different continuities because Brenda Wyatt died 2 different ways in the 2 movies. In Highlander II, she died of solar radiation poisoning. In Highlander: The Final Dimension, she was killed in a car accident (which Jacob Kell took credit for in one of the deleted scenes in Highlander: Endgame, which exists in a totally different continuity). Both Highlander II & Highlander: The Final Dimension want to exist in the same continuity as the 1st Highlander movie but neither is a perfect fit.
But I wasn't aware that there was any dispute that Highlander: Endgame took place in a different continuity from the TV series.
Is there anything in particular that actually de-canonizes The Animated Series? I got the sense that Roddenberry merely de-canonized it because he didn't like it (and that he tried to do the same thing to Star Trek V for the same reason and with far less success).
Endgame seems to completely ignore how Duncan became immortal - in Endgame it appears that Duncan fights a huge battle (much like Connor did) and as he died and awoke, Connor appears over a hill; in the series he has his death and is driven from his village where he wanders for a few years before meeting a hermit - my memory's a bit hazy on the details, but the dates don't really add up.
It's not really a meaningful question. Canon is defined by the people running the show. While Roddenberry was the one in charge of TNG, TAS was considered non-canonical, because he was very protective of his creation late in life and wanted to exclude those interpretations of ST that he wasn't directly in charge of and didn't necessarily agree with. But his successors have used elements of TAS quite freely. Canon is not the absolute carved in stone that many fans think it is; it's simply the policy of the moment. Canon is an ever-evolving thing, and any long-running canon will disregard parts of its past. "The Alternative Factor" is arguably no longer canon because its claim that any matter-antimatter reaction would destroy the universe has been ignored ever since. ST V is apparently no longer canon because its quick commute to the center of the galaxy has been contradicted by Voyager. "Threshold" is no longer canon because its version of transwarp was subsequently ignored and contradicted, and the whole episode was publicly disowned by its own writer. So even if a show is considered canonical, it may have episodes or ideas that are not.
To repeat something I said in another thread yesterday, canon is more about the whole overall body of work than its specific details. Canon can assume that the events of an earlier episode or season happened but retcon or gloss over problematical details in how it was depicted. There are specific parts of TAS that have been contradicted (like "The Magicks of Megas-tu," another quick trip to the galactic center), but post-Roddenberry creators have freely used it as a source of ideas and references (the ship name Klothos, the city of ShiKahr, Vulcan's Forge, etc.), so I'd say that TAS as a whole is treated as part of the overall, loose, flexible entity that we label with the misleadingly simple word "canon."
^ Then you have details like those belts the crew could wear which allowed them to breathe in outer space or the fact that one of the episodes tied in with a separate series by Larry Niven (IIRC) - this apparently was one of Roddenberry's main gripes with TAS.
Then again, things like Kirk's middle name being Tiberius came from the Animated Series. Though the fact that Sulu's name was Hikaru first appeared in a Vonda McIntyre novel, but that novel remains outside of canon.
My head hurts.
Then again, things like Kirk's middle name being Tiberius came from the Animated Series. Though the fact that Sulu's name was Hikaru first appeared in a Vonda McIntyre novel, but that novel remains outside of canon.
My head hurts.
^Canon is free to incorporate ideas from any source, even if the overall source itself is not canonical.
And whatever Roddenberry's gripes are, they don't matter anymore, because he hasn't been the one in charge for a long time. As I said, canon is defined by the current regime. While Jeri Taylor was running Voyager, she treated her crew-bio novels Mosaic and Pathways as canonical material, but once she was gone, her successors didn't hesitate to contradict them.
DS9, VGR, and ENT all made allusions to things from TAS, so it's a safe bet that their creators were assuming that TAS did "happen" overall, even if they didn't accept every specific detail of how it was depicted. Canon is a holistic concept, not a reductionistic one. It's more about the pretense of a cohesive whole than the actual reality of one.
And whatever Roddenberry's gripes are, they don't matter anymore, because he hasn't been the one in charge for a long time. As I said, canon is defined by the current regime. While Jeri Taylor was running Voyager, she treated her crew-bio novels Mosaic and Pathways as canonical material, but once she was gone, her successors didn't hesitate to contradict them.
DS9, VGR, and ENT all made allusions to things from TAS, so it's a safe bet that their creators were assuming that TAS did "happen" overall, even if they didn't accept every specific detail of how it was depicted. Canon is a holistic concept, not a reductionistic one. It's more about the pretense of a cohesive whole than the actual reality of one.
^ Agreed entirely. I mean, the whole thing's fecking fictional anyway!
Buster Crabbe played Flash Gordon in three 1930s movie serials (Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers, Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars and Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe), then reprised the role for a 1966 LP record, The Official Adventures of Flash Gordon, adapting two stories from the original comic strip. (The record must have still been available during the 1970s, because I had it!)
ETA: They might have been part of the same continuity, I guess; but the serials seemed to be set in the building-up-to-WWII period, whereas TOAoFG has Flash and company return to an Earth with weapons capable of destroying an invading rocketship fleet, so this seems unlikely.
ETA: They might have been part of the same continuity, I guess; but the serials seemed to be set in the building-up-to-WWII period, whereas TOAoFG has Flash and company return to an Earth with weapons capable of destroying an invading rocketship fleet, so this seems unlikely.
With some of these characters which are adaptations of series of books or comics these other appearances allow the actors to more fully explore the source material. If an actor is Hamlet the play is Shakespeare's whole take on the character. But with Superman there is not really one source or even one creator. So its cool to see Bud Collyer portray everything from a very Golden Age Siegel/Shuster Superman to facing of against Brainiac for the tv cartoons.
