Which version should I see?

[jwyblejr]

I haven't seen Shada and was wondering which version should I go with? The Tom Baker version or the Paul McGann version?

[Gorn Captain]

I don't even consider McGann a Doctor....

[jwyblejr]

The BBC must otherwise they wouldn't have redone it with McGann.

[Mikey]

I wouldn't want to see/hear either verson.

Reading a few brief story outlines, to me it seems Shada is a rather lousy and boring story (like many of Baker's later ones).

The only reason it's so popular is it will always be known as the story that never was.

[AUSSIE-Rebooted-AMM]

I don't even consider McGann a Doctor....

My thoughts exactly. . . but everyone includes him in the timeline.

I always saw it as like the 60's Dalek Movie, same name. . .machine/tardis. . . .not part of the real McCoy though! (Ug pardon the Pun)!

[ctc]

>to me it seems Shada is a rather lousy and boring story

It's got a lot of neat ideas, but it could have SERIOUSLY used another edit of the script. It ends up being a whole bunch of things happening that sort of go together, and then it ends. I think.

Don C.

[samurainoir]

My thoughts exactly. . . but everyone includes him in the timeline.

I always saw it as like the 60's Dalek Movie, same name. . .machine/tardis. . . .not part of the real McCoy though! (Ug pardon the Pun)!

It would probably be easier to write him off if McCoy wasn't involved and we hadn't seen the onscreen regeneration. The only thing that really was a bit off was the "Half human" thing, and I'm sure that has been easily ignored.

Was it established that the Peter Cushing version was human? The 60's movie versions kind of wander into "remake" territory more than finding anyplace for them to fit continuity.

[samurainoir]

I haven't seen Shada and was wondering which version should I go with? The Tom Baker version or the Paul McGann version?

The Baker version isn't really available since it wasn't completed other than a handful of scenes that were shot before production was pulled. Unless somewhere along the line they put together a tape stringing together those scenes with a reading by Baker?

Just a warning, the McGann version is comprised of fairly primitive web animation.

[jwyblejr]

So steer clear of both version then? No problem.

[bobws]

i have the Shada Video release the BBc put out under John Nathan-Turner. about 1/3 to 1/2 was filmed and then they had tom in a Doctor Who exhibit describe what was in the missing parts. i enjoyed it for what it was .. a look at a lost story. i haven't yet got the McGann version but i'm working towards it very soon. i was years behind on my Big Finish monthly series stories as the new show came out and i was buying the region 2 disc's to play on my computer. if you didn't like Paul in the movie, (and frankly him and sylvester were the only good parts) you might enjoy hearing him in his Big Finish audio stories. i just played # 77 the other day and was quite pleased. he does these very well. so soon i will try out his Shada, just to hear the whole story done out as one complete story.

[jds1911a1]

I like both but here is a way to decide

Shada the baker tape is really easy to get on vhs on ebay cheap and you can watch the animated one on BBC online so cost is really not much of an issue - it depends on how you prefer to watch - tv or pc s

The tape used all the existing footage with Tom story telling the missing scenes (like the way Nick Courtney tells the plot for the missing episodes of invasion on the tape release and Carol ann ford summarizes the missing parts of Reign of Terror)

The animated with Mcgann is nice becuase it ties into the aired episode continuity including references to the Time scoop taking Romana and The Doctor in 5 doctors

I saw the tape well before the animation so knowing the basic plot it spoiled the animation for me. of the 2 I liked the animation better but