Forum:Versions of Shada (again)
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
The multiple versions of Shada have been discussed before, but I've got a new wrinkle. When we have conflict between a televised story and a novelisation, we go with the TV version, but in the case of Shada there isn't really a TV version. And in the afterword to the novelisation, Gareth Roberts says that he worked from versions of the script that were later than the version released with the Shada VHS (which I've just got hold of myself, as it wasn't released with the videotape in the US). So which takes precedence?
The specific detail I'm wondering about is about the other prisoners in Shada (the prison). We have articles at Sabjatric and Rungar, which is how they're spelled in the script book; in that version (and the webcast/audio version(s)) we don't learn much about them, and it's not clear whether they're Time Lords or not. In the novelisation, they're definitely Time Lords, we learn about their histories, and their names are spelled Subjatric and Rundgar. Obviously, these are the same characters, so it would be silly to have separate pages about the maybe-Time-Lord Sabjatric and the definitely-Time-Lord Subjatric; a behind-the-scenes note can explain. But which spelling should the article be at? We don't have any way of knowing whether the spellings Roberts uses come from the later scripts, or if they're his introduction. Hmmm. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 20:01, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I'll come back in a bit with a more detailed response, but can I just quickly say how much I hate Shada? It's so much more trouble than it's worth.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">23:01: Sun 10 Jun 2012
This question also affects Dronid (or is it Drornid?), though there are also other factors at play there. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 23:49, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- After thinkin' about this for a while, I believe the order of precedence goes:
- Shada (webcast) - clearly at the top because it's the only BBC broadcast version, even if the original channel was BBCi, not BBC1
- Shada (audio story) - derivative of webcast, but officially released in its entirety. Anything which does not conflict with webcast is valid.
- Then, considered separately, there's:
- Shada (novelisation) — Since it's not a novelisation of the valid forms of the story, it's its own deal. This is to the webcast what NA: Human Nature is to DW: Human Nature. This is the closest the would-be televised version comes to inclusion.
- Not valid sources at all:
- Shada (TV story), since it's a giant deleted scene. We've ruled at this discussion that deleted scenes aren't valid sources.
- Script book, because a script is by definition a behind-the-scenes document. It's hard enough knowing when a script of a completed episode should be taken seriously; with a story that never was finished, it's flatly impossible. We can't possibly know that what was in the script would have made it to the screen, yanno?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">05:03: Tue 12 Jun 2012
- So, in the cases of Sabjatric and Rungar, we would go with the spellings used in the webcast (at least, I think they were on-screen — unfortunately, although the pages framing the webcast are still up, the actual videos seem not to be there, or at least I can't play them on my Flash-hating Mac). And we could say that they were Time Lords, because there's nothing in the webcast or audio versions to contradict that (though we would, of course, note this ambiguity in a behind-the-scenes note). But what about Dronid/Drornid? I don't know if we can base the spelling on actors' pronunciations, and I don't think it was written in any of the ancillary material of either the webcast or the CD. I suppose that since Alien Bodies is the earliest published valid source which writes the planet's name, we could say that we're going with Dronid... but it's still a bit arbitrary. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 05:47, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
