Is Back To Earth now accepted as being terrible?

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Murray, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    I'm sorry, but you haven't done your research there. Take a look at the comments for those movies and you'll see that even the people who give Phantom Menace "good" ratings (and the average ratings are pretty bad) rarely can bring themselves to do so without underlining it with "Despite that I hated [insert things here]". And I believe I said most people believe Kingdom was a travesty in comparison to the original trilogy ... which is correct.

    That people are getting so defensive over this suggests that there's still some thorny issues around Back to Earth.
     
  2. Santa Paws

    Santa Paws Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,422
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wherever the catnip is
    Well... you're gonna have to either slap me or drop a load of kippers on top of me, but I like BTE.
     
  3. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    me too :-)

    But I do hope it never, ever gets broadcast as a three-parter again. I'm happy with the Directors cut though, which is how how Doug now says he feels it should've been broadcast from the get go.
     
  4. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    Yeah, quite possibly. And I agree it didn't really work in the context it ended up in. There were a few other decent edits in the directors cut too...and that's coming from someone who was initially disappointed to hear that it would be a bit shorter. But Doug was right regarding his "quality over quantity" disposition. :-)

    hmm, I personally quite like the additional tunage at the end. I felt it gave it a kind of movie-esque feel, and I kind of enjoyed pondering what I had just watched whilst listen to the track.

    But yeah, it's not something I'd like to see become a new RD trend. I'm very partial to the original theme. And The crash of the percussion at the end is certainly a much more fitting climax. But I personally quite liked the change given the special/unusual circumstances.
     
  5. BadWolf117

    BadWolf117 Second Technician

    Messages:
    51
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    honestly i think Back to Earth is underrated- the scenes on Red Dwarf were lovely, the cgi ship and the interiors look lovely,
    Craig Charles and the others looked better in BTE than RDX

    its only when they go through the portal is when it starts to go downhill
     
  6. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    You seem to be confused about what universally accepted means. All there has to be is one single exception to any of your "Universally accepted" opinions and they cease to be universal. There are people who liked Crystal Skull, there are even those who consider it better than Temple of Doom, there are those who liked Phantom Menace and IMO if you watch it as a stand alone movie it really isn't that bad. I know very little about Happy Days but I'd be willing to bet that there'll be someone out there who doesn't share your viewpoint. Even taking that last one out of the equation, those first two that I've mentioned are far from "Universally held" viewpoints.

    A generally accepted norm is not a universally held consensus.

    I based my "assumptions" on your own posts on here. There really isn't a huge amount of margin for interpretation in what you've written there.

    So that's largely anecdotal and not a fantastic basis for making sweeping claims about universally accepted consensus's. I also think you need to get off your own high horse here, I did not demand you justify yourself, I asked what you were basing it on.

    I actually don't think that BtE is particularly good for what it's worth, although if anything my opinion has softened since its original airing, but there's still a lot I think was weak or even outright bad in it and if it wasn't for the fact that it was Red Dwarf I probably wouldn't have watched past the Coronation Street scenes. On balance, I'm somewhat ambivalent about it, IMO it's the weakest Red Dwarf yet produced but I still don't think it's terrible.

    I didn't say that you did say that, that is my opinion broadly of Only Fools and Horses. The point was that I wouldn't presume that my subjective opinion on something like that is right and I would try not to phrase any comments on that matter to that effect.

    The issue is in the way you have and are phrasing this. If you were to ask if people's opinions have changed since RDX, that's essentially the same question but without making it seem implicit that the opposing viewpoint is wrong. The same applies to asking whether people have "Come round" to a certain point of view, the inherent suggestion there is that the viewpoint that they're coming round from is the wrong one.

    I'm also not the only one to pick up on the apparent presumptions in what you have written here. It is your wording not your question that is the problem.
     
  7. karnie

    karnie Supply Officer

    Messages:
    612
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Location:
    Long Island, New York
    Given the amount of back-and-forth banter about who-meant-what, I think a better way to word the question would be, "For those of you that liked BTE, has your opinion of it diminished since RDX?" It removes any pre-conceived notions.

    And my answer would be no, not in the least bit; I enjoy them both for what they are.
     
  8. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Right, but you referred a number of times to a universally held/accepted consensus. The problem with that is that a soon as one person disagrees that stops being a universal consensus and becomes a general consensus.

    Ganymede and Titan's Silver Survey provides a pretty decent counterpoint there as whilst BtE as a whole is close to the bottom of the ratings, there are 8 other episodes ranked lower than the lowest BtE episode. That's pretty far from a universal consensus.

