Talk:Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)

Nine lives or thirteen?

In episode one, the Doctor says (of a cat,) "He must've used up his nine lives, rather like me." This (to me) seems to suggest that he could be the 13th doctor... which would certainly seem to fit his bleak outlook, being tired of his life.

His entire status-quo seems VERY removed from the Eighth's. -Derik 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a very interesting interpretation. However, the more common one, and the one intended by the producers, is the more literal one. He's at the end of — or at least not the beginning of — his ninth life. There are (or were) a number of hard sources for this at wikipedia:Shalka Doctor. The other reason that you can't quite go with your interpretation is that the script also has a reference to a painting being made of "all nine of him", which rather definitely sets the number of this Doctor in narrative stone. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, Lance Parkin was smokin' crack when he wrote this bit of AHistory, a source our article here seems to treat as valid. In my view, the script does indeed pin down the Shalka Doctor's number. If Eccleston had not come along, no one would be trying to do any sort of mental gymnastics to wriggle out of what the script says. It's interesting that his own Gallifrey Chronicles seems to allow people to consider the Shalka Doctor a version of the 9th Doctor. Still, he doesn't contradict his AHistory speculation, since the three 9th Doctors are never physically described. We're all entitled so our own private speculations, but on the face of it, this seems fairly outlandish. In the case of a statement that's so far from production and narrative intent, it needs to be quoted verbatim here (on the talk page) so readers can have the most precise understanding possible. It probably needs to be removed from the main page altogether. AHistory isn't a reference that can be used on this wiki. See Canon policy#Secondary Resources for more info. This is a definitional example of when not to use Ahistory, it seems to me.

The far more important information to include in the "Behind the Scenes" info is the fact that the production team was very much working under the assumption that theirs was the ninth Doctor. Production intent coupled with the near-definitional script trumps Lance Parkin's ex-post-facto musings any day of the week. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought all he meant was that he met Warhol in his ninth body, rather then he was in his ninth body. It's not as if it's the first time we in fandom have ignored the intentions of the creative team. Bumbles the Time Lord 07:46, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

I have a thought. Since we know that this is the "Ninth Doctor" in this continuity, shouldn't we acknowledge the possibility that this could be the ninth incarnation of the Timeless Child, Pre-First Doctor I mean.

It would seem to make sense. That way we don't have to act like this is from an alternate universe anymore. Unless of course there's references to previous episodes of Doctor Who...if that were the case that wouldn't make sense in the timeline and stuff. I think the only thing that wouldn't really make sense is the fact that the TARDIS looks like a police box.

--Noah Tall ☎ 23:18, March 3, 2020 (UTC)

Not only would that be purely speculative, which goes against the intentions of this wiki it also wouldn’t work anyway as the Master appears in Scream of the Shalka. SarahJaneFan ☎ 23:25, March 3, 2020 (UTC)

Does Master really? Whoops my bad...It's been a while since I seen it...okay well thanks anyway. As for it being speculation, I was only suggesting that it be suggested, not confirmed in the actual article itself. No big deal though because clearly it wouldn't work.

--Noah Tall ☎ 03:16, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

Changing character image

Proposing that we change the current character image to the following, as the current one is a profile shot, whereas this is a 3/4 shot. Both are roughly the same size. If nobody has any issues with this, I feel like this change is a relatively simple one. Just figured that I'd let some people chime in first.

• 

  Current image

• 

  Proposed new image

• 

  Closer crop by User:Scrooge MacDuck

• 

  Potential HD image

• 

  HD looking left

• 

  Image from The Feast of the Stone

NoNotTheMemes ☎ 00:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The one on the left is more closely cropped. Shambala108 ☎ 02:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it is necessarily better though. And the second image is still cropped in on the Doctor's head, therefore being compliant with the image policies. Only down I can see to the latter is the orange lighting, but I still prefer it to the first pic.

