User:OttselSpy25/Commercial fiction sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tag: 2017 source edit
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
** [[Twelfth Doctor Ident Interruptions]]
** [[Twelfth Doctor Ident Interruptions]]
** [[Countdown to Series 8 (BBC idents)|Countdown to Series 8]]
** [[Countdown to Series 8 (BBC idents)|Countdown to Series 8]]
* [[Season 17 (trailer)]] - This one's obscure, and the page name is terrible. But this is clearly a "Prequel" or "Prelude" before those were cool.
* [[A Time For Heroes (TV story)|A Time For Heroes]]


==== Webcasts ====
==== Webcasts ====
Line 57: Line 59:
== Stories I'm less certain about ==
== Stories I'm less certain about ==
* [[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]] and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the [[Bootstrap paradox]]. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
* [[The Trip of a Lifetime (trailer)|The Trip of a Lifetime]] and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the [[Bootstrap paradox]]. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
* [[Season 17 (trailer)]] - If this page is remotely accurate, this should be valid as a mini-sode. But I can't find anything about this anywhere else!
* [[Famine Appeal]] - After studying it, if Colin never breaks character, I'd say this should be valid. But I've never seen this one.
* [[Famine Appeal]] - After studying it, if Colin never breaks character, I'd say this should be valid. But I've never seen this one.
* [[Friend from the Future (TV story)|Friend from the Future]] - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, as [[Steven Moffat]] intended. However, because it was invalidated originally for more than one reason, and because it is contentious, this will need its own debate.
* [[Friend from the Future (TV story)|Friend from the Future]] - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, as [[Steven Moffat]] intended. However, because it was invalidated originally for more than one reason, and because it is contentious, this will need its own debate.

Latest revision as of 09:03, 30 March 2023

This is going to be a curated list of potential commercials/advertisements/idents that should be validated in the future, given specific circumstances.

Essentially, all fiction disqualified for "being commercial" should be retired. Thusly, all "commercial fiction" which are more than just compilations of clips and images should be reconsidered under rule 4: if they are intended to take place in the Doctor Who Universe.

Stories where validation is certain[[edit] | [edit source]]

TV stories[[edit] | [edit source]]

Webcasts[[edit] | [edit source]]

Short stories[[edit] | [edit source]]

Comic stories[[edit] | [edit source]]

Audio stories[[edit] | [edit source]]

Stories I'm less certain about[[edit] | [edit source]]

  • The Trip of a Lifetime and similar trailers, leaning towards valid. No different from Twelve narrating about the Bootstrap paradox. However, I think these specifically would need their own debate, as the "Rule 4ness" of these is obviously debatable.
  • Famine Appeal - After studying it, if Colin never breaks character, I'd say this should be valid. But I've never seen this one.
  • Friend from the Future - I can say with certainty that this should be valid, as Steven Moffat intended. However, because it was invalidated originally for more than one reason, and because it is contentious, this will need its own debate.
  • The Future Is At Your Fingertips - This ALMOST doesn't pass Rule 3. These were commercials made in New Zealand which the company decided to never use. They never broadcast on TV... BUT they did premiere at a film festival. If they pass "Rule 4" is really something one could debate.
  • Meet the Thirteenth Doctor - This one is odd, because I don't think it qualifies for Rule 4. Now, if a future story were to give context to what's going on here, I think this would qualify for Rule 4 By Proxy.
  • Doctor Who: 50 Years (trailer) - Another great example here where there's no real proof that this was intended to be set inside the DWU. But you could also argue that this trailer simply depicts a Multi-Doctor Event that Day doesn't show. It's certainly more of a promotional short than a trailer, and certainly something that would qualify for Rule 4 by Proxy if some other valid fiction referenced it. But as it stands, I think it deserves to be in the middle here.
  • WeLoveTITANS - I think as these were disqualified for being commercials, they might justify another debate, but I just don't know how many people WANT to go down that rabbit hole again
  • Time Is Everything - Presuming we revoke the widespread ban on advertisements, this would be a contender for coverage. The only hiccup is the fourth-wall breaking, which is an issue we've long gotten older but have never codified in a debate. The DWUness of this has also never been contended, but if it was the only thing standing in the way of this being valid I'm sure someone would change their minds, so this probably needs its own debate.
  • Doctor Who and the Ambassadors of Death (trailer) - A little unsure about this, I've gone back-and-forth on it and it's difficult to make a call without this in front of me. I don't want to set the precedent that old footage with a new framing device is always a trailer. But I also wouldn't put up a fight for this unless someone else wants to as well.
  • Death of the Doctor (trailer) - Also the same situation

Advertisements which do not qualify[[edit] | [edit source]]