Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy (view source)

Revision as of 19:41, 25 April 2024

38,464 bytes added , 25 April

m

Updating links from Series 4 (Doctor Who) to Series 4 (Doctor Who 2005)

Botgo50

Bots, emailconfirmed, Administrators

34,286

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Category:Panopticon archives]]
+[[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
+{{archive}}
 == Introduction ==
 {{Quote|Oh, Davros, I am far more than just another Time Lord.|Seventh Doctor, thing he never said.}}
@@ Line 62: / Line 65: @@
 Next, let's discuss a case study where we actually have some ''authorial intent'' to cite!
-In [[Series 4 (Doctor Who)|Series 4]]'s finale, ''[[Journey's End (TV story)|Journey's End]]'', the so-called [[Meta-Crisis Doctor]] is left on [[Pete's World]] to live his life with [[Rose Tyler]]. Originally, the sequence was going to show the [[Tenth Doctor]] giving the M-C Doctor a piece of [[TARDIS coral]], with the intention of him growing a second TARDIS for Rose and him to explore the universe with. This was actually filmed! In the recorded scene, the Meta-Crisis Doctor complains that growing a TARDIS takes thousands of years. But Donna explains:
+In [[Series 4 (Doctor Who 2005)|Series 4]]'s finale, ''[[Journey's End (TV story)|Journey's End]]'', the so-called [[Meta-Crisis Doctor]] is left on [[Pete's World]] to live his life with [[Rose Tyler]]. Originally, the sequence was going to show the [[Tenth Doctor]] giving the M-C Doctor a piece of [[TARDIS coral]], with the intention of him growing a second TARDIS for Rose and him to explore the universe with. This was actually filmed! In the recorded scene, the Meta-Crisis Doctor complains that growing a TARDIS takes thousands of years. But Donna explains:
 : '''[[Donna Noble]]''': ''If you shattify the plasmic shell and modify the dimensions stabiliser to [something something something] 6.3... youuuu accelerate the growth power by 59!''
@@ Line 273: / Line 276: @@
 : Real quick, even if we don't validate The Pilot Episode, can we all agree to give it the (home video) DAB? I think it's actively needed now that we also have [[The Pilot (TV story)]]. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 18:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+:: Yes, I definitely agree with giving it a dab. I should note that I feel like ''The Pilot Episode'' should be valid but with the treatment that OS25 proposed - it should be covered as a home video release from the 1990s, and thus not the "first appearance" of any character. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]][[User talk:Pluto2|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+::: The release on home video from the 1990s would not and should not be enough to validate ''the Pilot Episode'', as it would still (at minimum) fail Rule 4. It was released as a deleted scene, with Verity Lambert even having a running commentary on why parts of the pilot episode were changed for ''An Unearthly Child''. It was not released as a meaningful contribution to the DWU, but as a matter of production history --it ''is'' a deleted scene (or rather, several deleted scenes). It's a production oddity. A more poorly produced version of the episode that was actually released. It's not even a "deleted scene" that was cut for timing purposes, but one that was deleted because it was not of the written or production quality necessary to justify its release. And that is a shadow that hangs over literally every release that it comes out on. Verity Lambert isn't sitting there in the commentary saying "We wanted to get that scene of William Russell knocking over a prop in there, but it just fussed with the pacing so we got rid of it." She's sitting there saying ''why'' they changed things. It amounts to trying to validate the three alternative takes of David Tennant saying "I don't want to go." I also feel I should bring up my concern that validating this would lead to rather ''obtuse'' coverage regarding the First Doctor's first episode. Editors shouldn't need to cite this alongside ''An Unearthly Child'' as equally valid, but validating it would encourage editors to do so --which would ultimately lead to over-coverage. Bringing ''The Pilot Episode'' in under Rule 4 By Proxy as a palimpsest universe more merit, but I maintain that trying to slot this in under Rule 4 on its own would be irresponsible. And to address OS25's question, yes we should give it the (home video) DAB. [[User:NoNotTheMemes|NoNotTheMemes]] [[User talk:NoNotTheMemes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::: That...is the same position that I have, though? And that OS25 proposes? That under R4BP we cover ''The Pilot Episode'' as a depiction of the [[original palimpsest universe]], and create separate [[The Doctor (The Pilot Episode)]], [[Susan Foreman (The Pilot Episode)]] pages, etc. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]][[User talk:Pluto2|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
+: The Pilot Episode was aired on Bbc2 in 1991. The home video dab would be silly imo the [[Special:Contributions/81.108.82.15|81.108.82.15]]<sup>[[User talk:81.108.82.15#top|talk to me]]</sup>
+:: Yes, but its primary and first release was on home media. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 01:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::As the so called ancient admin of the original discussion, I still disagree with most of what OS25 has proposed.
