User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-4028641-20170809002607: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Updating links from Series 2 (Doctor Who) to Series 2 (Doctor Who 2005)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
# Continuity doesn't matter, by any means. One could argue that Moffat was, at best, ''unsure'' about if the story was going to "count" at the time. However, by the time that ''The Pilot'' aired, he straight out said that it ''did'' count, which really should have closed the debate from day one. If the BBC or Moffat tells us that something counts or "fits", then it just does. If the BBC turned around right now and told us that something that we call "non-DWU" counted, then it would be valid. That's just how it tends to work. | # Continuity doesn't matter, by any means. One could argue that Moffat was, at best, ''unsure'' about if the story was going to "count" at the time. However, by the time that ''The Pilot'' aired, he straight out said that it ''did'' count, which really should have closed the debate from day one. If the BBC or Moffat tells us that something counts or "fits", then it just does. If the BBC turned around right now and told us that something that we call "non-DWU" counted, then it would be valid. That's just how it tends to work. | ||
# The definition of a "teaser" or a "trailer" can be all over the place, and that is an important distinction to make. Just because something was made to ''tease'' another product or ''entice'' someone into watching something else does not mean that it is a trailer. By the loose definition of "trailer" supplied above, every prequel or prelude since [[Tardisode 1]] should be invalid. | # The definition of a "teaser" or a "trailer" can be all over the place, and that is an important distinction to make. Just because something was made to ''tease'' another product or ''entice'' someone into watching something else does not mean that it is a trailer. By the loose definition of "trailer" supplied above, every prequel or prelude since [[Tardisode 1]] should be invalid. | ||
# It is heavily questionable how Amorkuz has chosen to define what a "narrative" is. The phrase "Literally nothing happens" is ''literally'' totally wrong, given that things do happen in the story ''literally''. While it might have made some more happy if the short included a whole Sherlockian plot entirely unique to the story, two people being chased by Daleks and discussing what a Dalek is is still a ''story''. If [[TV]]: ''[[Prologue (webcast)|Prologue]]'' is valid, then so is this.<br/><br/> The question of if it was truly stand-alone is also basically not even a debate. It was a stand-alone, in fact, for just under a year. Are you asking if it makes sense without ''The Pilot''? The answer is no. But, again, none of the [[Tardisode]]s make sense without [[Series 2 (Doctor Who)|Series 2]] either.<br /><br/>It is a story. If you want to argue that it's not a story, then make a forum on how every prequel or prelude ever released isn't a story. Otherwise, it's a story.<br /><br/>I also want to remind everyone that there is dialogue in ''The Pilot'' meant specifically to explain something that you only see in ''Friend from the Future''. Without ''Friend from the Future'', ''The Pilot'' doesn't make sense. You can't have one without the other. Not having ''Friend from the Future'' specifically hinders our ability to cover ''The Pilot''. | # It is heavily questionable how Amorkuz has chosen to define what a "narrative" is. The phrase "Literally nothing happens" is ''literally'' totally wrong, given that things do happen in the story ''literally''. While it might have made some more happy if the short included a whole Sherlockian plot entirely unique to the story, two people being chased by Daleks and discussing what a Dalek is is still a ''story''. If [[TV]]: ''[[Prologue (webcast)|Prologue]]'' is valid, then so is this.<br/><br/> The question of if it was truly stand-alone is also basically not even a debate. It was a stand-alone, in fact, for just under a year. Are you asking if it makes sense without ''The Pilot''? The answer is no. But, again, none of the [[Tardisode]]s make sense without [[Series 2 (Doctor Who 2005)|Series 2]] either.<br /><br/>It is a story. If you want to argue that it's not a story, then make a forum on how every prequel or prelude ever released isn't a story. Otherwise, it's a story.<br /><br/>I also want to remind everyone that there is dialogue in ''The Pilot'' meant specifically to explain something that you only see in ''Friend from the Future''. Without ''Friend from the Future'', ''The Pilot'' doesn't make sense. You can't have one without the other. Not having ''Friend from the Future'' specifically hinders our ability to cover ''The Pilot''. | ||
# You see, I'm baffled here. You just argued that it should be invalid because it's one with ''The Pilot'', and now you're saying that it should be invalid because the ''Pilot'' has too little to do with it? It's one or the other! Or rather, neither.<br/><br />The fact that this ''story'' was later retconned by the episode which ''sought out to explain its plot'' in an extremely minor way has nothing to do with if it should be valid or not. The argument that it had a different production block is also irrelevant, since shots from ''FftF'' were used in ''the Pilot''. If anything, all people credited for working on ''FftF'' need to also have their info credited on the ''Pilot''{{'}}s page.<br /><br/>And for the fiftieth time it must be clarified that ''subjective observations about continuity errors in Doctor Who have no place on our site, and thus have no place in our validity debates''. We can not tell people that a prequel short is invalid entirely because of a minor continuity nit-pick that very few people actually care about. | # You see, I'm baffled here. You just argued that it should be invalid because it's one with ''The Pilot'', and now you're saying that it should be invalid because the ''Pilot'' has too little to do with it? It's one or the other! Or rather, neither.