Trusted
34,029
edits
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Deleted Scenes and Rule 4 By Proxy (view source)
Revision as of 23:24, 30 April 2023
, 30 April 2023→Discussion
Time God Eon (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
:I '''support''' validating the Pilot. From what I can tell, it is fairly straight forward R4bp. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | :I '''support''' validating the Pilot. From what I can tell, it is fairly straight forward R4bp. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: To respond to Najawin's posts above, I actually don't think that [[T:VS]] ''does'' say that deleted scenes fail rule 3. I think it says they "arguably" might fail rule 3. There is no fine text or clarification, and it is my belief that in this case this statement is being universally made about deleted scenes which exist but were never released. For instance, the many deleted and alternate scenes from the 1996 TV movie (i.e. the Master meeting the security guards). I believe I effectively represented Rule 3 in my opening post numerous times by stating quite directly that these products do need to have been officially released, which is pretty much all that Rule 3 actually states. | |||
:: I also think I'm not deeply moved by Czech's argument that the inherent slippery slope of validating some "deleted scenes" is that eventually we'll validate the Tom Baker broadcast of ''Shada'' because... We already do that? And furthermore, if ''Shada'' hadn't been re-done in 2017 and we weren't all so ''burnt out'' on the debate, I suspect we'd have already validated the 1992 ''Shada'' by now. | |||
:: I do respect Najawin's dedication to being thorough so that we're accurately covering every potential argument here, but I do not think the "rule 3" argument holds any ground and I also don't really think Rule 3 was actively cited in the forum I linked. | |||
:: As per PS... You have indeed shown that ''PS'' was intended to be a bonus feature. But what you, and no one else, has ever shown is that releasing this segment online with very little alterations was anything but an attempt to ''get this out there'' so it would ''count''. In other words, I think the webcast was released so this scene would exist and would thus pass Rule 3. If you think it was released as a "what if?" or something that wasn't meant to count, I'd love actual evidence to support this. | |||
:: Look at it like this. When the BBC releases a reconstruction of a lost Troughton story, is that a valid source? Yes. So why is this reconstruction, clearly released so the story would still be out there, considered a lesser beast? I think there's no sound logic to it. | |||
:: I feel the same way about the upcoming Big Finish releases of the "early drafts" of ''Genesis of Evil'' and ''The Ark''. These stories do not fail rule 3 because they are about to be released! Now, perhaps they might fail Rule 4 or Rule 1 depending on how Big Finish presents them, that's another topic. But them not airing on TV should not disclude them from valid space coverage. If there's some other angle to this I'm not seeing, please advise. | |||
:: Also, sorry to the late reply to this one. I honestly considered this to be a low-importance OP and I'm shocked we have got to it this soon. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
