154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Apr 30, 2021 13:03:07 GMT
It looks as if John Barrowman is getting drawn into this as well, thanks to a clip from a Doctor Who convention which is circulating on Twitter in which Clarke tells an anecdote about Barrowman exposing himself.
It has baffled me for years that Barrowman got away with this kind of behaviour. Hopefully this will give him pause for thought as well.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Apr 11, 2021 12:00:22 GMT
I think the fact that the word that cropped up most often in the judges' critique of Rosé was 'professional' is the biggest sign that she won't win. Ru likes a 'messy' queen: call it vulnerability, an ability to fail, it gets redefined on a whim. And it's the sole reason that Kandy is still around.
Symone and Gottmik both have had much stronger 'story arcs' across the season and I'd be amazed if one of them is not crowned the winner. I'd personally prefer Symone: she has a real charisma and star quality, and I think her shy out of drag persona is very compelling. I wouldn't be unhappy with Gottmik winning either though. Compare the tic tac interviews too: Ru was in hysterics with Gottmik, whereas the chat with Rosé was far more sedate. Gottmik made Ru laugh and cry in the space of the episode, so I'd say she's the favourite right now.
Having said that, I can't remember the last time Ru has actually chosen the contestant I actually wanted to win: I preferred Bimini over Laurence Chaney, Jujubee over Shea Coulee, Gigi Goode over Jaida, Divina over La Vivienne... Priyanka is the only recent winner I've agreed with - and that wasn't Ru's decision (I assume). So I'm completely prepared for her to go and hand it to Kandy after all.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Apr 1, 2021 7:16:48 GMT
Yeah they've included some truly dire UK entries on this. James Fox, Nikki French and Lindsay Dracass? Why not just put Josh Dubovie, Andy the Binman and Jemini on it and be done with it?!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 28, 2021 15:38:02 GMT
It feels like a two-horse race between Symone and Gottmik now. With Rose a deserving finalist. But WHY DO THEY KEEP TELLING KANDY MUSE THAT SHE'S FUNNY? SHE'S NOT FUNNY. SHE'S JUST BIG. This statement is awkward after this weeks episode... Nah, I stand by it. Kandy wasn't great. It's true she didn't bomb like Utica but Gottmik should have won the challenge for the Ross/pizza line alone!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 21, 2021 12:08:28 GMT
It feels like a two-horse race between Symone and Gottmik now. With Rose a deserving finalist.
But WHY DO THEY KEEP TELLING KANDY MUSE THAT SHE'S FUNNY? SHE'S NOT FUNNY. SHE'S JUST BIG.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 16, 2021 8:24:48 GMT
I think Gottmik and Kandy should have been in the bottom two. And poor Denali was hobbled by having to lipsync in that tight fitting skirt. She spent half of the lipsync having to hitch it up.
And I know it's reality TV and they move the goalposts for how the queens are supposed to behave from one week to the next, but it's infuriating to see the judges applauding Kandy for aggressively biting back and not just meekly accepting the criticism of her. You have literally just asked them to say who should be eliminated and why! I *really* hope she goes soon. She's by far the weakest of the remaining contestants.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 12, 2021 22:16:35 GMT
I thought the lip sync was close but I didn't see the point of the double save. Ellie clearly isn't going to win. And I do hope Lawrence doesn't. He's such a moaner.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 28, 2021 8:09:56 GMT
Sara Crowe and Ian Hallard star in Hallard’s playwriting debut for Jermyn Street Theatre: www.jermynstreettheatre.co.uk/show/adventurous/“Adventurous” is a comedy about two single people trying online dating during lockdown. I enjoyed their work together in “Tonight at 8:30” so this might be quite fun.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 21, 2021 16:34:39 GMT
God I thought we were finally going to see the back of her... And then Ru dashed my hopes. (She's right about needing subtitles though...)
