Forum:Roland Rat: The Series: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|rowspan=6| [[Iris Rat]], [[Freddy Rat]] | |rowspan=6| [[Iris Rat]], [[Freddy Rat]] | ||
|rowspan= | |rowspan=7| Episode 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 7 | | 7 | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| Christmas special | | Christmas special | ||
| [[RatEnders]] | | [[RatEnders]] | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 18:47, 3 September 2023
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Opening Post
Introduction
On the 13 September 1986, the second episode of the first series of Roland Rat: The Series aired. In what this wiki has mistakenly identified as a continuity ident, Colin Baker appeared, in-character as the Sixth Doctor.
It wasn't a continuity ident, although it certainly looks like one. Let me explain.
The conceit of Roland Rat: The Series was that it was an actual talk show broadcast on BBC Three, and that Roland Rat, Errol the Hamster and the like all existed in-universe. To invoke this deception, they invited various personnel to introduce RR:tS in fictional continuity idents. It was one of these in which the Sixth Doctor appeared.
Why we should cover the whole thing
Someone made a reasonable mistake and presented incorrect facts. That's about it. There's a draft of what a page for the overall series would look like over at User:Epsilon the Eternal/Sandbox Four that I've contributed to rather significantly.
Validity
I'm fairly sure that there's no reason to doubt the DWUness of this. As Scrooge states at Talk:Untitled (1986 TV story):
[I]n such matters, when the evidence isn't black-and-white, the onus is on the people trying to prove that the story was meant to be outside the DWU, not the other way around. [Emphasis his]
But if people want to bring up validity, then feel free to.
Additional nuance that shouldn't affect validity but is worth mentioning
One can't really expect a new television series to introduce all of its recurring segments in the first episode, so in the second episode (which, I may remind you, is the Doctor Who crossover), several concepts were introduced that went on to appear several times in the series. And this means that the majority of RR:tS actually passes T:VS. (The concepts introduced, as far as I can make out, for those interested, are Iris and Freddy Rat and RatEnders, although there may be some that I've missed.) On the one hand, this shouldn't make anything invalid. On the other, it makes rather a lot of things valid. The following table is of the episodes that would be validated, although only going over the first series and Christmas special, as I haven't been able to get hold of the second.
| Episode number | DWU concept | DWU concept debut |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Sixth Doctor | The Caves of Androzani |
| 3 | Iris Rat, Freddy Rat | Episode 2 |
| 4 | Cooking With a Moron, D'Arcy De Farcy's Secrets of the World's Greatest Chefs, Iris Rat, Freddy Rat | |
| 5 | ||
| 6 | Fictionalised version of Margaret Thatcher, | Episode 3 |
| Iris Rat, Freddy Rat | Episode 2 | |
| 7 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| Christmas special | RatEnders |
Conclusion
So, that's about it. What do people think? Aquanafrahudy 📢 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
to be added
