FANDOM


  • Amorkuz
    Amorkuz closed this thread because:
    The story is considered valid. Details in the final post.
    00:15, February 7, 2018

    Alright, so for the longest time the TV version of Shada has been discounted as invalid on our website.

    The reason for this was that there had been no version of the story which had "finished" it through actual use of the filmed sequences. The closest attempt was the 1992 VHS release, which simply had Tom Baker (not playing the Doctor, but himself) explain the missing scenes. Our ultimate judgement was that as this had been presented as something that "could have been" and not "something that now was." It's confusing, but the presentation coupled with an ultimate lack of it being "finished" lead to use seeing it as little more than a very complex deleted scene. As per our policy on deleted scenes, it was thus deemed invalid.

    I am not challenging any of that. It's clear policy and precedent, and I see no point in trying to change it. Frankly, it makes sense. But only for the 1992 release.

    Today, yet another version of Shada was released. The version that should have been released the whole time. A completed cut of the TV story, with scenes shot in the 1970s and animated versions of the unfinished scenes. But today's version of the episode frankly deserves to share the page with the "unfinished" episode as much as the 1990s version does. It seems hardly necessary complicated to present them as three different stories when they're not.

    I furthermore think that there should be no doubt that TODAY's Shada is very much valid. Not only does it feature all of the finished scenes (unlike the 1992 version) but the presentation surely says that this is intended to be a "finished" version. Simply watching the trailer makes it clear that this is the intention of the creators.

    I hope that this can be resolved quickly. This is facing much publicity, and it would be a shame to block users from writing about this amazing story for months for little reason.

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Agreed re:everything. Shada (TV story) is now officially released as a finished episode, and as such, it should be considered valid.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • What, if anything, does this do to the Eighth Doctor one?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 121.45.220.189 wrote: What, if anything, does this do to the Eighth Doctor one?

      Not much I'd imagine. The novelisation of the original Shada (featuring the Fourth Doctor) already conflicts with the webcast and is solved by writing "According to one account". See Fourth Doctor#Shada.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Does anyone have any argument for why the 2017 release of Shada shouldn't be valid? I really can't imagine any.

      More specifically I suppose this thread will most likely be about the ins-and-outs of merging the three "versions" of the TV Shada into one page.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • If you support the validity, please do not hesitate to voice your support even if it is a simple "Yes, it should be valid." Otherwise, it is not entirely clear whether no one opposes, no one else has an opinion or no one else is aware of this discussion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • In that case I agree completely with validity. The only thing I would be unsure of is how exactly the versions of the TV Shada would be merged together.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Considering that all previous versions of TV Shada were invalid precisely because they weren't complete, I think there's no reason for them to be on separate pages; the versions of Shada are already cluttered enough, and I don't see a point in cluttering it further.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Our validity policy is mainly about discussing what stories can be seen as available to be covered. Since the 1990s Shada is deemed as not valid for coverage, then it makes total sense to me that we mention its existence on the Shada page but otherwise dedicate it to the 2017 version.

      We would, however, have to ban images taken from earlier 'releases' of the TV Shada, given that the latest edit does many different things with some scenes.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think there should be a page for the non televised version under the name "Shada (TV story)" which logs the unaired bits and behind the scenes.

      But there should either be one page called "Shada (home video)", detailing the 1992 and 2017 versions, but if only one is valid on this wiki. Then there should be separate page "Shada (1992 home video)" which'll be invalid and "Shada (2017 home video)" which'll be valid, unless it's broadcast on the TV which it then becomes "Shada (2017 TV story) but I also believe the 1992 version was broadcast on telly on Gold.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Just for the record, in terms of continuity troubles to be sorted out if the latest version is approved as valid. There are additional versions of Shada with non-trivial event overlap. These are currently valid and their validity is not affected by this latest release:

      In fact, these two may even comment on why the Fourth Doctor version never happened.

      Plus there is a question of

      Ordinarily, it would be treated as a second-class citizen compared to the original TV story. But in this case, the TV story is released after the novelisation.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I understand the concern, but because of the Shada novelisation and a recent Titan comic, we accept that both the Fourth and Eighth Doctor versions occurred (by altering accounts). It's not as easy as "The webcast Shada is the only one that counts." If you, for instance, visit the section on the Fourth Doctor's page it is exactly as it would be if the TV version were valid.

      As for your concerns about how we would treat the novelisation (since certain scenes are obviously written differently in the TV version to account for the use of stock audio of deceased actors), I think we should just accept both the novelisation and the TV version in both cases. All that's really going to be different is some of the dialogue (Tom also adlibbed as much in the new version as he regularly would), the scenes follow the same order and flow.

