User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-5918438-20170418025936: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The thing is that ''Time Crash'' fits into ''Last of the Time Lords'' quite nicely. You can watch it all in sequence, and it still makes sense. It's a seamless edit. The comparison with ''Time Crash'' was brought up in our Slack discussion. And I can ''sort of'' see this working as one continuous narrative, as well...Except at that point in the story, having to go back to 2017 makes little sense, unless the Doctor just assumes that Heather has been taken care of? There are no Movellans, so if it does fit in with the valid narrative, as some sort of "midquel" as you've said, there's something quite particular about how it ignores the current action entirely. | The thing is that ''Time Crash'' fits into ''Last of the Time Lords'' quite nicely. You can watch it all in sequence, and it still makes sense. It's a seamless edit. The comparison with ''Time Crash'' was brought up in our Slack discussion. And I can ''sort of'' see this working as one continuous narrative, as well...Except at that point in the story, having to go back to 2017 makes little sense, unless the Doctor just assumes that Heather has been taken care of? There are no Movellans, so if it does fit in with the valid narrative, as some sort of "midquel" as you've said, there's something quite particular about how it ignores the current action entirely. | ||
Anyway, though others disagree, I do get a sense that Steven Moffat ''tried'' to bridge the two sources in a way that they're not totally incoherent. I agree that continuity errors happen all the time within a singular story, but the real question is: [[T:VS|is this a valid story of its own right?]] What's this thing really intended to be, and what does it translate to for us in practice? | Anyway, though others disagree, I do get a sense that Steven Moffat ''tried'' to bridge the two sources in a way that they're not totally incoherent. I agree that continuity errors happen all the time within a singular story, but the real question is: [[T:VS|is this a valid story of its own right?]] What's this thing really intended to be, and what does it translate to for us in practice? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170416191252-2.26.183.189/20170418025936-5918438]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:00, 27 April 2023
The thing is that Time Crash fits into Last of the Time Lords quite nicely. You can watch it all in sequence, and it still makes sense. It's a seamless edit. The comparison with Time Crash was brought up in our Slack discussion. And I can sort of see this working as one continuous narrative, as well...Except at that point in the story, having to go back to 2017 makes little sense, unless the Doctor just assumes that Heather has been taken care of? There are no Movellans, so if it does fit in with the valid narrative, as some sort of "midquel" as you've said, there's something quite particular about how it ignores the current action entirely.
Anyway, though others disagree, I do get a sense that Steven Moffat tried to bridge the two sources in a way that they're not totally incoherent. I agree that continuity errors happen all the time within a singular story, but the real question is: is this a valid story of its own right? What's this thing really intended to be, and what does it translate to for us in practice?
