Got the feelgood factor; good fun.
Who watched in 3D and how did it come over?
It was strong 3D. perhaps a little too strong. But as 3D goes I guess it delivered.
Problem is that there were many scenes filmed using a shallow depth of field where parts of the scene were very blurred in order to focus on other bits. You're not really supposed to do that when you film in 3D.
There was also a slight problem where not enough care was taken with scene changes in regards to the 3D. Those changes were abrupt and sometimes hard on your eyes as they try to change focus too quickly.
That is assuming he ever seriously intending to do so rather than just playing along to see what the PM had to say. More of a plothole was them leaving the younger daughter home alone while they drove round looking for him.
Weak premise to be honest and if David Walliams had not written it would it have been published let alone adapted for tv?
No. It's a reheated Simon and the Witch.
Celebs are drawn to the safety-netted arena of children's books ahead of adult ones, but they mostly underrate the difficulty. As much as I disliked Rowling's work for its unoriginality, she was a canny compiler of others' classics. Potter was an amalgamation of past greats, often loved by newcomers but rejected by informed oldies.
To (randomly) paraphrase Eddy Grant on This Week a few years ago, regarding music copyright: "The more songs people write, the more songs there are that sound alike."
I don't blame Rowling one bit for what she did - doubtless improving childhoods across the land, but I do wish she'd been more transparent about her role as a conservator rather than a creator. (Not that I've seen much evidence to the contrary, in fairness to her. In was always in the media's interest to present her as a superior author to her forebears; which then backfired somewhat with Casual Vacancy. Anyway...)
Recent adaptations do tend to feature far better child acting than my favourites of the '80s. That's a big plus in favour of the likes of Stink. The Box of Delights is a hard watch these days. For contrast, Bill Milner's stage-school performance in Son of Rambow served to highlight the unshackled realism of Will Poulter's more modern portrayal.
Smith has been poor in everything I've seen her in that wasn't Mrs Biggs. I thought she was very good in its latter episodes - especially the unspoken bits, but then again it was strong material, so I did briefly wonder if another actress wouldn't have been preferred.* Nonetheless, that was her gig and she was miles away from her usual home-park see-saw of meek and harridan.
Recorded this, and after watching it, I really did like it. I'm glad that the BBC put effort in their christmas scheduling and manage to make programmes that aren't meant to appeal to the Cyber critics such as yourselfs on DS. Its a family drama that worked well. The girl who played Chloe was great as was Hugh Bonneville as The Tramp.
Some people are too cynical these days. Why do people need to switch over after three minutes ? Talk about being stuck up.
As much as I disliked Rowling's work for its unoriginality, she was a canny compiler of others' classics.
I don't blame Rowling one bit for what she did - doubtless improving childhoods across the land, but I do wish she'd been more transparent about her role as a conservator rather than a creator. (Not that I've seen much evidence to the contrary, in fairness to her. In was always in the media's interest to present her as a superior author to her forebears; which then backfired somewhat with Casual Vacancy. Anyway...)
Didn't some American author take her to court accused of plagiarism? I don't know the outcome.?
a totally lightweight piece of utter kids dross - what the hell was the story? girl lets tramp live in the shed, meets the prime minister, then buggers off...
I agree. I stuck it out to the end but it was utterly unmoving and unfunny.
What a load of miseries there are on here. it's a kids' story turned into a Xmas TV show - what do people expect?! Dickens?
I thought it refreshingly different, the cast were terrific and not your usual suspects which made it all the better in my opinion. I'm not a massive fan of Sheridan Smith but thought she shone in this. Hugh Bonneville was brilliant, as was the girl who played the lead role.
We all loved it in this house. My 12 year old is currently watching it for the 3rd time!
What a load of miseries there are on here. it's a kids' story turned into a Xmas TV show - what do people expect?! Dickens?
I thought it refreshingly different, the cast were terrific and not your usual suspects which made it all the better in my opinion. I'm not a massive fan of Sheridan Smith but thought she shone in this. Hugh Bonneville was brilliant, as was the girl who played the lead role.
We all loved it in this house. My 12 year old is currently watching it for the 3rd time!
No. If it's a kid's story I expect it to have a good story. An engaging story. The type of story that excited my imagination as a kid.
This was just a bit too basic and straightforward, There wasn't much of a story there at all.
It was a hackneyed rough sketch amalgamation of other stories that it has tried to emulate that have gone before it.
Now if you think I must be jaded and miserable I just finished watching The Lady and the Tramp that was just on BBC One and finished less than half an hour ago.
It was engaging, it was magical, it had exactly the same effect on me as good stories did when I watched them as a kid.
No it doesn't have to be Dickens, but if you compare Mr. Stink with something like Pinocchio for instance, well it's a bit shit really storywise.