      My biggest qualm will likely be that I would rather character pages like Chronotis have the "first appearance" variable be the TV version, since that's the real source material. But given that this is almost certainly going to be denied, I am willing to compromise on that point.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • For that matter, it doesn't make sense to refer to the same events twice on character pages. Referring to the Doctor only as "the Doctor" without specifying his incarnation would fix that, would it not?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would honestly prefer that as the more sane option. So I would be happy to be persuaded it is okay. However, if both versions are accepted as valid, then the same events either happened twice to the same character or are alternative incompatible descriptions. Perhaps, a good precedent for such a situation is what the template {{WhichDoctor}} deals with. There comic stories were reprinted with the Fourth Doctor instead of earlier ones. Here we have a single story retold with the Eighth Doctor or Fourth one. The template itself wouldn't work but the idea of once announcing that it is not clear whether it's 8 or 4 and then carrying on with "the Doctor" as Bwburke94 suggested might be an option.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So, what you're saying is that a page like Chronotis would explain the discrepancy between Four/Eight having the adventure, but that it would otherwise only have one paragraph explaining the "plot" that occurs with the Doctor and Romana.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • 5.2.105.85 wrote: I think there should be a page for the non televised version under the name "Shada (TV story)" which logs the unaired bits and behind the scenes.

      But there should either be one page called "Shada (home video)", detailing the 1992 and 2017 versions, but if only one is valid on this wiki. Then there should be separate page "Shada (1992 home video)" which'll be invalid and "Shada (2017 home video)" which'll be valid, unless it's broadcast on the TV which it then becomes "Shada (2017 TV story) but I also believe the 1992 version was broadcast on telly on Gold.

      I accidentally skipped over this post. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I can see how it would also make some sense, but by our own policies, the 1990s Homevideo release is nothing more than a deleted scenes segment, and I think it's a given that the planned Shada and the released Shada are very much the same episode.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Part of my problem is that I cannot watch the Four version of the Shada, so I don't know how close to each other the versions are other than halving of the Doctor. Consider it as one of the possible options thrown into the mix.

      But yes, if it turns out that including both versions amounts to including two copies of the same paragraph, one with Four and one with Eight, then one could consider actually having only one copy and adding a banner at the top explaining whatever it is decided here is the case (events happening twice or events happening in one of two ways).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Personally all of this just confuses me a lot.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • There's very little change in dialogue made to the 2017 version of Shada.

      The only thing they change is that some scenes are not adapted (for instance, in the script we see Romana talking to K9 in the TARDIS when she goes to get milk. In the 2017 version they skip this scene due to the loss of the actor who voiced K9) and some scenes have their dialogue rewritten around deceased actors (so instead of Chronotis saying "I [Salyavin] escaped ages ago" like he does in the script, he does the glowy-eyes-thing and another character guesses that he is Salyavin (which he actually responds to, through use of audio of the audio taken from The Keeper of Traken)).

      A banner is really not needed. It's frankly ugly and wouldn't work on a character page. The best course of action would be to say something like:

      Chronotis sent a distress signal to the Fourth Doctor. (TV Shada) Some sources suggest that the Fourth Doctor, along with Romana and K9, indeed arrive several months later in response (TV Shada, Novel Shada) while others suggested that the Eighth Doctor and and older Romana and K9 instead responded to the signal. (WC Shada, AUDIO Shada)

      Then a description of what happens after that, because in every version it's nearly identical from my memory.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, this looks good to me. Presumably, the common part using "the Doctor" ends in (TV: Shada, WC: Shada, AUDIO: Shada). It's a bit longish but would be bearable if used sparingly.

      Another thought/question. Suppose, as in your example above, a character does more in one version than in the other (perhaps, does something more substantial worthy of note). If this extra action does not contradict other versions, just is not present there, should it cause a fork in the description or should the cumulative version be given.

      My current vote is to give the cumulative version in the main part of the page and then have a behind-the-scenes list of differences (at least eventually). I think that is the easiest way of finding necessary info.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I think, for the most part, a description of events should not be specific enough for that to be an issue. I agree on the Behind-the-scenes concept, although some things (such as a difference in appearance) can easily be held on the main page.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: So, what you're saying is that a page like Chronotis would explain the discrepancy between Four/Eight having the adventure, but that it would otherwise only have one paragraph explaining the "plot" that occurs with the Doctor and Romana.

      That is what a few of us are saying, yes.