+:::The deleted scenes proposal, I think fail Rule 1, 3 and mis-uses Rule 4 by proxy.
+:::The deleted scenes on their own fail as a work of fiction, as in isolation they're not a contained work of fiction. They only work as part of the story they're the deleted scene of. And without being included in a special edition or other release like that aren't a contained story. So they fail Rule 1 and Rule 3. Yes they have been officially released, but they aren't in a fictional story – and sometimes they're missing sound mixing, picture grading and other elements.
+:::With The Pilot Episode, as our [[The Pilot Episode|own page]] points out there's several versions of this story with different versions having been packaged up over the years for different releases.
+:::I think Rule 4 by proxy has the potential to be mis-used in this sort of discussion, as it should have a higher bar for brining a story in than references like those cited. There needs to be clear authorial intent and indication, not just references / nods to fans. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 06:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+:I've changed my opinion quite a lot now. Some deleted scenes arguably fail rule ''1'', as they might not be ''complete'' works of fiction, but I don't feel adept at defining the barriers there, and also think it's probably a case-by-case basis. I agree with the general idea in this thread that deleted scenes should not be considered to fail rule 3, as by us seeing them they have been released. I think that all deleted scenes should fail rule 4 by default (as they were discarded), but that authorial intend and ''maybe''  proxy can countermand this. The "Tardis coral" scene in [[Journey's End (TV story)|Journey's End]] is the prime, and quite probably only, example of a deleted scene outright passing rule 4, as RTD said he still considers it to "count" (he may even have used the word "canon", I'm not sure) and that it was only the length of the scene that cut it. So if deleted scenes are ruled by the closing post as passing rule 1, then I believe this scene should pass as valid. However, the ''Remembrance of the Daleks'' scene I am less comfortable about - and '''The Pilot Episode '' I am strongly against - as it was only referenced. I say this as an avid supporter of r4bp, '''i do not think that deleted scenes should be validable by r4bp'''. However, if an admin decides that making exceptions for r4bp isn't good, I can accept the validity of ''Remembrance of the Daleks'', but I do not think that ''Unnatural History'' was trying to bring ''The Pilot Episode ''' into continuity.
+Finally, I ''do'' think that ''P.S.'' should be valid, however I do not think that this is the thread for it, as I do not think it is a deleted scene. However I have not watched it, so my opinion there is of low worth. [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
+::I am with Ettolrhc on most of their point. I do think some of these should be valid but not under rule four by Proxy. I think some of these deserve a forum to debate it they are deleted scenes of not and whilst I would like the pilot to be valid it would be very hard to do as I don’t know which versions we would cover or not. But the ones that I think should be valid I would argue are not deleted scenes and this is thus not the place to debate it. [[User:Anastasia Cousins|Anastasia Cousins]] [[User talk:Anastasia Cousins|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
+:So. This is an interesting one. My opinion on this is that deleted scenes pass rule one, as T:VS does not say "Only complete works of fiction count" but "Only works of fiction count", and if a work is not a work of fiction, then it must be a work of non-fiction, and none of the examples above seem to pertain to this description. Please correct me if I am wrong. My opinion is also that officially released deleted scenes, such as the Journey's End and Remembrance of the Daleks ones above, should pass rule three because, well, they've been officially released. Right. Let's tackle the cases above individually. Remembrance of the Daleks: I '''do not support''' the validation of this scene, because for 4bp you need ''clear authorial intent'', and I do not think that misremembering something counts as clear authorial intent. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. Journey's End: This, I think, is by far the clearest, either by rule 4 or 4bp, both seem pretty clear to me. I '''support''' validation. P.S.: '''Support''' validation. Nothing much more to say, except that this isn't really a deleted scene, so should've been left for a speedround or something. Still, no matter (probably). The pilot episode: I do think that this is clear authorial intent. We should probably cover this as an alternate timeline, though, and have pages like the Doctor (The Pilot Episode) etc. I '''support''' validation. