User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170224115408

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-4028641-20170222073756
Revision as of 14:47, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

5.2.105.85 wrote: Is a licensed cameo, a DWU story?

So a quick response to this -- I don't think you could really call their role in this film a cameo. What you're asking is an important question, but the word cameo suggests that they're in one scene with no context. They are in a huge chunk of the movie.

But yes, I think a licensed cameo meant in the same vein as a crossover is absolutely a valid source for a story.

Imagine if IDW had printed a Star Trek comic where the Fourth Doctor showed up and helped them for one scene. They got permission, they gave proper documentation, and it was meant as a legit crossover. Can you really say the story is invalid just because it's technically a cameo?

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/Inclusion_debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170224115408&oldid=3505507"