User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-27280472-20160606210324/@comment-4028641-20161130091814

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-27280472-20160606210324/@comment-4028641-20161130091814 I believe this is the main chunk of where the thread's conclusion comes from:


 * They actively chose not to involve McGann when it was clear that they had no qualms about asking other, arguably "bigger", actors to participate.
 * They weren't looking to continue this continuity at all, so I think they felt liberated to do whatever they wanted with it.
 * They were looking to produce DW on television at the time, and Freedman seems to be saying he wouldn't have continued this continuity on television.
 * Fountain publicly backed away from definitively calling DCTT "canon" before the whole thing had actually come out.

Czech says that Freedman had pitched a continuation of Doctor Who to the BBC that was supposed to include the events of DCTT. This new series wouldn't have featured Paul McGann, but he might have been included as a "Future incarnation," meaning that (basically) the series would have starred a new 8th Doctor seperate from the one in the 1996 Telefilm. If this is true (which, to be clear, it's the one part he doesn't cite very well) then that means that 'Infinity Doctors' and 'DCTT' are similar -- but different in ways that would seem to close this whole discussion.

'Infinity Doctors' had an unmade sequel that would have connected it to the mainframe of the Doctor Who novels, explaining its ties to valid sources. Thus we can see it as an alternate timeline/dimension.

'DCTT' would have had a sequel that would have severed different parts of the DWU to make a new DWU that we can not recognise. Much like the Shalka webcast, this was supposedly made entirely to introduce an 8th Doctor whom is not valid.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mistake here, or if there was some info that was overblown, but unless someone has actual evidence that something about this interpretation is off somehow...

I want to tread lightly -- it's traditionally considered a no-no on this site to just question consensus all willy-nilly (for a reason I've never understood). But that's my two cents on the whole thing.