Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20200406230350/@comment-45692830-20200526033125

While I'm fully on board, given the context surrounding Thread:267931, and how a thread was closed based on posts in the past still being held to be true without addressing the parts of the thread rebutting those older posts, I think for the health of this thread, and so we don't see a rehash of the circumstances there, it would be useful to have someone attempt to argue the negative. So let's try to do that.

The Old Discussion
It's stated in Thread:267931 that even though the terminology was distinct and the concepts were not quite the same back in 2011/2012, the rudimentary ideas of validity was still present, even if it was argued through the lens of canonicity. We can see this oddly fractured discussion coming through here in the discussion of The Adventure Games and Scream of the Shalka (webcast), where they're taking perhaps the two statements ever at that time about things that were "canon" or "not canon" and then trying to reconstruct an entire universe from that point onwards. The fact that this is impossible in principle, since Scream not being in the DWU can't actually tell you much was forcing some disjointed discussion, where people said canon, but meant valid, and said canon but meant canon, or said universe but meant timeline. It was just a mess. So we can't rule out everything said in the old forum thread just because the language used is archaic, we have to carefully sift through to find what is and isn't relevant.

The New Discussion
There is, quite frankly, an elephant in the room. And that elephant is Scream of the Shalka. Scream is definitely not valid. Davies is the one that rendered it invalid, he's on record as hating Grant's performance in it, saying he was just doing it for the money. So the comment you're citing as evidence, that includes "for the hat trick of alternative Ninth Doctors", is going to be causing us a lot of problems here. One obvious alternative interpretation of this "like" is that Davies has a broad view on canon, just like Moffat and Cornell, and so when someone suggests to him that you can rescue obscure works from "non canon" status and bring them into the fold, he's going to be pleased about that, regardless of whether or not he thinks that works. It's a general statement about Davies' disposition, not that he's specifically agreeing with an interpretation of his work. And unless we get a re-evaluation of Scream from him or other people involved in the events that made it invalid, this is going to continue to be a problem moving forward.

Filming the Actual Programme?
I mean, this is just an obvious response to make, the same sentence juxtaposes "filming the actual programme" with "a little sketch". All she's saying here is that this was an extensive filming process, not that she's filming the actual show.

What Makes a Parody?
Generally when writers discuss parodies they discuss something where traits of the show are exaggerated for comedic or rhetorical effect. Now, I can understand why Moffat of all people might not think that this episode exaggerated, but many others might disagree. (nb: This is not my personal view, behead those who profane the Moff) Parodical quality (not the same thing as it being a parody) is in the eye of the beholder. So while Moffat might have intended this to only be a comedic episode, it may be parodical, it may look like a parody, only being safe by his authorial intent. But, you make think he's safe here because we have his authorial intent, I can assure you he is not. Namely, there's no clear definition of parody on this wiki, and the page Doctor Who parodies includes many things that aren't parodies under this normal definition. Instead they're simply humorous references to various characters from Doctor Who. And under this notion of parody, one that Moffat would not be commenting on, indeed, could not be commenting on, The Curse of Fatal Death would indeed be a parody.

Conclusion
Now, I'm not sure any of these arguments are all that good. But I'd rather have serious discussion of this proposal for the health of this thread than have it fail for a similar reason as Thread:267931. So I'm hoping this opens up discussion, both for and against the thread's thesis.