    There's an old saying that the plural of anecdote is not fact. Such anecdotal opinions can often be very localised either in geographical or chronological terms, for example in my group of friends in the mid-90s we utterly hated Alien 3, refusing to even refer to it by name and instead calling it "The third in the trilogy". Even though that was the opinion in our group and broadly of everyone we spoke to at the time about it, I wouldn't have claimed on the basis of that anecdotal evidence that it was the universally held opinion of that film.

    Such comments and opinions may be true of those individuals at that point in time, but it's taking a bit of a leap to assume that this is the universally held consensus.

    I'd also say that if you think that asking "What are you basing this on?" is coming over as aggressive, you must have had a pretty sheltered time of things on the internet so far. I don't think that's at all an unreasonable or aggressive question to ask.

    :? ...and I don't recall offering clarification on that either, partly because I don't think you could reasonably assess something that is so subject to subjective opinion on an objective basis.

    I'm not asking you to apologise and I don't think anyone here was getting particularly defensive about it (I have no particular reason to be defensive about BtE, as I've said already, I personally think it's the weakest Red Dwarf to date, I may not hate it but I'm certainly no rabidly defensive fanboy about it), I was pointing out the implications inherent in the particular wording you used.

    Honestly I find it a bit odd that you are now seeming to get a bit defensive in your last paragraph there about people jumping to conclusions when you too have leapt to the assumption that I was being aggressive in asking what you based your assumptions on.

    Whether you accept it or not, there is a very distinct and obvious bias in your posts here and I'd respectfully suggest that if that's not the way you intended it to come over, then it is your issue.
     
  10. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Right, but you referred a number of times to a universally held/accepted consensus. The problem with that is that a soon as one person disagrees that stops being a universal consensus and becomes a general consensus.

    Ganymede and Titan's Silver Survey provides a pretty decent counterpoint there as whilst BtE as a whole is close to the bottom of the ratings, there are 8 other episodes ranked lower than the lowest BtE episode out of the 228 people who responded. That's pretty far from a universal consensus.

    There's an old saying that the plural of anecdote is not fact. Such anecdotal opinions can often be very localised either in geographical or chronological terms, for example in my group of friends in the mid-90s we utterly hated Alien 3, refusing to even refer to it by name and instead calling it "The third in the trilogy". Even though that was the opinion in our group and broadly of everyone we spoke to at the time about it, I wouldn't have claimed on the basis of that anecdotal evidence that it was the universally held opinion of that film.

    Such comments and opinions may be true of those individuals at that point in time, but it's taking a bit of a leap to assume that this is the universally held consensus.

    I'd also say that if you think that asking "What are you basing this on?" is coming over as aggressive, you must have had a pretty sheltered time of things on the internet so far. I don't think that's at all an unreasonable or aggressive question to ask.

    :? ...and I don't recall offering clarification on that either, partly because I don't think you could reasonably assess something that is so subject to subjective opinion on an objective basis.

    [/quote]

    I'm not asking you to apologise and I don't think anyone here was getting particularly defensive about it (I have no particular reason to be defensive about BtE, as I've said already, I personally think it's the weakest Red Dwarf to date, I may not hate it but I'm certainly no rabidly defensive fanboy about it), I was pointing out the implications inherent in the particular wording you used.

    Honestly I find it a bit odd that you are now seeming to get a bit defensive in your last paragraph there about people jumping to conclusions when you too have leapt to the assumption that I was being aggressive in asking what you based your assumptions on.

    Whether you accept it or not, there is a very distinct and obvious bias in your posts here and I'd respectfully suggest that if that's not the way you intended it to come over, then it is your issue.[/quote]
     
  11. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Let me demonstrate the difference, since this is obviously a point of confusion.

    Saying something is a universally held opinion implies that nobody (or at least nobody who's opinion matters) believes in something. That global warming exists is a universally held opinion among scientists. That it's wrong to kill people at age 70 to prevent the elderly from draining public resources is a universally held opinion among everybody. There is nobody we can take seriously who disagrees with those things.

    That's not what a universally held consensus is. A consensus is a general agreement. A universally held consensus is a general agreement that is universally accepted to exist. People can have differing opinions, as they're perfectly free to, but if they're in the minority then the general agreement (consensus) is still in favour of the majority view. For example, it is a universally held consensus that the original Star Wars trilogy is better than the new one. That doesn't mean that there aren't some people who probably believe the contrary, but everybody is in agreement that the majority view is that the originals are better.

    A universally held consensus is the proper and concise way of saying "Everybody is in agreement that the majority of people believe this thing". I suspect what's happened may be that you've seen the word "universal" and assumed it to be an adjective of "consensus" rather than "held". I hope that makes things more clear.

    Until there is evidence to the contrary, I find that a rather uncompelling argument. You don't need to treat the word "anecdotal" as a dirty word. I'm a man of science, and even we accept that in an evidence-vacuum anecdotal evidence is perfectly valid until disproven.

