The Girl In The Fireplace!

[Rob McCow]

Utter rubbish, your showing ignorance here.

Really? I thought I was merely being facetious

Perhaps this is as much to do with semantics? We haven't had much in the way of Ancient Historicals, we've had more Recent Historicals and 20th Century Historicals. Convention says that we wouldn't call a new story set in 2004 a historical, because if it was made now that would be recent enough. Father's Day is borderline; although many people alive can remember 1980, but they still had to find special 'period' props and costumes. And hairstyles.

When I say the past is like an alien world, I mean that for an historical culture to be displayed meaningfully, it would take a whopping slice of budget. You can't put up a painted screen, dress a man in feathers and say it's the Aztecs. Well, not really.

Ancient historicals could be as prohibitively expensive as trips to Raxicoricofallapatorius.

[Larry]

mmm, if i'd known my original comment was going to generate all this debate I think I'd of started this whole historical and what people class as is or is not historical in a thread of it's own...

[Jason Thompson]

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.

I thought the 'historical' story was about that period or event in some way, with the plot driven solely by the people involved. The Reign Of Terror sees the characters dealing with the French Revolution. The Massacre is about the machinations of the people involved in the atrocity. The Time Warrior is set in the middle ages bt nothing that is actually happening then makes a blind bit of difference to the plot. What difference would it make if Linx was in 1380, 1580 or 1780? He's still arsing about with time, which is the thrust of the plot. Stick an alien in it and the 'history' becomes secondary to the plot and is just a nice backdrop for what would otherwise be just another alien invasion story. Does The Visitation have to be set in 1666 for the Terileptil plan to work and be thwarted by burning down their HQ? In the same way, Black Orchid isn't 'historical' because it could be set anywhen and still have the same plot.

[SiHart]

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').

That was a failing of the series as a whole after the 60s. In the 80s for instance we went to the 17th Century, the 19th century a couple of times, the 13th century, the 20s 40s, the 50's and 60s... in ten years!
The 70s weren't that much more interested in the periods you'd like to see Andrew.

I think it come down to where they feel they can tell a good story. After all the story is the key.

Si xx

[Raston]

That was a failing of the series as a whole after the 60s. In the 80s for instance we went to the 17th Century, the 19th century a couple of times, the 13th century, the 20s 40s, the 50's and 60s... in ten years!
The 70s weren't that much more interested in the periods you'd like to see Andrew.

I think it come down to where they feel they can tell a good story. After all the story is the key.

Si xx

Oh exactly-i'm not saying it is just a problem of the current who era-but a problem who has had since the 60's-where we got much more of a selection of historical settings that covered all three periods.

(although i'd dispute your details of the 70's a little you left out 15th century or do you dislike masque of mandragora that much )

[Raston]

Really? I thought I was merely being facetious

Sorry Mr McCow; i didn't read it as that, often the problem with forums that you can't always convey these sort of things as well as a chat in the pub would!

I don't see why for example a Medieval historical set in an old castle would be any more expensive to produce than a victorian street- they could even use Nottingham for authentic medieval pubs and things.

Likewise there are reproduction roman villas and forts that a Roman story could be set in-for an earlyer example.

The big advantage of Who being in the UK is that we have buildings and reproduced buildings representing almost ever era in our history that could be used in a who story.

[Rob McCow]

I was thinking more along the lines of Ancient China, or Aborigine Austrailia - really different cultures! Oh yes, Doctor Who meets the Hapsburgs wouldn't be too tricky Roman Wales could be easy too.

[Logo Polish]

I thought the 'historical' story was about that period or event in some way, with the plot driven solely by the people involved. The Reign Of Terror sees the characters dealing with the French Revolution. The Massacre is about the machinations of the people involved in the atrocity. The Time Warrior is set in the middle ages bt nothing that is actually happening then makes a blind bit of difference to the plot. What difference would it make if Linx was in 1380, 1580 or 1780? He's still arsing about with time, which is the thrust of the plot. Stick an alien in it and the 'history' becomes secondary to the plot and is just a nice backdrop for what would otherwise be just another alien invasion story. Does The Visitation have to be set in 1666 for the Terileptil plan to work and be thwarted by burning down their HQ? In the same way, Black Orchid isn't 'historical' because it could be set anywhen and still have the same plot.

Couldn't you also argue that The Smugglers isn't a historical by that definition? There aren't any genuine historical figures in that one, and even the theme of smugglers and contraband could apply as much to the eighteenth as the seventeenth century at least, if not other periods?

[Larry]

Couldn't you also argue that The Smugglers isn't a historical by that definition? There aren't any genuine historical figures in that one, and even the theme of smugglers and contraband could apply as much to the eighteenth as the seventeenth century at least, if not other periods?

the same could also be said of Pyramids of Mars - yes it is set in 1911 but can it really be classified as a genuin historical..

[Logo Polish]

The distinction that always used to be made was between stories set in the past without any SF elements (other than the TARDIS) and those which did have some (like a monster or something). Although I think in recent years I think there's been a tendency to see any story set in the past as being a "historical".

I don't think there can be a fixed definition, as there'll always be scope for people to to widen or narrow it as they please. For me, if a story is set prior to when it was made, it can qualify at least in part to be considered "historical". But how anyone else defines it is up to them.

[Dirk Gently]

Like Logo, I usually consider a 'historical story' as one that is set in a time prior to that of production. For example I don't consider Attack of the Cybermen a historical because it was supposed to be contemporary but I would consider Father's Day a Historical because it was made some 20 years or so after the events being portrayed but they are contemporary with each other.

Clear?

Tough if it isn't!

[Raston]

I think i go for 'Historical' if it is set in the past and has no sci-fi elements other than the tardis.

Then 'Pseudo-Historical' if its in the past but features a monster.

Thus- Black Orchid, Highlanders, Smugglers, Aztecs are Historicals.

Fathers day, Visitation, Time Warrior, Time Meddler are pseudo-historicals.