Holly?

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by voo7hees, May 12, 2010.

  1. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Yes, I certainly think you're correct here Daniel. I just think that for many of us frustrated with series 8's direction it would have been nice to hear the cast at least acknowledge where the show went wrong or wasn't so brilliant, if only to offer hope to the viewer that we won't be in for a repeat.

    There is a notable point in the commentary where one of the cast talks about 8 being some of the best Dwarf ever and you can hear that Norman is a little taken aback by this claim and utters something along the lines of "really...you really think this is as good". Sadly no response or attempt to discuss it more clearly is given. Norman just goes quiet for a bit and then starts to apologise but is cut-off...most likely by another hilarious joke about "ham salad". :roll:
     
  2. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    Surely people know to take those snippet reviews with a pinch of salt...even films like Britney Spears' 'Crossroads' or Batman & Robin' got rave reviews like that from such places such as Heat.

    I'm guessing you think that series VIII was a sucess...well why didn' a movie directly follow on as well as another series...after the heady heights of series VIII did the cast and crew and Naylor and commisioners at ye olde BBC just pack up their tools and ditch the ship? (wow whats with the weird analogies? lol)
    + are you saying that series VIII was successful and that it's success is comparable to firefly's demise? I don't quite get your point there...are you saying that if firefly and series VIII of red dwarf were reliant on the internet fanship and fanbase, then series VIII would have flopped and Firefly would have been a swimming success.

    Plus, I would say series VII was very innovative...but I can't see what's 'innovative' about sending the crew back to the 'safe' scripting of the Dwarf, sending the crew basically back to a series I and II claustrophobic situation complete with remanned crew of 'thousands' (even though we hardly see these people aboard the dwarf due to the constraints of the budget probably) and bringing the audience back in where it ahd been castout for series VII... the only thing I thought was innovative was the finale.

    ok, I know this is personal taste and everything, and I would hate to be biased...but...did anyone actually think series VIII was 'laugh a minute lunacy'? [sits back as 10s of series VIII fans queue to run through the saloon doors and have a swing at me lol!] ....I don't think the cast even thought it was 'laugh a minute luncay' when I listened to the commentaries...as others have stated, Norman even started to 'moan' about the lack of good gags lol
     
  3. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    what I also find odd on reflection of my above post, in responce to andrew's is that in my personal opinion series VIII took red dwarf a few steps 'back' and yet I'm contradicted because they say it was 'innovative'...the same people who had become cult watchers of the show also seemed to have told their friends about it and all unsundry apparently tuned in for series VIII apparently giving it the highest ratings since its popularity in the mid 1990s, and yet this apprent success is then contradicted by the fact Doug went to the BBC with a premise for a series IX and got turned down...a very successful series with highratings got turned down?!??!

    so paradoxes abound everyone!
     
  4. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,909
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    It's not as simple as that. If Doug had gone to the BBC directly after series VIII aired they might well have taken him up on it. (I don't know that for certain, but I think there's a good chance. It really was successful enough at least in ratings.) However he wanted to concentrate on the film after that. And you know what? He was very close to doing so. He didn't fail to gain backing because "series VIII was rubbish". (Please note the quotes. I felt series VIII was weaker than the rest in some ways but not particularly bad overall.) There were other factors involved.

    A film is a rather different beast to make from a series and the actors were not big names. For example it seems some American studios might have been willing if they had changed the actors, which Doug (rightly in my opinion) was not willing to do. And there were probably other factors too which I don't really understand not being in the business as it were.
     
  5. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I entirely agree. Nor did I suggest for a minute that no negative reviews existed. (Avatar, by the way, was a pretty solid critical hit. Not knockout, but pretty fine. They had a lot of quotes to choose from, and a lot of people loved the movie.)

    If I had time to scan in - and, erm, find - my entire old review file, simply to prove the fact of their existence, I would. But I don't, and those few quotes - which are accurate, if cherry-picked - were quick to hand. You're welcome to do the research for yourself. It's not my job to prove history, I just provided an example since someone expressed incredulity that they might exist.

    You're presumably not saying that they don't exist. So let's not call foul on that one.

