Ok, I'm going through my pages again in 2004. And this is really just about the funniest survey ever. Especially with a new TV series on the horizon with many of the same writers as the New Adventures, but also many, many years of canonicity debates behind it as well. But I don't think that means I should eliminate this page entirely...
- Michael Lee, December 2004
Well, I'm having a bummer of a day, so I thought I'd give the results for the poll & all of that good stuff. Of course, this isn't very accurate, and there are no certainities, but I'm glad 40 odd people decided to send me a not on it.
Are all the Missing Adventures canonical?
Are all of the New Adventures canonical?
Are some of the Missing Adventures canonical?
Are some the New Adventures canonical?
Are the Cushing films canonical?
Is all of the original TV series canonical?
Will the new TV movie be canonical?
One person, and you don't get very many guesses who, said that the Bullseye series is canonical. Also, sometimes people left questions blank, which is why they don't always add up to the same amount.
One thing I'm curious about --- why does the TV movie, despite not even being made yet, have a higher claim to canonicity than the New (and Missing) adventures? Is there something "magical" about being on television? Obviously, it would have been (and still is) possible that the new Who to be a very radical departure from the original series.
The best comments (and one that I can support) is that there is a layered
canonicity -- the original TV series is the "core" canon, but the NA's are
more canonical than what's published in Doctor Who monthly or a fanzine.
Basically, if an NA contradicts the original series, the NA is wrong.
Otherwise, there is no reason to not accept something an NA says as canonical.
(I'm not sure who wins if the Segal Who contradicts either the original
series or the New or Missing Adventures.
--
Michael Lee
On The Web
Back to my Who page