Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170226205200

Amorkuz wrote: I can't believe somebody would actually make a thread about it. It just shows that standards of validity debates have to be maintained, lest we descend into farce.

if you pay attention, it's clear they were mocking my presentation of this thread in that thread.

I think I pretty clearly explained how LTBiA and this film are different earlier in the thread:

OttselSpy25 wrote: It's simply not a "cultural reference" if the characters appearing are fully licensed and are shown in the right context. Let's compare it to Looney Tunes: Back in Action, as someone did in another thread.

Back in Action is set in a universe with cartoon animals living alongside people. The reason it does matter in that case that the universe is different from the DWU is that it's never explained that the Daleks aren't from the universe that they're currently in. They didn't go out of their way to explain how it makes any sense. The Lego products did do that.

The important clarification is that the film is not set in the DWU at all. But we do not literally chose to call things valid or invalid based off of if a story is set on "Earth-5556" or not. The film is set in a universe on a tangent to the DWU, and it's explained how characters from the DWU ended up there. That's what actually matters.

There was a clear-cut effort to make this appearance, and indeed all of the uses of Doctor Who characters, make some resemblance of sense. They wanted us to understand how this all tied in. Thus it sort of is based in the DWU.

Things that this movie is not:

It's not LT:BIN because the Daleks are properly licensed and it's explained how they are in a universe where we wouldn't expect them to be.

Borisashton wrote: All I could find relating to the Terry Nation issue shutdown IMDB message board.

A good effort to find evidence, but you can't quote fan forums so infamously badly put together that they just got closed permanency. Next I'll start quoting random LEGO threads.

The question of if they had the licensing totally worked out is a good question, but as SOTO said there's just likely stuff that we don't know. There could be a very, very long explanation for why it turned out this way. I think it's odd, but I don't think it's proof that these aren't the Daleks or that the stories isn't licensed.