- Nov 19, 2018
- Reaction score
- East Yorkshire, England.
Shades of Douglas Adams with that frog. Could easily have been mice.
There were a couple of sly Adams references - "The frilly bit of Norway", etc.Shades of Douglas Adams with that frog. Could easily have been mice.
A bit harsh, but I agree that Bradley Walsh has been a standout in this series.I wasn't going to view but my missus put it on. Trippy s**t not good, clever or otherwise just plain s**t .
A whole universe (with all the potential of said universe) manifests in some dull Scandinavian hamlet and is so further dull no one notices the family is missing. Cue some emotive stuff from the comic who is bizarrely the only actor worth watching and yawn another episode over too soon.
Please can a dalek shoot the doctor ASAP and force another total reboot .
The point of recent posts isn't his sexuality, merely the presentation of it for cheap laughs (as far as I can see), and discussion of this episode seems to have taken a life of its own.No need for chip pissing or aggression here--I know most contributors here well and nobody is anti-homosexual.
I don't watch Dr Who, but the historical James I was portrayed by his contemporary opponents as irritatingly (and inappropriately) effeminate.
I didn't swear at him it was an exclamation of my frustration that camp in the effeminate sense = negativity, it doesn't in my experience.The point of recent posts isn't his sexuality, merely the presentation of it for cheap laughs (as far as I can see), and discussion of this episode seems to have taken a life of its own.
On behalf of Tigerhawk (my other half) I can say that James' over-the-top performance may have been done in the style of panto, but came across as a negative manner. It seems that there are people who see one point and people who see another. But swearing at people who have another opinion to yours is not a reasoned or logical response. May I suggest this particular episode of Doctor Who not be discussed further? We don't want it to get out of hand...
One thing to add, which seems to have been overlooked amid the fray - I particularly liked the way James' "divine right" mentality was scripted, and portrayed. Very low key, ie someone with the absolute confidence in his own special-ness and thus no need to trumpet it (see what I did there?). Had they painted him the other way it would inevitably have drawn contemporary parallels, and that subtlety would have been lost.I meant that we stop discussing one episodes portrayal and continue with the rest of the brilliant Doctor Who...
That would be Adric, surely? Those were the fifth Doctors "dying" words...One thing to add, which seems to have been overlooked amid the fray - I particularly liked the way James' "divine right" mentality was scripted, and portrayed. Very low key, ie someone with the absolute confidence in his own special-ness and thus no need to trumpet it (see what I did there?). Had they painted him the other way it would inevitably have drawn contemporary parallels, and that subtlety would have been lost.
Anyway - that frog really was crap. And there's a logic-hole there - if it kept appearing as that which someone missed the most, when it was just the Doctor and it, surely it should have appeared as that which the Doctor yearned for most? That could have had enormous potential.
Unless the Doctor really misses an unconvincing frog*.
*and not of the Officer Crabtree from 'allo 'allo type. We can move on from camping it up now.
But the frog was a sentient universe's version of what it thought was a frog - it wasn't supposed to convince the Doc or us.
Yet it could accurately replicate human beings to the degree that they could fool loved ones?:agree:
..and that's what happened to Pob when he grew up.
It's just an uptight American fanboy just not getting it.Curious youtube find about the doctor who knock off videos of the 90s.
I remember a friend having these though I never watched them, curiously for all the slating the reviewer gives them for being blatent rip offs, he doesn't mention the cover strapline 'Who is the Stranger?'.
It did render people backwards, though.Yet it could accurately replicate human beings to the degree that they could fool loved ones?
Nope, don't buy that. It could have rendered a way more accurate frog.
If accurate, it struck me as a crying shame that the director veered into actual IP theft - if he hadn't, he might well have had a place with the show when it eventially returned as others did.It's just an uptight American fanboy just not getting it.
I loved The Stranger and back in the late Nineties collected all products - videos and CDs (there were more than he mentions). I gathered that they were not best taken as Who products but would bebetter enjoyed as interessting examples of provincial British science fantasy (much of the series is set in Nottingham). Following an initial attempt to replicate Who they then sped offoin an interesting tangent of their own like a sort of downbeat and gritty version odf Saphire and Steel perhaps. Colin Baker - who wobbled as the Doctor - really came into his own as Solomon, the `Stranger`.
On the basis of the audio-Cds, which worked best, I always thought that The Stranger would make a cracking radio show!