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] [[User talk:Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+::To clarify, the reason why ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'' ''has'' to be treated as a deleted scene is because there was a debate on this already, and it was ruled to be one. Unless there's new evidence to dispute this ruling not present in these original discussions [[T:POINT]] applies. R4bp isn't applicable for this, since that can't make it not a deleted scene. If we pushed ''P.S.'' to another thread, it just wouldn't get discussed - it would violate T:POINT to do so. You have to treat it as a story that ''solely'' violates R4 (through being a deleted scene) but now passes it through R4bp in order to get it validated. But, as stated, it's non obvious that this is true. Tangerine has stated that he thinks deleted scenes also violated R3, and Czech was definitely gesturing to R3 worries as well. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::Oh, sorry. But if something can be experienced, if it has been released on the official YouTube channel or whatever, then surely it looks passes rule 3? Isn't that what rule 3 means? [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] [[User talk:Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::Maybe? Things don't tend to fail R3 - it's not usually invoked to remove something from validity, I think there was maybe a comic or a book that only got a limited release at a convention and was considered to not be an "official" release, or something?
+::::As stated before, I think applying any of the 4 rules to the issue is anachronistic, that's just not why these were invalidated, but certainly it's R3-ish, [[User:Tangerineduel]], who was the admin involved in the original deleted scenes discussion, has already said he thinks they fail R3. [[User:CzechOut]] suggested something clearly R3 adjacent as well in [[Forum:P.S.]]:
+::::::We'd also have to conclude that the ''actual'' title of ''[[The Claws of Axos]]'' was ''The Vampire from Space'', since there's an officially released title card on the DVD. Of even greater difficulty, we'd have to somehow have to grant the TV version of ''Shada'' some kind of legitimacy, even though major parts of it — really, most of the narrative's ''concluding'' scenes)[sic] — were never filmed at all. [...]
+::::::It would be a ''major'' sea [sic] change in the policy we currently have to allow ''storyboards'' to substitute for ''story''.
+::::The conflation of storyboards and story seems to me to be an almost archetypal R3 concern.
+::::But, like, yeah, maybe they pass. We don't really have a ton of R3 jurisprudence. Maybe just being able to go read/watch the thing means it passes R3. (And for the closing admin here, note that I do mean maybe in the strictest possible sense, I don't think this is a good position to hold.) But I think that has some counterintuitive implications about old script revisions and such. I just don't see why showing us the scrapped product, a look into what definitively didn't happen, but allowing us more access into the bts production fun, is being treated as on par with an actual released product, even one that's invalid. It seems a category error to me. The product was just never released. What was released was a work print, not an actual product. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::Fair enough, I think I agree with you there. You've convinced me that deleted scenes maybe shouldn't be validated due to R3 concerns, although ultimately I'm neutral on this point. However, with P.S., I don't think it actually counts as a deleted scene. I know it was ruled to be one, but policy can be overturned, right? And [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s argument against it being a deleted scene seems pretty convincing:
+::::::Because the webcast is depicted as a rotating series of drawings which clearly originated as storyboards, there was speculation that it was a "deleted scene," and that this was originally the ending to [[TV]]: ''[[The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story)|The Angels Take Manhattan]]''. However, writer [[Chris Chibnall]] revealed that the scene was actually intended as a DVD live-action bonus feature. [[Mark Williams]] was not available for filming, so the dialogue was recorded and it was turned into a webcast. Ultimately, in all regards other than the quality of the art, it somewhat resembles the early ''DW'' webcasts, such as [[WC]]: ''[[Shada (webcast)|Shada]]''.
