There were Daleks set in Egypt, but it was completely duff history as it had slaves building the pyramids and looked like it owed more to a bad 50s Hollywood version of Egypt than a historical setting.
Richard III would be excellent.
And it's impossible to do a proper Arthur without killer rabbits, evil Frenchmen and kerniggits.
Well the Kings Demons virtually had the outraaageously accented Frenchman in the guise of Sir Gilles Estram. ;-)
I have seen that years back and it was set around that time, now you mention it, but didn't really focus on William the Conqueror or the battle as far as I remember. I think the Bayeaux Tapestry has had the odd Tardis or Monster woven in on some Doctor Who stories too, I just can't remember what ones.
I have seen that years back and it was set around that time, now you mention it, but didn't really focus on William the Conqueror or the battle as far as I remember. I think the Bayeaux Tapestry has had the odd Tardis or Monster woven in on some Doctor Who stories too, I just can't remember what ones.
Though I might be thinking of the Bayeux tapestry Doctor Who style that someone put together for the 50th Anniversary.
All nice ideas. I think Rome around 44BC would be interesting, as would "Arthurian" Britain as long as they cut out everything we know was made up by Geoffrey of Monmouth and other medieval fantasists, i.e. everything except the name "Arthur." So absolutely no Lancelot, Guinevere, Round Table, Holy Grail, Mordred, swords in stones, ladies in lakes, killer rabbits or rude Frenchmen.
Actually, maybe they could get away with the rabbits and the Frenchmen.
Geoffrey of Monmouth was not a "medieval fantasist". [Happy to enlarge on this via PM, if you like: the discussion would be out of place in this forum.]
The problem with attempts to strip away mediaeval accretions from the supposed "historical" Arthur is that there is nothing left when you do so, except (as you note) a name, and a name that attracts interest only because of the mediaeval accretions. You could write an episode about, say, Vortimer or Outigirn (other leaders who supposedly fought a series of battles against the Saxons), and few people would be interested. The same narrative, with the name changed to Arthur, however, would draw a great deal of interest. But this interest comes with a price: the viewers would expect some sort of nod towards the things they associate most with Arthur, and feel cheated if there was no such reference. Arthur as we know him, the only Arthur worth talking about, is the creation of mediaeval (and later) writers.
44 BC, on the other hand, could be fun, particularly with the Doctor or (better) a companion trying repeatedly and ineffectively to warn Caesar about the Ides of March.
Interesting to see the level of support for Amelia Earhart here, given how dull her disappearance is. I'd prefer to see an episode about Colonel Fawcett, who disappeared in 1925(?) while on an expedition to look for a fabled lost city of "white Indians" in the Mato Grosso. This would give the Brazilian setting suggested by someone earlier in this thread, and allow for any number of possibilities as to what the "city" might be, and what actually happened to Fawcett.
I think the support for Amelia Earhart comes not from her disappearance but from the fact that she is an interesting person who might interact in an entertaining way with the Doctor.
If Arthur is problematic what about Alfred the Great?
Something set in the time of the Raj- or British colonial rule in Africa.
battle of waterloo
There is a lot of scope with historical stories to get involved in events without there being an alien always being involved. I like the Hartnell historicals for this reason and the Davison story Black Orchid as we are invited to invest in the characters and events.
That'd be a great setting. There's so much intrigue surrounding the short reign of Richard III. It would be nice to have a proper historical story, without there being some sort of alien involvement.
The Doctor did meet up with Richard III in a Big Finish audio
I have seen that years back and it was set around that time, now you mention it, but didn't really focus on William the Conqueror or the battle as far as I remember. I think the Bayeaux Tapestry has had the odd Tardis or Monster woven in on some Doctor Who stories too, I just can't remember what ones.
The Meddling Monk's plan was to destroy the Norwegian fleet so their invasion doesn't take place so Harold's doesn't have to travel up north to defeat them so the Saxons would be fresh and at full strength to face the Normans at Hastings
Comments
Well the Kings Demons virtually had the outraaageously accented Frenchman in the guise of Sir Gilles Estram. ;-)
I also love episodes that turn an idea upside down on its head and come at it from another angle as per "Listen"
I have seen that years back and it was set around that time, now you mention it, but didn't really focus on William the Conqueror or the battle as far as I remember. I think the Bayeaux Tapestry has had the odd Tardis or Monster woven in on some Doctor Who stories too, I just can't remember what ones.
Though I might be thinking of the Bayeux tapestry Doctor Who style that someone put together for the 50th Anniversary.
Geoffrey of Monmouth was not a "medieval fantasist". [Happy to enlarge on this via PM, if you like: the discussion would be out of place in this forum.]
The problem with attempts to strip away mediaeval accretions from the supposed "historical" Arthur is that there is nothing left when you do so, except (as you note) a name, and a name that attracts interest only because of the mediaeval accretions. You could write an episode about, say, Vortimer or Outigirn (other leaders who supposedly fought a series of battles against the Saxons), and few people would be interested. The same narrative, with the name changed to Arthur, however, would draw a great deal of interest. But this interest comes with a price: the viewers would expect some sort of nod towards the things they associate most with Arthur, and feel cheated if there was no such reference. Arthur as we know him, the only Arthur worth talking about, is the creation of mediaeval (and later) writers.
44 BC, on the other hand, could be fun, particularly with the Doctor or (better) a companion trying repeatedly and ineffectively to warn Caesar about the Ides of March.
Interesting to see the level of support for Amelia Earhart here, given how dull her disappearance is. I'd prefer to see an episode about Colonel Fawcett, who disappeared in 1925(?) while on an expedition to look for a fabled lost city of "white Indians" in the Mato Grosso. This would give the Brazilian setting suggested by someone earlier in this thread, and allow for any number of possibilities as to what the "city" might be, and what actually happened to Fawcett.
If Arthur is problematic what about Alfred the Great?
Really love this idea. Others I thought of
Columbus discovering America,
Something set in the time of the Raj- or British colonial rule in Africa.
battle of waterloo
There is a lot of scope with historical stories to get involved in events without there being an alien always being involved. I like the Hartnell historicals for this reason and the Davison story Black Orchid as we are invited to invest in the characters and events.
The Doctor did meet up with Richard III in a Big Finish audio
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kingmaker_(audio_story)
The Meddling Monk's plan was to destroy the Norwegian fleet so their invasion doesn't take place so Harold's doesn't have to travel up north to defeat them so the Saxons would be fresh and at full strength to face the Normans at Hastings
The Marie Celeste
Glen Miller's last flight
The Bermuda Triangle
Pied Piper of Hamlyn (perhaps he was the Doctor?
Or how about...
I'd enjoy a story set in Australia... something to do with the dreaming, aborigines and Ulurulu (formerly Ayer's Rock) and possibly Ned Kelly...
Or South America with the Conquistadors and Machu Picchu...
Now, if they actually went on location to film those stories, like they did with New York and Monument Valley, that'd be awesome.
That said, though, it's a fascinating story, so I've no issue with time being rewritten in that case.
On a similar note, The Mutiny On The Bounty cou;d be an interesting one - a tense character conflict/battle in a really confined setting.
BIB Ah. I didn't know that it had been used previously.
MotB: A chance to correct everyone's impressions of Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian. Charles Laughton and Clark Gable have a lot to answer for...
(Note to self: Must improve knowledge of early classic DW)
Washington DC during the War of 1812 just before the British army invade the city
Only if they were "pure historicals" ie feature no sci-fi elements