User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45314928-20200606044454: 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: | ||
Harness calls this a "discarded first page of a novelisation". and i read that as... an extract of an unproduced story - you read that as... his satirical attempt to follow in RTD's footsteps and release his own short story, without it being promoted by anyone but himself. | Harness calls this a "discarded first page of a novelisation". and i read that as... an extract of an unproduced story - you read that as... his satirical attempt to follow in RTD's footsteps and release his own short story, without it being promoted by anyone but himself. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
please find evidence that Chris Chibnall acknowledged this story. he acknowledge the work that Emily Cook was doing, through mention to her on the BBC website, but this "story" had nothing to do with Emily so surely he would have acknowledged it separately. | please find evidence that Chris Chibnall acknowledged this story. he acknowledge the work that Emily Cook was doing, through mention to her on the BBC website, but this "story" had nothing to do with Emily so surely he would have acknowledged it separately. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200606025128-45314928/20200606044454-45314928]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:16, 27 April 2023
Harness calls this a "discarded first page of a novelisation". and i read that as... an extract of an unproduced story - you read that as... his satirical attempt to follow in RTD's footsteps and release his own short story, without it being promoted by anyone but himself.
then Emily Cook is asked about the unproduced story. i read that as... the extract from the unproduced novelisation story that he shared the prior day, you read that as... her thinking the fan truly believed that an unproduced television story was part of lockdown (despite having been pitched five years before lockdown was founded!).
yours is the interpretation which makes no sense.
and it matters not to me what *people* (you and Scrooge) think. there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a "framing device". unlike RTD's Rose sequel and the Dalek alternate script - which were made clear to be new releases posing as old ones (mainly due to the fact that they were produced and organised by Emily Cook).
please find evidence that Chris Chibnall acknowledged this story. he acknowledge the work that Emily Cook was doing, through mention to her on the BBC website, but this "story" had nothing to do with Emily so surely he would have acknowledged it separately.
