Hm, interesting question. Where comics are concerned, I'm not too picky anymore. As a few others have stated, as long as the story is engaging with art I like, then it doesn't really matter to me how slavish that story is (or isn't) to previous canon. For me, I think a general rule of thumb with the Big Two would be if they at least acknowledged/referenced their most recent history, say the last 10 years or less. If a recent event or major arc is recalled, then fine but if a story is published that contains a scene that contradicts something Lee/Kirby did over 40 years ago (especially if it's something I've never read or even knew existed), then no it doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Now as for other fandoms, sure I think canon is important especially if those franchises have been around for some time. Trek's canon, for the most part, has been broadly consistent over the decades, following a progressive timeline. There's been hiccups along the way (like the changing appearance of the Klingons) and the show itself has tried to address some of them beyond fan theories. Abrams' films, with their alternate timeline, introduced a kink though that has introduced new debates over the relative quality of this new timeline versus the more traditional canon.

Star Wars had a wonderful expanded EU canon that ran for over 20 years until the Mouse upended it all to go in a different direction. Now comparisons/debates crop up over the differences and merits between the two (IMHO, the two sequels fail miserably)

However, those two fandoms are pale shadows when it comes to Who fandom. No other fandom that I have encountered in RL and online is more opinionated, stubborn, obstinate, and passionate that Doctor Who fans. I tend to think of Who canon as being far more looser than Star Wars and Trek though. The changing nature of the lead role obviously leads to debate on the quality and merits of each actor. For a show featuring a time traveler, the linear history of the Whoniverse can be muddy (Lance Parkin's AHistory books which attempt to provide a linear timeline of the show is in it's fourth updated edition so far I think?  Lots of footnotes to it, that's for sure). And that's not even getting into the minutia of behind the scenes where production staff such as writers, directors, and producers are debated over their quality and flaws. I think the changing nature of the show itself lends to a more fluid canon that can be argued upon fervently by a devoted fan base.  

Perhaps another example of this though pertains to my current reading, REH's Conan. I recently acquired the third Del Rey collection of Howard's stories, The Conquering Sword of Conan (for I own the previous two volumes as well). The intro of the book makes an interesting argument in regards to fan (and fellow writers) tendency to group these stories into a rough linear chronology. Since Conan began as a reaver and thief and ultimately became a king, the underlying need is there is try and present these stories in a fashion that would follow that progression. Even though this would seemingly contradict Howard's original intent of presenting these tales simply as someone regaling you the reader of their adventures from various points in their life with no clear cut linear thought. In this case, under this argument, a canon appeared to be forced upon a character through fans' belief that Conan's story had a definitive beginning (barbarian), middle (reaver, pirate, mercenary) and end (king) even though the stories themselves apparently give no such hint to a straight linear progression (least of all how they were published and released).

I find that very interesting. How such expectations may play upon another fictional character, Bond, I don't know for I've read even less of Fleming's original novels. My only quirk with the Bond films is, are the different actors all playing the same Bond or (as one fan theory I recall reading) are they playing different men who assume the name and identity of Bond?

Regarding Doctor Who, that's a minefield due to time travel. I mean, take the Daleks. The first time we see them is in the second serial, "The Daleks" (1963). They appeared old and tired (so to speak). The end of days for them? It seemed that way. Skaro appeared to be on its "last legs", too. From those Daleks' perspective, it was their first encounter with the Doctor. But isn't the 'first' time the Doctor encounters them in "Genesis of the Daleks"?

So from the Daleks' perspective, their first encounter with the Doctor is in "Genesis".

Do I even know what I am going on about? I doubt it...

My point is, I try not to get too hung up on Doctor Who continuity because of it's non-linear nature. It's linear to us, as far as the episodes are presented, but the Doctor is a non-linear being.

As for the fan theory about Bond, it falls down due to Bond's wife, Tracy. It was Lazenby's Bond that married her in OHMSS. But in the next film, Diamonds Are Forever, an angry and vengeful 007, played by Connery, is on Blofeld's trail. In For Your Eyes Only, Bond, played by Roger Moore, puts flowers on Tracy's grave. And in Licence To Kill, Bond, played by Timothy Dalton, is uncomfortable when marriage is mentioned (Felix tells his new bride how Bond was once married).

If it was a codename, and we assumed each actor was a different Bond, why would Moore's Bond have put flowers on the grave of his predecessor's wife? Why would Dalton's Bond be so sore about marriage prior to Felix's comments?

Essentially, yeah;  Farmer basically says the mistakes came from the chroniclers and Greystoke and Savage let it pass.

Funny thing, I first discovered Tarzan Alive in the library, as a youngster, and it almost had me believing that Tarzan was based on a real person, just jazzed up for the novels and movies.  It took a little time for skepticism to start punching holes in that, plus our World Book Encyclopedia set.

Yep.  One of the reasons that Farmer and his Wold-Newton progeny tended to avoid shoe-horning superheroes into the Wold-Newton mythology is because they have had far too many adventures to fit into a lifetime.  Even those that he did allow in were with the proviso that most of the adventures were fiction.  

I do think that newer contributors to the Wold Newton mythology have relaxed the rules. 

I certainly want some continuity in my comics. If Green Lantern's power ring does not work on anything yellow, I do not want some lazy writer suddenly having it do so because s/he couldn't be bothered with the most basic research.

(Of course, Stan Lee once had Loki pick up Thor's hammer because he forgot that he had stipulated no one who was not worthy could lift it.)