User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170525044210/@comment-188432-20170525093229: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Yeah these stories are dumb. To be fair, though, there's not gonna be an awful lot of interest even in the stories that ''do'' have Daleks. The book comes from a wholly different age of storytelling. | Yeah these stories are dumb. To be fair, though, there's not gonna be an awful lot of interest even in the stories that ''do'' have Daleks. The book comes from a wholly different age of storytelling. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
From a real world perspective, consider what Nation was trying to do with the Daleks at this point. He had/was about to withdraw them from ''Doctor Who'' to use them to launch his own franchise with them. This annual was sort of the first salvo in that failed campaign. These two stories were the equivalent of "backdoor pilots" for potentially new franchises from the Dalek platform. | From a real world perspective, consider what Nation was trying to do with the Daleks at this point. He had/was about to withdraw them from ''Doctor Who'' to use them to launch his own franchise with them. This annual was sort of the first salvo in that failed campaign. These two stories were the equivalent of "backdoor pilots" for potentially new franchises from the Dalek platform. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170525044210-4028641/20170525093229-188432]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:12, 27 April 2023
Yeah these stories are dumb. To be fair, though, there's not gonna be an awful lot of interest even in the stories that do have Daleks. The book comes from a wholly different age of storytelling.
All I can say is that the book as a whole is copyright Nation by special arrangement with the BBC. It's claimed to be "based on the Dalek Chronicles discovered and translated by Terry Nation". These two stories are a part of that license, and that fictional claim, unlike "Chris Welkin -- Planeteer". So that's why these stories were included on the wiki, but "Welkin" wasn't. They are original stories to this publication, presumably approved in some way by Nation himself.
Having the articles is preferred because it allows us to explain what their plots are, and so to highlight that they're not obviously connected to Daleks. However, they are a part of the fictional "Dalek Chronicles", so the conceit of the annual is that those two stories were of interest to the Daleks.
From a real world perspective, consider what Nation was trying to do with the Daleks at this point. He had/was about to withdraw them from Doctor Who to use them to launch his own franchise with them. This annual was sort of the first salvo in that failed campaign. These two stories were the equivalent of "backdoor pilots" for potentially new franchises from the Dalek platform.
