Talk:Untitled (Disney XD TV story)

Validity
Looks like a pretty clear application of the standard at Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Inclusion debates speedround, that it's not supposed to be in the DWU+, but in some intertextual literary universe that simply reflects on the DWU. We'll need a thread to settle this, but put me down as invalid for now. (They literally reuse footage from other projects, it's not different in kind from a "next time" trailer, which we still consider to be invalid. Very clearly invalid imo.) Najawin ☎  01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's non-DWU, edits of franchises pretending to interact through stock footage are an established genre of trailers that should be covered, but should stay in the non-valid subspace. OS25🤙☎️ 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with all involved in this conversation. This is aggressively obviously non-DWU. It's a cheeky little trailer, noting more. NoNotTheMemes ☎  05:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with invalidity, and additionally would like it to be reclassed as invalid until an actual thread can be opened. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm very, very much not convinced by the "reusing footage from other projects" thing. The clips that do get reused straight-up are recontextualised, and a vast majority of shots within this thing are new footage, in the sense of the TARDIS animations being new and the like. Very, very different from a "Next Time" trailer, and I vigorously reject any suggestion that the continued invalidity of those has any bearing on the invalidity of this; it's clearly an original narrative, with the reuse of preexisting backgrounds and reaction shots a mere cost-saving measure. It's the crossover equivalent of the scene with all the Doctors appearing through cunningly edited stock footage in The Day of the Doctor. Something of this basic format could very well be valid without issue if the substance of the narrative were less question-begging, Rule 4-wise.


 * But with all being said, yeah, I obviously agree there are heavy It's Showtime-style Rule 4 concerns here. Is this the Doctor genuinely travelling to other universes, or crashing through a bunch of shows in a meta way? I think there's an argument that it's both (nothing flags what's going on here as directly fourth-wall-breaking in the same way as Showtime, and the announcer talking about "the Disney XD universe" probably should not be considered a part of the narrative any more than "Introducing John Hurt as The Doctor" is), but it is silly, and primarily intended to be viewed in light of the meta resonance. -by-default sounds fair enough. One to discuss in the next speedround, or the one after that…


 * (I do wish we'd discovered it a week sooner and been able to discuss it in the relevant section of the original Speedround. Ah, if you'd told me then that I'd wish there were even more topics discussed in that thread!…) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 05:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I support having be kept as invalid until the next speed round but during the next speed round I will come down hard on validity (for now though like I said I do believe is should be invalid)21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Anastasia Cousins ☎


 * Count me in for the inclusion debate. The fact that it has all-new animations, not just of the TARDIS but of that kid's drawing in Kirby Buckets, indicates that there is at least an attempt to tell a new narrative. Does it pass rule four? Who knows, but it is worth discussing. And the wild part of me will fight for Gravity Falls content on the Wiki. :) 21:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)