Top 175 Big Finish Adventures

[Si Hunt]

http://thetimescales.com/Doctor_Who/...php?seriesid=1

This website offers readers the chance to rank each Big Finish play, and above is the link to their Top 175. It's not exactly definitive - some stories only have 20 odd votes - but it is interesting.

Top 10:

(1) 140. A Death in the Family
9.6/10 (43 ratings)
(2) 40. Jubilee
9.1/10 (48 ratings)
(3) 81. The Kingmaker
9.1/10 (40 ratings)
(4) 48. Davros
9.1/10 (46 ratings)
(5) 14. The Holy Terror
9/10 (50 ratings)
(6) 29. The Chimes of Midnight
9/10 (63 ratings)
(7) 43. Doctor Who and The Pirates
8.9/10 (36 ratings)
(8) 34. Spare Parts
8.9/10 (56 ratings)
(9) 120. The Magic Mousetrap
8.9/10 (42 ratings)
(10) 115d. The Word Lord
8.8/10 (38 ratings)

Bottom 10:

(165) 70. Unregenerate!
5.7/10 (30 ratings)
(166) *Cryptobiosis
5.6/10 (21 ratings)
(167) 67. Dreamtime
5.6/10 (29 ratings)
(168) 55. The Twilight Kingdom
5.5/10 (26 ratings)
(169) 106. The Dark Husband
5.5/10 (30 ratings)
(170) 42. The Dark Flame
5.3/10 (26 ratings)
(171) 36. The Rapture
5.1/10 (30 ratings)
(172) 78. Pier Pressure
4.6/10 (24 ratings)
(173) 53. The Creed of the Kromon
4.6/10 (29 ratings)
(174) 41. Nekromanteia
4.3/10 (26 ratings)
(175) 75. Scaredy Cat
3.8/10 (26 ratings)

Do we agree with the site's users' rankings? I quite liked "Scaredy Cat"!

Si.

[Lissa]

I look forward to reading the full list but the Rapture is about 165 places too low.

[Rob McCow]

The Kingmaker at Number THREE?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??????????!?!?! ??!?!

[SiHart]

Pier Pressure should be right at the bottom.

Si xx

[Lissa]

I think the Kingmaker is about right. It's a superb story second or third time round. First time out it can seem a bit massively stupid but it really does get better and better.

[Junkyard]

I've heard 6 of the top ten given above. I'd put Chimes of Midnight above Holy Terror, and Spare Parts above The Pirates. Jubilee and Davros are probably where they should be. But without hearing the other four it's difficult to be fair.
The bottom ten is even more difficult, as I've only heard three of them. The Dark Flame and Necromanteia probably belong there.

[Si Hunt]

I've added my ranking for "The Kingmaker". It's not third anymore!

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I've added my ranking for "The Kingmaker". It's not third anymore!

Si.

Just read your review. I am slightly shocked that you managed to listen to the whole play and didn't even realise that is was based on Richard III (as in the Peter Cook character from The Black Adder: The Foretelling) not Richard the First (aka the Lionheart - the one played by Julian Glover in The Crusade)
I know that not everyone wants to believe that we once had a king of England who probably killed his own nephews but there you have it.
That said I was a bit disappointed by some of this story as if done just a tad more seriously it could have been brilliant plus I don't approve of getting Jon Culshaw to play the Fourth Doctor.
I think I might write my own version at some point...

Oh and very pleased to see A Death in the Family do so well

[Anthony Williams]

I know that not everyone wants to believe that we once had a king of England who probably killed his own nephews but there you have it.

Because he probably didn't?

More seriously, much of what the popular history says about Richard III is based around Tudor propaganda, in the form of Thomas More's "The History of Richard III", which was in turn used as the basis for Shakespeare's play on Richard III. In actuality, Richard III was not a hunchback, nor was he an unpopular King. Under his brother's rule, he was essentially governor of Northern England, and the Chronicles of the time record him as being much loved, first in his governatorial role, and later as King.

As Henry Tudor was an usurper of the throne, history was re-written, as it always was by the victors.

In terms of the two Princes, it's first worthy of note that at the time of Richard III, the Tower of London was not a prison, but a palace. When the supposed bones of the two Princes were discovered in 1674, there was no way of ascertaining what gender the bones were, nor when they were from - only a rough idea of what age the deceased would've been at the time of death. When they were exhumed from Westminster Abbey in 1933, nothing had changed in terms of technology. They still couldn't ascertain gender or date - carbon dating hadn't been invented yet.

Even though such technology exists now, they still haven't been carbon dated. DNA testing would also be possible, but difficult. DNA testing only works through mitochondrial DNA, and so there would have to have been a direct female line from Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the two Princes, to be able to do this. The only way to accurately DNA-test the bones now would be to exhume the bones of Elizabeth Woodville, too - something that they're reluctant to allow.

So, as things stand at the moment, there is no solid evidence that Richard III had anything to do with the disappearance of the two twins in the tower, beyond the writings of people loyal to the House of Tudor, the first monarch of which usurped Richard III.