As it goes I think the actors did a good enough job and it was okay enough to pass a bit of time. The 3D was used to good effect. Some beautiful scenes in 3D, I just wish there were a few more.
Hugh Bonneville could probably give anything a lift which he's in. I could probably watch anything I normally wouldn't if he was in it. He was probably the one thing that held it up just high enough and carried it through.
But I maintain that the story itself was very weak.
Comments
Average at best...
Where was the story?
It was nice, it was cosy, but there wasn't any story there.
The 3D was quite effective though.
Thought Walliams made a rather good PM!!
It was strong 3D. perhaps a little too strong. But as 3D goes I guess it delivered.
Problem is that there were many scenes filmed using a shallow depth of field where parts of the scene were very blurred in order to focus on other bits. You're not really supposed to do that when you film in 3D.
There was also a slight problem where not enough care was taken with scene changes in regards to the 3D. Those changes were abrupt and sometimes hard on your eyes as they try to change focus too quickly.
Someone earlier in the thread said that David Walliams himself tweeted to everyone to watch it in 3D on BBC One HD.
Agree, it was enjoyable and entertaining.
The product placement was very noticeable, hope the BBC rap knuckles over it, constantly naming the products was very irritating.
Weak premise to be honest and if David Walliams had not written it would it have been published let alone adapted for tv?
Seems like the curse of Sheridan Smith is unstoppable, now she is going to appear in Pramface, how she gets work is astounding.
No. It's a reheated Simon and the Witch.
Celebs are drawn to the safety-netted arena of children's books ahead of adult ones, but they mostly underrate the difficulty. As much as I disliked Rowling's work for its unoriginality, she was a canny compiler of others' classics. Potter was an amalgamation of past greats, often loved by newcomers but rejected by informed oldies.
To (randomly) paraphrase Eddy Grant on This Week a few years ago, regarding music copyright: "The more songs people write, the more songs there are that sound alike."
I don't blame Rowling one bit for what she did - doubtless improving childhoods across the land, but I do wish she'd been more transparent about her role as a conservator rather than a creator. (Not that I've seen much evidence to the contrary, in fairness to her. In was always in the media's interest to present her as a superior author to her forebears; which then backfired somewhat with Casual Vacancy. Anyway...)
Recent adaptations do tend to feature far better child acting than my favourites of the '80s. That's a big plus in favour of the likes of Stink. The Box of Delights is a hard watch these days. For contrast, Bill Milner's stage-school performance in Son of Rambow served to highlight the unshackled realism of Will Poulter's more modern portrayal.
Smith has been poor in everything I've seen her in that wasn't Mrs Biggs. I thought she was very good in its latter episodes - especially the unspoken bits, but then again it was strong material, so I did briefly wonder if another actress wouldn't have been preferred.* Nonetheless, that was her gig and she was miles away from her usual home-park see-saw of meek and harridan.
*I mean a relative unknown, given the role.
Some people are too cynical these days. Why do people need to switch over after three minutes ? Talk about being stuck up.
18:30 - Mr Stink: 6.34m (27.4%)
http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/24/david-walliams-mr-stink-scores-impressive-6-3m-viewers-3329207/
I agree. I stuck it out to the end but it was utterly unmoving and unfunny.
Shite really.:(
I thought it refreshingly different, the cast were terrific and not your usual suspects which made it all the better in my opinion. I'm not a massive fan of Sheridan Smith but thought she shone in this. Hugh Bonneville was brilliant, as was the girl who played the lead role.
We all loved it in this house. My 12 year old is currently watching it for the 3rd time!
No. If it's a kid's story I expect it to have a good story. An engaging story. The type of story that excited my imagination as a kid.
This was just a bit too basic and straightforward, There wasn't much of a story there at all.
It was a hackneyed rough sketch amalgamation of other stories that it has tried to emulate that have gone before it.
Now if you think I must be jaded and miserable I just finished watching The Lady and the Tramp that was just on BBC One and finished less than half an hour ago.
It was engaging, it was magical, it had exactly the same effect on me as good stories did when I watched them as a kid.
No it doesn't have to be Dickens, but if you compare Mr. Stink with something like Pinocchio for instance, well it's a bit shit really storywise.
As it goes I think the actors did a good enough job and it was okay enough to pass a bit of time. The 3D was used to good effect. Some beautiful scenes in 3D, I just wish there were a few more.
Hugh Bonneville could probably give anything a lift which he's in. I could probably watch anything I normally wouldn't if he was in it. He was probably the one thing that held it up just high enough and carried it through.
But I maintain that the story itself was very weak.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0118z9z/Mr_Stink/
3D version
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ppm6v/hd/Mr_Stink_in_3D/