One Hit Wonder (documentary): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
It explored the almost comical presentation of the [[Monoid]]s. ''Wonder'' went on to explain how monsters that were "undiluted evil" usually had the highest staying power. They were also common if they could easily be instigated into an environment. When compared to such monsters, the documentary showed that the Monoids were not unique enough to make a return. | It explored the almost comical presentation of the [[Monoid]]s. ''Wonder'' went on to explain how monsters that were "undiluted evil" usually had the highest staying power. They were also common if they could easily be instigated into an environment. When compared to such monsters, the documentary showed that the Monoids were not unique enough to make a return. | ||
[[Matthew Sweet]] explained his view that "dodgy feet" were a contributing factor to the Monoids' non-return. [[Kim Newman]] compared to them to the [[Ood]], suggesting | [[Matthew Sweet]] explained his view that "dodgy feet" were a contributing factor to the Monoids' non-return. [[Kim Newman]] compared to them to the [[Ood]], suggesting the latter to be a modern take on the former'. | ||
[[Category:Doctor Who DVD documentaries]] | [[Category:Doctor Who DVD documentaries]] | ||
Revision as of 11:31, 5 March 2011
One Hit Wonder was a 2|entertain DVD documentary about the staying power of Doctor Who monsters. It was released on the DVD of The Ark in February 2011.
It explored the almost comical presentation of the Monoids. Wonder went on to explain how monsters that were "undiluted evil" usually had the highest staying power. They were also common if they could easily be instigated into an environment. When compared to such monsters, the documentary showed that the Monoids were not unique enough to make a return.
Matthew Sweet explained his view that "dodgy feet" were a contributing factor to the Monoids' non-return. Kim Newman compared to them to the Ood, suggesting the latter to be a modern take on the former'.