Epsilon📯 📂

02:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with either image. The second image has a better view of his face, but the current image has better lighting. I do like how the second image is more centralised though. LauraBatham ☎ 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If we want a closer crop, I propose the cropped version of User:NoNotTheMemes' image that I've just added to the gallery. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to voice my opinion that I prefer the new cropped image. I feel it gives a better view of his face then the current one, especially as the current one crops off his forehead whereas this new one shows more of it. The only downside, as others have noted, is that the lighting isn't as good. However, I am still of the opinion that it is better overall. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 09:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in support of Scrooge's closer crop of the image. The lighting difference is negligible --all of the details are still clear by virtue of the animation style --and the pros definitely outweigh the cons in my eyes. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 21:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually User:Epsilon the Eternal, by our policies the closer cropped one is better. Shambala108 ☎ 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I really disagree. By that logic, a grainy, washed out screengrab with the character facing the camera would be the best image so long as it closely cropped. There are many factors in deciding an image, not just how closely cropped it is.

Epsilon📯 📂

21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Epsilon, please argue in good faith. Obviously "of two otherwise-appropriate images, the closer-cropped one is better" does not mean "an otherwise-horrid image with a better crop is always good". Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Epsilon the Eternal I suggest you read the policy to make yourself familiar with the rules. Your disagreements with the rules and your extrapolation of other users' comments show that you need some review. Shambala108 ☎ 01:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added an additional image. I realized that, as a result of Scream of the Shalka being a flash animation, it has (theoretically) infinite resolution. So opening up the video in the flash format, I got a screenshot in a higher resolution that should solve everyone's concerns. How does that look? NoNotTheMemes ☎ 19:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I quite like the "HD looking left" one. LauraBatham ☎ 01:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would,like to move my support from the closer crop by Scrooge MacDuck to the HD looking left image. The face is clearly visible, the lighting is good and the qualiy is great. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay then! It's the image that best fits T:GTI and there seems to be a consensus in its favour besides. I'm changing the image. Thank you, everyone! Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 08:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Despite the matter already being resolved, I would like to propose the image of the Ninth Doctor from PROSE: The Feast of the Stone, as not only is a highly detailed painting of Grant as the Shalka Doctor, it is a nice high resolution as well. I personally think it is rather atmospheric, lending itself to the Shalka Doctor, though I can see how some might discard the image for "bad lighting".

Epsilon📯 📂

23:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the "non-valid" tag?

Hello everyone! Due to the recent episode "Rogue", well recent if you are from 2024, what should our stance be on the Shalka Doctor now?

One of the faces during the sequence where the Doctor is scanned clearly show the Shalka Version, and if "Word by God" is valid here then we have the Russel T Davies confirmation that it's now indeed canon as per his comment in the Paul Cornell Instagram.

Should we then change all Scream of Shalka pages accordingly? Or should we wait a while to see what comes to it?

OFF: sorry if anything sounds offputing, by no means my english is perfect! Big hugs to all of you. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrozaniTox (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure where you're seeing the "non-valid" tag. There's a link to 'non-valid sources' sub-page. But the page itself is resplendent with sources with show its validity. (Also remember to sign your comments with ~~~~) --Tangerineduel / talk 06:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Page title change needed

Hello. Now, that the Shalka Doctor is canon again, it doesn't make for the page to be called "Ninth Doctor (Scream of the Shalka)" since he's now confirmed to be pre-hartnell. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spectritus (talk • contribs) .

Not to be blunt, but this Doctor has never been non-canonical, but at most in an alternate continuity parallel to 2005-Who. And furthermore, presuming you mean his cameo in Rogue ^[+]Loading...["Rogue (TV story)"], it is too nebulous to determine any such timeline-placement details from it, and, even if we go with that idea, it is only one source versus many more that do say, that he js in fact, the ninth incarnation of the Doctor.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Scream of the Shalka is certainly part of the canon. It was produced by the BBC and ‘broadcast’ by them, it was intended to be the next story in the life of the Doctor. It was overtaken by the new TV series. And that obviously bumped it out of _continuity_. But that only bumps it out of the canon if you assume that canonicity and continuity are the same thing. Which they needn’t and, I think, shouldn’t be. Scream of the Shalka can be part of the canon and yet totally irrelevant in terms of continuity. It is valid Doctor Who; it just doesn’t need to impact on any other Doctor Who stories.Paul Cornell, src