User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-95.145.155.227-20171125234745/@comment-31010985-20180101193902

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-95.145.155.227-20171125234745
Revision as of 15:40, 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)

86.152.200.4 wrote: I'd say that he was joking.

Do you have a source for that? He spoke to The Fan Show as if she were alive. It might have been something of a joke in 2008 on set but RTD has now made it happen. This sort of situation can be likened to Steven Moffat jokingly stating that Nardole has invisible hair - something which made it onto screen in Twice Upon a Time! At the end of the day RTD's statements about the canonicity of the poem can be put down to him caring about his character and wanting to clarify that she had a happy story in the end. His interview for Radio Times also backs this up, he also echoes the story about Phil Collinson:

Absolutely. She's my character, that's my episode. I say that's true.RTD, when explicitly asked about the canonicity of her fate

I look forward to an admin making a ruling on the anthology, hopefully sometime in the near future!