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 20, 2021 15:55:31 GMT
The Thatcher scene was just a bit of comic relief to provide some contrast. Was it credible? No. Given how poor mass catering coffee was at that time, would anyone have noticed? Probably not! Yeah I get what it was supposed to be. I just didn't believe it. It felt crude and intended to provoke a 'Wooh! You show her, girl!' kind of reaction from me. RTD does that quite a bit in his writing, and those moments just never work for me personally. Even the repetition of 'La' as a catchphrase made me cringe a bit. But I get that most people don't feel that way!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 20, 2021 10:58:37 GMT
There was a lot to love in this, and I did find it very moving in places. I think Davies is much better at those quiet, sensitive moments. The moments where we're supposed to cheer or fist pump to celebrate the characters' rebellion against the system always make me cringe a little bit. (I felt the same in Queer As Folk and Cucumber.) Eg: the pissing in the coffee and Rosco chucking the bin through the neighbour's shop window. Those bits pullged me out of believing in the story because there were no consequences to them. You think: well, clearly he'd be arrested for criminal damage, but apparently he just got away with it!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 19, 2021 11:48:58 GMT
Bimini has crept up to be my favourite. She's confident without being arrogant, and very funny in real life and as a performer. She really feels like a front runner now, although I suspect Lawrence Chaney remains the queen to beat.
Drag Race has a weird history of assuming that bigger queen = comedy queen, and it's simply not (always) the case. Lawrence Chaney isn't a particularly accomplished comedian (as Snatch Game proved), nor is Kandy Muse on the current American series, or Boa on last year's Canadian show.
Sister Sister and Ellie Diamond feel like fodder: neither of them is going to win, so I just wish they'd go now: I agree they were both weaker than A'whora this week in their looks and their Snatch Game performances.
Feels like the right queen was eliminated, although she was a very warm and likeable presence.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:27:47 GMT
What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. I'm inclined to agree with Leicester Curve's statement. I think it's likely that Christian Concern and her father decided to make a fuss in order to stir up some more headlines about Christians being discriminated against and being penalised for their religious views. It's an expensive way to do it, though.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:23:11 GMT
What’s remarkable is that she brought the case knowing she would have quit the production anyway. That’s almost as hard to believe as the fact that she didn’t know the nature of the role when she auditioned. If that is true, it’s mind boggling. There’s always the possibility that she is fibbing about some of this stuff though! Which would be supremely ironic - and indeed hypocritical - given that it was a legal tribunal - and therefore she presumably swore an oath on the Bible to tell the truth!!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:02:24 GMT
"Author of her own misfortune" is a fair statement. Glad it's concluded fairly and can move forward. Shudder to think how much this has cost the Curve in time and legal expenses though. I wonder if Christian Concern will have to pay the Curve's legal fees.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 9:01:52 GMT
It boggles the mind that Omooba thought any other result was possible. I actually got a video link and watched the final day of proceedings. I thought she did just have a sliver of a chance of success. As far as I can tell, she only came out and said that playing gay was a non-negotiable red line for her, after she'd been dismissed. (Her agents knew beforehand but the theatre didn't.) And I suppose that in that case, her admission that she would have refused to play the role as directed could have been ruled irrelevant as things didn't actually get that far. In which case, she could have won on the basis that although her views are obnoxious and offensive to many people, they are not illegal and are indeed mainstream in fundamentalist Christianity. So whilst it's true that the Curve and the production would have suffered negative publicity, they still didn't have the right to fire her. She was, after all, fired because she refused to retract or denounce the Facebook post, not because she refused to interpret Celie as gay. (I am relieved it didn't go this way, but I think it's at least conceivable that it could have.)
