Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-1789834-20170416223025

To be fair to SOTO, I can easily see what they mean by their comment. I don't mind if one novel has slightly different dialogue than its audio adaptation, for example. They're both valid and they're both treated as two sides of the same coin. And if we're taking FftF at face value, that's how it should be treated. However, there's conflicting information. In FftF, the Doctor states they need to go "back" to 2017. In The Pilot, there's no such timing. In FftF, Bill is far more intrigued by the Dalek and asks the Doctor a barrage of questions. In The Pilot, she doesn't.

It certainly doesn't make it invalid because, as you say, it came first and the intent was there for it to be worked into an episode of the real series. However, to ignore the fact that there are differences that offer up some problems, is not how inclusion debates work. I think FftF is troublesome and more disagrees with The Pilot than agrees with it. The altered set, the highly altered dialogue... if you're to ask me my opinion on the validity, I'd say that my opinion lies with invalid due to the fact that writers can change their minds. The scene was indeed adapted... but it wasn't included as was originally suggested by Moffat. Just my opinion, and I ask it be respected, as I respect yours.

It just seems more logical for Moffat to draw a line under it, write The Pilot as a fresh start and leave it at that.