The Girl In The Fireplace!

[Dr Crewe]

Surely the one true `Classic` that the new series has produced so far? Absolutely awesome story!

[Rob McCow]

I found it pretty dull. It's the only story in the new series where I was looking at my watch.

It looks great, but it's snoozesome in the extreme.

[Perry Vale]

A very messy script, imo, seemed to be making it up as he went along. Too busy wondering how he could get the Doctor riding a horse. Definitely not a 'classic' imo, but I enjoyed the music in this one. You don't hear me say that often.

[Logo Polish]

Very watchable I found, although I suppose it's partly the syndrome of the BBC being better at period stuff than sci-fi. Rather sweet and soulful too, imo.

[Dr Crewe]

The music is great , the script is great -and its easy the best `fairy tale` like story to come out of Who - only THE KEEPER OF TRAKEN comes near to matching it!

[Larry]

I found it pretty dull. It's the only story in the new series where I was looking at my watch.

It looks great, but it's snoozesome in the extreme.

I was the complete opposite the first proper historical we've had since The Visitation, and I loved every moment of it from start to finish wonderfull costumes excelent twist at the end..

oh and the beautifull and sexy Sophia Myles .

[SiHart]

The first proper historical since The Visitation? What about Balck Orchid, or The Unquiet Dead, to name two?

The twist was good, but it wasn't nearly as moving as it could have been, as we're told it was. There was very little in the way Reinette was written to suggest that she was this remarkable woman. IMO we were told that in the story and in the Steven Moffat interviews, but little of that made it onto the screen. Fortunately the easy rapport between Tennant and Myles somehow made up for that a little.

I just didn't like it much. You can't like everything!

Si xx

[Larry]

The first proper historical since The Visitation? What about Balck Orchid, or The Unquiet Dead, to name two?


Si xx

not quite sure that a story set in the 1920's or any part of the 20th century could be considered a proper historical I tend to class a historical as a story set 150+ years ago ..

[Perry Vale]

so 145 wouldn't count? or 149?

[Anthony Williams]

not quite sure that a story set in the 1920's or any part of the 20th century could be considered a proper historical I tend to class a historical as a story set 150+ years ago ..

although the Unquiet Dead was set in the 19th Century...

and a major part of my BA in History is learning about 1945 and the lasting impacts of that year on the world.

Ant x

[Larry]

although the Unquiet Dead was set in the 19th Century...

and a major part of my BA in History is learning about 1945 and the lasting impacts of that year on the world.

Ant x

so would you consider Father's Day to be a historicl .

[Anthony Williams]

so would you consider Father's Day to be a historicl .

no, given that the date of it is 1987 - far far far too contemporary!

Ant x

[Larry]

no, given that the date of it is 1987 - far far far too contemporary!

Ant x

well that's pretty much how I view any story set from 1920 on wards..

[Anthony Williams]

well that's pretty much how I view any story set from 1920 on wards..

there's a significant difference from 20 years ago, and 87 years ago!

why would a story set in WW1 be recognised as a historical and not WW2?

Ant x

[Larry]

think it's just because it's because if some thing that's still in the living memory it just for me dose not seem to have the feel of a genuine historical that is set 250 odd years ago like Girl in the Fireplace.

[Jonno]

But Girl is only partly set in the past - it's also partly set way in the future (can't remember the exact date given off hand)!

Anyway, the correct answer is that Black Orchid remains the only historical since The Highlanders. Every other story set in Earth's past is a pseudo-historical in that there is extra-terrestrial involvement.

[Jason Thompson]

But Black Orchid is not a historical, it's a period piece. The Doctor meets no significant historical figures, nor is there any connection to a significant historical event. Black Orchid could have been set at any time without influencing the plot one bit.

[Pip Madeley]

But Black Orchid is not a historical, it's a period piece. The Doctor meets no significant historical figures, nor is there any connection to a significant historical event. Black Orchid could have been set at any time without influencing the plot one bit.

Even so, we're fortunate that it is set in the 1920s, as the setting adds a lot of charm and atmosphere to the story (not to mention high production values).

[Raston]

there's a significant difference from 20 years ago, and 87 years ago!

why would a story set in WW1 be recognised as a historical and not WW2?

Ant x

Nothing post industrial is history as far as i am concerned.

I'd like to see more pre-industrial who stories-and a lot fewer victorian ones. 2 Seasons running is more than enough IMO. Victoriana is so boring anway, i'd rather they visited some more interesting and eras.