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 17, 2021 8:41:27 GMT
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 6, 2021 11:41:28 GMT
I just tried to watch It A Sin After Hours on YouTube as it featured an interview with Callum Howells but had to give up after about 5 minutes as the presenter had the most annoying voice I have ever heard. I have no idea who she is but I cant believe they have let her present a programme. My nerves just could not take her whining voice. Isn't it Kemah Bob? I still haven't forgiven him/her for making me sit through their appalling performance in 'Death Drop' last December.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 5, 2021 14:56:41 GMT
A lot of people in this thread had flipped out about the Pride thing. As for the cast member being upset, feelings aren't facts. We don't/can't all lives our lives and make decisions on the basis of how someone else might feel about something, the world doesn't work that way. Do we have to take others feelings into consideration, yes, but at the end of the day it is still our decision. If someone was put out about it that is their problem especially when it actually had/has nothing to do with them personally and wasn't meant to offend them. I don't see why it is a problem that if someone doesn't support something they should have to do it just to appease others. It's not hyperbole based on many of the opinions in this thread which suggest she should never be allowed to work in the theatre again because of her beliefs. This is not to say I don't think the girl is a complete idiot for expressing them in such a public way and not thinking it would affect her adversely. But to her mind I am sure she just thinks she is doing what she has been trained to do her whole life, spread the word of God. I highly doubt she really takes anything else into consideration when that is all she has been trained to do. I think we're actually pretty much agreeing with each other. I was only responding to your description of the Pride incident as 'silly' and taking issue with your comparing LGBT people to Brexiters as a persecuted minority. I wasn't suggesting this would have been grounds to fire her. I agree that you can't legislate to shield people from offensive opinions. Do I think her ducking out of the Pride performance means she should never be allowed to work on stage again? No, of course not. Was it insensitive and liable to cause issues with her colleagues in an industry which is renowned for its progressive and liberal views? Yes, probably. Would we even be discussing this if the controversy around 'The Color Purple' had not erupted? Highly unlikely. And I agree with you that expressing these views doesn't automatically mean she should never work as a performer again. But realistically, that's what has ended up being the result. In an over subscribed industry, where reputation and image plays a huge part, she has due to her naivete, made herself unemployable. As her former agents presumably realised. Laurence Fox has effectively done the same thing. And I'm sure you're right - she undoubtedly views herself as some sort of martyr because of these events. And it's all very sad that a lot of money has been spent, and a lot of distress caused, which could have easily been avoided.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 5, 2021 14:19:37 GMT
I agree with you in as much as there is a tension in society when rights conflict in this way. I remember the case of the Christian registrar who was fired for refusing to conduct gay weddings and then took the Council to tribunal. The argument there boiled down to the fact that nobody was saying that she couldn't hold her religious views, but the moment they interfered with her ability to do her job, and also potentially exposed her employer to accusations of discrimination against a section of society, it was untenable for her to remain in the role. If Omooba had refused to denounce the views she expressed in the Facebook post but had demonstrated a willingness to play the role as directed, I think the case would be more nuanced. In that case, would she have been punished for a 'thought crime'? (I don't actually subscribe to that view: a post on social media is still expressing a public viewpoint and free speech comes with an acceptance that there are consequences to what you say after you have expressed yourself; and it's clear that the moment her views became known, the theatre and the production started to suffer financial and reputational harm.) But nobody is 'taking this girl down' or 'destroying her life'. She has to accept that free speech has consequences. Most importantly, she's the one suing. She could have taken the money and walked away. I think your sympathy is a little misplaced. Sorry I don't agree. As a society we have said it fine to raise this child in this religion and that it is fine for her to believe what she has been taught and that she can express those views freely. We have given her that right from the moment she was concieved. Now we are saying she does not have the right to earn a living if she has and expresses those views. The original post is a quote from the bible and her saying she agrees with it, it was not some hate filled trade against gay people. She has previously worked with gay people and there was not a problem and I'm sorry I think the outrage over the Pride thing is just silly. If my employer held a Brexit party and I chose not to attend should I be fired or deported because it wasn't something I wanted to celebrate? The fact is if there hadn't have been a sh*tstorm she would've probably read the script and dropped out anyways and the whole thing wouldn't have ever happened. I don't think the Pride incident is silly necessarily. With respect, there isn't a history of systemic discrimination