Indeed. I've met HRH a couple of times and on the first occasion Riley Minor was very excited that I was going to meet a 'real' princess. I was instructed to take pictures, which I did. When I showed them to Riley Minor, disappointed was not the word. 'Where's her crown and pretty dress?' was the only comment.
Quote: KLRiley @ May 22 2011, 3:55 PM BST'Where's her crown and pretty dress?'
The day before the royal wedding I was on a bus filled with mums and school girls dressed as princesses.
One mum kept saying to her daughter
"you're not a princess you're a queen, every one else is dirty and smells.."
Said daughter seemed to find this disturbing.
The final ratings for last weeks ep was eight million. They seem to be holding pretty steady so far, give or take half a million.
It seems more and more people choose to watch later, about two million in fact. I wonder if this is a growing trend for narrative shows in general?
So no revelation about the Frances Barber character then, after all. Just another shot of her shutting the buttery hatch. Pretty annoying.
I thought this episode wasn't too bad - although it petered out a bit towards the end. Good acting and costumes. Much of the dialogue was better than we've had so far. Another episode set on Earth though, for f**ksake.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 22 2011, 4:59 PM BSTSo no revelation about the Frances Barber character then, after all.
She's in the last ep of this first half, I believe.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 22 2011, 4:59 PM BSTAnother episode set on Earth though, for f**ksake.
It's true there didn't seem any pressing need to set it on earth, could have been anywhere really. Unless it turns out it couldn't have been anywhere come next weeks cliffhanger.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ May 22 2011, 4:59 PM BSTI thought this episode wasn't too bad -
It was probably the closest to a classic series style episode we've had this year.
Quote: Griff @ May 22 2011, 9:41 AM BSTWell each to their own but I generally find it hard to take seriously characters who we've only known for two seconds suddenly going misty-eyed about "I remember Mummy's blue hat... and sausages for tea...". It is a rotten corny hackneyed device that needs a lot more skill to pull off than was displayed here. But that was a minor gripe which I have expended too many words on by replying to you and Timbo. My main complaint with the episode was the lack of anything interesting happening in the second half and the dismal prospect of an entire episode of nothing interesting next week.
I kind of agree with you, Griff, but I think there comes a time when you just have to stop judging New Who as you would other dramas. With the best will in the world, it's amatuerish balderdash with a shockingly poor grasp of how to tell a story. Out of the 70 odd episodes of New Who you can count on the fingers of one hand those that are cracking drama up there with the best the Americans have to offer. Time and time again we're treated to slapdash stortyelling.
I tend to think of it more as Vauxhaul League drama. It's never going to compete with the big boys, but as a slighly silly kids show it can be fun.
Quote: chipolata @ May 22 2011, 6:04 PM BSTit's amatuerish balderdash with a shockingly poor grasp of how to tell a story.
Riiiiiight.
It's a wonderfully unique show and all to often makes US shows look ponderous and simple minded.
It's a unique show. I don't see why it needs to be put against any other show to qualify it's merits. The show is what it is, either enjoy it or don't; the fact that, say, Breaking Bad is brilliant, brave, nerve shredding, searing drama doesn't make Who any less of an enjoyable watch.
I do think season one with Ecclestone was something else.
Free from the history of old Who and the pressure to be family friendly of new Who.
Dalek, Father's day, The Empty Child etc
I do think season one with Ecclestone was something else.
Free from the history of old Who and the pressure to be family friendly of new Who.
Dalek, Father's day, The Empty Child etc
Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm are both books about pigs.
Dalek used a historical artefact completely diferently to anyother show.
*prepares for snarky response*
Quote: Griff @ May 22 2011, 6:53 PM BSTWell it kind of does, because you acclimatise yourself to good storytelling, characterisation etc, and then when you watch Who it's all the more disappointing when you get a shambles.
Who is, because of its format, a terrifically difficult show to write and to get right. I don't agree in any way that it's amateurish or a shambles. The format it has means you will get duffers, but it also means you will get gems. Some weeks it's poor, and some weeks you get strong story telling and strong characterisation.
I'm not silly enough to think it's the best drama on TV by the way, despite what some of you probably think. But it is one of the most interesting and fun.
(I do think it's the best sci-fi/fantasy show on TV though. As much as I enjoy something like Fringe, it knocks spots off it)
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 22 2011, 6:51 PM BSTIt's a unique show. I don't see why it needs to be put against any other show to qualify it's merits. The show is what it is, either enjoy it or don't; the fact that, say, Breaking Bad is brilliant, brave, nerve shredding, searing drama doesn't make Who any less of an enjoyable watch.
You realise you're essentially agreeing with me, Stott. I like Who, and it ocassionally produces a stonker, but on a basic storytelling level it leaves a lot to be desired.
As opposed to...?