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that if someone comes along with some actual evidence which shows it to be false, then it's false. But I haven't seen it yet, and no offence ... but that tirade against the word "anecdotal" didn't bring you any closer either. Do you have any reason for it to not be true?

    I accept that while your writing came off as aggressive to me, you did not intend for it to do so. I ask that maybe you consider that this may be something we're both guilty of?

    A scientist will come off as biased most of the time, due to writing based on scientific assumptions that ignore the supposed existence of a diety. If you find my writing biased, that may simply be because I'm writing from a perspective which has accepted things which have here-there-to not been disproved. And as I said in the last paragraph ... if you are willing to offer evidence to disprove such things, I'm always willing to listen. If you do not wish to, then I apologise, but you are saying it is my issue for writing in a way which fails to take your belief into account, even though you would be unwilling to offer up any evidence to support such belief. And with respect, that is not my issue.
     
  12. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,935
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    I like Back to Earth. It's got wooshy sparkly stuff and that well endowed lady from Peep Show in it. Hurrr.

    Actually I really do (although not everything in it.) I seem to remember 50-60%* of folks seemed to as well, although when Series X came out the majority of reviewers seem to remember it as awful...

    *okay that's around half. On the other hand.... It's HALF! Actually it could well have been closer to 70%.
     
  13. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,935
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    I like Back to Earth. It's got wooshy sparkly stuff and that well endowed lady from Peep Show in it. Hurrr.

    Actually I really do (although not everything in it.) I seem to remember 50-60%* of folks seemed to as well, although when Series X came out the majority of reviewers seem to remember it as awful...

    *okay that's around half. On the other hand.... It's HALF! Actually it could well have been closer to 70%.
     
  14. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    I can't really add anything at this point that jmc2000 hasn't already said, but probably better than I would have.
     
  15. Presuming Ken

    Presuming Ken Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,414
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    I think I was, and still am, halfy-half when it comes to Back to Earth. I didn't like it much, but liked it enough to hope the TV execs and viewers would like it to get us more episodes.

    Series 10 was much more easy to make a decision on as it was a new, full proper series. And I loved ten. Up there with one and two.

    But Back to Earth is still just a bit 'meh' to coin a net phrase. It's neither here nor there.

    Series 8 is a dark, rainy, cloudy, work-ridden Monday. Series 10 is a glorious, sunny, happy Friday.

    Back to Earth is just, well, Wednesday.
     
  16. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    My friend, you have wildly, wildly misunderstood what's happened here. "Universally held consensus" is not a phrase, and I'm not using it as one. "Universally held" is the phrase (which I think you'll find a lot of Google results if you want to look that up), and is being used as an adjective to the noun "consensus". When I say it's the proper and concise way to say something, that's not because it's a commonly used phrase ... that's because I've summed up in three words what I wanted to say.

    If you want to argue that my semantic meaning was not clear, go ahead. I've already offered you extra clarification on that. But with the greatest respect, what you're doing right now is attempting to argue on the basis of the English, and I believe you're doing it wrong.

    Except that you've ignored that the phrase is being used as an adjective. "Universally held" literally means "everybody holds this position on". "Consensus" literally means "a general agreement". And a general agreement is NOT a universal agreement. The correct literal meaning is "Everybody holds this general agreement".

    I could go into more depth, but I feel I should stop and ask what you're hoping to gain out of this? I've offered further clarification on what I meant, and if you are still unclear then I am willing to do whatever you wish to make it clear for you. But this argument is bizarre and rather off-topic? At a pinch, we're using synonyms, and you're arguing that yours is better than mine. I find that to be a usage of time in a profitless and non-practical way.

    I think you'll find that if you're going to assume that position and attitude towards anecdotal evidence, then you're going to have a heck of a job on your hands. Scientists rely on anecdotal evidence quite a bit. The existence of gravity, for instance, is only provable by the anecdotal evidence of things falling to the ground when we drop them. Scientists have very little idea what the thing we know as gravity even is, or even if it exists at all.

    If neither side of the debate can offer anything except anecdotal evidence, then you're saying we should assume there's no evidence at all. Which would be silly, and is how we get people attempting to believe that global warming doesn't exist despite the evidence. All the anecdotal evidence I've seen points towards Back to Earth being considered pretty terrible. Unless you can offer something, anything at all, to contradict that ... then why would I simply ignore that evidence?

    That's rather insulting to suggest that I've asked a total of 6 people, and that I haven't considered any social demographic factors when considering the evidence. I can tell you that both those assumptions are not only incorrect, but to a vast degree.