and prejudice against Brexiters, so I don't think you can make that comparison very accurately. A more appropriate comparison might have been if there had been a BLM event which an actor had chosen to miss because of their firmly held moral and ethical beliefs about black people. Nobody would necessarily have insisted the individual take part, but you could understand that those around them might be left feeling uncomfortable as a result. And she wasn't 'fired' or 'deported' for not wanting to participate in the Pride performance. There doesn't seem to have been a big fuss made at the time: but a gay castmate of hers noticed and was affected by her decision. And you're indulging in hyberbole by suggesting that she has been robbed of her right to earn a living because of having expressed her - as you say, fairly orthodox - Christian views. It's merely the case that in this instance, by expressing these views and standing by them, she was causing financial and reputational harm to her employer. There are lots of opinions out there which are not illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not offensive or repugnant to certain sections of society. As long as they are not an incitement to harm, there's nothing to stop her expressing them, but equally she has to accept that she cannot then be shielded from the consequences of exercising her right to free speech. Nobody is suggesting she should not be allowed to work in any field, merely questioning whether it was appropriate for her to be employed in this particular role. Given that she herself seems to agree that was inappropriate, it's hard to see why the case has gone ahead.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 5, 2021 13:00:41 GMT
I am also completely ignorant to the audition process, but seeing that this isn't a new unknown piece, part of the audition process (as well as every other interview process) if done properly, would be to at the very least some minor research into the subject matter. I would hope someone wouldn't just watch the movie when there is a musical "revival" happening. Either way, the excuse doesn't wash in her case because she was part of an actual concert version of the show (with pretty much the whole dialogue acted out, too) where everyone was on stage the whole time. So again, she was fully aware of how the musical adaptation was portraying that character. Of course, we can always play devil's advocate and come up with excuses for her, just as much as it's also totally feasible that a grown man who was worried that he wasn't able to see properly would take his child and his wife on a car drive with him to check out his eye sight but really, we know he just wanted a nice day out with his family to celebrate his wives birthday and had to make up some excuse when he was caught out. I am not making excuses for her I am just saying that I understand some of the confusion surrounding the characters sexuality based on what she knew of the material. Celie is a very complex character and the story covers her entire 60+ years of life in 2-3 hours. Her sexuality is only a small part of the story and frankly not a very important part of it in the context of the whole piece and what she goes through in her life. I think this case as a whole is a very complex issue that we have to deal with as a society where we on one hand are forced to accept someone's religious freedoms and their right to freedom of speech and yet then when they do express it they are persecuted for it. I mean she is not the only Christian on earth and they are all taught the same thing as are most other religions, so how do we actually deal with this beyond constantly cancelling people who are only doing what by law we tell them they are allowed to do and often fight along side them for their right to do so. I mean once this girls life is destroyed and she never works in the theatre again, what next? What has been solved by taking this girl down and don't we lose some of our own humanity in the process? I agree with you in as much as there is a tension in society when rights conflict in this way. I remember the case of the Christian registrar who was fired for refusing to conduct gay weddings and then took the Council to tribunal. The argument there boiled down to the fact that nobody was saying that she couldn't hold her religious views, but the moment they interfered with her ability to do her job, and also potentially exposed her employer to accusations of discrimination against a section of society, it was untenable for her to remain in the role. If Omooba had refused to denounce the views she expressed in the Facebook post but had demonstrated a willingness to play the role as directed, I think the case would be more nuanced. In that case, would she have been punished for a 'thought crime'? (I don't actually subscribe to that view: a post on social media is still expressing a public viewpoint and free speech comes with an acceptance that there are consequences to what you say after you have expressed yourself; and it's clear that the moment her views became known, the theatre and the production started to suffer financial and reputational harm.) But nobody is 'taking this girl down' or 'destroying her life'. She has to accept that free speech has consequences. Most importantly, she's the one suing. She could have taken the money and walked away. I think your sympathy is a little misplaced.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 5, 2021 12:51:57 GMT
