2,623
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
::::If anything, if we insist on changing it, it seems like it should be "Doctor Who: The Film", based on this. But it's entirely possible that there was marketing around the time that's relevant. (I also think it's difficult even to hold the weak form of '''f'''. The soundtrack is literally called "Doctor Who", both on its front and spine. Is this untitled as well? I find this hard to believe.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | ::::If anything, if we insist on changing it, it seems like it should be "Doctor Who: The Film", based on this. But it's entirely possible that there was marketing around the time that's relevant. (I also think it's difficult even to hold the weak form of '''f'''. The soundtrack is literally called "Doctor Who", both on its front and spine. Is this untitled as well? I find this hard to believe.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
The newest reprint of the Target novelisation is called "The TV Movie". In any case, I think the main point here is that "Doctor Who (TV Story)" is just potentially confusing, especially to newcomers. At the very least, could we not break the norms just this once and put "1996" in there somewhere to make it somewhat clearer? "Doctor Who (1996 TV story)" for example. If not, well, fine, but I'd still say "Doctor Who: The Movie (TV Story)" would be a better title, for search reasons and because it's at the very least emblazened on the official DVD release. | |||
Also, the very fact that one version of the novel had to add a subtitle ("Doctor Who - The Novel of the Film") kind of says to me that "Doctor Who" alone is confusing and awkward for marketing purposes. — [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Send a space-time telegraph">@</span>]] 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) |
edits