Talk:Lengths of science fiction film and television series/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Current/Upcoming 2 Canonicity 2.1 The Rules 2.2 Votes 2.2.1 Cut Scenes Straw Poll 2.2.2 Rides & Games Straw Poll 2.3 Star Wars Canonicity 2.3.1 Video game? 2.3.2 Board game 2.4 Battlestar Galactica Canonicity 2.5 Highlander Canonicity 2.6 Apes Canonicity 2.7 Firefly Canonicity 2.8 Terminator canon 2.9 Alien and Predator canon 3 Table? 3.1 Page Move 4 Article title 4.1 Content flavour 5 Long-running? 5.1 Minimum Length 6 44 minutes? 7 Doctor Who canon 8 Who and Big Finish? 9 Stargate confusion 10 More shows 11 TARDISODEs 12 "Supplemental" 13 Dragon Ball 14 Stargate's "Threads"

Current/Upcoming

Why do Doctor Who and Stargate have asterisks beside their names? Was something edited out? 23skidoo 21:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• The asterisks means that there will be a new season of the show next year (or in the case of Stargate, two seasons next year). It mentions that in the blurb up top. I'm open to ideas on how to make it clearer without making it look cluttered.

The calculation for the new Battlestar Galactica includes the current season (2), which is halfway over on the SciFi Channel. (They do that weird September–January hiatus.) Does the Stargate calculation include the current seasons of SG-1 and Atlantis, or not? We should be consistent. (I could figure it out if I felt like doing the math, but I figured it was easier to ask.) —Josiah Rowe 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Crazy, I was just looking into that. I added "to season 1" to Doctor Who so we won't be confused there. -Arctic.gnome 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed that to "2005 season", so as not to confuse Season 1 (2005) with Season 1 (1963–64). This is practically the only circumstance in which I've got sympathy for the "Season 27" folks! —Josiah Rowe 05:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the 3 shows on Sci-Fi: maybe the best thing is to count the half-season that's been aired for all of them, thus keeping the list "current" without including future episodes. I think I'll make that adjustment now. —Josiah Rowe 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You should say exactly what episode you went to rather than just saying 'halfway through season' so that anyone can update it.

Done. —Josiah Rowe 06:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Canonicity

It might be worthwhile to list explicitly what the canon and non-canon elements of these series are. I know it's all discussed at canon (fiction), but it seems to me that this page needs a bit more context. I mean, I can guess that the non-canon Doctor Who is the Peter Cushing movies, and the non-canon Star Trek is the animated series, but I'd be interested to learn what the non-canon Stargate is, for example. (OK, I found out by looking at the Stargate article, but the point still stands.) —Josiah Rowe 07:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I'd do it myself, except that I'm not entirely sure what the original author (or whoever did the calculations) is counting as canon in all the examples. —Josiah Rowe 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A big thank-you to Arctic.gnome for doing a good deal of work on this. I tried to follow up, and ran into a few questions which probably ought to be discussed here.

• Highlander canon is a great big mess. Should we a) leave it as I've just left it, with a note to Highlander (film)#Series/Film separation, b) try to separate the various strands of Highlander canon, or c) get rid of it?

• The X-Files should probably include The Lone Gunmen and maybe Millennium as well. I haven't done the math, but I think that what it's got now is just The X-Files proper.

And this isn't getting into things like the canon problems between TV and film incarnations of Buffy and Stargate (and, for all I know, Planet of the Apes)... I'm beginning to see why the original editor left it as an un-annotated list! —Josiah Rowe 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd at least qualify what is and isn't being counted as "canon" for each series in the article. I would add them, but I'm not sure what the criteria are for some series, as I didn't make the list in the first place. This list is probably (well, it already is) going to be vauge and rather contradictory without solid rules.

For the record, my Doctor Who times are basically Doctor Who as first broadcast on BBCTV - ie: The Five Doctors in it's original version, Resurrection of the Daleks as a 2 parter. K-9 and Company is the only spinoff being counted (at least until Torchwood) - no 3rd party strait to video spinoff production, radio / audio plays (not even the BBC produced ones), webcasts etc. The times are taken from the original billed lengths. (I have a table on my talkpage).

Of course, some people may say I shouldn't count K-9 and Company, and I should count radio plays broadcast by the BBC? (Does this list count audio drama, or is it purely visual?) What about the webcasts? Should I go mad trying to track down every unlicenced spinoff like Downtime to add to "non-canon". You could go mad, it's like measuring the length of Britain's coastline... FredOrAlive 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Are all of the canon/non-canon specification based on actual canon rules of each franchise? If not, I'm going to add all of the animated series (except for Star Trek, which has already been determined not canon) as part of the canon for each franchise. My reasoning is that if it doesn't contradict the live-action and hasn't been offically deemed non-canon, then there is really no reason not to list the animated series as canon. The Wookieepedian 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the rules vary for each series/franchise, and many of them (like Doctor Who) have no official rules, just a rough consensus from the programme's fans. I'm gather that the producers of the Stargate series have said that the Stargate Infinity animated series isn't canonical, but I've no idea how the Planet of the Apes or Back to the Future cartoons are regarded.

My inclination would be to leave the animated series out unless the franchise-holders have explicitly said they are canon (as they apparently have with Star Wars — at least, they're a sort of canon). That's not because I've got any prejudice against animation as a medium, just that animated series that are adapted from live-action sources are often considered inferior to the originals. (It can work the other way round, too: consider Thunderbirds.) But that's just me: what do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me, but I'm just saying that if there's really no contradiction between an animated series and the primary media (live-action) of a franchise, we should probably include it. I'll leave that, though, up to those who know each of the series well, as I'm only well-versed in Star Wars and Star Trek canon. The Wookieepedian 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a worthy principle, but I just don't know whether any of the examples on this list (Stargate, Highlander, BttF, PotA) qualify. The only example I know anything about is Doctor Who, which has one animated story that was intended to be canonical when it was created, but was subsequently rendered non-canonical when the TV series returned with a different Ninth Doctor. Actually, come to think of it, I'll add that to the list! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Rules

When I first wrote this list while avoiding doing my homework, I was trying to find how long it would take to watch all of the big sci-fi series back-to back. At that time, I was only thinking of the live-action TV and movies. When I later put it on Wikipedia, it was just an ugly collection of numbers. Big thanks to everyone who helped me clean it up and correct my calculations, especially Fred and Josiah. Here is my attempt to deal with the whole ‘canon’ thing. I know it’s a mess, but hey, at least I tried. -Arctic.gnome 18:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• The rules regarding canon as I understand them are the following. Note that I define “motion-picture” as something that can be feature-length or in weekly episodes, as long as it includes both a visual and auditory parts:
  • Canon is all live-action motion pictures that were made by the organization that holds the copyright to the series.
  • Non-canon is all animated motion-pictures that were made by the organization that holds the copyright to the series AND all live-action motion pictures that were made by the copyright holder but share none of the producers, artistic staff, or characters with the main bulk of the series.
  • Not included on this list are things that are only text-based (books) or only auditory-based (radio plays) AND things that are not set in the same continuity universe (like Tim Burton’s version of Planet of the Apes) AND things that were made by some fan and put on the net.
  • Exceptions can be made to any of these rules if circumstances warrant it.
• In regards to the way things are divided now:
  • The original Buffy movie has a different director and cast, BUT events in it are referenced several times in the series, so it is canon.
  • The new Doctor Who is a continuation of the original series, which itself changed cast and director many times.
  • The two Doctor Who movies are sort of like remakes, so they are non-canon.
  • Spin-offs are canon, even if only one episode is ever made, so Doctor Who: K-9 stays.
  • In Highlander, Conner and Duncan eventually meet, so movie 1 is canon with the series.
  • Highlander movies 2 and 3 are tricky: I haven’t seen them, but I heard that the re-edited versions try to make them fit with everything else. They might end up being moved to non-canon if you all think they should be.
  • The new Planet of the Apes is not in the same universe as the others, so it is not even on the non-canon list.
  • Even though the Star Trek animated series introduced some canon background facts, the show itself is not canon.
  • Despite continuity problems between the Star Trek series, it is clear that they are supposed to be the same continuity. Gene Rodenberry and Manny Coto really tried to make it all fit, and sometimes even B&B made an effort to tie things together.
  • The Star Wars Ewok movies and the Holiday Special can be argued as being canon, but since they have a completely different feel than the core series, I put them in the “different artistic staff” type of non-canon.
    • Lucasfilm considers them just as canon as the main movies. The Wookieepedian 07:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes

