I'm glad to hear that crazy theory was essentially meant as satire. As Bob says, some shows that depend on their gravitas to be successful would lose a lot of it if they had to share universe with the Simpsons. Which actually happened in comics, as everyone is supposed to share the same universe with 4th-wall breaking characters like Deadpool and She-Hulk and they're not allowed to have fun without ruining everyone else's, because of the way continuity is set up.
But I'm especially glad to hear it's satire because IT'S FUCKING WRONG.
Why? Because it assumes the relationship is reciprocal, but it's one way.
OK, hear me out. If Show A has Character Z, and Character Z shows up on Show B and makes a reference to his life on Show A, then shows A and B take place in the same fictitious univverse. If Show A was St. Elsewhere, then Show B, whatever it was, would also take place within that kid's head. OK, so far so good. But, if Show B was St. Elsewhere, there would be no evidence that Show A is also St. Elsewhere, because there was no evidence that Show B's reality was true in Show A, that is, there is no evidence of Show B in Show A's plot.
To use a simple analogy: Imagine that I've written Space Janitors fanfiction. (Ugh, I don't even watch it.) My fanfiction aknowledges the Space Janitors canon, so it's part of the reality in my fanfiction. Conversely, there is no reason that Space Janitors should aknowledge my fanfiction as part of their story, so if they don't, in their story the massive orgy that ends my fanfiction never actually happens. So if Space Janitors ends with it being inside a kid's imagination, my fanfiction by extension was; but if my fanfiction ends in the same way, one would have to really reach to conclude that the same is true for all of the Space Janitors canon story.
So to use that in the real show: Bob says that the St. Elsewhere characters appeared in Homicide. OK; those characters don't exist, therefore Homicide has to happen inside St. Elsewhere's imagined continuity. But then he says that there was a character in Homicide that showed up in Law & Order (uh, John Muncher? I couldn't hear it and couldn't find any name that sounds like what Bob said on the list of Law & Order characters from Wikipedia.) And that's where it goes wrong. Unless John mentions something in Law & Order that refers to something that happened in Homicide, Law & Order is not aknowledging Homicide's canon, and therefore is not part of the imaginary canon. John is just a character whose 'real' life is Law & Order but who had an 'imagined' one in Homicide, just like in my Space Janitors fan fiction the characters I'm writing have a 'real' story in the canon show, and if I end with it all being a dream their existence is only fake in my take of the story, not in the real one.
'But The Random One, you charismatic stallion badge haver, how could a little autistic kid imagine a character that just HAPPENED to be idential to a character in another TV show?' Simple. One, there is no indication of the time period the 'real' ending of St. Elsewhere ending takes place. Two, at the very ending, the kid puts the snowglobe on top of the TV. My interpretation of that is: in the real world, the kid existed in the near future, although he imagined St. Elsewhere to take place in what was the current year when the series was aired. He imagined those things while his family was watching TV, and when he saw a character on TV that he liked, he included them in his narratives. So he sees John Muncher in Law and Order, likes his character, and makes him part of the Homicide story he's coming up with. There is an imagined John Muncher whose existence includes both Homicide and whatever episodes of Law & Order the kid saw, and a 'real' John whose existence includes only Law & Order, but they are two separate entities.
That may seem strange, but think about it: how many fictitious works including celebrities and historical personages have you seen? National Treasure and Assassin's Creed 3 set up different personalities and events for Benjamin Franklin. Each of those works has an instance of Benjamin Franklin, for whom the known events of his real life are canon as well as the made up events that took place in their stories. However you wouldn't say that both works share the same universe because they both have Benjamin Franklin, even because they say different things about him! (Probably - I never watched the movie and the game isn't out yet, but I'll be surprised if their universes matches. Nicolas Cage would make a great Desmond though.) Even more insane would be to say that, because Assassin's Creed has Benjamin Franklin and the real world also has Benjamin Franklin, the real world is part of the Assassin's Creed canon! My John Muncher example is the same, except that the 'primary' instance of him that others are based on isn't a real guy, and is just as fictitious as the others, but it's the same principle. (Of course if Homicide is indeed referred to as canon in Law & Order my example is bust, but I'm sure there'll be one example eventually in that chain that will break it.)
