Of Fandoms and Wanking and Canon

[cherry_lozenge]

I'd like someone to explain to me why the interpretation of a fan published in book form is considered non-canon while the interpretation of Paul Gross made public in media form broadcasted on a completely different TV station, in a different country no less, is considered canon. No, seriously, think about it. Star Wars, Star Trek, and many other

Comments

What are you talking about?

[anonymous]

The original production company Alliance continued to produce the show after PG took over as EP.
And it did continue to air in the orignal country (Canada!) on CTV.
Further more, PG did not write a lot of the episodes. He co-wrote two of the most expensive episodes that ran in two parts each.
Going further - how can you even say that season one of DS would exist as canon. It's only one season.
The show's over! Get over it.

Re: What are you talking about?

[cherry_lozenge]

I was under the impression that Alliance was merged into another company. However, I am now aware that I was mistaken.

But, whether or not the production company changed does not change the fact that dS of S3&4 are not the direct result of PH's vision. They are the results of PG's interpretations.

While CTV did continue to air dS, CBS did not. And from someone who viewed dS on CBS, dS was as good as having been moved to a different TV station.

And I do not believe I have ever stated that only season one of dS is canon. I do, however, not consider PG's dS as canonical with respect to PH's dS.

Lastly, I will not get over it. I happen to enjoy blathering about old shows. Perhaps you ought to consider your own advice.

[aingeal8c]

Alliance merged with Atlantis, well technically it took it over I believe, to form Alliance Atlantis a few years ago but at the time dS was being produced it was still just Alliance.

And I don't think CBS was involved in the funding of S3/4 in anyway and it had a rediced role coming in later during S2 after several epiodes had been produced.

[anonymous]

A different anon suggesting you might want to turn IP tracking on and f-lock this entry.

[cherry_lozenge]

Short of spam or trolling, if someone has something to say, I don't feel there's a need to block them from saying it to my face. Also, I doubt there are that many people who are reading what I'm jabbering about.

[cherry_lozenge]

I was under the impression that CBS was also involved in production until after Season 2, which I am now realizing may have been misinformation.

However, while TV series are collaborative works, there is a main vision which is usually untampered at the conception. PH's presence did, for the most part, keep season 2 closer to what the original dS concept was about. PG as executive producer produced a/two season(s) of dS that veered dramatically away from the original concept. But that is personal opinion.

What dS had was a change in executive producers, and whether or not PH handed that over or Alliance took it away, doesn't change the fact that PH, the original creator, is no longer affiliated with the second half of dS. PG's dS is a version of due South, but it's a different version, not the version PH had produced. PG's version of due South is not PH's version.

[cherry_lozenge]

It's just that I can both understand the upset when seasons 3/4 fans and participants here this and not agree that because the orginal concept/PH's vision was changed, one can call DS season 3/4 as uncannon(even if I personally agree it doesn't work/mesh/I dislike it), for it was intended to be so by all involved and has offical backing.

While I understand that those who like seasons 3/4 would consider it canon, I find the changes too great to accept. I believe that it is the fans who ultimately choose to acknowledge what is canon in a fannish discussion, not based on their like or dislike, but by the magnitude by which the stories diverge from the original concept, especially in works that are collaborative in nature.

PH may not be wholely affiliated, but he was by virture of passing over his product to PG/Alliance giving the consent to go on, therefore you can't call it un-DS, even if it may not/was not PH's personal intended product.

Perhaps I was too general in my statement. I should have called it non-PH-dS.

Yes, but they