User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20190530074906: 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: | ||
Specifically, I think JNT's "bit of fun" quote was defensive in nature. He made an episode of Doctor Who without pay, knowing it might be his legacy, tried his best to make it good despite horrible production issues... And then he faced the wrath of the fans, and probably was tired of hearing about it. We certainly shouldn't use that to claim that the episode was intended not to "count in the DWU", or that episodes which reference the episode must also be invalid. | Specifically, I think JNT's "bit of fun" quote was defensive in nature. He made an episode of Doctor Who without pay, knowing it might be his legacy, tried his best to make it good despite horrible production issues... And then he faced the wrath of the fans, and probably was tired of hearing about it. We certainly shouldn't use that to claim that the episode was intended not to "count in the DWU", or that episodes which reference the episode must also be invalid. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
The answer is "no," we would never do that because it makes no sense. It would be us implementing a weird idea of canon into the site and wouldn't even be seriously considered. It's the same here. Trying to say that any story that references one we don't cover must be invalid by association is fanon speculation, and I stand by that. | The answer is "no," we would never do that because it makes no sense. It would be us implementing a weird idea of canon into the site and wouldn't even be seriously considered. It's the same here. Trying to say that any story that references one we don't cover must be invalid by association is fanon speculation, and I stand by that. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170306172600-4028641/20190530074906-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 27 April 2023
Specifically, I think JNT's "bit of fun" quote was defensive in nature. He made an episode of Doctor Who without pay, knowing it might be his legacy, tried his best to make it good despite horrible production issues... And then he faced the wrath of the fans, and probably was tired of hearing about it. We certainly shouldn't use that to claim that the episode was intended not to "count in the DWU", or that episodes which reference the episode must also be invalid.
One day I feel we're going to have a situation where something like this happens on a longer scale. What if, for instance, a TV episode jokingly referenced DiT? It's not too unlikely, we'd had references to Doctor Who being the character's name and him being half-human in the past five years. A reference to a story we don't consider valid is only one bored writer away. Would we then invalidate that TV episode on the grounds of it "being set within the same universe of a NON-DWU story"?
The answer is "no," we would never do that because it makes no sense. It would be us implementing a weird idea of canon into the site and wouldn't even be seriously considered. It's the same here. Trying to say that any story that references one we don't cover must be invalid by association is fanon speculation, and I stand by that.