+:::::Ultimately, I support saying that P.S is not actually a deleted scene, and I'm now neutral on deleted scenes and R3. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]] [[User talk:Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+Apologies if the message placement here interferes with the thread's pacing, but I've some points on this matter. Another example of a single deleted scene adapted into released fiction would be [[Planet of the Rain Gods (comic story)]], which (like the Big Finish adaptations) contradicts the relevant TV episode but could be covered validly as 'another account'. As has already been discussed, similar deleted-scene-caused-TV-contradictions appear in many novelisations, which we already successfully cover with account language. Is this complicated by "Rain Gods" later being re-adapted into [[Rain Gods (home video)]], which drives to not break with the televised continuity? I don't think so, but it's worth discussing.
+Additionally, regarding ''The Pilot Episode'', I do see value in its use as a valid source. It'd help fleshing out what exactly the [[Fourth dimension]] meant back then, at least! I'm uncertain, however, if the changes between the Pilot and aired episode are of the same level as [[Dr. Who and the Daleks (theatrical film)]] for separate pages to be an advantage; the shift from the Pilot's characterizations to those of later episodes is more gradual and part of the journey that was aired, and even the backstories given in the Pilot have relevance to the aired episodes (it's not like we're living in the universe of ''[[The Pitch of Fear (TV story)|The Pitch of Fear]]''). Regarding [[Palimpsest universe]]s, as was already mentioned in the opening post, the idea expressed in the late '90s novels was that all the shifts in backstory lore were in-universe temporal shifts, including the half-human and loom stuff, that resulted in the universe being in-universe as contradictory and multi-possibility as it is in reality; we cover those later things in "accounts" language, no [Seventh Doctor (Lungbarrow] and [Seventh Doctor (The Enemy Within)], and I believe the same would work with the Pilot (same introductory story and events, just with different speeches). The core idea of ''Unnatural History'' is that the Doctor is in-universe the same character in all their versions and overwritten timelines: the human of the 1960s becomes the Time Lord of the 1970s becomes the half-human of the 1990s, a form of "continuity of consciousness" even if the 1990s Doctor doesn't usually remember his other backstories. Perhaps this argument interferes with the careful balance being sought here, but that's my two cents. Never hurts to explore the horizon, ''said Icarus''. [[User:TheChampionOfTime|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT">CoT</span>]]   [[User talk:TheChampionOfTime|<span title="Talk to me">?</span> ]] 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+:Wow, I almost missed this thread! After reading through the above, I agree with [[User:Aquanafrahudy|Aquanafrahudy]]'s analysis of the Rule 1 concerns, [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]]'s comment on Rule 3, and [[User:OncomingStorm25th|OS25]]'s treatment of Rule 4 (especially given [[User:TheChampionOfTime|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT">CoT</span>]]'s comment, which I believe heartily bolsters the case for ''The Pilot Episode''). For these reasons, I support the coverage of ''P.S.'', ''The Pilot Episode'', and the scenes from ''Remembrance'' and ''Journey's End'' as valid DVD extras. I have many further thoughts regarding R4BP, [[Carnathon]], and {{tlx|NCmaterial}}, but I'll save them for a different occasion. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 17:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::So to clarify [[User:Aquanafrahudy]], ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'' ''is'' a deleted scene, or at least it's formed out of the remnants of the work gone into a scene that was supposed to exist - cut when [[Mark Williams]] was unable to make it for filming - which is what we usually say when we mean "deleted scene". The storyboards were for a scene that was intended for a DVD extra, '''''as was the voice over.''''' (Think about the scene. It needs the voice over. Having the voice over is not evidence of completion, you need to show actual production details about when that was ''done.'') Insofar as there's anything new there's some minor animation to make characters have a bit of a parallax effect and some typography. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::So in summary, something new ''was'' added (however "minor"), and the video with this new material was officially released as a webcast on the BBC Youtube channel. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::But, again, by this metric ''every'' deleted scene "released" ever is an actual new piece of content, because you always add at least some editing to the product and "release" it. So now our prohibition against deleted scenes doesn't invalidate ''anything'', which is clearly not the intent of the actual ruling. Regardless, this is very much [[T:POINT]] on ''P.S.'' in particular. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::By referencing [[T:POINT]], do you mean that there's been no new information brought forward to justify a reconsideration of the status of ''P.S.''? I don't see how that's the case. ''[[Rory's Story (webcast)|Rory's Story]]'' hadn't been released the last time we discussed it, and also the validity rules have changed since then. (You may not like or agree with R4BP, but frankly, no one's ever accused our validity rules of internal logical consistency.) Reconsidering ''P.S.'' in light of these developments seems sufficiently justified. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+Hello! This note will seem fairly trivial to future readers, but I ''do'' so apologise for the lateness of the present closing post. A huge, controversial thread and a busy time in my life (as well as in those of all the admins who could plausibly have closed it in my stead) make for a dangerous combination.
