User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170226005621

Amorkuz wrote: PS And no, we do not have to fast-track this movie to make life easier for future releases. If there even will be future releases, they will have to be judged on their own merits

Something I said earlier in thread.

And in fact around the same time it was made pretty clear that we intended to keep this thread open until the movie was out of the theatre. That's gonna be another month at least. There will be nothing rushed about this thread.

Are you trying to suggest that we keep this debate open until the next Lego movie comes out in 2019?

Amorkuz wrote: The only reason Daleks are in the movie is because they wanted a villain that is not from an American show.

The Director blatantly says that he loved Doctor Who as a child, and they're featured because they're famous villains. That doesn't make the story invalid.

The fact that they said that the Daleks were also useful because they served as a non-American feature is not the only reason that they got used. Even if it was, the corporate reason for including them doesn't make the story invalid.

If we found a quote from someone saying "We made the 1996 TV Movie to make FOX appeal to British people," would that suddenly be invalid?

Amorkuz wrote: I gave you an easy way to gain an upper hand by beating me with those quotes to death.

You asked for quotes that you know don't exist. People have barely talked about the heavily details of the DWU elements because A) It's a Batman movie with a billion more interesting things and B) it's supposed to be a surprise you only see in the theatre.

Then you asked me to prove that LEGO Dimensions and LEGO Batman exist in the same franchise. They do. There's no debate to be had there.

Amorkuz wrote: It means, no member of the cast and crew ever cared about DWU continuity to mention it even once.

It's not a Doctor Who movie. The director said he grew up watching it. What quote would satisfy you? Someone saying "Oh I watched Day of the Daleks just to make sure I was getting it right"?

Weather or not you think they did the Daleks justice is not relevant to if the story is valid.

Amorkuz wrote: Rule 4 does not mention a character from DWU. It requires the story to be set up in DWU, period.

Well then, I guess we should go back and make Assimilation^2 invalid.

Not period. It includes every story to set in the DWU, question mark.

The intent to have something be set in the DWU is vague, and the rule specifically says "for most products a discussion is needed." Again, there is a clear cut explanation to why and how this film isn't set in the DWU and how there are still DWU elements in place. Thus it isn't not set in the DWU.

Amorkuz wrote: It's like Osgood being the daughter of Tom Osgood.

No it's not. That's a discussion of an in-universe element. It's not a discussion on the validity of a story based on authorial intent.

Amorkuz wrote: ...until it is stated explicitly, "beat-by-beat", it belongs to "Behind the scenes" section only.

So until one of those sequel movies says "Oh, let's stop the narrative and explain a tedious element of the LBM that's extremely obvious if you just pay attention to our media," it's invalid? No. We can't call a story invalid just because you're hung up on how well they explain a plot-point.

We know how this multi-verse works, we know that all of the stories are kept in a tidy canon, and we know how they treat Who media. That is all the authorial context that we have, and at the moment it's all that we need.

There's a world in the franchise that's Doctor Who. That world has Daleks. It's the only world we've seen that naturally has Daleks. So logically, if Daleks appear they are from that world. This isn't something anyone would second-guessed, and it's not something that any interviewer would care enough about to ask. It is not a complex situation.

It's not "Invalid before proven valid." It's "Valid until proven invalid."