User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-20607870-20161224221731

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1272640-20161223201024/@comment-20607870-20161224221731 178.100.233.86 wrote: Pluto2 wrote: SOTO wrote: Not really, actually. And besides, it does not. It would be very difficult indeed to argue it passes rule 4. Shalka was the pilot to a cancelled continuity past the TVM. Cancelled because, suddenly, a new TV series was commissioned. It's not an alternate timeline; it's not some future Doctor against all intent and direct assertion he's the ninth; it's just plain invalid. When it was made, the intent was to continue from the TV movie. The intent was it was set in the DWU as it was in 2003. That means it passes rule 4. It's like saying a 1960s annual story doesn't pass the four little rules because it isn't set in the DWU in 2016 - that's not how it works. Unlike Death Comes to Time, the plan was to have a series. Just because two years later they made a series with a different ninth incarnation of the Doctor doesn't change the fact that authorial intent was that it was in the DWU. So by the logic of your argument the 1960s dalek films with Peter Cushing are valid as they don't contradict anything said by that point in the franchise? Did Pluto2 say that? I don't think so.