Trusted
8,512
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 00:27, 1 May 2023
, 1 May 2023→Discussion
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
:: 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) | :: 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) | ||
:::No, no, of course. Look, I get what you're driving at with the R3 issue here, but I think there's a real concern. (Again, I want to note, I do not believe that R3 itself is a reason for invalidating these things, nor was it the reason at the time. I think it's R3-adjacent, which I think is what Scrooge is getting at with his quote in the other thread. It's not an explicit violation of one of the 4 rules, but it's close enough that we really should be thinking carefully about it.) | |||
:::Consider this. We have scripts that were released for a lot of different episodes of the BBC Wales show, yes? Many of these scripts are different than the final production. (For instance, in the ''Hell Bent'' script, it's stated that 12 remembers Clara as he sees the painting on his TARDIS at the end.) These are "Official Releases" if you want to call them that, they're all available on the BBC's website. What would happen if one of them mentioned something that didn't make it into the final production, if it was cut, and then a later story then used that same concept? Would we have to validate this previous draft of the script? Would we have to make sure that everything in this script is now covered on the wiki as an alternative account to what actually showed on TV? After all, it meets R1, R2, (apparently) R3, and now R4, through R4bp. | |||
:::What if I told you this already happened? Twice? With two different iterations of the '''''same story?''''' Both the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/documents/doctor-who-s10-ep1-first-draft-steven-moffat.pdf first draft] and the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/documents/doctor-who-s10-ep1-shooting-script-steven-moffat.pdf shooting script] of ''[[The Pilot (TV story)|The Pilot]]'' mention [[Carnathon]], which was later named in a web short story. Now, maybe this is an overly strong reading of what R4bp would require from us, but I think we might be forced to concede at least the ''shooting script'' would be valid if this is what "officially released" means. This... seems bizarre to me. (And even if you think the authorial intent to bring these "into continuity" isn't demonstrated by a mentioning of Carnathon, and this is merely using a name, well, first, let me say that this strategy hasn't proven very effective for me in previous threads, but you're welcome to try it. But even were this true, the problem still remains in principle, and it seems radically counterintuitive that we would validate a script that was released to the public as an attempt to let people get a glimpse behind the curtain - a script that the people at the time decidedly did not release in their professional capacity as the ones making the show - simply because a later author decided he wanted to pay homage to it.) Does this give anyone else pause? If it's just me it's just me. But I can't imagine that this is an intuitive interpretation of our rules. | |||
:::Why would I think that [[P.S. (webcast)|P.S.]] was intended to be a "What If"? I absolutely don't think that. I think that it was a combination of the material they had on hand for a scene they were working on, made into a form that was watchable for normal audiences, that they then released for the enjoyment of the fans. Similar to ''every deleted scene ever''. If Darvill had come back to record lines after they knew about the availability issue, that would change things, but there's no evidence of this. If the drawings were done after they found out that would change things, but there's no evidence of this. It's literally a half finished product stitched together for fans' enjoyment. I like it! But that doesn't mean that there aren't massive R3ish concerns. It's not even slightly similar to anything that anyone else has compared it to in this thread - it's not a reconstruction, it's a preconstruction. You can't reconstruct something that never existed. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