Just playing devils advocate here again and also I am probably a little ignorant to the 'theatre' process so this is definitely a question and not a statement in her defence. If she was auditioning for the role of Nettie, why would she read the whole script? It is a pretty small role that has little to do with the 'Shug' episode of the story, so would she not just prepare an audition number for that role and flicked through the script looking specifically at that part? I'm sorry but that sounds pretty reasonable to me. Surely people auditioning for roles do not always read the entire script of everything they are up for if they are constantly zipping about to different auditions. This was only an audition, not a rehearsal. She auditioned for a small role and was offered the lead. Is there an actor on earth who would not have jumped at that chance without doing research on the whole play? I know I would've. Did they even get to the rehearsal stage or was this all flagged before things got to that point? I am also going to reiterate that I firmly believe that it was possible that if her only knowledge of the material was the watching the film (she said she didn't read the whole script), it is perfectly reasonable that she did not know the character was meant to be a lesbian. I found an interesting critique of the film Vs book yesterday which further backs this up. It is only available as a PDF download, so I had to copy and paste the text. Spielberg's film adaptation intentionally manipulates and subverts the episode on lesbian love. While it cannot be denied that Walker's sexual discourse is far from inhibited, Joan Digby adds that "Spielberg's film softens Waker's approach to sex in order to produce a mass-audience Hollywood film". In Peacock's analysis of Spielberg's adaptation, he avoids cornmenting on the lesbian relationship but he highlights the fact that "in the case of The Color Purple adaptation important African-American cultural resources got left on the cutting room floor" (1994, 127). In my opinion, one of the most striking differences between Walker's novel and Spielberg's film is the fact that, confronted with a story of lesbian sexual desire, rich in language and full of symbols, the director chooses both to subvert and to displace the lesbian episode by cutting it to pieces. In her highly critical article "Blues for Mr. Spielberg", Michelle Wallace confesses that she felt "alarmed" when hearing that Spielberg was working on The Color Purple, calls the director "the boy wonder of pop culture", furiously denounces that the film was "the trivialization of non-white culture and female pain", and rejects the final product as "a comic Birth of a Nation" (1990, 67). In her rage, Wallace also argues that in Spielberg's reading of Alice Walker's The Color Purple "all signs of a black feminist agenda are banished, or ridiculed beyond repair". While Walker's lesbian story is transgressive, subversive, and full of explicit sexual connotations, Spielberg's adaptation trivialises lesbian desire, denies its visibility, and marginalizes its protagonism by providing an excessively chaste reading. In other words, Shug's and Celie's complex homoerotic story is reduced to a single ambiguous scene that avoids any explicit lesbian suggestion. On the contrary, Walker's verbal and sexual passion is replaced by the predominante of the color red-both Celie and Shug wear sophisticated red clothes-and the lighting, together with a sensual music, give an atmosphere of intimacy, warmth, and complicity. Furthermore, Spielberg eliminates the scene of the mirror together with all the graphic sexual connotations, but there is an abundance of mirrors in the room-a long one, and two smaller ones-in which Shug's and Celie's faces are constantly being reflected. Of the love-making scene there is no trace whatsoever; the closest Spielberg gets is by directing the camera towards the bed where Shug and Celie sit, and where they exchange their childish chaste kisses. As I said yesterday, I have seen the film many times and never got the impression that it was anything more than a dalliance with someone trying to show her love and not some revealing expose of her sexuality. But even if all this is true, I don't understand why - when the Facebook post surfaced and by which time she clearly did realise that she was going to be required to play a lesbian character - she didn't just accept the offer of her full fee, and withdraw voluntarily. She refused to do that, which meant the Curve had to fire her. And this is apparently why she's suing. It just makes no sense.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 5, 2021 12:44:59 GMT
This whole situation is so weird.
I've kind of followed it since the controversy began. I may have misremembered some of the details but I seem to recall that Seyi Omooba had only recently appeared in Regent's Park's 'Little Shop of Horrors', which is where she'd opted to sit out of a performance for Pride. But other than that, she was apparently friendly enough with the LGBT members of the cast - and had even exchanged friendly tweets with Vicky Vox - the drag queen who played Audrey II. It's hard to imagine she could have got through musical theatre training and appearing in musicals if she was openly homophobic.
Then the Facebook posting was shared and, of course, all Hell broke loose. The Curve is quite correct that there would have been boycotts and the controversy would have undoubtedly overshadowed the production and damaged the theatre's reputation, had Omooba been allowed to remained in the role without denouncing her prior comments (and that was clearly something she was not prepared to do).
I assumed the legal argument she'd deploy would be that historically she had worked alongside LGBT people with no problem, that her Facebook post was not intended to be made public, and that she has the right to hold her views (which are not that unusual in Christian circles - particularly in the evangelical tradition to which she and her family belong), provided her beliefs did not interfere with her ability to carry out her job professionally and according to the terms of her contract.