Cut Scenes Straw Poll

Do you think that film bits that were never officially released (like viral marketing ads and deleted scenes) should be:

• Option A not included anywhere
• Option B included as non-canon
• Option C given its own category (canon, non-canon, remakes, and unreleased)
• Option D included as canon

Please list your first then second choice in the table.

User	1st	2nd	3rd
arctic gnome	C	A	B
The Wookieepedian	D	C	B
Ausir	D	C	B
Josiah Rowe — dividing vote (see below); viral marketing	D	C	B
Josiah Rowe — deleted scenes	A	C	B
Makgraf	A	C	B

I've divided my vote, since I'd distinguish between viral marketing ads (esp. the River Tam sessions, written and directed by the film's writer/director and clearly intended for public release, even if not "official" public release) and deleted scenes. I think that the latter gets into far too complex an area — what about when there are multiple versions of a film released, like the original Star Wars trilogy or Blade Runner? Do we have to list every version of every film? My preference with deleted scenes and/or multiple releases would be to stick with the film as originally released, possibly include alternate versions in a footnote if their length differs significantly, and ignore deleted scenes altogether unless they're reincluded in a "director's cut" or the like. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the Star Wars films and Blade Runner - well with any film with a director's cut, the director's cut is intended to be the canonical one. And with the deleted scenes, there's really no economical way to fit them in the table anyway. But with Star Wars, George Lucas has personally stated that he intends them to be taken as part of the story, even though they are not in the film (unless they contradict the film itself in any way). The Wookieepedian 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been using the director's cut DVD when calculating times, which has so far always been the longest. If a director's cut was ever shorter than the theatrical cut, I'm not sure what I'd do. —Arctic.gnome 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand why Josiah Rowe would split his vote, but I still see viral marketing and deleted scenes the same way. They're stuff that the director thought was cool enough to put on the net or on a DVD, but did not put in the final, official, cut. I voted to put them in their own category or in non-canon because they have some notable claim to legitimacy, like The Wookieepedian says, but they are still not official. —Arctic.gnome 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that if something is made by the series creator, it is "official." The Wookieepedian 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Josiah- I still don't see how can count viral marketing videos as canon and deleted scenes as not-canon. I agree with you that it gets into far too complex an area to evaluate deleted scenes/extra footage. But we can't arbitrarily let in one and not the other. Makgraf 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I'm specifically thinking of the River Tam sessions here, which were never intended to be part of the film Serenity, but were filmed by the film's creator, with one of its stars, as a promotion and an addition to the story. Deleted scenes are filmed as part of the film/program, but removed, usually for time or pacing. I'm OK with using "director's cut" versions in the timing, but I think that adding deleted scenes would be a bad move. However, I can't see the harm in including the River Tam sessions in the Firefly canon — their unofficial nature is completely a function of the circumstances in which they were made and the "plausible deniability" that Universal wanted to maintain.

Again, for me it's about the consensus within each fandom. My impression — which could be wrong — is that most Serenity fans would not count the Operative's glasses as canon (seen in a deleted scene only), but would count the R. Tam sessions as canon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rides & Games Straw Poll

Do you think that film bits that were made for moving theatre rides and DVD-board games should be:

• Option A not included anywhere
• Option B included as non-canon
• Option C given it’s own category (canon, non-canon, remakes, and rides and games)
• Option D included as canon

Please list your first then second choice in the table.

User	1st	2nd	3rd
arctic gnome	A	C	B
The Wookieepedian	D	C	B
Ausir	D	C	B
Josiah Rowe	A	C	B
Makgraf	A	C	B

My opinion on rides and games is like I said on the Terminator section. This stuff isn’t artistic work made to continue the story of the world; it’s iconic images from the world thrown together to make a quick buck off a popular series. I think it’s a completely safe bet to say that the events from the Terminator ride or video-board game will not be addressed in any future movie. -Arctic.gnome 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus is "C" which is everyone's 2nd choice (except in one case where it's a first). So should we make those changes? Makgraf 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think C is a pretty good compromise for both votes. It lets game stuff be mentioned while keeping the canon totals as they are. Hurray for consensus democracy! -arctic gnome 06:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the Star Wars stuff has to stay like it is, because of their canon policies (see Star Wars canon). The Wookieepedian 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Did we or did we not come to a consensus that the R. Tam sessions were OK to include in the Serenity canon, though? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's another exception. Despite them being unofficial as far as FOX/UNiversal is concerned, the show's creator specifically wrote anf filmed those sessions, and added essential background info to the River Tam character. The Wookieepedian 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reason we had the vote was to decide this issue. I still think that we shouldn't even mention the River Tam videos. But it seems that everyone can agree on option C. Makgraf 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we did vote as far as everything else goes. But Star Wars and Firefly are special cases. The Wookieepedian 04:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Star Wars is an exception because of its official set of canon, but what makes this vote not apply to Firefly? -arctic gnome 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that his intentions with the R. Tam sessions were specifically to give backstory to the series and film. An essential part of Firefly/Serenity is the experiments conducted on the River character. The clips were meant to shed some light on this, and to help market the film at the same time. As unofficial as they may be, they were written and directed by Joss as part of the story, so it only makes sense that they stay. Plus, the Firefly fandom seems to have readily accepted them as canon. The Wookieepedian 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the vote was to decide the Serenity and Star Wars question. Those were the two shows that the debate was about. The article is called Lengths of science fiction movies and television series. The opening paragraph says ". Note that this list contains only the officially released motion picture media (films, TV series, etc.) contained within the various science-fiction series. Some series may contain other media (books, comics, video games, etc.) which are not listed here." Again, my position was that we shouldn't include any canonical-but-not-tv-or-movie stuff. But, it seems that the compromise is to lump them under a catogory of, say, Supplemental Material. Makgraf 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing. It says all "officially released motion picture media." That what the R. Tam sessions are. They are motion picture media officially released by Joss. The Wookieepedian 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's viral marketing Joss did in a garage. God love him for it but it's not by definition "officially released motion picture media". If he'd wanted it to be "officially released" it would've been on the dvd. Now is it canon? Well, I don't think so and you do and until Joss clarifies that fact it won't be determined. But whether it's canon or not is irrevelent to the discussion. It's not "officially released" and it's not a "motion picture" (though I'll grant you it is "media). That alone suggests that it should be put in as "supplemental" as the vote said. Makgraf 23:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is "motion picture media" released by Joss, but it was not official, thus disqualifying it. Leaking something into the web is about as unofficial as you can get. It may, however, have an argument for being canon, hence the poll result telling us to include it in its own category. -arctic gnome 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) The Wookieepedian 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Phew. I'm glad we all agree Makgraf 09:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Star Wars Canonicity

