Talk:Dimensions in Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	EastEnders Portal This article is part of WikiProject EastEnders, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at this page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

I am not sure whether the reference to the Pulfrich effect is entirely correct as the Daily Telegraph of 27th October 1993 (Media correspondent Jane Thynne) says "using new technology devised by Mr Terry Beard, the Californian scientist who perfected the DTS digital sound system for ...Jurassic Park, viewers without the glasses will be able to see a normal 2-D picture". Any comments? DavidFarmbrough 10:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is. The Pulfrich Effect has been observed since the 1920s. Inventors like Terry Beard exploited the effect in the 1990s. See Optimization of simulated 3-D effect through camera technique, United States Patent 5282029 under "Prior Art". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There appears to be nothing on Wikipedia about Terry Beard at the time of writing, so in view of this and his work for DTS, perhaps a Terry Beard article is warranted. DavidFarmbrough 10:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity

Regarding this sentence

Ultimately, the canonicity of this spin-off within the Doctor Who universe is unclear.

Yeah, but why does no-one worry about its canonicity within the EastEnders universe? I'll bet half of the EastEnders characters that appear in the "20 years in the future" segment (now more like 8) have been inadvertantly killed off by scriptwriters with a life who don't know every detail of the series... but I don't see any EastEnders fans chiming in with discussion about a spin-off novel that sees Arthur Fowler come back to life in 2009 as a zombie. Or whatever.

And assuming they're both canon, doesn't this imply that EastEnders and the Doctor Who universe are one and the same, and that Wendy Richards/Pauline Fowler is a new Doctor Who character?

Actually, going by the "soapiness" of some parts of the new series, I believe that this is really the case. :)

Fourohfour 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a debate on its 'Stenders canonity in the DWM editorial column some time ago (following an earlier discussion of its Doctor Who status). The editor insisted it was (mostly due to predicting Arthur's death), and the designer came up with examples of its continuity being all over the place. It was quite funny.

As to whether Doctor Who and EastEnders take place in the same universe, I think this is either going to be confirmed or denied in the finale of the current series... Daibhid C 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Beale died in 2006. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, how can anyone even think this was canonical? Has anyone ever actually met someone who genuinely thinks this is a real episode of the series, because I don't think such a person exists, whatever Nathan Turner's intentions might have been before this was made. There wasn't any story to DIT, it was just a load of nonsensical cameos with a spinning camera to show off the 3D effect, and to top it all the viewers at home actually voted on the ending rather than the scriptwriters. The Fifth Doctor is stopped from escaping some monster in the park by three foot tall RAILINGS, he even says "Oh no! Railings!" and just stops. Does anyone think that Jim'll Fix It sketch was canonical? Or Jon Pertwee's appearance as the Doctor on Noel's House Party to promote DIT? Or that Blue Peter clip with the War Machine in it? Or the adverts for Prime computers? Or Curse Of The Fatal Death? All those have just as much claim to be canon as Dimensions In Time, but who would be sad enough to try and invent stupid reasons for them to be part of the whole "saga". The only reason anyone wanted this to be part of the real series was because there wasn't any new Who material being made back then at all, or even any prospect of new material being made. Fans really wanted Dark Dimensions and just couldn't accept that the series was totally dead at that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs) 11:43, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you say is true — but I have in fact met Doctor Who fans (on the Outpost Gallifrey forums) who have argued that the story is canonical. Crap, but canonical. Since there is no official authority declaring what is and isn't canon in Doctor Who, at Wikipedia we can't make absolute declarations on the subject. Even though the vast majority of Doctor Who fans would be happy to pretend that "Dimensions in Time" never happened, it would be original research to make a bald statement of its non-canonicity in the article. The current wording is about as far as we can push it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this page to reflect the fact that the new series seemingly denies Dimensions in Time a place in canon, thanks to its EastEnders references, but the bit of me that really wants to pretend it's canon likes the fact that the EastEnders of the Whoniverse is not the same as real EastEnders. My theory goes as follows, Peggy Mitchell will not be conversing with a spirit of Den Watts - a plot inspired by the ghosts that walk among us in Doctor Who's "real world". Therefore, I can now pretend that in Doctor Who, EastEnders is a soap, (devoid of any reference to Doctor Who), which has recreated the Who real life place of Walford with its Queen Vic pub and features a Who EastEnders Peggy Mitchell and a Who EastEnders Den Watts, neither of whom featured in the Who "real world" Walford depicted in Dimensions in Time. Naturally, this is original research, so cannot make the article, but it is a nice theory for those like me who want Dimensions in Time as canon. It's not that bad. Wolf of Fenric 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...OK, so my contribution to this section of the page was a little sarcastic. But surely if we're stating as fact that the story is "preposterous", "makes little or no narrative sense" and is regarded with "(often intense) disfavour", isn't it only fair to acknowledge that the same is true (to pick two non-contentious examples) of Time and the Rani or The Twin Dilemma? (Alternatively, if the poor quality of those stories is not fact but opinion, then surely the same is true of Dimensions in Time?)

If perceived quality is your criterion for canon, then that's a shifting threshold, and the status of large swathes of Doctor Who is insecure.

Incidentally, I view Dimensions in Time as a) indescribable drivel, and b) just as much part of Doctor Who as the other charity one-offs The Curse of Fatal Death, the 2005 Children in Need Special and The Five Doctors. Phil PH 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be a parallel universe. That would explain why both shows have referred to each other as fiction, despite the crossovers. 212.50.191.46 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quit the arguing! Both shows have mentioned each other, so Dimensions in Time is non-canonical to both shows. Digifiend (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A different approach would be to say that the Doctor Who programme which exists in the fictional Eastenders universe was one which didn't mention Eastenders and vice versa. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need clearing up...

'The Rani makes the mistake of capturing one companion while she is in the form of Romana' ...what the hell does that line from the article mean? That the Rani had Romana's form or...?

No, it was just the writer's silly way of saying "Well, since there was already a Time Lord in the computer, adding Romana (which was a mistake, The Rani meant to take a human) then, for some strange reason, The Doctor could overload the computer. Don't try to make sense of it all!--151.203.162.36 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)