Howling:Are Stories in Paralell Universes Canon?

The Series 2 first two parter is set in a different universe with different Cybermen and different characters. Now we know there are potentially many paralell universes out there. Let's take the non canonical Dalek movies with the human doctor. Couldn't they almost certainly be occuring in exactly the same way in a different universe somewhere? Would that technically make it canon? Or would that make the series 2 two parter non - canon? Or is it only canon if there is a link between the two different universes, like there was in the episode? Or are there a limited number of parallel universes? 178.78.81.210talk to me 15:02, January 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are parallel universes and there are alternate timelines.
 * There needs to be evidence of it in narrative. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:19, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

The "Pete's World" universe (as the Doctor eventually called it) interacted with the primary universe of the show. Not only did the Doctor, Rose and Mickey visit it in the Series 2 two-parter mentioned above (Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel), leading to Mickey staying there for a considerable time, but also the Cybus Cybermen from that universe invaded the primary universe (Army of Ghosts/Doomsday) and Rose got trapped there (end of Doomsday). Later, Rose and others crossed from the "Pete's World" universe to the primary universe to combat the Daleks (The Stolen Earth/Journey's End). If the events of the primary universe in those stories are canon, the events of the "Pete's World" universe have to be canon, too. There have been several stories set in other universes, Inferno (Third Doctor, 1970), for example, or featuring interactions between universes, such as Battlefield (Seventh .Doctor, 1989). In each case, characters from the primary universe have been involved and have continued in the primary universe afterwards -- not all have continued in the primary universe but some always have.

The "non-canonical Dalek movies with the human doctor" are a wholly different case. There is no interaction with the primary universe of the show. Nothing in the events of the show or in the lives of the characters would be any different if the events of those movies had or had not occurred in some other universe. The idea that they did occur in some other universe is an invented excuse to make them "canon" and the same could equally easily be done in respect (say) of the 1960s US TV shows The Man from UNCLE/The Girl from UNCLE, the movie The Wizard of Oz and, in fact, absolutely anything else. Because there's no interaction, they're all irrelevant (no matter how good or enjoyable). Making them "canon" in this way makes no difference to the continuity of the show and (to quote a fictional character who has been referred to in Doctor Who episodes, Mr. Spock of Star Trek) "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".

The idea that the episodes of the show that are set in other universes are "non-canonical" is daft. The idea that the Dalek movies with the human doctor are "canonical" through occurring in another universe having no interaction with the primary universe of the show is simply meaningless because it makes no difference. --89.241.68.183talk to me 16:24, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

If it had ever been stated that the Dalek movies were a parallel universe then they would be canon, but as it is you might as well say that Star Trek, or the real world are canon within Doctor Who and just take place in another universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 07:59, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Even if there was a parallel universe in the Whoniverse where everything happened the same as in the Dalek movies, it wouldn't canonise those movies, it would just mean there's a universe where everything coincedentally happens identical to Moviewhoniverse. 77.86.108.251talk to me 11:36, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if a future episode decided to retcon the the Dalek movies into taking place in a parallel universe, then they might be canon. Still, as that hasn't happenned, this conversation is largely pointless.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:16, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

For "largely", I'd substitute "completely". --89.241.67.245talk to me 01:15, January 5, 2012 (UTC)