Um, "canon" in Star Wars isn't like most franchises. The three TV movies and the three TV series are considered just as canon as the six main films. So, I believe that someone should adjust the template accordingly. You can't just assume that becuase it isn't one of the main films, that it isn't canon. Lucasfilm includes all things that don't contradict the main films in the canon. I'm just going to explain this on the talk page before I adjust the section according to official canon. See Expanded Universe (Star Wars) or Star Wars canon for more information. The Wookieepedian 07:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So it should all be put together, even the Star Wars Holiday Special? —Josiah Rowe 07:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Lucasfilm considers everything that is non-contradictory to the main six films canon. And I have just put it all together on the template. The Wookieepedian 08:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I did look at the article on Star Wars cannon, and I got the impression from it that the six films are considered to be the only true cannon and everything else is below them on varying levels. I’ll remind you that nowhere else have we treated animated series or kid’s shows as cannon. However, if ever there were an exception, it would be Clone Wars (but the Ewok cartoon show is pushing it). I would personally like to revert it, or at least put Droids and Ewoks back into non-cannon, but I’ll leave it pending further discussion. -Arctic.gnome 10:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal. Lucasfilm treats Star Wars quite different than most franchises in that it considers all things not contradicting with the six main films as canon. The films don't hold any higher place in the story, they only take precedence when a continuity issue arises between the films, and any other production. The reason they take precedence is becuase Lucas, as creator of the series, retains ultimate creative control, and nothing by another author or artist can contradict anything he establishes. That's basically the rule. So it's all considered on the same level, it's just that distictions are made for ease of maintaining order by the authors and such. Yes, believe it or not, the animated series are considered just as canon as the films. Lucasfilm does not take into consideration the "coolness factor" and try to claim that clone wars is special "becuase it is cool." They take it just the same as say, Droids and Ewoks. Also, despite the fact that Lucas generally despises The Star Wars Holiday Special, many elements from it have found their way into other productions, and it is just as canon as everything else. Hope that clears it all up. The Wookieepedian 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean; they do seem to say that all cartoons are cannon. But I think that it's still important to make some distinction between "G cannon" and "C cannon". Do you know which movies and shows are in which category? I’m getting the impression that everything other than the 6 films are C-cannon, which as you say, is still official. Ether the footnote or the table entry should make some division on that line. Remember that the table doesn’t have to divide into only canon vs. non-canon; we can have three categories and list it by "G", "C", and non-canon.

I think that with the current note, it's fine the way it is. Although I'm slightly amused that Bea Arthur is canon in Star Wars.—Josiah Rowe 17:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think there should be a distiction between G-canon and C-canon for the purposes of this table. The distinction of G and C only serve as a way to settle continuity disputes, not really a way of determining "what is and isn't Star Wars." As for what type of media falls where, the six main films (Episodes I-VI) are G-canon, and everything else is C-canon. And, I do agree with Josiah Rowe. It is strange that Bea Artur is Star Wars canon. The Wookieepedian 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I do need to note that someone had on the page that the lengths of the episodes in three animated series was 22 minutes. However, the Clone Wars episodes ranged anywhere from 3 minutes to 15. So, I just changed it to explain that. The Wookieepedian 04:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a bit of a problem. It isn't a big deal if we call a 46 minute show 44 minutes, but there is a big difference between 22 minutes and 3 minutes! Someone had better look into this.

Well, in addition to that, there really isn't a set time for the Clone Wars episodes. Some will run 3 minutes, some five, some 12-13, some 15. And that isn't exactly easy to explain in a concise way on the page. Droids and Ewoks, however, are not much of a problem, as you say, becuase I've seen most of the episodes, and they all end at nearly the 22 minute mark. The Wookieepedian 04:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Video game?

Well, we have yet another dilemna here. As minor as it may be, there are four more Star Wars productions which contain live-action footage: the video games Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II and Star Wars: Rebel Assault II - The Hidden Empire, the amusement park ride Star Tours, and a VHS program from Star Wars: The Interactive Video Board Game. Since the Star Wars canon includes these (and this page requires all live-action canon from each respective sci-fi series), I am going to add these to the Star Wars list, as minor as they may be. The Wookieepedian 17:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of these series have videogames, but I don't think any of them belong on this list. Any interactive medium cannot really be cannon since no two people who play them can produce the exact same story. Unless a consensus here says otherwise, videogames, and board games, really don’t fit. -Arctic.gnome 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the problem. These scenes I'm referring to are live-action, as in real people were used to portray such characters as Kyle Katarn. These are unchanging sections of the games. Plus you have to take into account the fact that the Lucasfilm canon policy is unique in that it considers nearly EVERYTHING offcially produced by them to be canon. So, my reasoning is that since our list here is for motion picture media, and Lucasfilm considers these games canon, then we have to include the games in our list, due to the live-action content. The Wookieepedian 17:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How could an interactive medium possibly be cannon? What if your character dies in the first level of the game and never sees all of the cinematics, whereas someone else beats the game? How could both be cannon? And even between two people that beat the game, they won’t have made their characters make all of the exact same moves throughout the game. -Arctic.gnome 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

With the Star Wars games, there are only a certain set of events that are considered canon. What I mean is, Lucasfilm considers only the basic plot elements of the game, and any non-changing elements (such as the live-action), to be canon. That's just their policy. I know, it's quite strange, but we have to list these games if this page wants all live-action elements. The Wookieepedian 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you see every cinematic over the course of the game? If there is a "you lose" live-action cinematic for people who die on the first level, that one can't be canon. Arctic Gnome 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The live-action sequences are the same for all players. If you die on the first levels, you simply die. There are no "alternate ending" sequences like KOTOR has. The Wookieepedian 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've notices that the article list games, yet doesn't give their lengths. Are they currently part of the total or not? -Arctic.gnome 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I haven't been able to find a source giving the exact lengths. The Wookieepedian 21:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Board game

It seems that in the board game Vader makes specific reference to the mechanics of the game, such as "getting points". Since the in-canon Vader does not see himself as being part of a board game, can any of that video be considered canon? Arctic Gnome 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't actually seen that Vader footage, so I couldn't determine its canonicity. I removed it from the list. The Wookieepedian 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica Canonicity

Battlestar Galactica is now up, but there's a bit of a problem with canoninity. The new BSG is a "re-imagining" of the orginal. So which one is "canon"?

