|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on May 26, 2024 22:15:22 GMT
Two clunkers.
One question.
One answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 26, 2024 22:16:54 GMT
I went for Love and Monsters on the grounds that it is far more mean spirited and nasty. Space Babies is more puerile, but I can't overlook the shittiness to Ian Levine, even if he crazy LOL in L and M.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on May 26, 2024 22:19:57 GMT
I agree Love and Monsters is more mean spirited and mean. When you consider the fact that the latter was made as an opening to a series rather than a cheap filler episode, I think Space Babies is a bigger failure.
To be clear, both are absolute shit. I'm not looking at Love and Monsters with any kind of fondness.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on May 26, 2024 22:30:22 GMT
I agree Love and Monsters is more mean spirited and mean. When you consider the fact that the latter was made as an opening to a series rather than a cheap filler episode, I think Space Babies is a bigger failure. To be clear, both are absolute shit. I'm not looking at Love and Monsters with any kind of fondness. That's fair enough. I mean it is baffling that Davies thought this is a great way to show people what DW is and what it is about. A monster made of snot and babies with weird mouths. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on May 26, 2024 22:34:39 GMT
Space Babies, but it's really just because fresh shit smells more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 17, 2024 14:41:56 GMT
Only just saw this. Love and Monsters is more tolerable, purely because it isn't Space Babies. The former is obnoxious, shrill, condescending and crap, but the latter is televisual diarrhoea from beginning to end. I'm willing to go as far as to say that it's worse than anything from Davies' first era- if not anything made to that point.
|
|
