User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-1789834-20170416233756: 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: | ||
Here are the things that I'll give to Moffat in trying to make ''FftF'' fit in: | Here are the things that I'll give to Moffat in trying to make ''FftF'' fit in: | ||
1. He separates Nardole from the Doctor and Bill, giving him a task to perform. This explains (in-universe) why he's not present in ''FftF''. | 1. He separates Nardole from the Doctor and Bill, giving him a task to perform. This explains (in-universe) why he's not present in ''FftF''. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
None of what I've observed here is paraphrased, made up or head canon. I have the scene in front of me. I can see ''FftF'' being valid. But I totally disagree with the thought that the writer's word is law. Because it isn't. Writers can happily suggest ways in which things fit together but at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. And regarding the whole contradiction not equalling validity thing, we're on the same page. We've shared discussions regarding this on here before. You'd be teaching your granny to suck eggs by trying to reteach it to me. | None of what I've observed here is paraphrased, made up or head canon. I have the scene in front of me. I can see ''FftF'' being valid. But I totally disagree with the thought that the writer's word is law. Because it isn't. Writers can happily suggest ways in which things fit together but at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. And regarding the whole contradiction not equalling validity thing, we're on the same page. We've shared discussions regarding this on here before. You'd be teaching your granny to suck eggs by trying to reteach it to me. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170416191252-2.26.183.189/20170416233756-1789834]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:49, 27 April 2023
Here are the things that I'll give to Moffat in trying to make FftF fit in: 1. He separates Nardole from the Doctor and Bill, giving him a task to perform. This explains (in-universe) why he's not present in FftF. 2. I see what CoT means by "pocket of time", as the Doctor and Bill leave the Dalek and Heather to fight it out between themselves. In the next scene, it reuses "What's that thing?", "A Dalek.", "What's a Dalek?", "Never mind. It's a Dalek." and then cuts to them running down a corridor... so, no, it doesn't contradict the main scene. We just have to assume that Moffat jumped the rest of the conversation because it would slow down the episode.
The only differences I see are as follows: 1. Despite the protestations here, the corridors do have their differences. Behind the Doctor and Bill, there's a war zone strewn with bodies. In FftF, there are no bodies and the scene is fairly calm. But this is rather minimal. 2. When they're approached by the Dalek, they're in another corridor completely. They've left the previous corridor. So in order to explain that- we'd have to jump to conclusions (which borders on head canon, which isn't a valid form of proof on this Wiki)... Heather took over the Dalek and then went on to pursue the two of them? The reasoning makes sense, but the scenic issues just don't when you try and place where they're running to (and from). Dialogue is removed yet a scene change is added.
The scene is then nicely sealed up with Nardole returning rather seamlessly. No explanation as to how he escaped the Dalek, but that's for another day.
None of what I've observed here is paraphrased, made up or head canon. I have the scene in front of me. I can see FftF being valid. But I totally disagree with the thought that the writer's word is law. Because it isn't. Writers can happily suggest ways in which things fit together but at the end of the day, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. And regarding the whole contradiction not equalling validity thing, we're on the same page. We've shared discussions regarding this on here before. You'd be teaching your granny to suck eggs by trying to reteach it to me.