    Not saying the reviews were all good for VIII. But they haven't been for any series of anything, and especially Dwarf. But go ahead, look for yourself - the critical reaction and Audience Appreciation for VIII was about the strongest the show has ever had. Those of us around at the time saw it.

    Still, I apologise if you found that a bad example.

    Not sure why "I like this" is the same as "I find it flawless."

    I can do you detailed crit of why every episode of everything ever made is flawed. I wasn't trying to suggest these were perfect, nor that everyone found them so. But the idea that "I don't like something, I know other people don't like it, so I find it hard to believe anyone does" is preposterous.

    Well, I think you'll find the general audience feeling on Firefly wasn't the same as the critical OR internet response. No one of these gives us the full picture. You need to take all those aspects into account. And it's kind of a shame when one assumes the aspect they agree with - or the side they pay closest attention to - is dominant.

    Still, I didn't use Firefly as an example that way. As I'll try to explain below...

    Not all are of the series. Not all are of one episode. Not all of any one episode are good. But again, if the quest is 'find people who dislike an episode', that's not hard to do. But why is that, in particular, what you're looking for?

    I'm simply saying that it's also easy to find people who liked it.

    You can guess what you like, but I wasn't talking about personal opinion nor taking my facts from there.

    The reviews were good. The ratings were amazing. The videos sold. The DVDs sold. These aren't made-up things, and my personal opinion of the episodes of VIII - which may not be what you might be assuming (certainly not as simple as you seem to be assuming) - has no relationship to a discussion of facts.

    That's a whole bunch of unfair arguments pulled in together. Why didn't a movie follow on from Series V either? If the logic is that all 'good' series get to do movies? Why hasn't an Arrested Development movie happened?

    The movie didn't happen for a lot of reasons. But you'd be hard-pressed to argue that 'people didn't like Series VIII' was a reason. In fact you'd be downright nuts if you think that's it.

    A cast of unknowns - names that didn't guarantee box office - was a huge, and in the end insurmountable, problem. This isn't the League movie, one million quid, same director as the TV series. It's a 12 million SF flick with, as far as investors might see, a new, unproven director. Then the tax break trouble hit, remember that?

    The making of a film comes from investment. Investment comes from an assumption of profit. That's what hurt the movie, economic uncertainty. Not some critical issue - not when the crits for VIII were no worse than the show has ever had. (And provably better, but anyway...)

    The show wasn't cancelled in 1999. It went away to do a movie. It was years later that it was refused a comeback by the BBC. And if you think that was a question of "people didn't like Series VIII" - that the Beeb have no interest in the ratings or audience appreciation results, quantifiable popularity not web chatter and personal taste - again, you're crackers.

    The Serenity comparison is useful here. The film, with no tangible stars, made no money; only making it easier as an example for investors to show lack of faith. Yes, it got made. That's Joss's umpteen TV episodes as director and a gazillion years being script doctor for the studios for you. Were Doug in his position, maybe the RD movie would have happened.

    No. It's not even close to being a one-to-one comparison. Indeed, I didn't compare it that way - I used it as an approximately equal and opposite example of internet awareness. Didn't say anything about anything being reliant on the fanbase.

    My point - borne out by things like Watchmen and Scott Pilgrim's US opening - was that it's very easy to think a thing is well-known or well-liked, to the point of being A Fact, based on the internet reaction. But that that reaction has a tendency to be amplified, exaggerated, distorted. In all directions. Filmmakers who assume that they're going to have a success because of internet buzz are all too often shown this. They realise on the opening weekend that a barrel of web buzz does't always relate to the opinions of folks in general.

    So Firefly, a huge thing online, barely touches the mainstream it needs to keep being made. Because - yes - regular audiences didn't take to those clumsy first episodes. Even if fans did. (And you can talk about scheduling all you like, but the essay 'The Train Job Didn't Do The Job' by Keith DeCandido is worth a read for an appreciation that that was far from being the only factor.)

    Again, please note I'm not making a one-to-one comparison to Dwarf. I'm merely illustrating an issue that causes us a problem when it comes to reading any one aspect of response as symbolic of the whole.

