are the big finish dramas canon?

[michael c]

Now to write an audio drama for Big Finish to establish this as canon.

are there those who consider the 'big finish' productions to be "canon"?

[David]

Since the CD dramas are using original cast members, I do.

[Gothick]

I strongly disagree about the Big Finish shows being considered as canon.

I've already written about this several times so I am not going to beat it into the ground.  In all fandoms, ONLY the original broadcast material of a TV show is canon.  Everything else, including movie spinoffs starring the same actors who appeared in the original series, is ITS OWN canon, as a spinoff, adaptation, or what have you.

That is why we don't treat the events of House and Night of DS as canon for the original series.  Consider them as taking place in an alternate universe version of the DS of canon if you must relate it somehow.

I don't see why this definition should seem so difficult for some to accept.  Of course I am just giving the accepted definition. If you wish to re-define, go for it.  After all, the DS writers themselves frequently re-defined material established in earlier canon, resulting in the series' storylines very fractured continuity.

cheers, G.

[michael c]

i'm with you on 'canon' g...


i've always found it startling that there are people who look to them to "resolve" plot threads left dangling from the OS. because they're sanctioned by DCP that somehow makes them "official" continuity. the same thing with the RTC production at the fest several years back. some say it "proved" that liz was vicki's mother. to me it was just a festival skit. it didn't prove or resolve anything.


if it didn't occur on ABC daytime television between 1966 and 1971 i can't, for purposes of my own sanity, consider it series canon.

[michael c]

also don't the same people who produce the BFP also write for the dynamite comic series?


i believe those are also some sort of "officially sanctioned" stories that are vastly different from the ones being told on the audiodramas. by that measure aren't they supposed to be 'canon' as well?

it's impossible to keep it all straight.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I totally agree that unless it happened on the original series itself, it isn't canon within the universe of the original series. It's strictly canon in its own and separate DS universe.

[Brandon Collins]

I think the stock definition of canon should be what Gothick described above--only that which appears in the original broadcast show, for any television series. But when you look at each fandom, the definition of canon can certainly change.

Personally, I only take the original series from 66-71 as being canon, and as others have said everything outside of that is a representation of events happening in a parallel dimension of the universe as a whole.

However, for those who are in the Buffy fandom, there was the original shows of Buffy and Angel, and then the "official" comic continuations of both series, written and plotted by the creator himself. In this case, I feel, those continuations belong to the original canon of the primary universe and the stock definition of what canon is has to be altered. Of course I'm sure there are still those who refuse to accept or acknowledge this continuation, as there are with any continuation of any series.

[David]

HODS & NODS weren't meant to be canon. The Dynamite, Gold Key comics & the Ross novels sure aren't canon.
But I often get the impression that the Big Finish CDs are meant to be canon.
I could be wrong......

[The Doctor and K9]

Everything else, including movie spinoffs starring the same actors who appeared in the original series, is ITS OWN canon, as a spinoff, adaptation, or what have you.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.  The Star Trek films are not canon?  Ok.  Spock appears on TNG and references the events of Star Trek VI. I think that makes STVI a part of TNG canon.. Zefram Cochrane is shown in STTNG First Contact. The same actor appears as Zefram in Enterprise. Star Trek novels reference ALL Trek series, sometimes mixing and matching. With Trek at least, the movies and subseuqent TV series are all part of an intricate continuity, even if it's consistent at times.

Now with DS, I consider the audio dramas to be canon. They use the original actors and make an effort not to contradict the original show. That's my opinion. You won't change it. Feel free to waste your time if you wish.

In the end, it's a moot question any way. Who decides what's canon? Do we set up a council and vote? Do we let the Curtis family decide? Do they care? Would we trust their answer? In the end, canon is what we individually decide it is.

With Star Trek, we have Paramount deciding. They have decreed that ALL aired Trek and the movies are canon EXCEPT the animated show. Why it's not, I don't know. We found out there that the Klingons had the cloaking device. We saw the holodeck, or a reasonable facsimile there first. They showed us more of Vulcqan and "Yesteryear" was directly alluded to in "Unification I" (the episode in which Sarek dies and Picard searches for Spock".  We got stories that were at least as good as the average Trek episode and NONE sunk to the depths of "Mark of Gideon" and "Spock's Brain".  That of course is very debatable I hate those episodes. Someone else may love them and hate the animated show. But with Star Trek, we have a body dictating what the comic and book series can use and do and what they can't. The proof that the books and comics are not canon is the fact that they generally wildly contradict each other even though each project is generally consistent with the various series.

Don't try to tell a Whovian that the two Doctor Who series aren't both canonical! Images of all the past Doctors have been shown on the new show.

The reason I consider the CDs to be canon is that they use the original cast. I don't discriminate based on the fact that they are audio. If they were live action TV, I believe they would have wider acceptance. I would consider counting the new comic as well if it stays consistent with what Big Finish is doing.

I never watch '91 DS without reading the Innovation comics. I consider that to be part of the all to short continuity.

[tragic bat]

No, I don't consider these to be cannon.  The OS actors were not the writers, directors, and producers of the series; an audio drama forty years later that uses their voices is not the same thing in my opinion. 

[Gothick]

Yeah, well, where Dr. Who is concerned, I don't see the Russell Davies/Steve Moffatt et al 21st century reboot to be the same canon as the original 1963-1989 series. Obviously Auntie Beeb disagrees since they are about to roll out all the stops to celebrate the 50th "anniversary" of the founding of Who.  I haven't kept up with the 21st century stories but from what my friends report of various story developments & characterizations, I personally cannot regard it as canon.

There was an interesting event in fannish history when fans of the 1980s Ron Perlman series Beauty & the Beast rejected developments in the aired shows that were considered flatly unacceptable by fans.  Various fans rewrote the storyline to suit what they felt SHOULD have happened.  I don't know what the status of the various rewrites has been considered over the years, but I read an interesting article about the original rejection of this canon by the fans in a book on media fandom (an early one from around 1994).

In some ways a pivotal example in the DS 'verse is the Sam Hall TV guide article from '71 or '72.  For years I actually thought of this as canon.  Eventually I realized it was just Sam's thoughts about where the story could have gone had they gone on for another six months or so and wrapped up the "present day" storyline.  I have to confess I do personally think of the marriage of Barnabas and Julia as described in the article as "canon," but that's just my personal opinion, not something I would ever try to argue out with other fans.

G.