Talk:Dalek Exploding in Slow Motion (webcast)

Victory or Asylum?

The page currently states that the prop originates from Victory of the Daleks but it seems clear to me that it is the "fixed" variant created for Asylum (see: here, that it was much more than just a repaint job, they had to recreate part of it to remove the infamous 'hunch')RingoRoadagain ☎ 10:52, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you had to take this to the talk page? But you're probably right, yes. I've added a mention of that to the article. The page didn't say that the prop originated in Victory per se, just that it was part of the New Dalek Paradigm which debuted in Victory. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:15, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

Should this be VALID?

Sure this fails the first of our 'four little rules', and even if you do stretch it to count as an (incredibly abstract story), it must fail rule four, since this was quite clearly, as actually admitted on the page itself, intended as an FX showcase rather than an entry into the DWU. NightmareofEden ☎ 15:37, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

A talk page isn't the place for this sort of thing. Open a thread in Board:Inclusion debates if you have evidence that it shouldn't be considered a valid source. But before you do, as the page's creator, let me present my answers to your concerns:

The fact that we can summarise in-univers events happening within it do suggest that this passes Rule 1. "Story" for the purposes of Rule 1 doesn't mean "rigorous three-act structure", it means that the story is about events in the DWU rather than being a description of static features of the DWU. Vrs is valid, The Dalek Dictionary is not: it's not about length or "abstraction".

As for whether it passes Rule 4, I don't see any special effects people on screen, any reminder within the webcast that it's a special-effects demonstration. Certainly it exists to serve as a demonstration of pyrotechnics, but that doesn't mean this demonstration isn't given an in-universe framing. If this were a real-world-focused documentary, you'd expect the special effects to be pointed out — to have "behind-the-scenes"-type footage of how they did this, an interview with the people responsible, or something of the kind. There is none of that.

I'm just not seeing an obvious Rule-4-break in the webcast. If you find a quote from the BBC or someone who worked on it, saying that it's not supposed to be a short scene about an actual Dalek, but simply footage of people in the real world exploding an empty Dalek prop… sure, open a debate. But in the meantime it doesn't look clear-cut to me, and frankly it does the Wiki no harm to cover it as a brief valid scene, so I don't see the point in holding out another quotes-deficient, protracted inclusion debate founded on speculation about authorial intent. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:52, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the rewinding of the explosion with the added narration of "come [to the Doctor Who Festival] and see how we make it all happen. It's the place to discover all the secrets behind the show". To add to it, the description of the video is "Do you want to hear how the team at Real SFX create some of the breath-taking special effects which you see on Doctor Who?", with a clear "Real SFX" sign clearly visible at the video.

As for there being "behind-the-scenes"-type footage of how they did this, that's because the video works as a teaser to the Festival itself, and there is the place they wanted people to go and find out about the SFX, not in the video itself.

At least to me, it's clear the the ""authorial"" intent is for this to be a prop being blown up, rather than a in-universe clip of a Dalek being blown up. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 22:10, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

Hm… good points. (Hadn't noticed the sign in the background.) Perhaps this should indeed be invalid. I do think there is some sort of in-universe-ness going on… but perhaps not enough to warrant validity. Do you think this ought to be taken to the forums? Or we can just slap invalid tags on both it and Drone Dalek (Dalek Exploding In Slow Motion). --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:44, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

I put an invalid tag on it. If someone really wants to argue the point, do not do so here, but take it to the forums. However, I will point out that it's pretty clear this is behind the scenes, and it would take some heavy convincing to change the ruling. And I've said this before, but please in the future take this type of question to the forums. Shambala108 ☎ 23:08, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

I know this is now already invalid, but I just wanna say that I saw this doubling as joke ‘take that’ video similar to Graham Norton getting exterminated. I don’t think it’s a coincidence they chose at that point retired but nigh-universally hated Victory design (well, technically that’s an Asylum ‘redux’ version of the Victory design, which personally I like, but whatevs, as the cool kids say). But the point is I wouldn’t call it valid no matter how one spins it. I can (just about) see the argument for it passing rule one, although I personally disagree, but I can’t see anything suggesting it comes even close to even touching rule 4. NightmareofEden ☎ 10:51, April 24, 2020 (UTC)