+=== Background and T:POINT ===
+As [[User:Najawin]] reminded us multiple times in this thread, it is worth remembering that deleted scenes were not initially excluded from the site for any actually proper reason. As he puts it, "in the early days of T:VS the list of exceptions was just that, exceptions, (…) things that people had specifically ‘voted off the island’ through community discussions, and they didn't violate any of the 4 little rules, people just didn't want to cover them". '''This sort of thing is ''thoroughly'' unconscionable under the modern [[T:VS]] paradigm, and modern policy-making paradigm in general'''; it bespeaks an embryonic, often biased era of the site. It suggests that if we were right to rule such things out, it was more in a "stopped clock" way than anything else. I exaggerate — as Najawin himself further notes, discussion of points ''adjacent'' to the 4LR was involved in the old thread, because it just ''makes sense'' to think about these issues; I'm not saying the old users & admins were throwing darts at the wall or anything — but it wasn't done by the book, that's all.
+So in terms of whether this thread passed [[T:POINT]], forget the R4BP question — '''reviewing the coverage status of anything which was ruled out in discussions that predate the modern, impartial, universalised form of T:VS is warranted by default'''. We should be extremely, extremely careful about invalidating anything; we should be downright neurotically cautious about ruling anything ''non-covered'', and by and large this is what has been done with deleted scenes.
+(I do not believe the current T:VS contradicts the modern paradigm in saying that the 4 Little Rules "help you understand what works of fiction 'count' on this wiki well over 90% of the time [while] he rest of this document is concerned with the other 10% — the marginal cases that are a little less clear": by "a little less clear", it is meant that ''although'' there is a robust sense in which our coverage of these marginal cases flow from the 4LR, the rationale is not ''obvious'' at first glance and bears spelling out.)
+And I think a similar logic also justifies reviewing ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]''. From what I've seen of the previous discussion, and indeed the controversies we've seen here, I just don't think we had a robust definition of what a "deleted scene" was at the time. ''P.S.'' is the storyboard workprint of a ''whole'' short; it's not a "scene" that was "deleted" from anything. Things get even crazier when we're asked to think of ''shooting scripts'' as "deleted scenes" — we might think of specific bits in the scripts as deleted scenes, but validating a script ''in gestalt'' would not by any sane use of language constitute "validating a deleted scene". Come on now. Our discourse on all of this is hopelessly confused if this is the sort of conclusion it's outputting.
+All this being said — stopped clocks ''are'' sometimes right, with proverbial frequency. '''It ''would'' be completely crazy to validate every deleted scene ever; or indeed every deleted scene that got an official release.''' So let's move on to analysing these things through the lens of the modern Four Little Rules, and see what that leaves us with, if anything.
+=== Rule 1 ===
+I am shocked at how little discussion there was of this. I believe a lot of the intuitions that had people (including ''me'', in the 2020 redraft) pointing helplessly at Rule ''3'', are actually about Rule ''1''. And when we consider this, it starts to make a lot more sense that a bunch of deleted scenes lack pages altogether. Stuff which breaks Rule ''1'' goes un-covered ''all the time''.
+Partially-quoted script extras — bloopers and other unused shooting clips — those things all fail Rule ''1'' before you move on to any of the others. They're not complete works of fiction, any more than musings on in-universe questions partway through a "letter from the showrunner" in DWM are.
+The slightly problematic thing is of course that "completeness" is, sometimes, more of a state of mind than a fact. A slideshow of still images might be [[Real Time (webcast)|an artistic choice]]; we can't start judging BBV and Reeltime productions "unfinished" if they lacked proper colour-grading. ''[[Doctor Who and the Time War (short story)|Doctor Who and the Time War]]'' passes Rule 1, while an ''actual'' snippet of an unfinished novelisation draft wouldn't. (This is, of course, why ''[[How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)|How The Monk Got His Habit]]'' was so controversial in its day.) Nor can you retreat to "completed to the standard that was ''initially'' aimed for" — some of the VFX work in ''[[Orphan 55 (TV story)|Orphan 55]]''-as-broadcast was infamously rushed or unfinished relative to the original plan.
