Howling:Who was the Shopkeeper?

Seeing as how The Sarah Jane Adventures has come to an end it seems we'll never find out who the Shopkeeper was, unless the writers decide to just tell everyone or release a book that explains it. We do know that he claimed to be 'a servant of the universe' and that he was probably a time-traveller. Sonanyone have any thoughts on who this shopkeeper and his parrot were? 94.72.209.160talk to me 17:31, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

They were probably new characters who aren't related to anything we have seen before in any of the shows. If the show had continued, then I'm sure we would have found out more of his backstory, but it probably isn't something that can be guessed using only our knowledge of what has been aired.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:04, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

In Sky, the Shopkeeper hinted fairly strongly that Sarah Jane would eventually find out who he and his boss, the parrot, were. Unless they reappear elsewhere, however, we won't find out any more. As Icecreamdif says, what we already know isn't enough to work it out. However, one thing 94 may have missed is that, in Lost in Time, the Shopkeeper stated outright that he was "forbidden to travel in time". That doesn't help to identify him but does cut down the possibilities: He's not likely to have been a Guardian or an Eternal, for example. --78.146.177.197talk to me 22:26, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he was forbidden to travel through time does suggest that he was, at least at one poing capable of doing so. Still, the fact that SJA's audience largely consists of children, they probably weren't going to make major plots that depended on the viewer having seen an episode of Doctor Who in the 70s or 80s.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:11, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Humans are capable of travelling in time; that's why the Shopkeeper "recruited" Sarah Jane, Rani and Clyde to do the time travelling for him in Lost in Time. The plot wouldn't, of course, depend on the viewer having seen an episode of Doctor Who in the 70s or 80s. Even some of the viewers' parents would be a bit young to have seen those! That doesn't rule out using a type of being that appeared then, as long as it was presented (and explained) afresh. SJA was very good at using beings from DW but presenting them in such a way that the viewer didn't need to have seen their earlier appearances -- the Slitheen and the Sontarans were both adequately explained for viewers completely new to them. --78.146.177.197talk to me 00:08, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I still doubt that the Shopkeeper was supposed to be something that we've seen before.Icecreamdif talk to me 00:51, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

You're all underestimating TSJA by referring to it as a kids show. I'm not a kid, but I still awaited each episode with the same amount of anticipation as I did a DW episode. So potentially adults could be watching it too. Besides, the Brigadier appeared in TSJA, so nothing disproves that an enemy from classic who, most likely from the Sarah Jane era, could have appeared on the show. In fact it seems quite likely because the BBC probably knew it was the last series and would think it would be nice to give it a nostalgic send-off. 94.72.209.160talk to me 00:58, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

It got better as it went on, but SJA really was a much more childish show than Doctor Who. The very premise of an old lady fighting aliens with a group of kids is childish in itsself. If Sarah Jane had any sense, she wouldn't let any of the kids anywhere near dangerous aliens. Torchwood was by far the better spin-off. Still, I was starting to enjoy the final season of the show, and it did have a few good episodes, like the ones where they brought Lethbridge-Stewart and Jo back. An enemy from Classic Who could have appeared, but the Shopkeeper doesn't seem like anything that we've seen before. From what I remember of the Black Guardian Trilogy and the Key to Time arc, the only guardians that we know of are the black and white ones, and the Shopkeeper doesn't act like either. The eternals seemed far too disinterested in the goings-on of the lesser species, and the Shopkeeper really acts nothing like one of them at all. If anything, he acted like a renegade Time Lord, but I'm sure that they would have saved the return of a Time Lord for the parent show.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:11, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

well, it can't be any of the eternals. didn't they flee during the time war? Imamadmad talk to me 07:43, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Icecreamdif: to be fair on Sarah Jane, the kids brought themselves into her world and would have pestered her for years if she hadn't let them join. It's not like she has retcon or anything unlike Torchwood. 178.78.81.210talk to me 11:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

94, "You're all underestimating TSJA by referring to it as a kids show": We're not (at least, I'm not). It was a kids' show -- but it was very far from a typical kids' show. It treated its audience with respect, which is fairly rare even for adults' shows. "So potentially adults could be watching it too": No "potentially" about it; they were.

Icecreamdif, "an old lady fighting aliens" -- in Sarah Jane's own words, "not so much of the 'old'" (Invasion of the Bane). "An enemy from Classic Who could have appeared, but the Shopkeeper doesn't seem like anything that we've seen before": He wasn't an enemy, for a start. You're right, however, that we can add Time Lord to the list of beings the Shopkeeper wasn't.

