Talk:Shalka Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Official and Unofficial

The use of the words "official" and "unofficial" on this page are unhelpful, I feel. Scream of the Shalka is an official BBC production. I don't like "canonical"/"not canonical", but it seems more accurate or perhaps a longer explanation is in order? - Bondegezou 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The words "official" and "unofficial" were applied to the REG Doctor in contemporaneous accounts. That being said, let me have a look at it and see what can be done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Bondegezou. It's simply inaccurate to call him "unofficial". He was absolutely "official", in the same way that Eccleston is "officially" the Ninth Doctor. That is, his number is backed up by a BBC press release[1]. He was also included in a traditional "which Doctor was the best" poll, appearing on the BBC's main website[2]. Press reports as late as last year continue to casually mention him as having played the Doctor[3]. He might have been "officially" the Ninth Doctor for, I dunno, a nanosecond, but he was official, all the same. There are definitely some fans who would disagree with calling him "unofficial", as this article makes clear. Notwithstanding the fact that Outpost Gallifrey and most fan websites don't generally call him the Ninth Doctor, I think it's definitely POV, not to mention just plain wrong, to call him "unofficial".
Most accurately, he's the "Ninth Doctor (first)", and Eccleston is the "Ninth Doctor (second)". That's not terribly helpful, though. So maybe "Ninth Doctor (BBCi)" vs. "Ninth Doctor (BBC Wales)". Or maybe something simpler still like "Ninth Doctor (animated)" vs. "Ninth Doctor (live action)" would work, being descriptive, accurate, and neutral at the same time.
This thing's such a misery, though, because there's nothing actually in the 2005 version of the program to indicate the REG Doctor couldn't be, numerically, the ninth. To date, the show hasn't touched on the subject of numbering regenerations. There's not a single line anywhere in the first season of the 2005 program which comes anywhere close to saying "I'm the Ninth Doctor". There's only the BBC publicity office, and one interview with RTD--well outside of the mainstream media--telling us differently. CzechOut 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of what you've said - I like the idea in The Gallifrey Chronicles that the Ninth Doctor has three distinct incarnations, for example. I think that the way the article is worded now accurately reflects the situation: he was official, and then he wasn't. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That being said, I've added a new paragraph that tries to point out that nothing stops the Shalka Doctor from being a future incarnation of the Doctor, either. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preceding Doctor

Is it really the Eighth Doctor or simply vague as the Doctor in The Infinity Doctors? DrWho42 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's based on what the producers' intent was at the time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth...ish Doctor

Despite the fact that the Shalka Doctor was intended to be the ninth incarnation, there are only two lines in Scream of the Shalka that actually imply this: when the Doctor mentions that Andy Warhol once wanted to paint "all nine" of him, and when the Doctor comments that a dead cat has used up its nine lives, like he has. Nothing else actually points to the Shalka Doctor being the ninth, and accordingly nothing prevents the Shalka Doctor from being a future incarnation of the Doctor.

Is it just me or is this paragraph contradicting itself? Just because there are only two lines implying that he's the Ninth Doctor doesn't mean he isn't the Ninth Doctor! As far as Shalka is concerned he clearly is. If by "nothing prevents the Shalka Doctor from being a future incarnation" we mean that a retcon would be trivial, then yes, the story doesn't revolve around him being the Ninth Doctor, but then again, what story ever revolves around what incarnation of the Doctor it is? (Apropos retcon: if Doctor Who continues as a live action series it's obviously unlikely the Shalka Doctor ever becomes a future incarnation of the Doctor.)

I've reworded both paragraphs, eliminating both the "future incarnation" speculation and the apparently contentious "unofficial" label (see the discussion above) by simply mentioning that the time-weathered rogue we now call the Ninth Doctor has been called that outside the series (but not within it) by people who ought to know and that the status of the Shalka Doctor in the canon is unclear, and leave it at that. From a canon POV the Shalka Doctor should probably be considered the Ninth Doctor of an alternate universe, until this is contradicted or retconned away. Whether he is or was the Ninth Doctor "officially" is probably not relevant, although I feel obliged to point out that the article for the Ninth Doctor is pretty direct in stating he isn't. 82.92.119.11 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gallifrey Chronicles reference thereto should be mentioned as well, seeing as it claims there is three different 9th Doctors. DrWho42 20:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit about this, and I've tried to be as neutral as possible—things aren't made any easier by the fact that The Gallifrey Chronicles never explicitly mentions that the "three incarnations" include the Shalka Doctor, and of course the question of whether The Gallifrey Chronicles is itself canon is something you can argue about. (I haven't read it myself, but the few reviews I've checked weren't exactly glowing.) 82.92.119.11 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You really should read it. It's probably my second favourite BBC Doctor Who novel (the first being Alien Bodies by Lawrence Miles and the third being The Infinity Doctors by Lance Parkin). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Could not the REG Doctor just be the Ninth Doctor before the timewar? Afterall, the timewar may have affected his appearance when he wiped out the Time Lords and placed history in flux... 132.205.44.134 04:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be, although the earlier end I doubt would have been animated unless it was some odd rearrangement of what was once termed as reality...
It's all entirely speculative though, if you go down that alleyway.
DrWho42 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors Playing Two Incarnations of the Doctor