      We can rather easily adapt the WhichDoctor template to cover this situation, through #switch or other parameters.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I again insist that it would look very ugly to put something like the WhichDoctor template on these character pages when it comes down to a detail that's really only so important to covering the story. Imagine going to read about Chris Parsons only to see a giant text box that reads HEY, DID YOU KNOW THAT SOMETIMES IT'S 4 AND OTHERTIMES IT'S 8? WhichDoctor is only needed on story pages where there is only one page.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree with Ottselspy25 that templates plastered all over would look very ugly.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It would certainly be easier to code an inline template explaining the situation, rather than a huge box.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I really don't understand why a template would be needed at all? The WhichDoctor template is necessary because those story pages are covered as one release. Doomcloud, despite having a printed version with the Fourth Doctor, only has one page. We don't, say, put a template on Sarah Jane Smith to explain that one of the stories she was in has a discrepancy because we can easily explain that from an in-universe point-of-view.

      Really this is a situation where we don't need to break the "fourth wall" of our articles. While to some it may seem that the discrepancy between Four or Eight having the adventure is a big deal, on a page like Chronotis it is the least relevant thing that could possibly be discussed, and it really needs no dedication outside of one or two sentences.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • You have a point there.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Personally, I think the latest release is perfectly valid and I don't think a template is necessary.

      But I wonder if we should distinguish the 1992 (as "Shada (Homevid)" for example) from the 2017 one ?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would say that we discuss the 1992 version as if it were a special feature released halfway through production, since that basically matches how we currently cover it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Side question: supposing that it does become valid, where should we place it in the broadcast and production orders ?

      I don't know if there is a precedent for it, I guess the production order should remain between Nimon and Hive (since that was when production began and given its production code) but should we do the same with the "Doctor Who television stories" order ?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would say that this is a secondary concern to validity. This is clearly a special release. There has been a number of different special releases and the current navigation among them is very much inconsistent. This was noted at Thread:225625. So I encourage to issue your opinions regarding the proper navigation order there. Hopefully, the proper placement for Shada should fall out of that discussion.

      And by the way, for those of us who can't watch it. Was it actually broadcast on TV?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Not that I've been told -- however, it would be totally plausible that BBC America had put it on the airwaves. Some would be tempted to call it Shada (homevid), but realistically it was put out as a digital download first -- so if it's not a TV story it's a Webcast. I think most will logically view it as a TV story, so we should just go with that.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Amorkuz wrote: Yes, this looks good to me. Presumably, the common part using "the Doctor" ends in (TV: Shada, WC: Shada, AUDIO: Shada). It's a bit longish but would be bearable if used sparingly.

      Another thought/question. Suppose, as in your example above, a character does more in one version than in the other (perhaps, does something more substantial worthy of note). If this extra action does not contradict other versions, just is not present there, should it cause a fork in the description or should the cumulative version be given.

      My current vote is to give the cumulative version in the main part of the page and then have a behind-the-scenes list of differences (at least eventually). I think that is the easiest way of finding necessary info.

      Wait so where do the novelisation and The Five Doctors fit into this?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • How the novelisation and TFD "fits" has no relevance to if this story is valid or not. How does Lungbarrow fit into any other story written for the DWU? Or how Spiral Scratch and The Last Adventure? The answer is that they don't fit, and it's our job to point out how they don't fit, not to pick whichever version of events we love more.

      I would like to move to close this thread. I've seen very little support for calling the final version of Shada INvalid, and I think the next logical move is to move the discussion of merging it into Shada (TV story) to said stories' talk page so we can get on with it.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: I've seen very little support for calling the final version of Shada valid.

      Is this a typo ? Just asking because I believe most here supported it to be valid rather than not

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yea, typo. My bad.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm so glad I've stumbled across this thread. I actually watched the DVD not so long ago and I wholeheartedly agree with this release being valid. The only possibly conflicting scene that I haven't seen raised - admittedly, I may have missed it - is the final scene where the Fourth Doctor rises from under the console and is played by Tom Baker as he is NOW, in his old age.

      How does that play into this? Lalla Ward gives her line from the TARDIS corridor so that we do not see her changed state. With the initial DVD release of The Five Doctors suggesting that Borusa attempted the Time Scoop during this adventure, and the Eighth Doctor audio story Shada stating that the event of The Five Doctors meant that he had to return to the story in his eighth incarnation (if I've understood that correctly), this could be treated as time catching up with itself.