Anthony Williams BA(Hons) MA(Lond)
Member of the Richard III Society

P.S. Can you tell that I wrote several essays on this?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Because he probably didn't?

More seriously, much of what the popular history says about Richard III is based around Tudor propaganda, in the form of Thomas More's "The History of Richard III", which was in turn used as the basis for Shakespeare's play on Richard III. In actuality, Richard III was not a hunchback, nor was he an unpopular King. Under his brother's rule, he was essentially governor of Northern England, and the Chronicles of the time record him as being much loved, first in his governatorial role, and later as King.

As Henry Tudor was an usurper of the throne, history was re-written, as it always was by the victors.

In terms of the two Princes, it's first worthy of note that at the time of Richard III, the Tower of London was not a prison, but a palace. When the supposed bones of the two Princes were discovered in 1674, there was no way of ascertaining what gender the bones were, nor when they were from - only a rough idea of what age the deceased would've been at the time of death. When they were exhumed from Westminster Abbey in 1933, nothing had changed in terms of technology. They still couldn't ascertain gender or date - carbon dating hadn't been invented yet.

Even though such technology exists now, they still haven't been carbon dated. DNA testing would also be possible, but difficult. DNA testing only works through mitochondrial DNA, and so there would have to have been a direct female line from Elizabeth Woodville, the mother of the two Princes, to be able to do this. The only way to accurately DNA-test the bones now would be to exhume the bones of Elizabeth Woodville, too - something that they're reluctant to allow.

So, as things stand at the moment, there is no solid evidence that Richard III had anything to do with the disappearance of the two twins in the tower, beyond the writings of people loyal to the House of Tudor, the first monarch of which usurped Richard III.

Anthony Williams BA(Hons) MA(Lond)
Member of the Richard III Society

P.S. Can you tell that I wrote several essays on this?

I've been reading on this subject for the last 16 years and I only said "probably" rather than "possibly" because it is unfortunately the most logical explanation for their disappearance.
Despite his possible act of regicide I have a huge amount of admiration for my namesake especially now that I'm 32 the realisation of how young he was when he died and how great a king he could have been had he not "botched Bosworth" to quote revisionist historian Jeremy Potter.

I know all about the Tudor propaganda machine and I'm certainly not inclined to believe everything I read in Shakespeare (all that nonsense about him being a hunchback and killing his own wife and brother for instance, he may have had a hand in the death in the murder of King Henry VI but only on his elder brother King Edward IV's orders)

I *so* want to believe that Henry VII killed his brothers by marriage but if there's only circumstantial evidence that King Richard did it then there's virtually no evidence to suggest that they were still alive by the time of the Tudor invasion in 1485. After they disappeared from public view in September 1483 and until Perkin Warbeck turned up in 1491 claiming to be Richard, Duke of York it was generally assumed by the populace at large that the princes had died.

In her recent novels Philippa Gregory seems to suggest that Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort may have had some involvement but I can't see how anyone be it her or Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham could have obtained access to the princes without the king finding out.
The big problem I have with theories suggesting others were responsible for their deaths whilst Richard was still king is why didn't he announce their deaths. His damning silence suggests to me that he must have felt some level of guilt which suggests that even if Buckingham did it the king must have been in collusion at some level.

Last year I read an interesting book entitled The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York which is sadly proved to pretty much based entirely on conjecture on the part of the author but I'd certainly not dismiss the possibility that at least one of the princes outlived Richard III.

As far as the bones in Westminster Abbey are concerned the source documenting their discovery in the 17th century suggests that whoever they were, they were extremely well dressed individuals and the 1933 exhumation did at least reveal that they were roughly the right ages for two children of the ages the princes would have been in 1483. That said as you point out carbon dating would now be able to place the age of the bones pretty accurately so if a further examination were to take place and it could established they were the remains of 2 boys who were related to each other dating back to the 1480s the evidence would be pretty conclusive. Sadly,unless the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey have a change of heart and allow a further exhumation, the truth will probably never be known.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

[url]


Do we agree with the site's users' rankings? I quite liked "Scaredy Cat"!

Si.

I quite liked it as well but they the whole four part play under runs quite severly to the point that they could have fitted it all on a single CD but they still sold it as a double-disc release. Possibly the only time I've ever been really cross with Big Finish!

[Si Hunt]

Just read your review. I am slightly shocked that you managed to listen to the whole play and didn't even realise that is was based on Richard III

I can't remember my review, and there is no answer I can give to the above without appearing ignorant, but I'm afraid I know nothing about that period of history. To be fair, there's actually no reason why I should; it wasn't included in the history I studied at school, and I studied computing and engineering courses at University. I've not really taken time out to study any history since. But no excuses. I have barely any knowledge of royal history/kings, princes and dukes, before the 20th Century. Even "The Black Adder" doesn't really tell you anything about it after a two minute opening sequence.

Sorry, that's just my ignorance! Maybe one day I will have time to read up.

Si.