I disagree that SJA was "childish"; it was aimed at children but that's not at all the same thing. I also disagree that "Torchwood was by far the better spin-off". I enjoyed both about equally. The best of SJA was better than most of TW; the best of TW was better than most of SJA. Watching again on DVD, however, I find SJA stands up to repeated viewing far better than TW does -- knowing what's going to happen does SJA less damage. That just means they were different kinds of shows. --2.96.23.109talk to me 11:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why was TORCJWOOD better? Because of its sexual content? Because of the paranoia that hung over it, the interminable misery? Yes, the writing was better, but I prfer SJA's attitude of hopefulness and fun.Boblipton talk to me 12:28, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think you've partly explained why SJA stands up to repeated viewing far better than TW does -- though there's more to it than only that attitude. --2.96.23.109talk to me 12:35, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd go as far as to say that at times TSJA was mire mature than TW. It covered a lot of mature themes, slavery, war, homelessness, extinction, just to name a few. The best that the adolescent Torchwood series one could do was an alien addicted to sex, and traguc endings that eventually lost their sense of tragedy and just became the norm. Fortunately COE and MD were a lot better, and genuinely had me glued to the screen. 178.78.81.210talk to me 14:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd agree with you. It's amazing how often "adult themes" lead to the characters behaving in ways that are very far from adult. SJA did treat its audience with respect and didn't assume they couldn't handle difficult subjects. Not only did it cover, as you say, slavery, etc. but it also showed humans being the bad guys and weird-looking aliens being the good guys. To get really demanding, in Death of the Doctor, it showed Sarah Jane being told off for racism but happening to be right about those particular Shansheeth -- being right for entirely the wrong reasons, in fact. Not bad for "kids' stuff"!

To get back to the topic, though, we still don't know who the Shopkeeper was, or his boss, the parrot. --2.96.23.109talk to me 15:24, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, does anyone know if RTD has expressed an intrest in releasing the unreleased stories in a different media format? I don't see any reason why they can't just release the stories as novels. 77.86.108.251talk to me 18:48, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if RTD has said anything about this. I'd be astounded if it's not been or being considered. There have been more than enough online suggestions/requests/demands/desperate pleadings that they should be. It may be that those involved don't have the heart to do it yet. From what I've heard, Elisabeth Sladen's death hit pretty well everybody really hard. (Not surprising.) --78.146.178.194talk to me 19:09, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that there's always the possibility that the overall storylines of the unreleased episodes had only been roughly planned out. With Series 5 they probably wrote the script for an episode, and then filmed it, instead of writing all the scripts for the series and then filming it. 77.86.108.251talk to me 20:25, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well, everyone has their own opinions on the show. I do think that the final season was starting to be the best of the series, and it's too bad that Sky never had the chance to get more character development. Anyway, if the stories were finished then maybe they'll release the scripts or novelize them or something. Otherwise, it might be interesting to hear some of the behind the scenes stuff, and perhaps find out who the shopkeeper was. It is also possible that the writers didn't know yet. It is likely that the Shopkeeper was meant to come back in the season finale, but it is also possible that they just made a mysterious character who they planned to further develop in a later season.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:47, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, The Man Who Never Was was the season finalé and it was stories from the middle of the season that hadn't been shot. Certainly, in The Man Who Never Was, there were a few lines of dialog involving Rani and Clyde that seem to refer to something we were expected to have seen happen in a story between The Curse of Clyde Langer and it. What we got seemed to be stories 1, 2 (possibly 3) and 6. That would suggest that a fair amount was known about the missing stories -- at least in terms of how character relationships were meant to develop. Of course, the progress of character relationships is exactly what would be sketched out for the whole season before individual scripts were commissioned, so it doesn't necessarily mean the scripts for the missing stories had been completed. Until it was known that Elisabeth Sladen was seriously ill (and it doesn't seem to have been known at all until a couple of months before she died), RTD and company would quite likely have expected there to be further seasons. Neither the show nor those in it were showing any signs of running out of steam. --89.241.67.245talk to me 00:40, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose by the time it came to series 5 they knew that Sladen was seriously ill, so I doubt they would have started something and decided to continue it in another season. 77.86.108.251talk to me 16:55, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

77: You don't seem to have read the previous contribution. The news reports that touch on when her illness became known are few (she kept personal matters to herself, by and large) but those few indicate that the first person she told was RTD, by phone, immediately after she herself had found out -- and that was in February 2011. She died in mid-April. That means nobody got much advance warning. The evidence from the 3 stories of Series 5 that did get made is that she was on top form, as far as acting is concerned, and still doing a fair amount of running about. The inpression given in the tributes (My Sarah Jane and others) is that those who'd worked with her were not only saddened but also shocked because her death was not expected. --89.241.69.54talk to me 19:32, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, does anyone know the titles of the unreleased stories? I'm sure I've heard them somewhere before, but I can't find out what they are. 77.86.108.251talk to me 21:04, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

I've found the page I was talking about. In the comments section someone claims the finale was to be known as "The Thirteenth Floor" and be written by Phil Ford, who confirmed it in a radio interview. The trustworthiness of this source might not be great but oh well. http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/the-man-who-never-was-pt1-what-did-you-think/ 77.86.108.251talk to me 21:41, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

The "someone" who claims that goes by the moniker "Anonymous" and, anyway, other posts on the same page give other suggestions. Might be right but not really very strong evidence. --78.146.187.85talk to me 22:20, January 5, 2012 (UTC)