User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170224115408: 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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
5.2.105.85 wrote: | 5.2.105.85 wrote: | ||
Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid ''just'' because it's technically a cameo? | Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid ''just'' because it's technically a cameo? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170224115408-4028641]]</noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 14:47, 27 April 2023
5.2.105.85 wrote: Is a licensed cameo, a DWU story?
So a quick response to this -- I don't think you could really call their role in this film a cameo. What you're asking is an important question, but the word cameo suggests that they're in one scene with no context. They are in a huge chunk of the movie.
But yes, I think a licensed cameo meant in the same vein as a crossover is absolutely a valid source for a story.
Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid just because it's technically a cameo?