Board Thread:Tales from the Tardis/@comment-188432-20130325173913/@comment-26975268-20130413164100

I understand and agree with all of that, but I still don't see how you can possibly think they were being definitive about it not being in the DWU. Both of them were being purposely vague about it, allowing Whovians to accept it as canon, and non-Whovians to not feel like they have to watch/listen to Who stories to understand what's going on. They're keeping it ambiguously right in the middle, so that it goes both ways depending on the audience.

I think it's interesting that you bring up Downtime in this discussion, as, to my eyes, it's the exact same situation. To demonstrate, let me quote the lead on our very own article on the story:


 * Downtime is a 1995 direct-to-video production featuring elements from the Doctor Who universe, but not the Doctor. Reeltime Pictures did not have a licence from the British Broadcasting Corporation to use the character — and were not even allowed to refer to him directly. The video was directed by long-time Doctor Who director Christopher Barry.

Like in the Downtime situation, BF don't have the rights from the BBC to use the character of the Doctor, nor probably even refer to him directly. Exactly why they worded it as: "There's no denying that this is the same Vienna who is in The Shadow Heart. So all the tropes of that story are present, that setting is present (and events of the story referenced in The Memory Box), but to all intents and purposes it's a locked off little side-universe that the Doctor has once appeared in."

That quote is just screaming that Vienna's part of the DWU but not featuring the Doctor, same as Downtime. The only reason that they can't explicitly say so is the politics of it all.