      Also, I've read about the different Shadas conflicting with one-another and the Wiki possibly going down the route of "one account suggests" and "another account suggests". While this is fine and common practice, it's quite clear that if the 2017 DVD Shada is deemed valid, it actually doesn't conflict with the audio version. In fact, it is deemed in exactly the same way as Series 5. At the end of Series 5, the Eleventh Doctor "reboots" the universe. He closes the cracks running through his previous adventures. When Kovarian blew up the TARDIS, the entirety of Series 5 took place in an alternate timeline that was corrected later on. My point being, the 2017 Shada would just be the Shada before Borusa interrupted and messed up the timeline.

      But that's bordering on head-canon, something which is in no way allowed here. Just my wild thoughts. I'm fully backing any way to make this DVD release valid. Let's just tackle that last scene please. Do we treat it as "Tom Baker just playing the Doctor" or do we treat it as "he looks older and this causes some problems"?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • And in regards to The Five Doctors not bearing any influence on whether this is valid- I do understand that every story is judged on its own merits. That, I agree entirely with. For every positive continuity reference, there will always be a negative one trying to overwrite it. However, if I understand the Eighth Doctor audio Shada correctly, the Eighth Doctor does mention the events of The Five Doctors to explain why the original event did not take place and thus why he's had to return in his eighth form.

      So, while it's not mega important to mention, I think we should bear it in mind rather than ignore it. If the audio story hadn't made reference to it, then I wouldn't have included it in my response. This is just me justifying myself haha.

        1. The explanation can be heard on a YouTube excerpt called "Doctor Who - McGann Shada - live action" ##
        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I say we discuss Tom suddenly being old in simply a straight-faced way: "On one occasion, the Doctor appeared to be much older, with white hair" or whatever.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Okay, I just wanted us to all be aware of it before having our final say. Either way, it doesn't have to make any difference. At the end of the day, the character he was playing was still "The Fourth Doctor". Doctor Who has always left unanswered, ambiguous, fourth wall breaking moments in and they've neither impeded the story nor our way of dealing with their inclusion. We could just leave a behind the scenes note in the Story Notes section and have done with it, due to it not strictly being a Production Error.

      In summary- I'm all for validity!

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't think it should prevent from anything either:

      It's not worse than the 1st Doctor saying "a happy Christmas to all of you at home" while looking directly at the camera (and the Daleks' Master Plan validity was never in question because of it).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shambala108
      Shambala108 removed this reply because:
      leave the question of thread closings up to the admins
      05:18, January 14, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • If this is not consensus, then I don't know what is. Not a single argument was proposed against the validity. And there was a lot of agreement regarding the details. Let me try to record the main ones:

      • All TV versions (except for the Leekley Bible one) go to the same page. The 2017 is the only valid one. The others (however you might count) should be given their subsections in the Notes. Accordingly, the information in the infobox should pertain to the 2017 edition and follow as close as possible the official credits on the original release and/or DVD. Deviating information for the earlier invalid versions should go to their subsections.
      • The page should be called Shada (TV story) because that's how most people think of it, because there is already Shada (webcast) and because the technology is erasing the difference between webcasts and TV stories. For instance, all episodes of Class were "broadcast" on an Internet-only channel. Thus, bending the boundary between TV story and webcast to achieve some better clarity is acceptable.
      • Novelisation should in this case be considered of equal value with the audio, webcast and this latest TV version. Ordinarily, it is subordinate to the TV version. But it mostly helps to simplify related pages when there are only two versions by eliminating the second. The difference between four or five versions is negligible, and the novelisation was published before the episode it is supposed to novelise.
      • Differences between versions should be explained in detail on the (valid) story pages and minimised on character/object in-universe pages. After the initial fork between the Fourth and Eighth Doctor, it is preferable to use generic "the Doctor" to streamline the narrative. Given the increased timey-wimeyness, it is preferable to describe substantial differences between the webcast/audio and TV/novelisation versions not in terms of "one account/another account", thus, implicitly postulating that they are incompatible, but rather "with the Fourth Doctor/with the Eighth Doctor". Please avoid speculation as to the exact connection between them. Keep close to the text.
      • Thanking OS25 for willingness to compromise, we must treat this as a contemporary release in all respects. It is not part of Season 17. It is a (very) special release, so all the nuances should be explained in the notes rather than in the infobox navigation. If it is any consolation, novelisation is a bit earlier, so many characters' first appearance will be 2012.
      • Template regarding the interchangeable Doctor was soundly rejected by the majority.
      • Age of the actor was never a problem in The Two Doctors (or indeed most BF audios) and, thus, should be discussed only inasmuch as it is acknowledged in the story, by the same token as we do not discuss in-universe switches between animated and live-action segments.

      Discussion of further details should take place at Talk:Shada (TV story).

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+