    I'm saying - I think reasonably - that this is a trap easy for anyone to fall into. It's easy to read a lot of versions of an opinion online and think it's proportionally representative of the wider reception. And it's as easy for a fan reading forums and reviews as it is for a filmmaker.

    That was my only comparison. (Well, until the Serenity film example above, which is about a wholly different aspect!)

    I admit I've done very little to prove what the Red Dwarf reaction was. I slung a quick shot in there, a brief illustration. No doubt you could link to anti-VIII blog reviews just as easily.

    But I'm not lying, and you're welcome to do the research and find for yourself. Those quotes are genuine, they came from good reviews, and in comparison to previous series the reviews for VIII were pretty well the best the series ever had. Check the percentages of good reviews for prior series, compare to these, and you come up with the only fact I was trying to illustrate.

    In saying that, I'm not saying you should like it. I'm not saying everyone does, or that anyone should. The question was about the crits in 1999. The facts are what they are. I have no motive for lying to you.

    Likewise, I could find you a lot of damning crits for the fifth series. Stuff that I don't agree with, don't care for, but they're there. Not saying it's right, not saying it's the whole story. But also I'm not struggling with personal disbelief that they exist - nor arguing that they don't, and that anyone who claims they do must be exaggerating or lying.
     
  6. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    This. All of this.

    There's the 'executive factor' to take into consideration, for example. Recommissioning a 'finished' series is about more than the numbers - it's about careers. Being the guy who brings back Red Dwarf more or less at is was and has it succeed carries no kudos in the corridors of telly power. "Sure, it was successful before, it's successful now. So what did you do, commissioning executive? You just got out of the way." The poor sap takes a chance with his budget and gains nothing if the show's a hit. No promotion, no bonus, no kudos.

    But if it flops? Oh yes, you can bet they'd be blamed then. "It was a hit when it was last on - what did you do wrong?" The blame culture hits hard at that level. Someone has to take the hit if cash has been spent.

    In those circumstances it would take some pretty devious wrangling to get the show back. And while there were other machinations - that I can't go into - in the end, believe me, 'what people thought of Series VIII' wasn't going to be a factor.

    (Before anyone brings up Doctor Who, reviving the show with a new cast, and new production method, is very different. Especially as the show was considered a flop pretty much across the latter half of the 80s. Reviving a flop and crafting a hit has kudos aplenty if it works. Indeed, it's a stupidly Catch-22 truth that the success of latter-era Dwarf for the channel actually harmed its chances of revival. If you think that's mad, fair enough - welcome to the world of TV production.)
     
  7. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Tell you what - I'll give this final thought then remove myself. In talking about facts, only research will stop the discussion (and maybe not even then), and clearly nobody's going to spend the next few months digging up the reviews of all eight BBC Dwarf series in order to build a chart of comparison. So let's talk about 'like' for a show for a moment.

    The X-Factor.

    I'm going to go ahead and assume that we've got plenty of people reading this forum who hate that show. I'm going to further assume that many (but by no means all) of those people are also those who dislike Series VIII.

    You see the ratings for that show? You see the popularity? You see how many people cheer it on, saying so-and-so is amazing, brilliant? Saying the show's fantastic? You see the bemoaning online - and elsewhere - that it's the nadir of bad television? You see the people who like it - millions, actually millions - continuing to talk well of it anyway?

    We know these people exist. We know that reaction happens.

    Now I think it's a pretty bogus comparison of quality, but if it works for you: why is it so hard to conceive of a public popularity for a series of Red Dwarf when X-Factor's so beloved?

    This isn't an example about critical reaction. This is about 'popularity', appreciation for a show. A different thing entirely. But it can't be that hard to imagine that something you dislike is adored by others is it? It must happen on a weekly, or even daily, basis.

    And, because I've no wish to take this around in circles, I think that's where I'll leave off.
     
