Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-27280472-20160606210324/@comment-20607870-20161128221822

Fwhiffahder wrote: DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:

Not meaningless. You're making an absolute statement without providing any reasoning or backing.

OttselSpy25 wrote:

This thread is seeming a little too petty to me, to be honest. Can we get some real quotes from the people who made the product?

There are a bunch of quotes on the original inclusion debate. None of them speak directly to the alternate universe vs. NOTVALID distinction of course, since it is made up by, and unique to, this wiki.

DENCH-and-PALMER wrote:

Petty? Well BBCi aimed to continue Doctor Who, if they were trying to de-canonise the movie, then why introduce E.Grant as the "incoming important part" Ninth Doctor.

Well, DCtT and SotS aren't really the same thing. And anything about "de-canonising" is completely irrelevant, because there is no canon.

My overall point is this: NOTVALID sources like the Peter Cushing movies or The Curse of Fatal Death are not intended to be set in the world in which Survival is set, or The Eight Doctors. Operating on the assumption that Death Comes to Time is meant to feature the Doctor's permanent death in his seventh incarnation with the intention of contradicting the movie, it might not be set in the world of The Eight Doctors - but it is obviously still set in the world of Survival. If you watch it, it's obvious that the characters "the Doctor" and "Ace" are meant to be the same characters as in the original show - barring the movie. So the story isn't accurately covered unless information about the characters in it is placed in the context of their "proper" histories (albeit with an "in one universe" disclaimer).

I do however find it very rude when people don't answer the question straight away and just start with "There is no canon" maybe not here, but if there was no canon then everything would be valid - just another word for another.