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I can't remember my review, and there is no answer I can give to the above without appearing ignorant, but I'm afraid I know nothing about that period of history. To be fair, there's actually no reason why I should; it wasn't included in the history I studied at school, and I studied computing and engineering courses at University. I've not really taken time out to study any history since. But no excuses. I have barely any knowledge of royal history/kings, princes and dukes, before the 20th Century. Even "The Black Adder" doesn't really tell you anything about it after a two minute opening sequence.

Sorry, that's just my ignorance! Maybe one day I will have time to read up.

Si.

No need to apologise, sorry if I got a bit carried away but the subject fascinates me. It's shocking what they don't teach in schools these days (and now I sound like the Professor from the Narnia books). I only know so much because I've spent masses of my spare time reading about it.
It possibly is to The Kingmaker's detriment that it assumes its listeners are familiar with Shakespeare's Richard III (although there have been 2 rather brilliant film versions, I especially recommend the 1996 film updated to the1930s with Ian McKellen portraying Richard as a blackshirt style dictator).

[Si Hunt]

I love history too, and the stuff I did study at school (mainly the world wars) I remember loads about. I would love to have time to study more history, and I admire people like you and Ant who are so knowledgable about it, but there really is so little time and there are other hobbies I want to indulge myself in more! One day, and I'm not sure how this will work, but one day I will have loads of time and I will read lots.

Si.

[Anthony Williams]

Hurrah! It's great to find someone else who's well-read on Richard III!

Sorry I jumped down your throat in the original posting, Richard - I find that so many people are extremely ignorant around the history of Richard III, and I get a bit defensive!

If you're interested, the Richard III Society's website is here: http://www.richardiii.net/

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

No worries Anthony, I've had years of people giving me blank looks if I so much as use the name Plantagenet so it was interesting to read someone else's views.
I did have a brief look at the website, it's a shame some of the key information about upcoming events seems to be restricted to society members that said I've already got something on for December 10th but I might try and get to Christmas in Fotheringhay next year and to my shame I've never visited Bosworth so the commemoration next August will definitely be worth trying for (hopefully I'll be back from my Olympics hiding place by then)!

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

As of today the Top 63 of the poll stands as follows: (sorry I've not got time to do all 175 today!)

1) 140. A Death in the Family
2) 48. Davros
3) 14. The Holy Terror
4) 40. Jubilee
5) 81. The Kingmaker
6) 29. The Chimes of Midnight
7) 153. The Silver Turk
8) 34. Spare Parts
9) 94b. Urgent Calls
10) 132. The Architects of History
11) 130. A thousand Tiny Wings
12) 43. Doctor Who and The Pirates
13) 27. The One Doctor
14) 120. The Magic Mousetrap
15) 91c. Circular Time - Autumn
16) 131a. Klein's Story
17) 99. Son of the Dragon
18) 105. The Condemned
19) 115d. The Word Lord
20) 12. The Fires of Vulcan
21) 49. Master
22) 6. The Marian Conspiracy
23) 123d. The Company of Friends - Mary's Story
24) 33. Neverland
25) 58. The Harvest
26) 124. Patient Zero
27) 44. Creatures of Beauty
28) 57. Arrangements for War
29) 128. The Eternal Summer
30) 136. Cobwebs
31) 9. The Spectre of Lanyon Moor
32) 30. Seasons of Fear
33) 149. Robophobia
34) 74. Live 34
35) 100c. Bedtime Story
36) 139. Project Destiny
37) 20. Loups-Garoux
38) 126. Blue Forgotten Planet
39) 135. Legend of the Cyberman
40) 116. The Raincloud Man
41) 23. Project: Twilight
42) 131b. Survival of the Fittest
43) 122. Angel of Scutari
44) 88. Memory Lane
45) 114. Brotherhood of the Daleks
46) 91d. Circular Time - Winter
47) 103. The Girl Who Never Was
48) 54. The Natural History of Fear
49) 86. The Reaping
50) 79. Night Thoughts
51) 107. The Haunting of Thomas Brewster
52) 150d. Question Marks
53) 65. The Juggernauts
54) 100b. My Own Private Wolfgang
55) 82. The Settling
56) 146. Heroes of Sontar
57) 25. Colditz
58) 144. The Feast of Axos
59) 24. The Eye of the Scorpion
60) 142d. Special Features
61) 91b. Circular Time - Summer
62) 38. The Church and the Crown
63) 142c. Doing Time

Thoughts?

[Si Hunt]

"The Silver Turk" riding high on its 2 over-enthusiastic votes?

Si.

[SiHart]

Is A Death in the Family really that good?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Is A Death in the Family really that good?

I would be upset if it wasn't in the Top 10 that's for sure. I can't give anything away but...

[Si Hunt]

Yes it is, it's amazing. But the tragic irony is, it wraps up so many loose ends that you simply can't get it unless you've followed basically every audio since Hex arrived. It's not just a case of knowing what's happened... it's emotional resonance depends on having made that journey. It's like a great big pay off for following Big Finish. All I remember is having to listen to the whole thing in one go then getting home and feeling a very warm glow!

Si.

[brandynigma]

Yeah!

Nekromanteia where it bloody belongs!