Yeah, I noticed that problem. On my work-in-progress table I decided to separate all 3 Galactica series, since many fans of the original BSG disavow Galactica 1980. I also came up with slightly different numbers, based on the idea that TV episodes in 1978 were probably closer to 45 minutes than today's supposed average 44. Which raises another problem: the "Star Trek" figures are based on 44-minute episodes for all series, which is probably about right on average, but IIRC TV shows in the '60s were closer to 50 minutes, and by the time Enterprise rolled around UPN was giving them something like 40 minutes. I don't know the exact figures, nor how they would affect the total, but it's something we should probably look into at some point. Hardly urgent, though. —Josiah Rowe 02:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have created two precedents. The new Planet of the Apes is not on the list even as non-canon because it shares no continuity with the original at all. On the other hand I’m told that the two non-canon Doctor Who movies are sort-of remakes. I really like how Josiah_Rowe put the three BSG under the same heading and different sub-headings. I vote that this is how we handle remakes. -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the 1980 version is intended as a direct sequel to the original, and the only reason that some fans say that it isn't canon is because they don't like it. I get the impression that most fans admit that it was made as canon even if it sucks, so I am going to merge the two. We can revert if everyone disagrees with me. -Arctic.gnome 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Highlander Canonicity

Just to add to the Highlander confusion: in addition to the upcoming film (Highlander: The Source), there's an animated film coming out as well. In the table I'm working on, should that be listed as canon or non-canon? —Josiah Rowe 22:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I’d say that all animated material is non-canon unless events in it specifically effect the plotline of a canon entry. The closest one I’ve seen to meeting this requirement is the Clone Wars cartoon, but I don’t think even it quite makes it. -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't like excluding a work just because of its medium, but I suppose this list is primarily about live-action TV and movies. (A little more than a year ago, when Scream of the Shalka was announced but before we'd heard about the new series of Doctor Who, I was willing to say that Richard E. Grant's Doctor was the Ninth Doctor, even though he was animated. On the other hand, that was by no means a unanimous opinion among Doctor Who fans, and it was made moot by the announcement of the new series anyway.) —Josiah Rowe 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of the movies, I'm now thinking that maybe 1, 3, and 4 are canon, whereas 2 is non-canon. -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So should we separate them that way, or leave it as is with a footnote?

I think the important thing is that the list should reflect whatever consensus exists, if any, among fans of a given series. Everybody's got their own personal view of what "counts", but there's also usually a "party line" — sometimes strictly defined, as in the "Holocron" for Star Wars fandom, sometimes rather loose and informal, as in Doctor Who fandom. We should try to honor whatever is most widely accepted among fans, not come up with rules of our own. —Josiah Rowe 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said. -Arctic.gnome 04:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Apes Canonicity

Hold on a sec, someone has put the live action POTA series as part of canon, but not the animated series. Why is this? The Wookieepedian 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question. I've no idea, as I know nothing about the Planet of the Apes TV series beyond what I've just read at the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think that the PotA times date back to Arctic.gnome's original list, so he'd probably have to answer that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not personally seen the Planet of the Apes cartoon, but out of all of the other examples that I have looked at, only Star Wars considers the animated versions to be cannon, so when compiling the numbers I made cartoons non-canon by default unless someone had a reason to change it. I’m not sure how you would be able to prove the Apes cartoon was cannon since there isn’t any known cannon made after it to reference events in the cartoon. Arctic.gnome 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, if anyone is familiar with any of these and have actually seen the series, if it doesn't contradict any of the storylines, IMHO, they should put it as part of canon, since there's really no reason not to in that case. For example, Lucasfilm looks at the animated series as just a different medium for presenting part of a story. The Wookieepedian 20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars and Star Trek make it easy because their producers specifically said whether their cartoons are or aren't cannon. For other shows, especially ones where the cartoon was the last thing made, all we have to go with is fan consensus, which usually doesn't consider cartoons canon, but sometimes does. The big problem with the PotA cartoon is that it takes place in the far future of Ape society, which can't really happen because of the second movie. Arctic.gnome 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then that POTA ajnimated series cannot possibly be cannon. That's my point: if any particular series doesn't contradict the primary media, then why not add it to the cannon list? If it doesn't contradict it, at least keeps continuity. All things contradicting continuity can be automatically put in "non-cannon" because, well, they could never be cannon anyway. The Wookieepedian 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but you have to give some room for consensus to decide canonicity. The Star Trek animated series, for example, doesn’t contradict cannon, but everyone from the producers to the fans agrees that it’s non-cannon, so it is in that category. Arctic.gnome 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well... that's partly what I mean. If the studio says it isn't canon, then it isn't canon. I mean they are the studios; they own the properties, so they have the final say on canonicity. So, let's say that with a certain series like, say, the BTTF animated series, the studios who own it have never annonced or decided if they consider it canon or not. In that case, if it fdoesn't contradict the main media, what's wrong with listsing it as canon? I mean, in Star Wars, most fans HATE The Star Wars Holiday Special. But still, it doesn't contradict anything whatsoever in the main media, which are the films, therefore Lucasfilm considers it canon because there's technically no reason not to. That's the reasoning I have toward the other series. And a fan consensus means nothing, as it is from the opinions of those not in ownership or the shows and the fans are therefore not in a position to determine such a thing, even if the majority agrees. The Wookieepedian 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

...except in the case of Doctor Who, in which the BBC and the production team have more or less said that fans can decide for themselves what is and isn't canon, and have playfully referenced the novels in the new series without making a definitive statement that they're canonical. The only absolute consensus among Who fans is that the TV series is definitely canon — and there are even some grey areas there (is the recent "red button episode"/game canonical? It was on the TV, made by the BBC...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case, the owners of the show have made a definitive decision on the show's canonicity, therefore the series should be listed as "canon uncertain," or something like that. The Wookieepedian 06:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The live-action series can't be in the same canon as the theatrical films - they feature talking, medieval-like humans ruled by the apes, as opposed to humans as wild beasts like in the movies, while also featuring the same ape characters as in the movies (like Dr. Zaius), although one possible explanation is that they take place somwhere between the last Apes movie and the first one and the apes are actually ancestors of the ones in the first movie. Ausir 12:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that it takes place between the 5th and 1st movies. There really isn't any time after the first movie for it to take place. -arctic gnome 08:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the contradictions (e.g. doctor Zaius) make me wonder if the series and the movies are in the same canon at all (unless the series Zaius is just an ancestor of the movie Zaius). Ausir 10:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's also a reasonable assumption. The Zaius from the TV show has a different job, is played by a different actor, and lives in California rather than New York. They pretty much have to be a different person. The only thing that I can think of that isn’t explained by the series taking place between the 5th and 1st movie and on the opposite coast is the fact that the series Zaius mentions that he has found another crashed spaceship that we never heard of, but those could be anyone. -arctic gnome 16:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Firefly Canonicity

