Forum:Versions of Shada (again)

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Versions of Shada (again)

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

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 /> ☎ ✍ 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 PROSE: Human Nature is to TV: 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 /> ☎ ✍ 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)

P.S. This means that as far as the in-universe portion of this wiki is concerned, Chris Parsons was from Glasgow, not Bristol. [1] —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 05:50, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you can play Shada on a Mac — though probably not an iPad — from the official website. You just have to choose to play the segment in full screen from the link at the bottom-centre of the frame.

As for Dronid, well, ya have to choose something. When it comes to titles, you can only have one. So, yeah, it's arbitrary, but your approach seems reasoned as well as it can be. Also, the addition of an extra "r" in this instance indicates regional accent, not definitive spelling. It could easily be that the actual spelling is Dronid, but that some people pronounce it Drornid.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 14:16: Tue 12 Jun 2012 

Thanks for the pointer for playing the webcast! —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 14:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

And now that I've reviewed the webcast, I've found that the spelling which flashes ever-so-briefly on the screen, in reverse, is Sabajatrik. Dunno where "Sabjatric" came from. Discussion here; I'll make the move as long as nobody objects. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 04:35, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we could treat the TV story of Shada as we do novelisations for other stories. So apply the reverse of our novelisation/TV story rule to Shada. Which I like as an idea because it'd give us more images to work with and some particulars of story that the webcast doesn't give us. But I don't think it'd be workable within the wider wiki.

So I don't have any issues with the order of precedence that CzechOut has proposed.

Also just on the webcasts, Shalka is also in the same boat as Shada go from the episodes page and click high or low bandwidth and it'll say you need flash, if you click "full screen" it'll load perfectly fine. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:16, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about the images. I take the point about deleted scenes not being canonical, but isn't there some loophole we could use to keep the images from the VHS? —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 16:40, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sabjatric is now Sabjatrik. —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 16:40, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

The loophole for images from the VHS is that they can be in behind the scenes sections, in much the same way that the primary image of Varga plant is from City of the Daleks, but a shot of the "Mission to the Unknown" image is in the BTS section. But, under this order of precedence (which we've not always observed) the VHS image can't be the outright infobox image. This order of precedence should not be read as a call to delete the VHS images from the site — just to use them in different ways.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:40: Fri 15 Jun 2012 

Can I just say that I completely object to almost everything suggested here. The suggestion that ANY televised story should or should not be counted as canon is ludicrous. I don't care how much you may or may not dislike an episode, suggesting we should just ignore it is just mad. And no, it's not a giant deleted scene, it's more like a really poor special edition. So many fans count this as canon that saying it isn't is just silly. This would be just as bad as saying that because the Five Doctor's novelization came out first, it was the indefinite article. And how is Shada the episode not a narrative and Shada the book is?

For years Czech, you have stated that our canon policy does not want to tell people how to look at the Doctor Who universe, but how we as a wiki have to sort it. This means "This could in no way be included on the wiki, but if you want to count it in your head, go and do so." This means Parody, this means Fan production, this means charity piece, this means unlicensed BBV work, this means this Russel T told us to ignore. These are things that in no way shape or form can count. As much as I like to joke about hating Lungbarrow, I still am happy that we include it because we have no reason not to include it. Counting something as non cannon should not be easy, especially at this importance, as one of the most popular TV stories of all time. You can't discount an episode just because "It's kinda sorta a big deleted scene maybe but not really but we'll call it that anyways." That's not a reason, that's a very strong opinion. No, Shada isn't a big deleted scene, it was released with serious reasoning behind it, with what might as well be just a narrator who looks a bit like the Doctor. Saying that it's not canon is crazy. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 09:42, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

you're trying to compare shada to how this wiki deals with televised stories. may i just mention that shada was never televised, just VHS-ised? and as much as i enjoyed watching what there was of the episode, since it was never shown on tv but on home video release it really is no different than other scenes that have been written, filmed but not included in episodes yet included in the extras sections on home release. how is it not a deleted scene?! and if you say that seriousness is a qualifier of canonicy, then we need to include all deleted scenes filmed, most of which were probably cut from their episodes to fit the timeslot available and therefore still completely serious. oh yeah, and the story is probably so famous because it was "the one that wasn't finished", otherwise it would just be another episode. Imamadmad ^{talk to me} 09:15, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Think of it like this. What if in new series story they had a Narrator tell what the Doctor was during during a scene where the Doctor was not present. The narration would cover any missing scene with the Doctor. The missing scenes in Shada are like this, the Narration patches the missing scenes over. I think that the point I'm trying to make is this: If our rules state that one of the original 157 of what we call "TV stories" is non-canon, then there is something wrong with our rules. And really, there isn't. The point of the rule "Deleted scenes are not canon" is this: Preexisting narratives are not plagued with scenes deemed unfit for air. It's so we don't have a lot of 10/Rose people running around saying that Rose has her own TARDIS now. The rule just needs to be tweaked, not removed. My main, most important, and for now final point is this: "SAYING SHADA IS NOT CANON AND CAN NOT BE INCLUDED ON OUR SITE IN ANY WAY IS JUMPING THE GUN. COMPLETLEY." OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 09:42, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