+Still, when something is released as "Deleted Scene #22" on a DVD, I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no ''intent'' to release it as a coherent, bounded work of fiction. Ditto unnamed script extracts quoted in ''The Writer's Tale'', a piece of concept art printed in DWM, or whatever else. '''To a first approximation, if its purported "official release" is untitled, it's out.''' There could be imaginable exceptions, but I don't know of any at the moment, and they can be discussed in individual threads.
+So it's here that we must say goodbye to the ''Journey's End'' and ''Remembrance'' deleted scenes, I fear. Especially the latter, which does not seem to have ever had a ''standalone'' release separate from the context of a documentary. It's not about level of completion — if, however ungraded and unscored, the ''Journey's End'' scene was put on YouTube as, I dunno, ''Parting Gift'' or something, and the blurb said "in this exclusive mini-episode, discover one more thing that might have happened before the Doctor left Pete's World for the last time", then sure, we could give that a page; and validate it by R4BP when a later story changes that "might" to a "did". But as things stand it's not coverable as fiction, valid or otherwise.
+This rule isn't symmetrical — the presence of a title of some kind does not ''necessarily'' mean that something passes Rule 1. A blooper that's released on DVD as ''Sylvester Trips and Falls'' is being released as "its own thing", but visibly framed as "look at this accident that happened during filming", not "look at this short work of fiction where the Seventh Doctor hurts his leg". And, of course, a script or workprint of a full episode will presumably bear the title of the finished product for its own!
+==== Scripts ====
+Okay, what ''about'' complete scripts, then?
+Uhm… pass?
+Sorry, sorry. But this question is much too peculiar and wide-ranging in itself for this discussion to resolve it, IMO. There's been too little discussion of Rule 1 ''at all'', let alone in relation to full released scripts, for me to feel comfortable resolving this. '''The de-facto, [[T:BOUND]] view is that "real" scripts written for production ‘are not fiction’''', even when we have pages about them. [[The Masters of Luxor (script)|''The Masters of Luxo'' (script)]] has borne a {{tlx|non-fiction}} tag since 2012 — ''not'' an {{tlx|invalid}} one. To a degree this makes sense — scripts, as a reading experience, are often written from a real-world perspective. They're practical guides to wrangling your actors, not themselves a work of art.
+But then again, writing things in ''in the manner of a script'' is a legitimate way of writing prose — look at something like ''[[The Crikeytown Cancellations (short story)|The Crikeytown Cancellations]]''. And the lines are blurry — many notable literary playwrights from the 19th century wrote primarily for print, not to be performed (my reference for this is very French: Alfred de Musset's concept of the "armchair theatre"), and yet their works are still perceived as "plays", not "novels written in the style of a script" as we would dubiously dab such a thing. And of course, writing "this isn't meant to be performed by actual flesh-and-blood actors" on your script is the surest way to ensure that every up-and-coming director on the planet will try it. It's all terribly blurry.
+And I do think, ''sometimes'', an official release of a full script is done in this spirit — that even if it wasn't initially intended as such, it is being printed here with the intention that it may be enjoyed as a reading experience, as ''a way of experiencing the story'' (i.e. fiction) rather than a historical, BTS document of ''what might have been''. Just look at the foreword of the aforemenetioned script release of ''Masters of Luxor'':
+{{quote|When I first started to read Anthony's rejected script, ''The Masters of Luxor'', it was with a mixture of excitement at experiencing a 'new' first-Doctor adventure and an expectation of it perhaps being, somehow, 'second-rate'. However, within the first couple of pages I was hooked and I did not stop reading until I reached the final page of the last episode. Far from being a weak story, it is one which is not only a gripping read, but which contains at its heart a most fascinating science fiction concept which would work today every bit as well as when it was first written, nearly thirty years ago.|John McElroy}}
+…Okay, Rule 1's wording no longer ''limits'' itself to "stories", but still, it should count for something that McElroy, this book's editor, keeps referring to the script itself as "a story". No?