I'm sorry but there is no way that those videos are canon. They were a piece of viral marketing that happened to star the actress who plays River. If they're canon than the deleted scenes are canon. The fruity oaty bar commercial is canon. Heck that has more of a claim for canonity cause part of it was actually in the movie 64.229.119.97 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Joss Whedon wrote and directed them himself. It was an idea of his. I think that's enough confirmation right there. He also wrote the deleted scenes, and the fruity oat bar commercial. But that commercial is already in the series itself, so it would be canon anyway. :D The Wookieepedian 00:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the full version of the commercial which is an easter egg on the dvd. The point is there is no justification for putting in the viral marketing and not the extended commercial and the deleted scenes. And once you go down that particular rabit hole... 64.229.119.97 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. There's really no reason not to include these. They were created by Joss, so I can't see what the problem is. This list is designed to represent all motion picture media from a show. *sigh* I always hate these canon debates. You should see how nasty it gets on those Star Wars forums over this type oif stuff... The Wookieepedian 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a very good reason and it's all about practicality. There are hours and hours of film shot most of which does not get into the finished product and therefore is not canon. If Joss wanted to make it canon then he should've put in the finished product. I mean in terms of intent the Comic Books were written by him, should we time someone reading them out and put them in as canon? No, we have to draw a line and drawing it with movies and tv shows on one side seems good to me. Star Wars may have a zany canonality that lets Rides be canon, but in Verse we don't hold to such notions. 64.229.119.97 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Like 64.229.119.97 says, the videos are in the same category as deleted scenes, they were officially made but not officially released. If we let in that kind of stuff, every movie would be five hours long because we would have to include the junk on the cutting-room floor. -Arctic.gnome 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See, that's why I wish every series organized its canon as well as Lucasfilm does with Star Wars (with strict guidelines). What has ended up happening here is a page basically full of consensus POV as far as canon goes for a lot of these series. I mean, we don't even know for sure about a lot of these, as far as the canon policy goes. I say we include the R. Tam videos because Joss produced them. Has he ever set out specific canon guidelines? No, not really. So we have to take the fact that yes he wrote these clips, yes he released them to the net, and take that as an indication that he considers it part of the story. Same way with the deleted scenes. If they exist, that means that he wrote them as part of the story. Yes they may be deleted, but that's for time purposes of the film, not because he doesn't consider them the story. The Wookieepedian 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no way we can count stuff that was cut from movies. That would make every movie five hours long and full of stuff that no one has ever seen. We really can’t include stuff that was never officially released. -Arctic.gnome 00:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, he is the creator. He knows the 'verse, not the studios. Those videos, while not officially released, were made by the FF creator. Canon in fiction is supposed to be what the creator envisions, or allows. It doesn't matter if scenes are deleted or not, if he wrote and shot them, they are a part of the story. They are his word, so they are canon. The Wookieepedian 00:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So how do you tell what has been cut for time and what has been cut for content? Most of the time it is a combination of the two. Deleted scenes, and everything else that has not been officially released must be treated as not part of the series. There is far, far too much cut film from any movie to do otherwise. -Arctic.gnome 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, can only report what we have been given. And we have been given the R. Tam sessions, the Firefly and Serenity deleted scenes, and the fruity oat bar commercial. But with the deleted scenes, we have to go by Joss's commentary. If he says he cut it for content, then it means he doesn't consider it part of his story, so it cannot be considered canon. However, if he says it was cut only for time, then we can assume that he considers it part of his story, yet could not be put in the film, due to time and overall pacing. The Wookieepedian 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is going to need a vote between Wikipedians to settle. -Arctic.gnome 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If the R. Tam videos were made by Whedon and released by Whedon into the Internet, I'd say they're definitely canon. Ausir 11:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is a naive question, but why wouldn't the fruity oaty bar commercial be canon? The way some of you are talking, you're using that as an example of the crazy stuff we have to accept once we go down that slippery slope. But it's a part of the 'verse. Even if we didn't see all of it, it existed in the reality of Firefly. It's like fabricating historical documents to add versimilitude to a created world. All that stuff Tolkien made-up to go along with his conceit that the Lord of the Rings was an academic work of translation; it's the same ballpark. Alpha5099 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminator canon

I added the T2 3-D: Battle Across Time live-action sequence to the Terminator canon, since James Cameron himself wrote and directed it, as confirmed by the IMDb. The Wookieepedian 12:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good sci-fi? WTF? I state again, canon is what the creator intends to be part of the story. If he didn't intend it to be part of his story, Cameron wouldn't have written and produced the ride video. And, BTW, that's what I'm referring to when I say the ride. It's not the ride itself that is canon on the rides, it's the ride video (as it doesn't change with each experience). The Wookieepedian 16:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Star Wars movies, but if the Christmas Special and the ‘70s cartoons are canon; on average the series isn’t very good. That’s not to say that only good things can be canon, but as someone said, we have to draw a line somewhere. -Arctic.gnome 16:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We must have standards on canon. But here's the deal, we can't just say "Oh, well, that's silly, so I don't think it should be considered canon." That just doesn't work. It's not about the quality or format of the series in question, it's about what the creator intends. If James Cameron personally wrote and produced that ride, it's a pretty good indication of what he considers it storywise. Same thing with Joss Whedon. I really don't think he would have written and produced those R. Tam sessions if he didn't consider them part of his story. What we have to go by is what the creators intend, not what we think it should be. Like I said before, we have to have standards. Simply taking a vote makes this list POV, as it would follow the POV of Wikipedians, and not based on the intentions of the respective series creators. The Wookieepedian 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because Cameron made the ride does not mean that he thinks that it is canon. Maybe he just wanted a quick job, so he threw together some cliché images from his movies to tack onto some ride; it doesn’t mean that he was using the ride to advance the plotline of his story. And regarding the vote, it’s better to have a consensus POV than your or my POV.

Who's POV is more reliable: Cameron's or ours? I mean, most people don't think of things like this is terms of canon anyway. We just have to base it on what the creators do and say. In this case, he wrote and produced the ride, so we have to accept that as him saying he considers it part of his story. The Wookieepedian 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is, we don’t know what Cameron's what Cameron's POV is. To quote myself above, “Maybe he just wanted a quick job, so he threw together some cliché images from his movies to tack onto some ride; it doesn’t mean that he was using the ride to advance the plotline of his story.” In fact, I’m guessing that this is probably the case, and that if Cameron were here he would laugh at the idea of his ride being canon. Since there is disagreement on what the creator’s opinion would be, we have to come to a consensus. By the way, on a non-argumentative point, good work adding up all those other new series for the list. -Arctic.gnome 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well, very well. I can deal with the thing with James Cameron. But with Joss Whedon, his intentions were very clear with the R. Tam sessions and the insight he gives on the canonicity of the deleted scenes. BTW, thanks for your last comment. :) The Wookieepedian 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the R. Tam videos do seem to have Joss’ support, which is why for those ones I voted to add a new category for unreleased stuff before my vote to not include them at all. In the poll question, I’m going to change “scenes that were cut from films” to “deleted scenes”, because the later implies the bonus stuff you get on DVDs, whereas the former implies outtakes. I assume we can agree that we aren’t including stuff where an actor screws up their lines. -Arctic.gnome 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, we agree on that. I feel that way because I know for a fact that Joss doesn't consider them part of the story. :P The Wookieepedian 22:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Should we separate T3 from T1 and T2, since James Cameron has said that he had no more story to tell after T2? The Wookieepedian 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be made by the original creator to be canon. There were 500 Star Trek episodes made after Gene Roddenberry died. -arctic gnome 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alien and Predator canon

Since the Alien and Predator series are set in the same universe, shouldn't we merge the two canon divisions into one canon section? The Wookieepedian 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Table?

Thanks for those specifics, Arctic.gnome. I think that the important thing is to keep this list roughly consistent with the entries at canon (fiction), which by and large it is. If we can find a way to briefly explain what is and isn't being included in this article page (instead of here on the talk page), that would be good. Maybe we should turn the list into a table? I'll look into that, maybe draw up a temporary draft at Lengths of science fiction series/temp. —Josiah Rowe 18:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. I've converted the list's content to a table at Lengths of science fiction series/temp. I'd welcome improvements, as well as feedback and comments here or at the temp talk page. I'm new to the wiki table formatting, so if anyone cares to improve the aesthetics of the thing, please feel free to do so. Even if it's a bit rough, I think the information is clearer than the current format. —Josiah Rowe 23:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to be bold and replace the current list with my table. It shouldn't be too difficult to make whatever adjustments we want. —Josiah Rowe 04:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -Arctic.gnome 04:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars now has line breaks to make it look neater. To keep the table consistent, should we add breaks to all of the other entries or take them off of Star Wars? I think it’s a good idea, though we probably don’t need the double line breaks that are there now. The downside is that it would make editing a bit harder. I’ll change a couple more of them see how they look. -Arctic.gnome 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I got a bit carried away and changed everything to a bullet structure. -Arctic.gnome 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Lookin' good! —Josiah Rowe 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The Wookieepedian 04:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Move

