Continuity and fanwank tends to get a bad rap in fandom and seen as a bad move, but it seems to depend. Colin's era gets seen as relying too much on continuity, yet for fans who do criticize it on those grounds, Davison's era tends to get a pass for them for doing the same thing. As does many of RTD's fannish indulgences (Doomsday, Last of the Time Lords)
Attack of the Cybermen tends to get frowned on for an overuse of continuity, but The Five Doctors and Remembrance of the Daleks are generally judged to work precisely *because* of their use of continuity.
Meanwhile Jodie's season was meant to be a clean slate that had no continuity elements at all. Yet most of us would say it was a failure partly *because* it went to the other extreme in divorcing itself from the past, and making the show feel hollow. I remember someone saying that if the writers ignore the Doctor's history completely, then the character feels as deep as a puddle.
So what makes the difference, and when do you think a reliance on continuity becomes a problem?
Attack of the Cybermen tends to get frowned on for an overuse of continuity, but The Five Doctors and Remembrance of the Daleks are generally judged to work precisely *because* of their use of continuity.
Meanwhile Jodie's season was meant to be a clean slate that had no continuity elements at all. Yet most of us would say it was a failure partly *because* it went to the other extreme in divorcing itself from the past, and making the show feel hollow. I remember someone saying that if the writers ignore the Doctor's history completely, then the character feels as deep as a puddle.
So what makes the difference, and when do you think a reliance on continuity becomes a problem?