+Of course, intent to be read as a story does not mean intent to be read as a ''DWU'' story, about which more later. But supposing there had never been a ''[[The Lost Stories|Lost Stories]]'' [[The Masters of Luxor (audio story)|version]] of ''Luxor'', and then somebody wrote a valid ''Return to Luxor'' audio story, sequelising its events with the understanding that this was a story that fans ''had'' experienced, via the scriptbook… well, validating a script on a R4BP basis ''then'' would not, to me, seem unwise or unwarranted.
+What about things like the shooting scripts — i.e. first drafts of later-released works? I think it is rarer for such things to get official releases presenting them ''as'' works of fiction. Looking at the ones on the BBC website, the framing ''is'' much more along the lines of "get a peek behind the scenes". But I could see a world where the unabridged ''[[The Faction Paradox Protocols]]'' scripts get a release that frames them as "experience the stories ''in full''!", instead of "here is an exclusive BTS look at things which didn't happen". (For all I know BBV's ''Faction Paradox: The Scripts'' books are that, although I haven't bought them so I don't know what, if any, critical apparel they contain.) Maybe that release would itself pass Rule 4, or maybe it would pass Rule 4 By Proxy when someone at Obverse decides to pick up one of the bits of lore in the unrecorded bits, and runs with it. Why then couldn't ''that'' be something that could potentially be validated through a thread? Why ''not''?
+…But again, all of this is hypothetical and will bear discussing in a further thread, which I intend to start myself. '''The above outlines ''how'' treatment of scripts would fit into the paradigm I'm establishing here — but all of this is conditional on a future thread explicitly tossing out the notion that scripts can never be treated as fiction at all'''. In the meantime they remain non-covered.
+=== Rule 2 ===
+Not one we need to worry about very much, I think we're all on the same page and it sort of blends into the "official" bit of "officially released" in Rule 3. Still, it's worth saying explicitly that '''if we're proposing to treat a "deleted scene" as valid fiction, albeit retroactively valid fiction, then its official release needs to be licensed ''as'' fiction'''. A professional-grade, documentary effort like ''[[Vworp Vworp!]]'' might be legally allowed to print, say, the deleted prologue of a novel, which might, perhaps, have a title attached, ''insofar as it is a BTS document'' — even though they are not allowed to release it "as" a new work of fiction featuring the [[Seventh Doctor]]. Such a thing would be a non-starter on validity or even coverage, even ''if'' it is framed in such terms that its exact twin printed in [[DWM]] with the same blurb could be a candidate for coverage as its own released thing.
+=== Rule 3 ===
+As I believe I've outlined by now, most of the so-called "Rule 3-adjacent" concerns really resolve to Rules 1 and 2; a few more will resolve to Rule 4. As concerns the sheer ''question'' of whether a thing like this was "officially released" we should, as has been stated many times, follow common sense. Deleted scenes which have had official DVD releases (or the like) ''have'' been, um, officially released (whereas leaked ones are non-starters for coverage, even if we have reliable sources for their contents). The question is just whether they were released ''as'' clearly-delineated works of fiction, and if so, as works of fiction ''set in the DWU''. But sure, they pass Rule 3 itself. Plenty of thoroughly uncoverable things pass Rule 3 — in many cases that old bugbear, the off-handed interview quote, passes Rule 3! If the interview is printed in DWM or broadcast in ''Confidential'', how could it not?
+=== Rule 4 ===
+So ''when'' "unfinished" or previously-deleted material gets an official release ''presenting it as fiction'', can ''that'' be valid? It's a very narrow case. But yes, I think so. We'll come to R4BP in just a moment, but I believe such things can pass regular Rule 4 just fine. Look at the succinct blurb on ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'':
+{{simplequote|Find out what happened to Rory's dad and the Ponds in this unshot scene by Chris Chibnall.|The Official Doctor Who YouTube Channel}}
+Not only are is this blurb not presenting the video as just a way to find out what a scene-that-might-have-been ''would have been about'', but it's explicitly presenting it as a window into the actual lives of the character, not just a might-have-been or suggestion. Viewers are invited to see the "unshot scene" as a way to "find out what happened to (etc.)". That is how it is framed: as an account of definite events in the Whoniverse.