Hello, there is a need to integrate some page edit history from Lengths of science fiction series/Temp. However, the history of Lengths of science fiction series/Temp and the history of Lengths of science fiction series overlap. Therefore, I have followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves on merging page histories in the case where the page histories are not "disjoint" and I have created Talk:Lengths of science fiction series/Temp Talk:Lengths of science fiction series/Old temp version to house the history of the old, obsolete page. Johntex\^talk 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this, Johntex. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now the main page is a redirect to the talk page. That's no good. -Arctic.gnome 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved it back to the correct title FredOrAlive 09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Now that Buffy and Highlander have been added, I'm not sure whether the article belongs at its current title. It seems to me we should either remove those two series, or move the article to something like Lengths of genre TV and movie series. What do y'all think? —Josiah Rowe 00:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself. I’m not opposed to a title change, but I would at least like to keep this list nerd-friendly if possible. I don’t want to see soap operas on it or anything like that. What's a good word for sci/fi-fantasy? -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... some British sci-fi/fantasy magazines use "telefantasy", but to me that suggests primarily TV and excludes films, a bit. We can mull this over for a while. —Josiah Rowe 06:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no single word, unless one's been invented in the last couple of years, and I could point to archives of long and tedious discussion on the issue (in relation to the name of a club) which resulted in "Science Fiction and Fantasy" being the answer. I agree "telefantasy" suggests TV and not movies, plus it's a hideous word and I wouldn't want to encourage its use. --LesleyW 09:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not speculative fiction? Ausir 11:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I associate "speculative fiction" with the written word, for some reason. If I saw an article titled "lengths of science fiction series" my first instinct would be to assume that it would be about things like the Foundation and Ringworld series. (I'm not saying that association is universal, it's just what I think of.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the current title is confusing - it should be "Lengths of science fiction movie and television series" or something. Ausir 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the word "series" meaning movie series. It's the words "science fiction" that bug me. Buffy, Highlander, and even Lord of the Rings belong here, but they aren't sci-fi. -Arctic.gnome 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do have a problem with the word "series" meaning movie series. Or should I add the Foundation series books, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series or the Fallout series computer games here? They're all science fiction series. Ausir 18:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Content flavour

(I was going to write this under the title discussion, but really, it's a separate issue, although related)

At some point a boundary will have to be drawn, either between "SF" and "Fantasy", or between "SF and Fantasy" and "everything else". If you include Fantasy, you have to define what's the difference between Fantasy and other fiction (and in my mind, all fiction is fantasy, albeit with a lower-case-F). If Fantasy is included, what about Horror - all those Alfred Hitchcock movies for instance. Does Lost qualify as Fantasy? It seems to have a supernatural flavour to it. --LesleyW 09:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to use this table as a guide to make a couple more pages like it for different genres, like large-f Fantasy. In fact, I might get on that. -Arctic.gnome 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, separate pages for horror and fantasy would be a good idea, although it's hard to draw the line in some cases - is Lost science fiction, fantasy or horror? The X-Files also had some horror episodes in addition to the science fiction ones. Ausir 18:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost is problematic, in part because the program itself plays with genre expectations a lot. (In at least one episode, Jack, the "man of science", represented the viewers who want it to be a standard drama series, and Locke, the "man of faith", represented the more fannish viewers who want it to be fantasy or science fiction.) Even though The X-Files had a lot of horror content, I think the series as a whole falls more into the science fiction category.

I support the recent move of the page to the longer title "Lengths of science fiction movie and television series". I'm of two minds about whether we should split "large-F Fantasy" into another page or not — on the one hand, there's a clear distinction between the fantasy and science fiction genres (especially in written SF and fantasy), but on the other there's a considerable overlap in television, both in terms of the manner of storytelling and audience attitudes towards them. Both categories attract and encourage the same sort of fannish devotion. If only we could think of a succinct way to include series like Buffy and Lost in the list's title, I'd support leaving them here instead of creating a separate list. (However, Lengths of science fiction and fantasy movie and television series is far too unwieldy, IMO.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In case someone didn't see it yet, there is now a Lengths of science fiction movie and television series list. -Arctic.gnome 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Long-running?

Maybe we should also define how “long-running” a series has to be to get on the list. As ideas, the ones on there now all have both a movie and a TV show part. Also, almost all of them have at least 24 hours with canon and non-canon put together. -Arctic.gnome 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia newbie, just found this article today, and I'm not quite sure what you folks are trying to achieve with it. Why should it be restricted to "long-running" series at all? I mean, Firefly is (great!) SF and it does now have a movie, but it only ran for half a season, so it hardly qualifies as long-running - but on the other hand why leave the shorter ones out? --LesleyW 08:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Lesley makes a good point here. I'm going to remove the "long-running" reference entirely. I think that this page's origins are in the thought, "which is really longer, Star Trek or Doctor Who?", which may account for the "long-running" reference. But it's since been expanded to a lot more series, which I think is a good thing.

As to what we're trying to acheive with the page, that's a very good question. Even though I've spent a fair amount of time working on the page, I'm not sure how I'd defend it if it were put up at WP:AFD. I suppose it's sort of an "almanac" page, like a list of countries by population, or a list of longest novels. Does it have a point? Nah, it's only slightly pointy — but it's kinda fun in a geeky way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And that's the fun in it. The Wookieepedian 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You two are pretty much bang on. I made the original ugly little list that this grew from with the “which is longer” geek mentality. Now, even if it is not all that encyclopaedic, it has a very good “almanac” value. I can defiantly see someone finding this page useful while doing some sort of research. -Arctic.gnome 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be some minimum length for the list or it could potentially explode. I like artic gnome's 24 hours minimum. --TimPope 17:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I’m also worried about it exploding (I kept ReBoot off of the original list so that people wouldn’t have an excuse to add a bunch of anime). However, I’m not sure how we can set a minimum. A 24 hour minimum seemed like a good idea at first, but there are too many exceptions. Planet Of The Apes, for example, is only 0:23:11, yet it has 5 movies, 2 TV shows, and is a big pop-culture item. -Arctic.gnome 19:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe an encyclopedic approach would be to use criteria such as "the N longest-running SF TV series and their associated movies". That leaves open the question of what number N should be. [wheels tick over in brain...] There could be another table that focuses on the mainly-movie series.

I guess the inclousion criteria is: does the show have enough geeky fans to sit and work out the running time of their show? ;-) --TimPope 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the encyclopaedic way of saying “popular, influential, and memorable”? -Arctic.gnome 19:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Notable? (By the way, if you're worried about an anime influx we could limit the page to English-language series.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Reboot, how can we include Thunderbirds and not it. 8:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.11.38 (talk • contribs) 04:05, January 3, 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the main reason that Thunderbirds was included is that someone cared enough to add up its total time. If you'd like to do the same for ReBoot (which, incidentally, I'd never heard of before I read your comment), I don't think I'd object to its inclusion (as its page seems to indicate that it's got some notability and popularity, despite my unfamiliarity with it). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Minimum Length

Now that Blade Runner's two movies have been added, we have to ask ourselves again whether we want a minimum length. If we allow anything with two movies on the list, it will get extremely long. -Arctic.gnome 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to add that or not, since the page name doesn't specify "long-running." But then after taking a look at some of these, like the BTTF series (which has three movies), I thought it would be OK to add the two Blade Runner films to the list. :S The Wookieepedian 16:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Future and the Matrix are borderline, but at least they both have their cartoon versions. -Arctic.gnome 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the fact that a second film takes place in the BR universe makes it a series. And BR is quite notable, so... The Wookieepedian 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

44 minutes?