    Unless there is some specific reason to suggest that all the people I've talked to have some reason for being a biased sample (and I've both considered the sample size and possible social reasons before coming to any conclusions) then I've satisfied my own scientific curiosity on the matter. And as such, like I said ... unless you have any evidence to convince me otherwise, I don't really mind if you believe it or not. I'm not an internet crusader, out to make everyone believe what I believe. But the data is out there, for anyone who doesn't want to ignore it.

    On the contrary, I've invited you and others on many occasions to offer evidence to the contrary.

    The reason I don't accept your Rotton Tomatoes evidence is because you're taking the aggregate journalist reviewers score (78%) to be the correct one. The score by general viewers equals 51%. Compare that to Temple of Doom (81%), Last Crusade (94%) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (96%), and my statement that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is considered a travesty in comparison to the original trilogy seems to be borne out.
     
  17. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    That's rather a matter of opinion, isn't it? You argued I was wrong on the basis of quotes and stats on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and therefore that "universally held consensus" was wrong (incidentally a point that I just proved was wrong in the last post, which you completely ignored) and have been arguing that my English is wrong ever since.

    I've explained what I meant, I've admitted that it wasn't 100% clear what I meant, and you now understand what it was that I intended. Further discussion on it is simply avoiding the point. I'm not interested in discussing semantics with you anymore because I've clarified what the intention was. Either discuss that (which you ignored in favour of talking about this) or simply don't respond.

    We have evidence that something happens. "Gravity" is very much an imaginary force right now.

    We have empirical evidence that people don't like Back to Earth within the fandom (which I generally don't use as evidence because it's a biased sample and that's simply bad science), and I have a lot more than simply "one or two" examples of it being disliked outside of the fandom. The onus would appear to be on the other side at this point, but people refuse to give up that point it seems. It's interesting, because you'd think that if it was untrue then someone would just provide evidence and have done with it, but the evidence doesn't appear to exist.

    Hence why I didn't pay much attention to your quotes on the first page. Posting quotes on here that you've specifically set out to find is in no way a representative sample and also doesn't prove anything without a full set of data where ratios of liking to disliking can be measured. I'm not arguing that people who like BtE don't exist? I never was. I was asking whether people have come to accept that that is a minority view.

    You seem a little obsessed with proving that Back to Earth fans exist, when that's never something I questioned. I simply asked whether everybody here is now in consensus that it constitutes "bad Red Dwarf". Polls among Dwarf fans place it on the same level as the awful Series 8, the cast themselves have expressed that it was bad at conventions, and my general experience and research outside the fandom says that it's generally considered terrible. All you've offered in response to that is a few quotes which you've cherry-picked (ironically considering that you're accusing me of doing the exact same). I don't find that a compelling argument.

    Are you sure, if we're being completely and totally honest, that you've considered whether you might be the one with the confirmation bias?
     
  18. Murray

    Murray Second Technician

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    You've misunderstood how the percentage system of Rotten Tomatoes works. They didn't ask people whether they liked it or not and then expressed the ratio as a percentage. They asked users to rate the movie as a percentage and then gave us the average. Which means that people were asked how much they'd give the movie out of 100%, and on average they ended up rating it 51%.

    The original trilogy averages out (even with the massive drag factor of Temple of Doom) at just over 90%. 90% for the original trilogy, 51% for the new movie. You can argue that such-and-such number of people didn't feel it was a "travesty", but on average ... a drop from 90% to 51% indicates a travesty.

    Sure, but probably not in the timeframe of this conversation. If you want me to get back to you in a few months, that might be feasible.

    Your logic is rather weird. You would've supported moving on at first, but you don't now? So you want to have a pointless argument about something off-topic just for the sake of arguing?

    I wasn't wrong in my choice of words. I was wrong in thinking people would understand the meaning within this context instead of jumping to an incorrect conclusion. I clarified my meaning pretty early on, and that's why I'm repeatedly saying I'm not interested in attempts at derailing anymore.

    The point is that there's no confirmation of equal numbers of people (thus showing evidence for a majority ratio one way of the other) without a set sample size. You finding an arbitrary number of quotes, regardless of what they say, is completely statistically meaningless, which is why I ignored it. The only thing it proves is that there are at least some people on both sides of the argument ... which is something I never disputed in the first place.

    And you have to understand that you've made several comments being disparaging about my reasons for believing what I believe, from claiming that all information I've collected is meaningless because it's anecdotal to implying via comparison that I'm basing my views on the opinions of around a half a dozen people.

    I'd be more than happy to hear your case and respect your data, as long as you're equally respectful that I know what I'm doing when it comes to audience research.
     
  19. Fairfax

    Fairfax Catering Officer

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    There will be no winners in this thread...only losers.
     
  20. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    Well, this is certainly proving to be an interesting discussion debate, isn't it? - said I somewhat ambiguously. ;-)
     

Share This Page