+(Okay, I can just feel that someone will come along and say that there's linguistic ambiguity here, and the blurb might be saying "''find out [what happened in the unshot scene]''", as opposed to "''find out [what happened] in the unshot scene''". I find this unlikely for a variety of reasons, but if that were true, it would just become a R4BP case, so it doesn't change the bottom line for ''P.S.''; and it doesn't affect the hypothetical point of how we'd treat a release with a blurb that's similar to my redfing, but non-ambiguous.)
+Thus '''''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'' is hereby ruled an example of a valid release primarily composed of previously-discarded material'''. It passes Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4, in a way that the vast majority of "deleted scenes" and other similar material do not.
+This opens the door for at-least-{{tlx|invalid}}, and potentially valid, coverage of other things in the same case — but '''such cases will need individual debates'''. As per Rule 1, everything rides on the spirit in which ''[[The Pilot Episode]]'', 1991 ed., was released — one long outtake, or a live-action narrative they didn't want you to see? And then there's the concerning matter of its multiple cuts. I don't think they're the end of the world (the various Special Editions are a similar puzzle!), but I would feel better validating it if we had a sound theory of coverage here. In short, more research is needed, and it should remain covered on a singular page, as a BTS piece, until that research is performed. Only then would we be able to think about "/Non-valid" coverage, let alone validation by proxy.
+==== Rule 4 By Proxy ====
+Once again we see some fairly heated debate about the boundaries of that humble little clause in [[T:VS]]. Unless one leans on the possible ambiguity in the YouTube blurb, it is irrelevant to the only validation effected by the present thread — ''[[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]]'' — which is ironic given the title it started from. However, '''the ''principle'' is hereby affirmed that Rule 4 By Proxy can apply to "deleted scenes" that pass Rules 1, 2 and 3 to the standard outlined above'''.
+Furthermore, this time, I think the back-and-forth has generated an opportunity to clarify an important aspect and limitation of R4BP.
+'''R4BP applies when the natural assumption is that the validating story is making a continuity reference ''to'' the validated story'''. Not just when the valid story "coincidentally" has facts in common with the would-be-validated one because they're both drawing from the same source.
+Case in point, it seems wildly unlikely to me that a Missy bio using the name "Carnathon" is doing so with the intent of coming across as ''a continuity reference to the Pilot shooting script''. (To begin with, I don't think the script was publicly out yet when the bio was released.) It is in fact using that name because the name was presumably given to BBC copywriters in relation to the plot of ''Extremis''; the deleted ''Pilot'' line is a call-forward to a factoid which was meant to come into play in ''Extremis''. It was ultimately left out both of ''Extremis'' and ''The Pilot'', but the copywriter wasn't to know. This is analogous to the pretty uncontroversial points made about novelisations: if a noveliser going off the original shooting script includes stuff that's left out of the TV version, they're not R4BP-ing a deleted scene which probably had yet to be released to the public by that point anyway.
+Of course, this is doubly moot in this case: first because of the ruling I made above regarding scripts, and the BBC-website shooting-scripts in particular — but also because… I don't think the redlinked "Missy" thing that's used as a source on [[Carnathon]] is or should be a valid source? I believe it's [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/xCgpqKWg8nj5BS2LJ6DRV0/missy this thing], and I just don't think that passes Rule 1. Notwithstanding Carnathon, it's strictly a restatement of her TV history, with no attempted new spin or extra details or ''anything'' — and at a glance, although this one doesn't explicitly acknowledge "in episode so-and-so…", this seems incidental, as other profiles of the same source, written in the same sort of style, do so freely (the profile for [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/55584DPj9h9RyxV6hXWhcKV/the-master the Master] talks about how "''we'' first encountered [[the Master (Terror of the Autons)|the Master]] during a period when…"). When we hear "Missy was tried on Carnathon", the implication is "in the episode ''Extremis'', Missy was tried on Carnathon"; not "in the space year 6789.ApplesauceDelta, Missy was tried on Carnathon".
+Right, I think that's everything! As always, thanks to everyone who participated, and please do chime in on the talk page with any questions if I've left anything out or been unclear in some way. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
+</div>