Isn't the Farscape entry wrong compared to the others? It seems to be using the with adverts length, when other series count the length without adverts (where applicable). I should also point out that 44 minutes, which I guess is an approximation for advert-less US shows, isn't nesacarily the advertless length of shows, IIRC Star Trek: Voyager was less than that in some seasons (42 minutes perhaps?), and Star Trek TOS was longer (on BBC2, other Star Trek series had 45 minute slots, but TOS used a 50 minute one). There should probably be some sort of disclaimer that the lengths are approximate (Doctor Who certainley is, there's no way I'm going to add up the lengths given for all 700+ shows in The TV Companion, distinguising the few shows originally broadcast in odd slot lengths is as far as I'm going). FredOrAlive 23:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought for a while that the 44-minute estimate was less accurate for some shows than others. A while back I thought I might recalculate the Star Trek times, but I couldn't find the actual episode lengths for the various series online. Would the DVDs have that information on their packaging? —Josiah Rowe 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In most cases, 22 min. and 44 min. are close enough approximations. If we can get the actual times, great, but otherwise a short disclaimer will do. When TimPope added a bunch of extra shows, he calculated all of their times as being 60 minutes. He also recorded the pilots twice, both on their own and in the episode count (imdb is bad at this, you can't trust their episode counts). I changed most of his times, but I didn't get around to doing Farscape because I'm not sure if its 90 minute pilot includes commercials or not. -Arctic.gnome 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Babylon 5 is basically 44 minutes

Farscape is tricky because the actual length is longer than 44 minuts, but they cut it down for commercials in America. Farscape is longer in Britain and Australia.

The uncut episodes of season 1 of Farscape are 50:06 on my region 1 DVDs. For season 2 and onwards they cut the total length down to 45:56. There's also the Re:Union episode which was supposed to be the original season 2 premiere. Most if it was later put into the season 2 episode "Dream a Little Dream". The original cut of that episode is 43:59 and has been released on the Starburst Edition DVDs. Also, the pilot's of the same length as season 1, it's not 90 mins long. Now, it should be said that Farscape was filmed on PAL video and is therefore slowed down from 25fps to 23.976fps on region 1 DVDs. If anyone wants to use those numbers they should therefore be adjusted to the original lengths. In short: 22 * 50:06 mins + 66 * 45:56 mins + 1 * 43:59 mins + 182 mins (don't have this one, so I can't check the exact length) and then correct for PAL-NTSC difference. Davhorn 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the episode lengths for Star Trek and a couple others (TOS was longer and ENT was shorter). The rest, including Farscape, will have to stay 22 and 44 until we know better. If you know the actual lengths of episodes for different countries, use the longer one, because the couple minutes that was cut for Americans was probably still canon. -Arctic.gnome 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who canon

What about Doctor Who spin-off direct-to-video movies like the Auton series? Ausir 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't count them as they weren't made, or licenced by the BBC, (Similar to the way Star Trek New Voyages isn't in the Star Trek count) and they don't feature the Doctor. The copyright situation on Doctor Who elements created by induvidual writers could lead to a bit of ambiguity, but I'm basically using a very basic count for Doctor Who: stories broadcast on BBC Televsion, excluding Dimensions in Time, Curse of Fatal Death and Screams of the Shalka. FredOrAlive 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Dimensions in Time, the Dalek movies, and Screams of the Shalka are listed under non-canon. Curse of Fatal Death is just a parody, so it isn't listed at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 19:55, January 23, 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes, they weren't made or licensed by the BBC, but couldn't they be listed under non-canon? Ausir 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume that by "they" you mean things like the Auton films, not DiT, etc. I agree with FredOrAlive — even though they're authorized by the estate of Robert Holmes, they're not authorized by the BBC. I agree that if we include Auton we'd have to include Star Trek: New Voyages, which is made in a similarly nebulous realm of authorization. Plus, if we include Auton, do we include P.R.O.B.E.? It's got Liz Shaw in it. And what about Cyberon, which is essentially a Cyberman story with the numbers filed off? I think we're better off keeping fan-made productions out, regardless of their quality or authorization/cooperation of writers and/or actors from the TV series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah

Rowe|contribs]]) 19:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we include "Soldier" in the "Blade Runner" section, even though it has nothing to do with Ridley Scott nor Philip K. Dick, I think we should also include "Auton" in the non-canon section for Doctor Who. New Voyages is a fan-made, non-commercial production, so it's a completely different thing. Ausir 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing with that is, David Peoples, who co-wrote the screenplay for Blade Runner, and wrote the screenplay for Soldier, specifically said that Soldier was intended to be set within the same universe as Blade Runner. The Wookieepedian 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, David Peoples co-wrote Blade Runner, and the Auton movies were made thanks to the license from the person who wrote the Doctor Who episodes with Autons. Ausir 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the Auton movies should be considered Dr. Who canon if the original show's writer allowed them to be made. The Wookieepedian 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An original show writer, who kept the rights to the characters he created, would be more accurate. Same with the Downtime movie about Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart. They aren't canon because they weren't produced or endorsed by the BBC, but they should be listed under non-canon, as they are clearly Doctor Who spin-offs. The creator of the Auton movies has also become one of the writers on the new Doctor Who show. Ausir 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who has a copyright situation which is different from most American TV series. The BBC retains the copyright to the series as a whole, but most characters and alien races are copyright to the writer who wrote the script they first appeared in (unless the character or villain was created by the production team and handed to the writer with the brief to include him/her/it/them). So Robert Holmes retained the copyright to the Autons, and BBV was able to negotiate the rights with his estate to create original videos with them. Imagine if David Gerrold retained the copyright to tribbles, and a tribble fan film was made with his OK but without Paramount's — would that make it Star Trek canon?

My rule for this page has generally been to try to respect whatever consensus there is in the fandom of a particular series. I don't think that most Doctor Who fans consider the Auton films to be canon (although there are some who do, since the BBC has never made an official statement on the subject and Doctor Who fandom has such a wide range of opinions on the subject). However, if we do include the Auton films, we ought to include Wartime, Shakedown, Downtime and the P.R.O.B.E. videos as well, since they've got the same (partial) claim to authorization. (See Doctor Who spin-offs#Video.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have to view the BBC as the creator of the series and master of the canon. There are already some non-BBC movies in the non-canon section, and anything with a partial claim to copyright can join them. Keep in mind that it should have at least some legitmacy; we can't include stuff that some kid films in his backyard. -Arctic.gnome 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough — I think the videos I listed above are all the ones with some authorization from the creator of a character or alien race. If someone wants to find out their durations and add them up, I guess I wouldn't object to them being added to the non-canon section. If nobody else steps up, I suppose I'll handle it if I get the time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who and Big Finish?

Ok, I can buy the Peter Cushing movies as not canon, and the Curse of the Fatal Death as a parody - but what about the Big Finish audio plays? They have real actors and as the real doctor and real companions, have writers from the original show (and have writers on the new show) and they are sanctioned by the BBC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.142.219 (talk • contribs) 00:14, January 25, 2006 (UTC)

There are several arguments against including the Big Finish audios in the Doctor Who section.

1. There's no consensus among Doctor Who fans about whether the Big Finish audios are canon or not. Even though they're licensed by the BBC, the BBC has never made a pronouncement about their canonicity one way or the other.
2. The list explicitly says that it's including only motion picture media, in part so as to avoid this very problem.
3. There are other Doctor Who audios besides the Big Finish ones: The Pescatons was released on LP in the '70s, and Slipback, The Paradise of Death and The Ghosts of N-Space were created for BBC Radio. Then there are the webcasts created for BBCi (now bbc.co.uk) earlier this decade, several of which have serious continuity problems with the television series (old and/or new). It's a big old mess that's probably best avoided altogether.