With over 3000 years of recorded history, i don't see why we should get stories that focus on less than the last 10% of it.

[Rob McCow]

With over 3000 years of recorded history, i don't see why we should get stories that focus on less than the last 10% of it.

Because most of that history consists of people scrabbling round in the mud. The past is a foreign country, as foreign as an alien world.

Apparently we're visiting Shakespearean England next year. Is that far back enough?

[Raston]

Because most of that history consists of people scrabbling round in the mud. The past is a foreign country, as foreign as an alien world.

Apparently we're visiting Shakespearean England next year. Is that far back enough?

Utter rubbish, your showing ignorance here.

We have 3000 years of history that has been recorded by people who were alive at the time. They wrote novels, plays, poems, histories, newspapers. They had civilisations that had arts and armies and religions and politics and shops and cafes and exporters and schools and wars and farms and lawyers and hairdressers and taxes and police and firemen and holidays and most of the things we still take for granted today.

Shakespearian England may be going back slightly further than before but it is is still very much 'Modern History' (civilised history is devided into 3 areas, 'Modern' is renaissance until present day, 'Medieval' is fall of Rome until Renaissance, 'Ancient' is pre fall of Rome back roughly to the Dorian invasions)-the new series has only visited 'Modern' history, and has only gone pre-industrial on one occasion (granted 'shakepeare code' will be a second pre-industrial trip-but still 'modern').

Not exactly much of a trip into the past- If 1987 is the Isle of White- Then We has still gone no further than Jersey.

[Si Hunt]

Anyway, the correct answer is that Black Orchid remains the only historical since The Highlanders. Every other story set in Earth's past is a pseudo-historical in that there is extra-terrestrial involvement.

I don't get this age-old notion that a story isn't a historical because it happens to also feature a Sontaran or whatever. It's still set in history. Surely by this logic, every story with the TARDIS in qualifies.

What we actually MEAN by historical is an age different to ours in terms of costumes, attitudes, fashions etc. So although we tend to think of this as prior to the 20th Century, i.e anything involving wigs, ruffs and bows and arrows, in actual fact "Fathers Day" qualifies because the production team tackled that story in the way that they would any other historical - ensuring the music, costumes and attitudes adhered to the time. That they did this, rather than just going out and filming our world as it is now, perhaps should be taken as the definition of a historical.

Si.

[Dave Lewis]

the Dorian invasions

Was this where a busty old slapper invaded Caeseromagus?

[Raston]

I don't get this age-old notion that a story isn't a historical because it happens to also feature a Sontaran or whatever. It's still set in history. Surely by this logic, every story with the TARDIS in qualifies.

What we actually MEAN by historical is an age different to ours in terms of costumes, attitudes, fashions etc. So although we tend to think of this as prior to the 20th Century, i.e anything involving wigs, ruffs and bows and arrows, in actual fact "Fathers Day" qualifies because the production team tackled that story in the way that they would any other historical - ensuring the music, costumes and attitudes adhered to the time. That they did this, rather than just going out and filming our world as it is now, perhaps should be taken as the definition of a historical.

Si.

Perhaps a better definition would be to say that a historical involves travel to a period before the companion was born. Thus history is anytime before their life rather than a part of their past? Because if we had for example a story set on earth 6 months previously would we class that as historical? Is Maudryn Undead a historical because part of it is set 6 yeras before?

[Si Hunt]

if we had for example a story set on earth 6 months previously would we class that as historical? Is Maudryn Undead a historical because part of it is set 6 yeras before?

Not really, because the fashions, attitudes, dialogue and appearance of our Earth was indistinguishable in both time zones. The "Mawdryn" production team made an effort to show that the Jubilee was happening because that was a one-off event (in the same way a story set last Christmas would feature tinsel) but otherwise, everything else was asthetically the same. A story set in the seventies would be a historical though. A story broadcast in 1995 but set in 1990 might also be considered a historical if they had to show acid house T-Shirts and bowl-haircuts. The very definition of a historical should be whether or not the story needs to shows historical - i.e discernably PAST - elements in their contemporary setting.

I don't get the logical behind when the companion was born however!!! Why the companion?! What happens if the companion was a Time Lord born 900 years ago, would that suddenly make a story set in the Elizabethan era not a historical? I prefer my definition.

Si.