Bots, emailconfirmed, Administrators
34,286
edits
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
m (Updating links from Series 4 (Doctor Who) to Series 4 (Doctor Who 2005)) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
Next, let's discuss a case study where we actually have some ''authorial intent'' to cite! | 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!'' | : '''[[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 381: | Line 381: | ||
=== Rule 3 === | === 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 printed in DWM or broadcast in ''Confidential'', how could it not? | 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 === | === Rule 4 === | ||
So ''when'' "unfinished" or previously-deleted gets an official release ''presenting it | 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}} | {{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}} |