Talk:The Appliance of Science (home video)

Was this actually licensed and officially released?

I have to call into question the matter of whether or not this was licensed. It was, after all, a corporate video made for and meant only to be played behind closed doors. We know from the folks who worked on Devious that Pertwee was open to reprising his role as the Doctor for a fee, even when the project in question wasn't actually overseen by the BBC or licensed in any manner. Do we have any evidence to show that this was infact a licensed appearance of the Doctor?

Further to that, there is of course the issue of T:OFF REL to contend with. I cannot find any listing of this video having been included on a DVD or VHS release. Indeed, the only copy I can find of this is on a YouTube channel dedicated to uploading TV archival clips they've recovered.

Most of the adverts we've covered on the Wiki have been released via official online channels (the BF Christmas advert, Meet the Thirteenth Doctor), or been released on an official DVD or Bluray release (Prime Computer adverts, Superannuation, the Sky Ray advert), or come from a business venture that is obviously clear in its licensed nature. (Denys Fisher figure advert, the Character Options adverts, Who on HORROR's repeat season)

This, on the other hand, seems to be in the same level of presumption as the Vodafone adverts Pertwee starred in - but without even the solidness of an intended public showing. JDPManjoume ☎ 11:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Well, if it was licensed, then I don't think T:OFF REL is necessarily an issue. It's not like it's waiting on an official release, so we'd just cover it as that peculiar edge-case of {{invalid}} and/or {{unprod}} already represented on the Wiki by Journey into Time (and which we have resolved to apply to to Absent Friends, although I see its page has not been created yet). But yeah, would appreciate more research into its licensing status. Surely this has been documented in DWM or some trustworthy fanzine?

Not sure this is an advert in any case, though. It was produced as an in-house corporate video, yea? If that is so, then it's not really advertising the company at all. Indeed, if it were fully licensed and officially released, then I see no reason this couldn't be valid. I won't remove the invalid tag now, though, since it appears that this story will at best be covered-as-invalid like Journey. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)