Talk:Brooke (The Lady in the Lake): Difference between revisions
m (→Companion: fixing autocorrect error in my message (not changing message, just fixing what amounts to a typo)) |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::: Yes, that's true, and I think that is a very good argument in favour of her companion status, however I feel she should be considered a companion even if this weren't the case. That said, I am not familiar with the convention for such determinations. | :::: Yes, that's true, and I think that is a very good argument in favour of her companion status, however I feel she should be considered a companion even if this weren't the case. That said, I am not familiar with the convention for such determinations. | ||
::::Anyway, are there any objections to this? I know it was OncomingStorm12th who originally reverted their companion status, but we haven't had any input from them on this issue yet. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:39, June 28, 2019 (UTC) | ::::Anyway, are there any objections to this? I know it was OncomingStorm12th who originally reverted their companion status, but we haven't had any input from them on this issue yet. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:39, June 28, 2019 (UTC) | ||
: So, for benefit of future readers of this discussion, I'll link to the [https://www.facebook.com/thebigfinish/posts/2598145690214597?comment_id=2598982303464269&reply_comment_id=2599619343400565&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D Facebook post] which originated my removal of her status as a companion. Even though there isn't really a policy towards this and, in many cases there is a clear consensus on who's a companion and who's not, it seems that this isn't one. I completly agree that the narrative supports her being a companion and all, but when the producers of the stories themselves come foward and say: "River is not a companion so Brooke would not be applicable either", I think we ''could'' reconsider. After all, we consider [[Heather Threadstone]] a companion based solely on a behind the scenes comment from Colin Baker. | |||
: And I agree there are several instances of "companion turned enemy", from BF stories in itself: [[Mathew Sharpe]] and [[Daniel Hopkins]] for example. All in all, I wouldn't be opposed to returning both Brooke and River to the companion categories, but if even Big Finish don't consider them to be companions, why would we? [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:17, July 28, 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:17, 28 July 2019
Main Actor
I’ve listed Nina Toussaint-White as the main actress to play Brooke because she’s the latest incarnation but I don’t know what the policy is on who is considered the main voice actor. Joanna Horton plays Brooke for the majority of My Dinner with Andrew, all of A Requiem for the Doctor and a small cameo in The Lady in the Lake. Whereas Nina only appears near the end of My Dinner with Andrew and then in all of the Furies. Basically I just want to know whether the actress who appeared most in the role or the actress who currently inhabits the role is considered to be the main one. SarahJaneFan ☎
- Going by the Master's main page, it appears the first actor to portray them gets to be listed as the main actor. Snivystorm ☎ 20:40, January 25, 2018 (UTC)
Companion
Since when do we care about out-of-universe sources? She meets the criteria required to be considered a companion of the Fifth Doctor - so why is the word of Big Finish's social media team more valid than the fact she travelled with the Fifth Doctor for a period of time both before and after we first see her in The Lady in the Lake (audio story)? Danochy ☎ 11:55, June 26, 2019 (UTC)
- Companion status is a tricky thing to determine because there are no criteria as defined in-universe. Shambala108 ☎ 14:19, June 26, 2019 (UTC)
- I would place her as a companion. In the story where she is introduced she's a companion from the start, even if she does turn out to be a plant. The whole point of her character is introducing a companion River hasn't heard of before, which ergo makes her a companion. --Revan\Talk 17:36, June 26, 2019 (UTC)
- She wouldn't be the first companion to secretly have it out for the Doctor. I agree, she’s very much introduced as such, and before her plot is revealed she and River talk about the experience of being a companion to the Doctor. There’s enough been a whole subplot where each is trying to undermine the other, ostensibly out of jealousy, and Brooke is said to have been travelling with the Doctor for a while, filling a role which she claims she's afraid she'll get replaced in by River. As far as the Fifth Doctor is concerned throughout her introduction, Brooke is his companion.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 19:42, June 26, 2019 (UTC)
- She wouldn't be the first companion to secretly have it out for the Doctor. I agree, she’s very much introduced as such, and before her plot is revealed she and River talk about the experience of being a companion to the Doctor. There’s enough been a whole subplot where each is trying to undermine the other, ostensibly out of jealousy, and Brooke is said to have been travelling with the Doctor for a while, filling a role which she claims she's afraid she'll get replaced in by River. As far as the Fifth Doctor is concerned throughout her introduction, Brooke is his companion.
- Yes, that's true, and I think that is a very good argument in favour of her companion status, however I feel she should be considered a companion even if this weren't the case. That said, I am not familiar with the convention for such determinations.
- Anyway, are there any objections to this? I know it was OncomingStorm12th who originally reverted their companion status, but we haven't had any input from them on this issue yet. Danochy ☎ 01:39, June 28, 2019 (UTC)
- So, for benefit of future readers of this discussion, I'll link to the Facebook post which originated my removal of her status as a companion. Even though there isn't really a policy towards this and, in many cases there is a clear consensus on who's a companion and who's not, it seems that this isn't one. I completly agree that the narrative supports her being a companion and all, but when the producers of the stories themselves come foward and say: "River is not a companion so Brooke would not be applicable either", I think we could reconsider. After all, we consider Heather Threadstone a companion based solely on a behind the scenes comment from Colin Baker.
- And I agree there are several instances of "companion turned enemy", from BF stories in itself: Mathew Sharpe and Daniel Hopkins for example. All in all, I wouldn't be opposed to returning both Brooke and River to the companion categories, but if even Big Finish don't consider them to be companions, why would we? OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:17, July 28, 2019 (UTC)