    Ant the Dragon likes this.
  8. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    Firstly I'd like to say I'm not being cannibalistic when it comes to Red Dwarf...it is more of a panic when considering the future of Red Dwarf...as a fan (and I know taht naylor knows this) wewant the best of Red Dwarf, and my friends who are not fans of red dwarf criticise the show's run in the nineties because they feel the show waned in series VIII and became a more conventional staid sitcom. Of course I disagree with this being a biased fan of Red Dwarf...but then series VIII is not my favorite series by any means, and surely when considering recommisioning red dwarf later or even commsioning a movie, the people in charge would have looked at series VIII, seen the apparently good reviews and audience figures that Andrew has pointed out, and then watched the last series for themselves and judged that the series wasn't great or good enough for a movie springboard...
    now of course this is speculation and intuitive though logic guesswork, and as Andrew points out there are other factors to why a movie may not be commisioned, such as a cast of unknowns (though the cast are quite known now, Chris Barrie has been in a Hollywood movie I guess..erm...) though of course the movie still hasnt been made, and yet as you say the likes of Serenity and Hitchhikers Guide... have. Even Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have been successful and the cast were relatively unknowns when they came out and it was Edgar Wright's first directorial foray into 'Hollywood' movie-making.

    Oh no, I'm quite sure they exist, so you don't have to dig them out, I was impressed you had them at hand, I have springcleans where stuff like that is unwisely thrown out lol...my point was the disbelief at the contradiction that critics and audience figures spoke highly of the series VIII and yet for me its one of the poorest series of red dwarf, and my personal worst (see signature and above)...so there are things that don't fit together for me when considering all this.


    Are you trying to stay neutral then? what ARE your real opinions of series VIII in context of the shows run upto then?
    I have probably painted a more generalised picture of myself, as series VIII is my least favorite series and that I wished it had been different in places so it would have worked better...personally I liked some of the conceptual jokes although few of them; such as the ship getting stuck in the rats yahoo lol...and I love Normans lines in that...as for episodes, cassandra showed to me that a dirty dozen in space motif would have worked better if the crew never did go back to a nanobot-revived dwarf, I liked the whole canaries thing...I also liked the concept of Cassandra...the finale of the series was also good with Rimmer defying death himself (seemingly)...



    Wasn't Naylor actively seeking a movie after series VII/VIII? Did he and Rob Grant ever seek a movie together? Or were they too busy thinking about an american series...a factor which Grant says led to him leaving Red Dwarf.

    I would be nuts lol but I'm saying or rather speculating that series VIII may have been a contributing factor...although a minor one...I'd say the movie script itself maybe the major factor for investors. because with a cast of unknowns investors or studios will still give the movie a go ahead e.g. shaun of the dead, serenity, star wars.

    [sarcasm mode] thanks for clearing that one up for me lol only kidding.
     
  9. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    lol curiiously enough i was actually going to bring up doctor who with reference to above e.g. the different eras of doctor who and their apparent success at the time when they aired, and yet their failings in hindsight...but i resisted lol

    [shudders at comparison between red dwarf and x-factor]...you're missing my point...my point is that I'm talking about credibility of a show in hindsight or when looking at a show and commisioning another series or movie and in reference to the future of a show like red dwarf (as i say in the post above). plus; 'I'm going to further assume that many (but by no means all) of those people are also those who dislike Series VIII' = thats quite a leap lol
     
  10. tortexturtle

    tortexturtle First Technician

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    TX, USA
    It's a very easy thing to do: writing off entire series. Saying "It was all downhill after series 6". Where if your honest with yourself, perhaps you'd see there were episodes in both series you liked. You're not the only one who does this. We all do. I tell people I'm a fan of the Offspring until that awful "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" came out. To tell the truth though, "Conspiracy of One" is a pretty decent album and it came out after that. To tell the truth though, "Americana" still had a FEW good songs, as did those other two albums.

    I liked Pete part 2. By the way, I'm not a raving loon idiot foaming at the mouth. Pete2 was the first episode I ever saw of Red Dwarf and I was endeared by its silly b-movie like camp (a dinosaur on a space ship!). It was so ridiculous, I knew I had to watch more of the show. And yes, I found out that the rest of the show was mostly even better than that episode.

    I find it strange that people love Red Dwarf but can't appreciate or laugh their butts off (like I do) at the purposely campy silliness that exists in some of its greatest episodes.

