User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-27280472-20160606210324/@comment-1432718-20161130042841: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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"> | ||
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: | DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: | ||
| Line 23: | Line 22: | ||
Also, this is not a brand new thing we're deciding. This discussion was originally closed over '''four years ago'''. The burden of proof is on those who wish this story's validity to be changed, and I've seen nothing new that would change this story from invalid to valid. | Also, this is not a brand new thing we're deciding. This discussion was originally closed over '''four years ago'''. The burden of proof is on those who wish this story's validity to be changed, and I've seen nothing new that would change this story from invalid to valid. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20160606210324-27280472/20161130042841-1432718]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 22:58, 27 April 2023
DENCH-and-PALMER wrote: Though seriously can anyone provide quotes?
I've got loads of quotes.
Nev Fountain, script editor for DCTT
- "I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon , you can. or not. Whatever you prefer."
- "I think Death Comes to Time is very much a one-off project as far as I'm concerned, but perhaps this online thing will prove to be a stepping stone."
Dan Freedman, director, producer and writer (under the name Colin Meek) of DCTT
- "No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing. You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."
- Inclusion debates aren't about the narrative merits of the story, but rather any out-of-universe clues that the producers didn't think the story within the bounds of the normal DWU.
- It is the foundational precept of this wiki that articles about narrative elements — characters, locations, concepts — shall be written from an in-universe perspective.
- For this reason, a process — which, incidentally, I did not personally invent — emerged whereby we occasionally examine a story or range to see whether it should be considered a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles. If there's evidence that the creators/copyright holders did not intend for the story to be a part of the DWU, or if there's a question about the story's legal status, we exclude it.
- It's as simple as this: we pay attention to what producers/writers say because Steven Moffat's mother-in-law got Terry Nation effective ownership of the Daleks. That means the current iteration of Doctor Who is largely based on something the BBC don't even properly own. So we're kinda obliged to listen to what individual creative personnel say.
- Over the past 8 years that this wiki has been open, we've been moving slowly but inexorably towards the conclusions that have now been finally codified in Tardis:Canon policy and Tardis:Valid sources. Both place the out-of-universe statements of creators above narrative.
Please note that the discussion of this story's validity has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Doctor dies in the story. Contradictions in narrative elements do not decide validity; if they did, we'd probably have maybe one or two stories on the entire wiki.
Also, this is not a brand new thing we're deciding. This discussion was originally closed over four years ago. The burden of proof is on those who wish this story's validity to be changed, and I've seen nothing new that would change this story from invalid to valid.
