Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,018
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Specifics
(→Basics) Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
Meaning: with the exception of a common-sense carve-out for ''really, really obvious'' parody-cases (which is incidentally also how we're carving out something like the [[BBC Choice ident]]), '''stories which don't break Rules 1-2-3 are assumed valid until proven otherwise by a BTS quote''', not the other way round. [[User:Najawin]] considers it "less than trivial" that ''Step Into the 80's'' was intended to be set in the DWU, but its departures from conventional depictions of the DWU are not so great that it is not ''also'' less-than-trivial that it ''wasn't''. (<s>I do hope I didn't forget a dangling negative in that sentence.</s>) | Meaning: with the exception of a common-sense carve-out for ''really, really obvious'' parody-cases (which is incidentally also how we're carving out something like the [[BBC Choice ident]]), '''stories which don't break Rules 1-2-3 are assumed valid until proven otherwise by a BTS quote''', not the other way round. [[User:Najawin]] considers it "less than trivial" that ''Step Into the 80's'' was intended to be set in the DWU, but its departures from conventional depictions of the DWU are not so great that it is not ''also'' less-than-trivial that it ''wasn't''. (<s>I do hope I didn't forget a dangling negative in that sentence.</s>) | ||
Put more plainly, we do not have any authorial quotes placing it outside the DWU, and I don't think it's an ''obvious'' non-starter for Rule 4 in the same way that, to be topical, ''[[Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant (TV story)|Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant]]'' is. Its only recorded invalidity | Put more plainly, we do not have any authorial quotes placing it outside the DWU, and I don't think it's an ''obvious'' non-starter for Rule 4 in the same way that, to be topical, ''[[Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant (TV story)|Lenny Henry Regenerates into David Tennant]]'' is. Its only recorded invalidity rationale was its promotional nature. Absent that rationale, from now on, '''the onus is on people wanting to prove it {{tlx|invalid}}, not the other way around'''. It'll be validated as part of the present "slate" of immediate pingbacks from this decision, not as a specific decision on the merits of this specific case, but as a matter of course — because outside of the "promotion conflicts with Rule 4" doctrine, it's just a not-obviously-parodical licensed TV story with no "it doesn't take place in the DWU" authorial quotes, and those are valid ''by default''. | ||
Of course, an exclusion debate could then be proposed, if anyone believed they had positive evidence that it fails Rule 4. However, as per the hypothetical R4BP above, that would merely switch its ''rationale'' for validity, not induce actual invalidity, so I'm dubious of the usefulness of such an endeavour. Still, pitch what thou wilt; that's what the proposals table is for! | Of course, an exclusion debate could then be proposed, if anyone believed they had positive evidence that it fails Rule 4. However, as per the hypothetical R4BP above, that would merely switch its ''rationale'' for validity, not induce actual invalidity, so I'm dubious of the usefulness of such an endeavour. Still, pitch what thou wilt; that's what the proposals table is for! | ||
| Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
Incidentally, the same rationale applies for ''[[Meet the Thirteenth Doctor]]'' (and its ''own'' prequel/teaser, ''[[It's Almost Time (TV story)|It's Almost Time]]'', which appears to still lack a page — [[:File:It's Almost Time - Doctor Who|that thing there]]). We don't ''need'', contrary to OttselSpy25's speculation on the [[User:OttselSpy25/Commercial_fiction_sandbox|"commercial fiction sandbox"]], | Incidentally, the same rationale applies for ''[[Meet the Thirteenth Doctor]]'' (and its ''own'' prequel/teaser, ''[[It's Almost Time (TV story)|It's Almost Time]]'', which appears to still lack a page — [[:File:It's Almost Time - Doctor Who|that thing there]]). We don't ''need'', contrary to OttselSpy25's speculation on the [[User:OttselSpy25/Commercial_fiction_sandbox|"commercial fiction sandbox"]], "a future story (…) to give context to what's going on here". The Thirteenth Doctor wearing a hoodie and returning to her TARDIS in a nondescript forest are not, to put it mildly, facts so wildly out of whack with continuity that common-sense Rule 4 concerns even ''begin'' to apply. Now that we've done away with the "promotional intent conflicts with Rule 4" doctrine, this is, in the absence of any exclusionary Rule 4 quotes from its creators and/or the Beeb, no more or less than a Thirteenth Doctor BBC TV minisode with an ambiguous timeline placement. | ||
[[File:Future At Your Fingertips.jpg|thumb|left|If a colour-blind TV-viewer would see ''nothing'' Rule-4-teasing about these skits, should we really be that worried?]] | [[File:Future At Your Fingertips.jpg|thumb|left|If a colour-blind TV-viewer would see ''nothing'' Rule-4-teasing about these skits, should we really be that worried?]] | ||
| Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
And to round back to the last bullet point of the list in "Specifics," I think this also applies to ''[[The Future Is At Your Fingertips (TV story)|The Future Is At Your Fingertips]]''. The red TARDIS is ''peculiar'', but it's no more than ''peculiar''. Nothing else in the skit flags them as parody-like or not in continuity. I personally suspect that it was as simple as the difficulty of sourcing a blue, British police-box prop, and one is meant to ''overlook'' that it's the wrong kind of phone box in the same way that, as was ratified in the Forums, [[Shada (TV story)|at the end of the 2017 ''Shada'']] where the visibly-elderly [[Tom Baker]] reprises the [[Fourth Doctor]], we should simply overlook his sudden and unavoidable shift in appearance, just as much as we overlook boom mics and the like. | And to round back to the last bullet point of the list in "Specifics," I think this also applies to ''[[The Future Is At Your Fingertips (TV story)|The Future Is At Your Fingertips]]''. The red TARDIS is ''peculiar'', but it's no more than ''peculiar''. Nothing else in the skit flags them as parody-like or not in continuity. I personally suspect that it was as simple as the difficulty of sourcing a blue, British police-box prop, and one is meant to ''overlook'' that it's the wrong kind of phone box in the same way that, as was ratified in the Forums, [[Shada (TV story)|at the end of the 2017 ''Shada'']] where the visibly-elderly [[Tom Baker]] reprises the [[Fourth Doctor]], we should simply overlook his sudden and unavoidable shift in appearance, just as much as we overlook boom mics and the like. | ||
But for an alternative perspective, the last of these skits does have the Doctor stating that his box is "out of | But for an alternative perspective, the last of these skits does have the Doctor stating that his box is "out of order"; to spell out the obvious, [[TV]]: ''[[Attack of the Cybermen (TV story)|Attack of the Cybermen]]'', among others, ''has'' shown us the Ship turning into a variety of other disguised appearances distinct from the blue box as a result of a malfunction. Either way, I think the conjunction of these two possibilities, improvised off the top of my head, shows that the discrepancy is by no means far-out enough to justify ''default'' invalidity. So once again: if someone wants to open a different debate to ''rule them invalid'', they can, and this time there's no R4BP rationale waiting in the wings to render such an effort moot. But this should start off as valid until and unless proven otherwise. | ||
=== Final thoughts === | === Final thoughts === | ||