    I read somewhere on this board that there are people who cringe at the scene in "Stoke Me a Clipper" when Ace is surfing an obviously fake alligator whilst jumping from a plane. Now how can that not be incredibly amusing to you? It sure is for me!

    Here's the thing bedfordfalls:
    People are not idiots if they like an episode you don't.
    People aren't worthy of less of an opinion if the first episode they saw was in a later series. (I'm so sick of "I watched it from the beginning in 1988, so believe me when I say I'm qualified to make this opinion...blah blah blah.") I was a 6 year old kid living in Ohio in 1988. The only thing I watched on PBS was Mr Rogers, Sesame Street, and National Geographic. I didn't even know they aired British comedies on PBS until I stumbled upon Red Dwarf in 1999.

    And because everyone on this board loves sharing their opinion about what they like or didn't like about Red Dwarf, here's mine.
    There are 2 or three episodes amongst 1-6 that I don't particularly care for. I like the other 33-34.

    I like half of series 7 (4 episodes), can barely stand the other half.
    I like half of series 8 (4 episodes), the rest are still at least watchable.
    Oh yeah, Pete part 2 is one of those four!
     
  11. Daniel

    Daniel Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,627
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Harlow, Essex, England
    I can't agree more with the general point here. Back when Back to Earth first aired there was so much of that crap floating about. It's not a mark of honour to have seen them all aired from the beginning, as there are many of us who physically couldn't (I was still three months from being born at the time the first series aired!), nor does it instill a sight and knowledge into the world of Dwarf that trascends any other. Still, it did give us all something to laugh at, as it seemed almost anybody who opened with that line was slating it rotten in ways that were pretty flawed. Those with serious gripe tended to be more pleasant about it.

    I'm not making shots at anybody in particular here with that by the way, just a generalisation of the idea.
     
  12. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Okay, I know I said I'd step out of this. But betelgeuse - apparently missing my saying that entirely! - asked some direct questions.

    But yes, I know, it's better if I leave it. So this will the the end of my contribution.

    Facts are neutral. I was offering up a fact when you objected. But my opinion had no place in that response. As this discussion proves, when personal opinion is dragged into a debate about 'what happened' and 'what was said', it muddies the waters. It is actively unhelpful.

    My opinion on any episode is irrelevant to how VIII was received in 1999. And equally irrelevant to queries or explanations about re-commissioning or movie financing.

    I'm not interested in tangling opinion in with factual discussion. It's made this discussion harder work than it needs to be - to the point where, betelgeuse, you're implying a bias in my responses. So I'd rather leave my tastes for another discussion, another time.

    Yes, he was. But since you read the rest of my post, you'll know that in the part you quoted there I was making a point that 'quality of show' doesn't automatically gain you a movie. Nothing to do with the production history there. I wasn't citing a historical production attempt, I was illustrating the failure in logic, where apparently having a good show always gets you a film, but having a bad one - no matter how financially successful - doesn't. (More on this below.)

    RD USA happened after Series V. And yes, Rob has stated that the 'forever' nature of doing Dwarf was a factor in his departure. But I believe he was also keen, prior to leaving, to do the Hollywood thing and make more series in the States. At least until he saw how it panned out!

    This has no relevance, though, to the point about 'being good means you get a film' logic.

    You'd bet on dislike of a script you haven't read? Based on the logic that 'if someone else's movie got made, all movies in similar circumstance will, too'? Despite the tax problem which caused shutdown when we were ALREADY IN PRE-PRODUCTION? Despite everything I've explained, you still prefer that interpretation?

    Wow, that's pretty insulting. This is like when I said Identity Within was too costly to shoot, and you wouldn't accept it. Not until I detailed a whole slew of things. Is it really so hard to believe the things I'm saying until I detail every tiny point?

    Okay, using your examples:

    Serentity - as I already explained once - had Whedon behind it. Who'd previous made a lot of money for Fox and Warners with his Buffy franchise. He had awards for episodes of television he both wrote and directed. He had umpteen years of history and relationship with Universal thanks to his script doctor days, where development movies went from turnaround to greenlight because of his work. And then made money. The co-writer of Toy Story is in a stronger position to get funding than the co-writer of Back to Reality.

