User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20151011004220/@comment-183721-20151011004740: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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: | ||
Personally, I find the whole "narratively ambiguous" label to be total garbage. People either ''are'' or they are ''not'' a companion. There's no in-between or middle ground. The tricky part here is that the episode itself leaves the question open-ended. Of course, the fact that there isn't really any definition of a companion doesn't help. I would say just leave them off the template unless Moffat or a BTS source confirms their status one way or the other. | Personally, I find the whole "narratively ambiguous" label to be total garbage. People either ''are'' or they are ''not'' a companion. There's no in-between or middle ground. The tricky part here is that the episode itself leaves the question open-ended. Of course, the fact that there isn't really any definition of a companion doesn't help. I would say just leave them off the template unless Moffat or a BTS source confirms their status one way or the other. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20151011004220-4028641/20151011004740-183721]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:22, 27 April 2023
Personally, I find the whole "narratively ambiguous" label to be total garbage. People either are or they are not a companion. There's no in-between or middle ground. The tricky part here is that the episode itself leaves the question open-ended. Of course, the fact that there isn't really any definition of a companion doesn't help. I would say just leave them off the template unless Moffat or a BTS source confirms their status one way or the other.