Maybe the best example of this was Adam West. Where Batman's origin is only vaguely mentioned in the first episode of his tv series. But while on the Super Friends episode "The Fear" he was able to recount the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents for the first time outside of the comics.
Maybe the best example of this was Adam West. Where Batman's origin is only vaguely mentioned in the first episode of his tv series. But while on the Super Friends episode "The Fear" he was able to recount the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents for the first time outside of the comics.
Your mention of Hamlet reminds me: Patrick Stewart played King Claudius opposite Derek Jacobi as Hamlet in 1980 and again opposite David Tennant in 2009. Do two different performances of the same play count as "different continuities?" I think that's stretching the point, because any differences in the telling would be minimal.
Actually, the impression I got was that the flashback scene you're talking about in Highlander: Endgame was simply the first time that Duncan had met Connor, not the battle in which he first became immortal. This seems to be at least a few years after Duncan was already driven from his village. At this point, Duncan has been immortal for a while but doesn't really understand it yet. He just kinda wanders from battle to battle, always surviving despite his many mortal wounds.
I figured that "transwarp" was a layman's term that could refer to many different kinds of FTL travel that were beyond the scope of normal warp drive.
And did "The Alternative Factor" EVER make sense, even when it originally aired?
Not officially, but that is a logical way to reconcile the various things that have been labeled "transwarp" in Trek. However, that's the least of the issues with "Threshold." If even the guy who wrote it says it never happened, then that illustrates the mutability of canon pretty well.
Signs point to "No."
The Tennant one had modern trappings, in terms of clothes and sets etc, so I suppose that's as close as you might get to one Hamlet being in a different continuity from another (assuming that the Jacobi one had Shakespearean garb).
Others which come to mind:
Bruce Willis plays fictional versions of himself in Ocean's 12 and in The Player. In THe Player, he appears in a movie within a movie, starring opposite Julia Roberts, who appears in Ocean's 12. In the latter, he mistakes her character Tess for, you've guessed it, Julia Roberts (stupid post-modernist movies).
Michael Keaton plays Ray Nicollette in Out of Sight and Jackie Brown. He's the same character in the original Elmore Leonard novels on which the movies were based, but are the movies in the same continuity? Tarantino doesn't like to share but of all his movies, the setting is the least Tarantino-esque and most compatible with another director's. Samuel L Jackson appears in both movies as different characters. Oddly enough, in both movies the female characters changed ethnicity - Leonard wrote both Karen Sisco from OOS and Jackie Burke from Rum Punch (on which JB was based - Quentin changed the name of the character and the story) as white blondes but they turned into J-Lo and Pam Grier respectively.
Then you have the Exorcist and its sequels. In EII, Linda Blair and Max Von Sydow reprise their roles from the first movie and the demon Pazusu is found to remain within Regan. However, in EIII Jason Miller - who played Fr Karras in the first movie - is still alive, despite appearing to die in the first one and, IIRC, the demon is in him. George S Scott takes over from J Lee Cobb as Lt Kinderman and whereas he and Karras didn't seem to know each other all that well in the original, Kinderman now refers to him as his best friend. So can the two sequels co-exist in the same continuity as the original?
Even more confuddling is the fact that there are two Exorcist IVs, the one directed by Paul Schrader (aka Dominion: Pequel to the Exorcist) and the one by Renny Harlin (Exorcist: The Beginning). Stellan Skaarsgard plays Merrin in both, but the plots are different and there's a different supporting cast (eg Gabriel Mann plays Fr Fancis in one version, James D'Arcy does in the other).
Finally, has anyone referred to John Forsythe voicing Charlie in both the tv and movie versions of Charlie's Angels?
Yes, the Jacobi one had period garb. (And a surprising number of Time Lords: Jacobi as Hamlet, Lalla Ward as Ophelia, Claire Bloom as Gertrude, and Geoffrey Beevers as the Third Player. I think Tennant's the only Gallifreyan in the new version.)
That's not just a post-modernist joke. In the 1941 play Arsenic and Old Lace, the character of Jonathan Brewster is described by other characters as resembling Boris Karloff, because in the original stage performance, Karloff actually played the role. Similarly with Ralph Bellamy in His Girl Friday.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CelebrityParadox
But not necessarily the same reality because the approach of the movies is so much more surreal and farcical. Similarly to the situation with the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks Dragnet movie from the '80s -- a comedy sequel to a dramatic series, but allegedly in continuity and with Harry Morgan reprising his role from the original.
I forgot about Michael Keaton in Jackie Brown and Out of Sight.
Also I remember reading about how they restarted Exorcist IV with the same actor but different plot when it happened.
Good additions! From everyone. Lot of stuff here I never knew about.
I had an offshoot idea that may be worthy of its own thread. But there may not be nearly enough cases of this. Same actor, Different character only in name. Where an actor is basically playing a very similar role to one they have played in another film.
Also I remember reading about how they restarted Exorcist IV with the same actor but different plot when it happened.
Good additions! From everyone. Lot of stuff here I never knew about.
I had an offshoot idea that may be worthy of its own thread. But there may not be nearly enough cases of this. Same actor, Different character only in name. Where an actor is basically playing a very similar role to one they have played in another film.
I certainly see your point. You are talking about a consistent tone and feel to a series. Whether films or tv. But even some episodes of tv series with the same creators can have wildly different tones. Of course its true when its a years later film of different genre created by different people its whole new category
Funny, I had that idea myself. But I think you should post it, as I'm too lazy. I have a couple of suggestions for the thread if you do, though.