    Star Wars was a bet on George Lucas. He had just made a vast amount of money with American Graffiti - turning huge profit for a movie studio. He had the backing of Coppola, who'd just made even huger sums. The studio neither liked nor understood the Star Wars script - how's that for a valid point given what you've suggested! - but they bet on a filmmaker. An already previously profitable one.

    Sean of the Dead. You've seen Spaced, right? You know that the director of that show was on the rise? His showreel as a director was knockout. His ability to deliver quality on time and on budget was a matter of record. And check it out, he also directed Sean! Plus, once again I have to mention the difference in budgets and markets - horror's cheaper to make than space-bound SF, and has a very different sales model both in theatres and for home distribution.

    Though, just to restate, "This movie got made, so why didn't yours?" is a false argument. It implies that all these things start equal. It implies that they all battled the same battles. How does GNP's relationship to major studios differ from Nira Park's? How did changes in tax law affect the movies above? If you don't know, you don't get to dismiss a relevant fact in favour of your personal theory. Certainly not with those examples, which simply don't have one-to-one correspondence.

    "Unknown casts" is a single factor, not the whole story.

    No, I'm not missing your point. Your comment here was in response to my X-Factor post, which was about one thing only - your incredulity at a public taste for VIII. The post you responded to with this statement ignores the aspects you mention for the simple reason that the post wasn't about those aspects.

    Other posts have acknowledged them. I commented plenty on the commission of a movie and/or series. I'm just looking at more than one aspect, being as careful as I can to keep those separate aspects distinct and clear. And including actual facts and experience to counteract guesswork and misunderstanding. None of that is a failure to understand what you've said. It just isn't a concession to those theories.

    No, it's not. It's maths.

    Say a hundred people here dislike X-Factor. How many of those people also dislike VIII? If it's a third - and that sounds credible doesn't it, splitting people into 'like', 'don't like' and 'indifferent'? - then that's 33 people. That's a number reasonably described as 'many people'. It's a good percentage.

    All of which ignores other factors. Personal factors, such as that people who express dislike a lot, and go online to do so, often dislike a lot of things. Or the feeling among some that where VIII is flawed is in its more 'light entertainment', big, silly approach - a feeling that it reaches for a lowest-common-denominator audience; suggesting a distaste for a certain genre and style that other mainstream shows (like X-Factor) will share.

    But that's maths and logic. It's not opinion. I didn't say "all", I didn't say "most".
     
  13. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    The chief cringer in question being Doug Naylor himself. I don't understand it either.

    I didn't say that any of those things are true so I don't see the need to respond to you putting words into my mouth. In particular your second point hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this topic. It's evidently a view you've encountered somewhere and which has upset you, but it isn't my own.

    If, however, you'd like a discussion of why Pete Part 2 is a terrible example of a Red Dwarf script and why a bunch of experienced comedy actors familiar with the show's history should be able to at least note and comment on that in a DVD commentary, then we can talk.
     
  14. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    lol exactly, if he didnt like it he should have kept quiet because he had some great lines...I loved the gag, I dont know if its series VII or VIII where he does an excellent impression of a moon lol those idents on the extras for series VIII are Holly overload!
     
  15. betelgeuse

    betelgeuse Catering Officer

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    I have no 'incredulity' at people or 'the public' liking series VIII I simply reflect on series VIII from a personal standpoint and in hindsight regard that as a poor series and not the perfect series to end on in regards to starting up a movie campaign or whatever stage they were at with getting the movie at that point...and so I am in disbelief that critics and public liked series VIII in context of my own experience and that of people I've talked to who also dislike series VIII, I'm not criticising the people that liked the series and damn them for having their own taste!
    ...................
    lol I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of the points we're debating here lol as it also appears I've sucked you back into the debate lol But I thank you Andrew for sharing facts I was not prior-to aware of because I didn't have chance to read reviews when the series originally aired etc as I was too young and unaware I'm afraid.
    ......
    as others have pointed out, norm got some good gags though...I wonder if he's easier to write for than hattie?
     
  16. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Two reasons I can think of.

