Forum:Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?

Index → Panopticon → Is A Fix With Sontarans Canon?

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

The following discussion was started in Talk:A Fix with Sontarans, but then moved here.

Okay, so at first, this story appears to be non-canonical, and most agree it is. However, as ST: Fixing a Hole is created to be a sequel to this story, then shouldn't it be cannon?

We've used things like this on other pages, like Dimensions in Time. Now, DIT was created to be canon, but is very confusing, like many Doctor Who episodes. The only reason given for it to be Non-canonical is that NA: First Frontier says so. So, even though we (and I) may not like it, this story may be canon...

On the other hand, it does really appear to be meant as a joke... Like a sketch, witch we of coarse don't count. Although both the appearances of Tegan Jovanka and Gareth Jenkins are explained fairly well, the surprise appearance of Jimmy Savile makes it VERY questionable.

Now, we've had a similar forum conversation over The Curse of Fatal Death, but I think this is different, because instead of it being suggested, it is clearly stated as to be a sequel to AFWS. Now, I'll admit, I don't have the text, but if someone who has the adventure could pull us a quote or plot description, then we might be able to more easily settle this.

Now, I think the information above qualifies the story to be placed into a canon state, possibly just up tot he Jimmy Salville scene. But I am just a small fish in a pond of like twenty. So, what do you guys think? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes, it's canon

OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 02:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC) Yes, for the reasons above.

No, not canon

Without a doubt, I think that both AFwS and its ST sequel are both non-canonical. There's too much that has changed since it first aired to be able to slip in into canonicity, even if they were originally supposed to be canonical (which I kinda doubt). Tardis1963 talk 00:42, January 11, 2012 (UTC) (Moved from Talk:A Fix with Sontarans)

No. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 03:15, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry. I should've mentioned this above: Its always a good idea to give an explanation for your opinions. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:17, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

You want an explanation? I withheld it originally because it is rude, but fine. This is another effort to sneak something into canon when it is clearly meant as a joke. This wiki has established rules of canonicity. Among them are real world events in which the actor portraying the Doctor dresses up as the Doctor as a publicity event. A FIX WITH SONTARANS are established as non-canon as much as the events of AN UNEARTHLY CHILD is established as canon. It's a joke and the insistence of some people that it might be canon indicates nothing more than that some people can't tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 17:05, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd very much refute your underlying assumption that Dimensions in Time was meant to be canonical, and then was rendered moot. I don't know where you'd possibly get that from. You have seen DIT, right? It's primarily about the implausible mixing of the EastEnders and DW universes. DW monsters are seen hanging out the windows of the Old Vic like they're in the opening titles of Sesame Street. There's no way it was ever anything but a pantomime, which makes sense because it was written by the panto impresario himself, JNT.

So your basis of comparison is wrong. If Fix is like DIT, it's that both were quite intentional wish-fulfilment pantos. Neither is particularly close to canon.

Equally, your premise that "it's canonical by virtue of having a sequel" is also spurious. There are sequels to the Dalek movies of the 1960s in prose and in comics, but this wiki doesn't consider any of it a part of the Doctor Who universe.

Looking solely at Fix itself, though, I think there are a few things that clearly disqualify it. First, Gareth says he watches the Doctor on telly. And it's integral to the plot that he should have watched the Doctor operate the TARDIS on TV. Doctor Who doesn't exist within the DWU, no matter how very close it came in Remembrance of the Daleks. It's not just a moment of literary fourth wall breakage, like in "The Feast of Steven" or The Caves of Androzani. The whole plot hinges on it. (And actually, it's not fourth wall breakage at all. It's just illogical self-reference.)

Then you've got the problem of the titular Jim on the TARDIS scanner, and the way that the sktech just peters out at the end to an awards ceremony in which Colin never clearly breaks character. Both make it impossible to think of Fix as canonical. Someone still being called "the Doctor" calls a Sontaran weapon a "BBC mezon gun"? How can we possibly deal with the clear mixture of in-universe and behind-the-scenes phraseology?

I'll tell you how: we just consider this thing as it was always intended. It's a damned sketch sketch on Jim'll Fix It. It's not an episode of Doctor Who. Pretty simple, really.

The real question about A Fix with Sontarans is why we give it that name at all. The sketch was untitled on broadcast, so I'm not sure I've ever quite known why it's called that. I don't doubt that it's the best title available, I just wanna know the source of it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:51: Wed 11 Jan 2012 

Well, if our reason for DIT to not be canon is that it includes East Enders chareactors, then shouldn't Mistaken Identity be non-canonical? I think that's why I REALLY started this, in some cases, we seem a bit strange with our Canon policy... I mean, you mentioned that there are Dalek movie sequels, but what if those pages were marked as canon? Sure, they aren't, but if we have a sequel to a non-canon story, then it's sequel should be non-canon too. If we have a story non-canon for one reason, then stories with the same thing behind the reason should be non-canon. Otherwise the line of Continuity becomes astray and vague. I think this discussion is over. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:58, January 11, 2012 (UTC)