But she now seems to be stating that she i) hadn't read the script properly; ii) had only watched the movie and not read the novel; iii) appeared in a concert version but was not aware of the lesbian themes and same-sex kiss; iv) would have refused to play the part in the way that the script and the director wanted and would therefore have quit the role voluntarily, leaving the production in the lurch. v) has refused to accept the full fee which Curve offered her in order to go.
So what does she want, and more to the point, who on earth is advising her?? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem remotely possible that she stands a chance of winning, so what's going on? Is Christian Concern manipulating a not very bright young woman so that it can get some headlines about how the UK is allowed to discriminate against religious beliefs?
Just bizarre.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 3, 2021 10:44:42 GMT
I don't think that's the same Gabrielle, according to wikipedia she's a 51 year old black woman!
Sorry - I was being a bit cheeky: you're right. it isn't the same Gabrielle. (Hence the winking emoji!)
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 1, 2021 15:38:56 GMT
According to this report: www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/actor-sacked-homophobia-didnt-know-4952526, Omooba seems to be arguing - slightly bizarrely - that had she known the character was gay, she would not have accepted the role and had she appeared in the production, she would have refused to play the character as gay: which seems to completely justify the Curve's decision to dismiss her. Surely her only hope of winning is to argue that her personal beliefs here are irrelevant as long as she were able to put them to one side and not let them interfere with her ability to do the job she was hired to do?
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 1, 2021 13:08:37 GMT
Harlequin said in week 1 they played a male lead in a musical. As people seem convinced it is Gabrielle, can you please explain how this clue can be justified/what it hints to in relation to Gabrielle as I can’t work it out. Presumably it was either Bugsy in 'Bugsy Malone' or the Beast: www.garston-entertainment.co.uk/artist/2088/Gabrielle/
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 30, 2021 17:57:35 GMT
My main problem with Kandy is that I can't understand most of what she says. They could do with bringing back the subtitles!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 29, 2021 16:38:09 GMT
I'm really enjoying this season of the UK version. I'm warming to most of the queens far more than I did in Season one. I was gutted to see this week's bottom two queens: the one is very funny - particularly in the talking heads interviews - and the other is absolutely stunning - as a man and as a woman.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 24, 2021 15:12:21 GMT
Here are my thoughts!
Blob is so obviously Lenny Henry, it kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing. There's no way Jonathan Ross doesn't recognise his voice! Also, I thought Viking was Morten Harket: the voice (particularly the falsetto) is so like him. Is it too obvious that he sang his own song? I was thinking yes until none of the panel mentioned his name, afterwards, though they did mention the guy from A1 who covered 'Take on me'. Which is weird. No idea about Badger: he says 'Mom' though which presumably means he's either American or from the Midlands. Sausage - Was thinking Sheridan Smith or Natalie Casey (otherwise what are the 2 pints of Lager references for?) Natalie Casey isn't as famous as the others who have been unmasked so far though, and Sheridan's vocals are pretty impressive - although less so this week, I thought - so maybe it is her after all. (Although she had a baby this Summer didn't she? Would she really be going back to work so soon?) Lots of people are suggesting Stacey Solomon, but her speaking voice is so idiosyncratic I'm not picking it up from her VTs. Harlequin must be Gabrielle: 'Dreams' originally featured a sample of 'Fast Car' and it had to be removed for legal reasons. Aston Merrygold sang 'Rockin robin' on "Stars in their Eyes', so presumably he's Robin. And Dragon is Sue Perkins: after listening to her doing 'Friend Like Me' on week one, it's so clearly her voice.
I didn't guess John Thomson - although when you have clues like 'The Works of Chekov' alluded to the fact that he is a trained actor, that doesn't really do much to narrow it down. It's funny, as I saw lots more speculation that Thomson was Hedgehog last year than I have that he is Bushbaby.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Dec 27, 2020 12:02:40 GMT
I thought the same about Billie: question is, is she too big a name to do it?
The only one I'm very confident with is Dragon, who is definitely Sue Perkins!
|
|