<br/><br />The fact that this ''story'' was later retconned by the episode which ''sought out to explain its plot'' in an extremely minor way has nothing to do with if it should be valid or not. The argument that it had a different production block is also irrelevant, since shots from ''FftF'' were used in ''the Pilot''. If anything, all people credited for working on ''FftF'' need to also have their info credited on the ''Pilot''{{'}}s page.<br /><br/>And for the fiftieth time it must be clarified that ''subjective observations about continuity errors in Doctor Who have no place on our site, and thus have no place in our validity debates''. We can not tell people that a prequel short is invalid entirely because of a minor continuity nit-pick that very few people actually care about. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
Here's the ultimatum: Moffat says it fits. The entire opener of Series 10 was designed so that it would fit. Our job as a wiki is to describe stories that were meant to fit. There is no debate to be had about how well it fits. It doesn't matter how well it fits. The point is that it was meant to fit. If you don't think it fits, then to ''you'' it ''isn't canon''. But that has no bearing on if it should be valid or not on this site. | Here's the ultimatum: Moffat says it fits. The entire opener of Series 10 was designed so that it would fit. Our job as a wiki is to describe stories that were meant to fit. There is no debate to be had about how well it fits. It doesn't matter how well it fits. The point is that it was meant to fit. If you don't think it fits, then to ''you'' it ''isn't canon''. But that has no bearing on if it should be valid or not on this site. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170416191252-2.26.183.189/20170809002607-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 19:08, 25 April 2024
- Continuity doesn't matter, by any means. One could argue that Moffat was, at best, unsure about if the story was going to "count" at the time. However, by the time that The Pilot aired, he straight out said that it did count, which really should have closed the debate from day one. If the BBC or Moffat tells us that something counts or "fits", then it just does. If the BBC turned around right now and told us that something that we call "non-DWU" counted, then it would be valid. That's just how it tends to work.
- The definition of a "teaser" or a "trailer" can be all over the place, and that is an important distinction to make. Just because something was made to tease another product or entice someone into watching something else does not mean that it is a trailer. By the loose definition of "trailer" supplied above, every prequel or prelude since Tardisode 1 should be invalid.
- It is heavily questionable how Amorkuz has chosen to define what a "narrative" is. The phrase "Literally nothing happens" is literally totally wrong, given that things do happen in the story literally. While it might have made some more happy if the short included a whole Sherlockian plot entirely unique to the story, two people being chased by Daleks and discussing what a Dalek is is still a story. If TV: Prologue is valid, then so is this.
The question of if it was truly stand-alone is also basically not even a debate. It was a stand-alone, in fact, for just under a year. Are you asking if it makes sense without The Pilot? The answer is no. But, again, none of the Tardisodes make sense without Series 2 either.
It is a story. If you want to argue that it's not a story, then make a forum on how every prequel or prelude ever released isn't a story. Otherwise, it's a story.
I also want to remind everyone that there is dialogue in The Pilot meant specifically to explain something that you only see in Friend from the Future. Without Friend from the Future, The Pilot doesn't make sense. You can't have one without the other. Not having Friend from the Future specifically hinders our ability to cover The Pilot. - You see, I'm baffled here. You just argued that it should be invalid because it's one with The Pilot, and now you're saying that it should be invalid because the Pilot has too little to do with it? It's one or the other! Or rather, neither.
The fact that this story was later retconned by the episode which sought out to explain its plot in an extremely minor way has nothing to do with if it should be valid or not. The argument that it had a different production block is also irrelevant, since shots from FftF were used in the Pilot. If anything, all people credited for working on FftF need to also have their info credited on the Pilot's page.
And for the fiftieth time it must be clarified that subjective observations about continuity errors in Doctor Who have no place on our site, and thus have no place in our validity debates. We can not tell people that a prequel short is invalid entirely because of a minor continuity nit-pick that very few people actually care about.
I think this has gone on far too long, a lasting sign of the main problem with these forums. I had entirely forgotten that it was still open, because we had reached a consensus and people had agreed that it was time to close it months ago. Yet here it still is, open, a continuous sign that there's no point in even opening a thread on this site because it has almost a 0% of ever being closed.
Friend from the Future is a short televised prequel/prelude that serves the exact same role as any Tardisode or 11th Doctor prequel. There have been almost no arguments given in FftF that wouldn't also apply to those two groupings of stories.
Friend from the Future is one of the least-controversial stories for which we have had a debate on in recent years, it being valid would not even lead to the creation of pages on anything within the story. There's no hazardous side-effects or precedents which would happen by making this valid. By all accounts, making the Dr. Men series valid has more of an impact. And I am frankly frustrated that we are still doing this.
Here's the ultimatum: Moffat says it fits. The entire opener of Series 10 was designed so that it would fit. Our job as a wiki is to describe stories that were meant to fit. There is no debate to be had about how well it fits. It doesn't matter how well it fits. The point is that it was meant to fit. If you don't think it fits, then to you it isn't canon. But that has no bearing on if it should be valid or not on this site.