However, if you really want to add up the durations of all the Big Finish audio dramas, feel free. We can always add it in a footnote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We made a motion-picture only rule to avoid this. But it sounds like it should have a footnote. -Arctic.gnome 07:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Stargate confusion

We seem to have some confusion about the Stargate times and latest episodes. Although I don't watch the Stargate series myself, I gather that Stargate Atlantis finished its second season with the episode Allies (Stargate Atlantis) on January 30. Stargate SG-1 will finish its ninth season this Friday with Camelot (Stargate SG-1). That means that (as of March 3) there have been 233 Stargate episodes (193+40).

Although the most recent seasons of the two series started at the same time (last July), Atlantis came back from the mid-season break in November, whereas SG-1 didn't resume airing new episodes until January. This meant that Atlantis finished its season in January, while SG-1 won't finish until this week. Since January 30, there's been only one new Stargate episode each week.

All this is based on the dates on the Wikipedia pages List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. I hope they're accurate! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit odd. I was using the airdates from tv.com, which says that Allies won't air until March 10th. I guess it aired earlyer for someone, or the wikipedia version would have been changed by now. -arctic gnome 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That is odd. So we were editing based on conflicting information. Are there any Stargate fans reading this who can shed some light on this confusion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SG-1 and Atlantis have been running simultaneously on Sci-Fi for both seasons of Atlantis. The only thing I can think of is that Sky-One broadcast the second half of season 8 of SG-1 in the UK before Sci-Fi in the US, but this year they didn't do that. Davhorn 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More shows

What about Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, The Incredible Hulk, etc. 128.6.175.79 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Outer Limits or Twilight Zone belong on this list because every episode is a new canon. The Incredible Hulk TV show and movies, however, definitely belong here; go ahead and add it! -arctic gnome 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

TARDISODEs

So the upcoming season of Doctor Who will be accompanied by TARDISODEs, one-minute mini-episodes, available via the BBC's website or on mobile telephones, which will serve as teasers for the full-length TV episodes. They're "officially released", I guess, so they wouldn't seem to be in the same category as the R. Tam sessions — should we add them to the Doctor Who listing or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, should we include Attack of the Graske? Officially released, broadcast by the BBC (on the digital channels, using the "red button")... I think fans are divided about whether it's canon or not (although I don't see why it shouldn't be, myself). Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If the one-minute things will be all unique content, they would fit into the same category as the R. Tam sessions. Attack of the Graske works the same way as games, because there is more than one possible way of the story unfolding, no single one can be dubbed the cannon version of the story. Also, seeing how Attack of the Graske breaks the fourth wall, making it cannon means that the camera crew is actualy following the Doctor around, and I'm sure that would conflict with something in a past episode. -arctic gnome 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But I thought that the objection to including the R. Tam sessions in the Firefly count was that they weren't officially released by Universal. The TARDISODEs (which are all original content, yes) are officially released/broadcast by the BBC — they're just not being released on television.

I suppose the TARDISODEs count as unique officially released motion picture media, even if they walk the line between “show” and “advertisement for the show”. If they turn out to not mesh with the show proper (such as by introducing the villain before it makes sense) we’ll have to take another look at them. -arctic gnome 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The multiple paths for Attack of the Graske make a fair point re:canonicity, but I don't think that the breaking of the fourth wall is a problem in and of itself — it's just a different narrative technique. It doesn't necessarily imply a camera crew any more than Sharaz Jek's soliloquies to camera in The Caves of Androzani do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Morgus, surely? Tut tut tut. Go to the back of the class! Angmering 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Soliloquies to the audience are a narrative technique, sure. Attack of the Graske, however, takes it a lot farther than that. The Doctor claims to be effecting the real-world by giving special powers to the viewer’s remote control. If I chose to watch Attack of the Graske ten years from now on DVD at my computer, it wouldn’t be canon with me. It seems best to call it a "live-action video game". The BBC sure seems to be having fun with new ways of presenting media. -arctic gnome 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Supplemental"

I suppose that the new "supplemental" category is a good compromise for filmed media that aren't actually television or film. But I've got one question about the Doctor Who listings there: Why is the "Children in Need" special now listed under "supplemental" instead of "canon"? It was broadcast on television and advertised as a "special mini-episode of Doctor Who", aired within the Children in Need fundraiser. I don't think there are many (any?) Doctor Who fans who don't consider it a canonical scene between The Parting of the Ways and The Christmas Invasion. Why not keep it in "canon"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar concerns. Having "canon" and "supplemental" makes it look as if the supplemental material isn't canon. This isn't the case. I think the name of the two should be changed in order to clear this up. The Wookieepedian 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Children in Need Special is canon, but not an episode, so it seemed to fit best with the TARDISODEs. On one hand it isn't given an episode number, yet on the other hand it features key events in the story arc. BBC is very tricky. Re:Wookieepedian, I've also noticed that the difference between canon and supplemental is a bit confusing. The best way I can think of fixing it is just cutting the word "canon" so that the lengths of the core body of series are in their own boxes in bold. My thesaurus isn't giving me any good alternatives to the word "supplemental". Arctic Gnome 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is a mini-episode not an episode? (hmmm...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the episode before it is numbered 170 and the episode after is numbered 171, it doesn't have closing credits or a title like an episode would, it wasn't broadcast outside of the UK and the following episode is written so that people who missed it won't be lost. I think this is a case where an episode is not an episode, but these are very murky waters. It was broadcast on television, which is a non-supplemental media, after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 13:14, April 24, 2006 (UTC)

Those episode numbers are completely unofficial. They're used by fans to determine the placement of stories. BBC Worldwide uses them on the Region 2 DVDs for the "classic" series, but they're not used by the current production team at all, so we shouldn't use them as a criterion. I do agree that the waters are quite murky, but I think it still ought to be included. Tell you what — I'll see what the lads at the Doctor Who WikiProject think, OK? :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We can make it "supplemental canon", it's canon material supplemental to the movies and/or films. Makgraf 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I like "supplemental canon" — that makes it clearer that we're dividing both by canonicity and by medium, and not necessarily saying that if it isn't TV/film it's not canon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The words "supplemental canon" are long enough to wrap around to the next line, which might look a bit odd, but if no one else has a problem with that, I'm okay with the term. Arctic Gnome 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer it because the day/hour/minute already goes on to the last line, so this way it'll be on the same line as (part) of the word. Makgraf 17:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement here, I'll go ahead and change it. It looks like "supplemental canon" fits on one line on my display, so I'll also add a line break to match Makgraf's preference. Arctic Gnome 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The Wookieepedian 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nice work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

The Dragon Ball series should be up there. There's like shitloads of Dragon Ball stuff. Original show: 153 half-hour episodes, DBZ: 291 half-hour episodes, DBGT: 64 half-hour episodes, plus 17+ movies.

If anime were aloud on the list, the existing entries would become overwhelmed. If someone wants to add Dragon Ball, I would recommend starting a new article for Lengths of animated movie and television series. Arctic Gnome 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, the naming convention here is to use "film" rather than movie, so may I respectfully suggest Lengths of animated film and television series? Thanks, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stargate's "Threads"

The Stargate entry doesn't seem to include (or, if it does, does not note the inclusion of) the extended runtime of Season 8's "Threads" (818), which was about 60 minutes long (without commercials) instead of the usual 42 minutes (though a shorter version of the standard runtime was made for syndication purposes). -The2ndQuest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.101.146 (talk • contribs) 01:19, August 21, 2006 (UTC)