Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130319195443/@comment-188432-20130322215208

OttselSpy25 wrote: To address Czech's three points:

I'm going to indulge this conversation one more time, because maybe I've not explained this as well as I could. So I've gone back to get genuine quotes from rock solid sources so that maybe we can put this to rest once and for all.
 * 1) Is it properly licensed?
 * 2) Has the BBC or the copyright holder indicated that they don't believe the story is a part of the mainstream continuity?
 * 3) Is it obviously parodic?

Well, I say "maybe". What I mean to say is that 'this will be the last discussion on DIT ever'' on this wiki. Dimensions in Time will never be ruled a valid source on this wiki. Please stop trying to find some tricky angle to get it approved.'''

Here's why.

Properly licensed?
No. It's not "properly licensed". The BBC do not own it in the way that they own other stories. The performers did not license their likenesses or performances in the same way that they did on other stories. This is why Andrew Pixley says, in DWM 324:
 * "… the programme-as-completed documents read: 'N.B. This material can never be used on air again."

Parodic?
Yes, it's obviously parodic. Remember that parody has two meanings. The most common is, "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." But the other meaning is, "an imitation or a version of something that falls short of the real thing."

Whether it's comedic is something that can be debated. Nick Briggs is conflicted enough to ask in DWM 209,
 * "Is it fair to view Dimensions in Time as a piece of television drama — or does it simply fall into that category occupied by adverts and comedy sketches?"

But is it "a version of Doctor Who that falls short of the real thing?" There's really no doubt that it does. Find me one person who thinks Dimensions on Time is on par with genuine Doctor Who. DIT is quite clearly worse than whatever part of Doctor Who you think is the nadir. Simply by virtue of having a plot, The Twin Dilemma beats DIT.

(Now, in fairness, Briggs does say in DWM 209 that the lack of a plot means that DIT is like other episodes of DW. However, he is clearly being hyperbolic when he says this, and immediately goes on to say that what little good is in DIT is "swimming around in something frenzied and meaningless which was masquerading as a plot.")

Part of the mainstream continuity?
Absolutely not.

Fan belief
Despite what OttselSpy25 maintains above, most fans do indeed see it as problematic. This is proven in The Second Doctor Handbook, as quoted on the article itself. Nick Briggs says in DWM 209,
 * "…this was not Doctor Who, just a charity get-together for a very good cause."

And JNT himself says in DWM 249 that Jean-Marc Lofficier included information about DIT in the Programme Guide, "and then some of the fan gliterati went mad!" — the implication clearly being that the fans didn't believe it to be a part of "the programme" implied by the title, Programme Guide.

BBC belief
Andrew Pixley offers a number of strong hints in his DWM 324 Archive that the BBC were trying to downplay the seriousness of the event. He says that the 18 November Radio Times called it — and this is his quote of the RT — a "bit of fun". Pixley also says,
 * "… fans were getting curious about the special adventure and whether it was a replacement for The Dark Dimension; the BBC assured the audience that the story would not be a serious attempt to revive Doctor Who. "

To pre-emptively state that a narrative, pre-broadcast, isn't a "serious attempt" is a pretty bold move for the BBC. It is akin, though not exactly alike, what they did (or allowed RTD to do) with respect to Scream of the Shalka.

JNT belief
But the production team threw cold water on the fire of this story in other ways. OttselSpy25 and others have perpetuated the myth that JNT treated it very seriously and absolutely meant it to be a continuation of the programme.

Though he may have been guilty of a bit of pre-broadcast hype, it's clear that JNT did not hold this view for very long. Certainly by 1997 he was swiftly back-pedalling. In DWM 249 JNT something that was repeated in DWM 324:
 * "I don't need to defend Dimensions in Time — it should be taken for what it is: a jolly romp to celebrate Doctor Who's thirtieth birthday."

More clearly — and please read this very carefully: "It was never intended to be a part of the Doctor Who mythos, whatever that is."

- JNT And let's remember, this is the top line writer of the show saying it. Not just the producer. Not just the former head of the "Doctor Who empire". This is the writer saying it's not a part of the DWU. And if that's not declarative enough for you, consider that he specifically says of the fans going crazy about it being included in the Lofficier Programme Guide: "I genuinely don't mind if Dimensions doesn't feature in any documentation ever. I couldn't care less."

- JNT

Conclusion
There is little doubt that influential members of the fan community disregard DIT as part of the DWU. The BBC didn't take it seriously. And the writer and producer says that it wasn't meant to be a part of the DWU. That's our usual threshold in these rule 4 debates.

And that's why it's not now, nor ever will be, a valid source on this wiki.

(Well, that and the fact that it is a "decide your destiny" kind of narrative — remember, the audience chose a particular conclusion by phone vote — which means that it's invalid on those grounds alone. And I haven't even gone into the full EastEnders issues, which are really not necessary to establish whether this is a valid source.)