Talk:Battlestar Galactica: The Final Five 1/Archive 1

Canonicity

One of the questions regarding this comic book, which was written in collaboration with one of the show's writers after they had finished writing 4.5 (and will thus try to expand on certain things that were introduced), is whether or not it should be considered canonical or as "separate continuity" (as it is right now) like the other comic books (which clearly diverged in many cases).

It's also been referred to by Jane Espenson as showing the backstory of the Final Five in greater depth (meaning at least she also considers it canonical):

Jane: "The dates and sequence of the events surrounded Pythia and Kobol are going to be explored, I understand, in a comic book being written by Seamus Kevin Fahey [who is a "Battlestar" writer] and David Reed." [1]

Recently I also looked into another interview, where the following was said:

"Of course, if ever a show has proven that story can stretch far beyond the actual series screentime, it’s “Battlestar Galactica.” Aside from a raft of webisodes, a planned prequel series, the “Razor” movie, dozens of comics have been published over the last five years, and March’s “The Final Five” miniseries will serve as an official piece of the show’s canon." [2]

This wasn't shown to be said by someone from the show, and it could just be the article writer's own choice of words but that is only the least bit of backup, when considering the rest.

Although it will be separate from the television series I think the writers of the show consider this comic to have the details of certain things they only delved into recently. I think it makes sense that they'd use a medium like this to further some things that weren't explained in great detail and the fact that one writer from the show is making it and at least a second one considers it canonical (and "uses" it to answer questions) means it's very different from all the other comics made before.

This is why I believe we should consider the comic series within the television show's canon, seeing as how it comes from the writers and is considered by some (if not all) of them to be canonical and an official explanation/depiction of some of the show's backstory.--Sauron18 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the above assessment -- this comic series is the first one to ever be seemingly 100 percent canonical and TV series writer-endorsed and -referenced (unlike the other ones published to date). Add this to the fact that this entire backstory is not likely to ever be referred to again on-screen in the future (and thus refuted/contradicted), and you now have a very compelling argument for moving this comic series out of the "alternate Dynamite continuity" realm, and right up alongside the actual filmed TV episodes and movies.

If it's good enough for Jane Espenson (and presumably RDM), isn't it good enough for a spot in the primary continuity at the very least?--The Bandsaw Vigilante 05:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely possible "The Plan" could contradict some of the info, and there is some questionable stuff in it (Anders being a homeless guy rather than a resurrection scientist comes to mind - why would they need the homeless guinea pig to help restore resurrection to the Cylons in Daybreak?). While it appears that Battlestar Wiki:Canon is a guideline, rather than a policy, this isn't aired content, and I personally don't know if it merits an exception. However, if anything does merit an exception, it's probably this comic series. I suppose I could go either way. JubalHarshaw 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)