    1. Getting some "good gags" shouldn't and apparently doesn't blind Norman to the failings of the series in other departments.

    2. It's easy not to notice with the bigger than ever ensemble cast series 8 had but Holly becomes largely an irrelevence after the opening 3 episodes and indeed goes missing for huge chunks of the latter 5. It's more notable when watching with the commentary because Norman and the rest of the crew point out what a rare thing him getting a line (good or otherwise) becomes as the series moves on. It's feasable then to think that Norman might also have viewed series 8 as not so good because he was underused...although I think that might be a little unfair to be the sole justification given that his view of the series is mirrored by many viewers who wern't in the series at all. ;-)
     
  17. Bluey

    Bluey Science Officer

    Messages:
    12,690
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    He did get a few good jokes in series 8, but many more bad ones such as 'It's the theory you only tell your relatives' and 'become a dog'. But then all the main characters had more than a few bad lines.

    The aforementioned 'short version/long version' joke in Pete was wonderful though and shows why the character is so good when given decent lines. I have to say though that I can't stand the 'moon impression' stuff.
     
  18. Cruel Slayer

    Cruel Slayer Console Officer

    Messages:
    4,256
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Peterborough UK
    Yup!! At last, a bit of clarity!
     
  19. tortexturtle

    tortexturtle First Technician

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    TX, USA
    At the risk of opening this forum up to a unabashed Pete 2 bash fest, I'll bite. What (in your opinion) makes Pete 2 so terrible?
     
  20. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    To begin with:

    1. It takes two minutes and 30 seconds before the episode even enters the new material zone. Instead we get a lengthy recap, the full opening credits and then...even more of last weeks episode. Previous episodes of Dwarf have had to drop the opening credits because they had so much good material to include and it would have been a shame to cut it out. The fact that Pete Part Two can include 2:30 of recycled material speaks for itself.

    2. Speaking of recycled, can you name something else thats appearing for a second time in this episode. I can: jokes. Jokes told by Jasper Carrott in his BBC show. Presumably Paul Alexander thought he could write a joke and get paid for it twice.

    3. "We're finished" ad nauseum. Why tell one joke when you can repeat the same one until it stops being funny.

    4. Hollister's "Have you any idea" ad nauseum. Why tell one joke when you can repeat the same one until it stops being funny, briefly enters a period of being so unfunny that it threatens to become funny again and then ultimately trails on until long after everyone is now gnawing off their own fist with embarassment at what this once super smartly written show is descending into. Of course, the four whole minutes of this certainly wern't put there to help stretch another episode out of Pete. No, no, definately not and anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand comedy...or the creative process...or some such lame argument.

    5. Still...at least that lengthy cringe-inducing scene is over...
    Wait...it's not over is it.
    "see ya in 10 minutes"...ad nauseum. Urrgh.

    6. Well at least we can get back to the story now...wait...what...something completely unrelated about a penis...and the chance for Chloe Annett to display some of her cringey punchline delivery. Awesome...still that filled a few more minutes of this episode with pointless completely unrelated sketch-show stuff dragged from the cutting room floor of a different episode.

    7. A dinosaur egg. Laid by a dinosaur...with no mate...and the egg hatches within a matter of hours...all for the purposes of "comedy". Remember when Red Dwarf did episodes like 'Stasis Leak' or 'Future Echoes'; supremely well written, clever science fiction that didn't require the viewer to fill in the blanks with a crayon? Remember when it wasn't Sgt Bilko in Space? Doug Naylor didn't when he cobbled together this pap in order to take him one step closer to syndication.

    And you know the worst thing of all, as horrible as this episode was it actually began with a good idea that Red Dwarf hasn't used before: The time wand. The possibilities were endless with that...as demonstrated by the funny delayed fight scene in Hollister's office - a brief glimpse into the cleverness that Dwarf used to do. Instead the best premise of the episode was merely used as a set-up to get to what Doug Naylor apparently really wanted to do; crib a CGI dinosaur from the BBC so that he could say how impressive his show now looked...something that seems endlessly important to him for some reason if you listen to his DVD commentaries, despite it never having mattered a jot to any viewer I have ever spoken to.
     

Share This Page