Forum:Validity: Hacker T. Dog

Index → Inclusion debates → Validity: Hacker T. Dog

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Validity of that CBBC continuity segment currently known as The Robot Reveal

So, I thought this one might be a nice easy, (hopefully) uncontroversial validity debate to start off with, now that the forums are back.

Also, this is the first OP I've wrote, so it won't be terribly good. Still, it's a learning curve, and I'll try not to waffle on too much. Now, let's get cracking.

Some time in 2016, I forget when, CBBC announced a competition to create a new robot. When this robot was revealed, they chose to use the Doctor's TARDIS as a framing device, having Hacker T Dog and Karim Zeroual (the continuity presenters who happened to be chosen for the task) step inside the TARDIS and have the TARDIS create the robot. The Doctor is said to be having the break on Florana, and Hacker is said to be a friend of the Doctor.

The page currently appears to state that this is invalid for being a parody, and therefore failing rule 4. I do not, however, believe this is the case. At no point does it attempt to mock, make fun of or otherwise lampoon Doctor Who. The only element even verging on parody is when Hacker calls the Tardis to him by simply barking.

But let us address the elephant in the room here. Upon closer study, one can easily make the inference that this story was in fact invalidated for being similar to Mind My Minions. Now, I don't want to make this assumption, as it is arguably in violation of T:FAITH, but I do want to address this possible concern. Yes, this is similar to Mind My Minions. However, while MMM is not clearly intended to be set in the DWU, there does not appear to be any such argument to be made for that CBBC continuity segment currently known as The Robot Reveal.

Thanks for reading, Aquanafrahudy ☎ 20:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I guess The Robot Reveal was tangentially discussed in Thread:207236 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1. (Insofar as it was in a big list of stories discussed.) It was also at one point considered potentially deletable and moved to our DW references lists. Not sure why it was ever listed as invalid. Someone want to ask Dench? Najawin ☎ 21:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

So this was actually a story that was on my list of Inclusion OPs to write in the coming months, quite shocked to see it covered here. Considering the debate is now live, I'd like to very quickly discuss all of the talking points I had intended to include.

So the reason this story is non-valid, as far as I can see, is that the comparison was made to Mind My Minions, as mentioned in the OP. Mind My Minions features the Minions using the TARDIS, Robot Reveal features Hacker borrowing the TARDIS. They're the same, both invalid, badabing badaboom.

There's many responses to be made here. The first is clearly that tone is more important here, and I think you can easily make the case that Minions is a Doctor Who parody, while Robot Reveal is simply a crossover between Doctor Who and (I believe) Scoop. In Robot Reveal, the Doctor Who elements are not lampooned - there are silly parts of the story, but I'd argue that is merely the internal logic of Scoop being itself silly, in the same way that Chute! Episode 9 is not a Sarah Jane Adventures parody.

But more important to this discussion, in my opinion, the discussion of a certain facet of this debate, which I like to call: The Kermit Factor.

So let me run through a theoretical. You're watching some American sitcom which, for the most part, has very typical internal logic with no supernatural elements. Then, in one specific episode, a character visits a bar in California and runs into... Kermit the Frog.

The character and Kermit have a brief heart-to-heart, and the main character moved on with their day, potentially having their point of view challenged by the green. Now, here is the question: would you find your suspension of disbelief was offended by this cameo?

Personally, whenever something like this happens, I am not offended. I don't see it as "jumping the shark" or the like. And that is because characters like Kermit have a very specific characteristic - something which I call, you'll never guess this, The Kermit Factor.

The Kermit Factor is thus defined as when a character can appear simply as a person without it seeming to challenge if this story is "serious" or "counts." Very few characters have this factor. I'd say just a few are Pudsey, Alf, and sometimes even Mickey Mouse. But in this case what I'm certain about is that the Minions do not have the Kermit factor. Hacker T Dog does, indisputably.

Hacker T Dog is not a puppet brought to life in the narrative, he's not a bit of magic or a miracle. He is a presenter on CBBC, who is even name dropped in another story: GAME: Doctor Who and the micro:bit.

Now, I understand that some will have hesitation to validate this, as it is common for licensed Doctor Who elements like the TARDIS and the Sonic screwdriver to appear on news shows and the like. But I think this is a very particular case where this short clearly justifies coverage and was clearly intended to be set inside the Doctor's universe.

The short even purposefully omits the most infamous facets that stories like this usually carry - it is not an in-universe live broadcast and Doctor Who is not presented as an in-universe TV series. It is not "meta" in that sense, it's just a little webcast which features a CBBC cast member interacting with parts of the universe. Thusly, the most similar comparison is not Mind My Minions, but in fact Chris Meets....

Personally, I consider this to be a part of the very small CBBC expanded Whoniverse, and thus I think it should be a valid source. OS25🤙☎️ 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Not entirely relevant, but I do remember seeing someone saying that the muppets were like modern day leprechauns. If you were walking down the street and you saw Gonzo at a bus stop, sure, you'd do a double take, it would be a bit odd, but fundamentally it would make sense to you.) Najawin ☎ 22:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, OS25. As a matter of fact, I discovered this story when you suggested it for a speed round, and as I didn't see it on your list of things to write validity debates for, I thought I might do it myself. I certainly see what you mean about the Kermit factor, as well; Hacker T Dog could pop up in mainstream DW, and nobody would bat an eyelid. (Also, technically, I think this story is a crossover between DW and the Cbbc continuity segments, which, it can be argued, are a spin-off of Scoop, but not entirely relevant here.) Aquanafrahudy ☎ 07:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I hardly mean to gatekeep, I don't expect everyone to check my sandboxes to see what I'm working on. I'm just shocked to find another person who cares about this. OS25🤙☎️ 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with validity. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)