Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-6032121-20200505221407

Indeed. "Parodical quality" is often in the eye of the beholder; you could very well argue that Robot of Sherwood is a parody of a celebrity historical, or at the very least a parody of a Robin Hood movie, yet we're hardly going to call it invalid on that basis. "Parody" in T:VS means "a parody of Doctor Who", I think it's fair to say — and even then, only when it is clearly the authorial intent that it is a parody. Where essentially, authorial intent that a story be a parody is equivalent to authorial intent that the story isn't set in the real DWU — hence failing Rule 4.

I don't see that in these stories at all. Escape to Penhaxico is a direct sequel to Voyage of the Damned, dealing with the fallback of Max Capricorn's disappearance. Destiny's Door doesn't seem to have any comedic elements to speak of, and is likewise a continuity-heavy, flashback-focused sort of thing. There are clear efforts at play to fit into the series' continuity.

Sure, they reuse visuals to depict new things. But do you have a minute to spare about prop reuse, and dodgy backgrounds, in the Classic Series? It hardly invalidates The War Games that for no logical reason to speak of, the War Chief is wearing a Zephon medallion — or, for that matter, that one of the Time Lord judges looks exactly like Lemuel Gulliver because the BBC only had so many actors on hand. I think we're allowed to exercise some amount of common sense in these matters. The First Doctor isn't supposed to have a different face in The Five Doctors, and you're not supposed to see the wires, and that device is not Platform One.