In the article is a statement that "Grant is to date only the second actor (after Sylvester McCoy) to portray two different incarnations of the Doctor on screen." I've looked at the article for the Seventh Doctor and the article for Sylvester McCoy but cannot see in either of these a statement about McCoy playing two incarnations of the Doctor. Where does this statement come from? --Snowflake Sans Crainte 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

McCoy played the Sixth Doctor (in a blonde wig and seen only from the back) for about five seconds in Time and the Rani before regenerating into the Seventh Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's quite a disappointing answer really. I thought it would be something a bit 'bigger' than dressing up because they didn't have the original actor. :( --Snowflake Sans Crainte 15:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, if the article is taking this nonsense of including incarnations in comedy sketches seriously, then surely Jim Broadbent also achieved this, and before Grant did? Angmering 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose one could make the argument that Broadbent wasn't playing a particular Doctor (as opposed to REG, who was playing the Ninth [animated] and Tenth [conceited] Doctor). But of course you're right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
...or Terry Walsh, actually, come to that... Angmering 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, what?

Currently the article says:

However, just before the webcast was released the 2005 series was announced, in which Christopher Eccleston would play a Ninth Doctor (as labelled by official sources, but not explicitly by the series itself) who was clearly different. In addition, the Doctor (as played by David Tennant) states in "School Reunion" (2006) that he has regenerated a "half dozen times" since he last met Sarah Jane Smith this is wrong, as Sarah Jane Smith met the 5th Doctor in "The 5 Doctors" (1983), So that would mean that he had only regenerated 5 times since they last met. So this means that there is an extra doctor somwhere between Peter Davison and David Tennant. Could this be the Shalka Doctor?

First of all it's poorly written. An easy enough fix on its own, but at the core of things is this notion that you can't take the 10th Doctor literally in "School Reunion", and that this, affords the opportunity for the Shalka Doctor to sneak in there. In all the discussion about REG 9, I've never, ever heard this particular theory advanced. Why are we making this more complicated than it is? He was announced as official, then the BBC decided to make a TV series after all, so they dubbed Eccleston "the Ninth Doctor". It's really no biggie.

Trying to find a narrative "place" for this Doctor is surely original research. And there are any number of other, equally good explanations for the Tennant line.

  • It's easy enough to believe from Tennant's delivery of the line that he's just approximating.
  • Another theory is that SJS is never clearly shown to understand quite who the guy in the cricket gear is in "The Five Doctors". She's not in shot at any time numbers are mentioned. The nearest thing you can say is that she might have overheard the Second Doctor tell the Fifth that the latter is the "latest model". But there's nothing specifically preventing her from believing that Davison is the 12th Doctor (or the 100th, since she doesn't know about regeneration limitations).
  • The one I've always heard is that the events of "The Five Dotors" was erased from all the companion's minds, save Turlough and Tegan. There's nothing in the script to precisely confirm this, but the effects used to show the "temporal fission" at the end are precisely the same as those used at the beginning of the episode. Therefore it might be assumed that everyone is returned to a point slightly before they started, leaving only the Fifth Doctor's TARDIS crew in possession of the facts about "The Five Doctors". This might be said to be backed up by the failure of any other published story in any media (AFAIK) to give us a Sarah Jane who remembered the events of the Five Doctors. The Brig's failure to mention the events of "Five" in "Battlefield" is possibly evidence of this theory as well
  • Taking into account all media, the theory of the last novel of the Eighth Doctor Adventures range, The Gallifrey Chronicles, is that the Doctor has "three ninth incarnations" (probably in reference to Eccleston, Grant and Atkinson). This makes sense given the novel's basic mandate was to bring closure to the parallel worlds concept that had crept into Eighth Doctor stories.

Point is, there are a lot of theories floating around out there. The simplest explanation for the narrative continuity out there is no explanation at all. REG was official when he recorded and unofficial virtually by the time he was broadcast. Maybe the page could link to various theories, but advancing this one as "the" answer is a bit beyond the pail. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Article revised to take note of all this. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 09:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)