maybe i didn't make this clear. i and i am assuming the rest of us are saying shada is like a huge deleted scene is because IT WAS NEVER AIRED ON TV! and i'm not just talking about the unfilmed parts either, NONE OF IT WAS SEEN UNTIL THE VHS RELEASE MANY YEARS LATER! it is nothing like a narrator telling us what is going on when the doctor isn't present because, although some parts of the story contained narration, NEITHER THE NARRATION NOR THE REST OF THE STORY WAS AIRED ON TV! am i being clear here? the story counts as a deleted scene as it was not aired on tv like the rest of the episodes but was on home video, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SCENE FILMED FOR AN EPISODE THAT WAS CUT AND INCLUDED IN THE EXTRAS SECTION FOR THE HOME RELEASE! so, if we don't count those cut scenes that were released on home video for any other story, why would we count this serial which was never aired on tv but was on home video? am i making myself clear? this exclusion has nothing to do with the missing scenes, just with the fact that none of the serial was aired on tv like the rest of the stories in that range (that range being televised classic who). Imamadmad ^{talk to me} 07:27, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand. That's a stupid reason. A really f-ing stupid reason. What your saying is, that the reason we don't want to count it as canon is that 'it was a direct-to-video release. That's what your saying. Not directly, but it's what you mean. Do I even have to bring up all of the home video releases we count? P.R.O.B.E., Shakedown, among many others... Hell, what about Night and the Doctor and Meanwhile in the TARDIS? They was never aired on tv, and we don't count them as deleted scenes, and those are basically deleted scenes that we take seriously! So how is Shada not canon because "It didn't air on TV." The simple fact is that the only reason to take something as a deleted scene is that we are told it is. Unless it says the words "deleted scenes," it's not a deleted scene. Shada was released with serious intent, with the idea that now the episode was ready to be viewed. It was not advertised as some random deleted scene not used for time, it was advertised as a "great lost episode now complete." And that's how we should treat it. As a normal episode that took along time to finish and went strait to video. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:16, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Shada is a problem not because it is direct to video but because it is one of the class of stories, like Human Nature, for which more than one valid version exists. This alarms the bureaucratic mind, which likes simple, easily separable categories – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boblipton (talk • contribs) .

Yes, you win the award for giving me the actual reason that everyone is freaked out by this! And it's not a good reason, to say the least. Just like Human Nature, the story is hard to deal with, but still should be kept canon. Although causing confusion (Almost none, I might add) the story should be kept canon. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:23, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my complete rant got caught in an editing conflict: here it is:

Shada is a problem not because it is direct to video but because it is one of the class of stories, like Human Nature and The Ultimate Adventure for which more than one version exists and they contradict each other and there's no applicable rule to prefer one version. This alarms the bureaucratic mind, which likes simple, easily separable categories with nice, infinitely narrow, bright lines and an easily explained set of rules to apply. Television episodes trump book versions, but what do you do in cases like this? Well, you can admit the problem, mention it and let the intelligent reader come to his own conclusion. Or you can hate hate hate this version and look for any excuse, no matter how specious, to exclude it from normal consideration. In the bureaucratic world, all children are naughty or nice and will receive lumps of coal or sugarplums depending on their ratings, no matter how many decimal places Santa Claus must examine. When you're dead, Anubis will weigh your good deeds against your bad deeds and woe betide the sinner whose bad deeds outweigh the good ones by a scruple. And so forth.

The worst part, of course, is the fact that if the bureaucrat doesn't get his way this time, he waits six months, comes up with another reason and we have to go through the whole debate again. Once he wins, of course, it's policy and it would be wrong to revisit this subject when there are so many more important things to consider. Because we need simple, easily applied rules because people are morons. That's the purpose of all this: the people we're writing for are morons. Doesn't that make you feel good?

Shada is a problem because it contradicts other stories, particularly other versions of Shada. My reaction is "So what? It's a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey world in which the past is rewritten every second." I'm much more concerned about good storytelling, good jokes and people who think that all of writing can be taught out of a set of rules devised by people who thought that English is bad Latin and whose successors think the same. Shada isn't even on my radar and it shouldn't be on anyone's radar when people don't even understand what the word "plot" means. So let's kill this debate. I'm sure that in another six months another debate will ensue as to why we must exclude Shada for some new, overwhelmingly important, specious reason. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 22:46, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't really care that much whether the VHS version of Shada is included or excluded — I was just looking for guidance on what to do in the (ultimately insignificant) cases in which the different versions of the story disagree, beyond the question of which Doctor had the adventure. I don't really have a cat in the fight of which version takes precedence. (But Sabjatrik might.) —Josiah Rowe ^{talk to me} 05:30, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

My advice is to ignore the problem, edit the pieces as completely different stories. Perhaps someday someone who is interested will do an article here on the conflicts between them. But take a look at the trivialities of how these terrible problems are resolved: by determining the proper spelling of made-up names. As writers and editors it behooves us to tend to such matters, but it's not the reason people hate this story. Spell the article one way, make sure the other spellings link to it and note the different spellings at the end. Let thte intelligent reader understand there is an issue and make up his own mind. 12:28, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with you on both that this discussion should end and how to spell. I just hope that other people do to... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 06:17, July 9, 2012 (UTC)