The fact that I wrote such a huge post describing it probably means Dwayne's point is totally right.
But I'm especially glad to hear it's satire because IT'S FUCKING WRONG.
Why? Because it assumes the relationship is reciprocal, but it's one way.
OK, hear me out. If Show A has Character Z, and Character Z shows up on Show B and makes a reference to his life on Show A, then shows A and B take place in the same fictitious univverse. If Show A was St. Elsewhere, then Show B, whatever it was, would also take place within that kid's head. OK, so far so good. But, if Show B was St. Elsewhere, there would be no evidence that Show A is also St. Elsewhere, because there was no evidence that Show B's reality was true in Show A, that is, there is no evidence of Show B in Show A's plot.
To use a simple analogy: Imagine that I've written Space Janitors fanfiction. (Ugh, I don't even watch it.) My fanfiction aknowledges the Space Janitors canon, so it's part of the reality in my fanfiction. Conversely, there is no reason that Space Janitors should aknowledge my fanfiction as part of their story, so if they don't, in their story the massive orgy that ends my fanfiction never actually happens. So if Space Janitors ends with it being inside a kid's imagination, my fanfiction by extension was; but if my fanfiction ends in the same way, one would have to really reach to conclude that the same is true for all of the Space Janitors canon story.
So to use that in the real show: Bob says that the St. Elsewhere characters appeared in Homicide. OK; those characters don't exist, therefore Homicide has to happen inside St. Elsewhere's imagined continuity. But then he says that there was a character in Homicide that showed up in Law & Order (uh, John Muncher? I couldn't hear it and couldn't find any name that sounds like what Bob said on the list of Law & Order characters from Wikipedia.) And that's where it goes wrong. Unless John mentions something in Law & Order that refers to something that happened in Homicide, Law & Order is not aknowledging Homicide's canon, and therefore is not part of the imaginary canon. John is just a character whose 'real' life is Law & Order but who had an 'imagined' one in Homicide, just like in my Space Janitors fan fiction the characters I'm writing have a 'real' story in the canon show, and if I end with it all being a dream their existence is only fake in my take of the story, not in the real one.
'But The Random One, you charismatic stallion badge haver, how could a little autistic kid imagine a character that just HAPPENED to be idential to a character in another TV show?' Simple. One, there is no indication of the time period the 'real' ending of St. Elsewhere ending takes place. Two, at the very ending, the kid puts the snowglobe on top of the TV. My interpretation of that is: in the real world, the kid existed in the near future, although he imagined St. Elsewhere to take place in what was the current year when the series was aired. He imagined those things while his family was watching TV, and when he saw a character on TV that he liked, he included them in his narratives. So he sees John Muncher in Law and Order, likes his character, and makes him part of the Homicide story he's coming up with. There is an imagined John Muncher whose existence includes both Homicide and whatever episodes of Law & Order the kid saw, and a 'real' John whose existence includes only Law & Order, but they are two separate entities.
That may seem strange, but think about it: how many fictitious works including celebrities and historical personages have you seen? National Treasure and Assassin's Creed 3 set up different personalities and events for Benjamin Franklin. Each of those works has an instance of Benjamin Franklin, for whom the known events of his real life are canon as well as the made up events that took place in their stories. However you wouldn't say that both works share the same universe because they both have Benjamin Franklin, even because they say different things about him! (Probably - I never watched the movie and the game isn't out yet, but I'll be surprised if their universes matches. Nicolas Cage would make a great Desmond though.) Even more insane would be to say that, because Assassin's Creed has Benjamin Franklin and the real world also has Benjamin Franklin, the real world is part of the Assassin's Creed canon! My John Muncher example is the same, except that the 'primary' instance of him that others are based on isn't a real guy, and is just as fictitious as the others, but it's the same principle. (Of course if Homicide is indeed referred to as canon in Law & Order my example is bust, but I'm sure there'll be one example eventually in that chain that will break it.)
The fact that I wrote such a huge post describing it probably means Dwayne's point is totally right.
.jpg)
