New Dave Series - Guesswork and Rumours

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Andrew, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. Carrie TORDFC

    Carrie TORDFC Second Officer Fan Club Team

    Messages:
    298
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    It's kinda sitting between rumour and confirmation - of course, our very own Andrew made That Announcement back at DJ 2009 and we've just had this rather exciting tweet from Mr Naylor (DougRDNaylor)....

    "Expecting some Red Dwarf news sometime in the next couple of weeks."

    Sounds good to me.
     
  2. yeckel

    yeckel Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,613
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Location:
    Rural Washington State
    Woohoo! Excited to hear what it is. :-) :-)
     
  3. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    The Gelf-ifier. 8)
     
  4. backtoreality

    backtoreality Supply Officer

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

    OH HAPPY DAY,...... OH HAPPY DA-AY
     
  5. Carrie TORDFC

    Carrie TORDFC Second Officer Fan Club Team

    Messages:
    298
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    The Gelf-ifier. 8)

    Well everyone knows that's been a long time in the coming ;-)
     
  6. Smegged

    Smegged First Technician

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Location:
    North Vancouver British Columbia Canada
    That was around September 16th/17th...so hopefully sometime by the end of September/early October we'll hear!

    He's also been asking for comments on whether or not a new series should have an audience. Oh my, I hope they get an audience. BTE was very strong, but the laughter just adds a "feel goodi-ness" to the show that is irreplaceable.
     
  7. Sammy Psycho

    Sammy Psycho Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,378
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Newcastle UK
    I've been checking the Red Dwarf website from work practically everyday for any new info on a new series/specials. It seems all rumours, speculation and info leaks have completely dried up over the last month. Is there anything i have missed ?
     
  8. SoundableObject

    SoundableObject Catering Officer

    Messages:
    273
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool England
    Doug Naylors twitter page?

    http://twitter.com/#!/DougRDNaylor
     
  9. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I'm interested to know what "indie film" Doug is referring to in his bio.
     
  10. Sammy Psycho

    Sammy Psycho Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,378
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Newcastle UK
    Ahhhhh ! Sorry but i can't get away with twitter. Little snippets of other peoples conversation that mean nothing because you can't see the rest of the info. Totally out of context rubbish or is it just me being a grumpy old man ?
     
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    More likely that you don't much like it so have no interest in learning how to use it. (Out of context? Click for the context - it's all connected, it's all right there to be accessed. You can see what the response was to if you want to.)

    But more importantly, it's less than half 'conversation' - the bulk of what you see on Twitter, what you read in your own timeline of people you follow (rather than the see-all web view), is statement not discussion. At which point, like any part of the web, it's about choosing to read comments from interesting people.

    For the most part I don't follow actors because I get very little out of the celebrity thing and they rarely talk interestingly about the craft. A lot of writers do, though, so I track a lot of them, because that's what interests me. Producers, directors and journalists, too.

    But I'm not following anyone because I want to see their conversations with other people, and I don't see them unless I'm following both people. I'm interesting in observations and opinions, and the people I follow provide interesting ones.
     
  12. yeckel

    yeckel Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,613
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Location:
    Rural Washington State
    I agree with you and I believe there are very specific reasons why this is the case. We do not have any lens types, editing software, or lighting solutions that can technically be discussed. So much of it is imagination and emotion...sometimes these things are hard to put into words (which is why some directors have a hard time effectively communicating with their talent to pull out what they want). Even sharing something funny that happened is sometimes impossible because contracts restrict discussing the project at all, until it is released. Talking about how so-and-so really mucked up and was clueless casting shadows over their partner or to start whining about how the DP demanded the camera at such an angle you can't even see the actor you are reacting with (to correct your eye line) would be seen as slaying a member of the team or just being high-maintenance. Biting your tongue 98% of the time and giving it all around your technical surroundings (working with while ignoring simultaneously) is the name of the game.

    If you asked one of your favorite actors how they do that wonderful stuff they do, it would be very difficult for that person to pinpoint it. He/she may share a few steps of a process, but so much if it is highly personalized and based off of responding to the scene...

    I am such an addict. :shock: Just writing about puts a smile on my face.
     
  13. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I massively disagree!

    I mean yes, absolutely, there's equipment to a lot of (most, in fact) production jobs, but it's rare that you'll see writers discussing writing software for much of their time. And any director, DP or editor banging on about lenses, cameras and Avids too much wouldn't stay interesting - outside a core group - for long.

    While a lot of acting is intuitive, it's also a craft. In all my time on sets - and even occasionally directing - there's no denying the techniques at work, the ways effects are achieved by performers. Writing can't be reduced to lens types and software either, but there are things we do that are useful, repeatable and sharable. And you need only watch some brilliant people host and Actors Studio to see that acting's often the same way.

    I know writers who say they just lay it down, they don't know how it comes to them, it's all instinct and muse. They tend to be either lousy or lying. (Or too young in their craft to realise yet that a craft is what it is - they don't realise they have techniques yet.)

    But I will say this: some actors lack the self-awareness to know they're using techniques, or (much more commonly) know but aren't able to describe them clearly. The former is something they often grow out of as they become more professional and move past the mystique; the latter, though, is fair enough, because it's not an actor's job to be good at generating description. They don't have to be good at that to be good at interpreting someone else's words in performance.

    Writers and directors, on the other hand, can't really function well without that skill.

    And it'd be seen as unprofessional - which it certainly would be.

    None of that's specific to actors, though. That goes for all cast and crew across the board. Actor bemoaning DP is no worse than DP bemoaning actor.

    I mean you're right, in that Twitter is rarely abuzz with backstage anecdotes, because sharing those things isn't professional - but it's not only an actor thing. (And, for those examples, it's as much a 'negativity' thing. Twitter's not a place where people whine about what they do and bemoan others. It'll be seen, it'll offend, and it'll lose followers who came to feeds for a good time, not to be a wailing wall.)

    With Twitter - and things like it - I'd mostly say it's about personality. Writers are, by nature, given to clear expression in written form. They're trained to observe, organise, shape and report. To translate experience into words. But also to filter and to extricate - they don't need to be part of a story for the story to be interesting. Ditto journalists.

    Actors...well, it's a very different personality type. And a very different skillset.

    So I'd disagree it's about using gear, or having technique. The former's largely irrelevant and the latter's something that exists in abundance. It's about the types of personality that are drawn to the different disciplines...and how those personalities are reflected in a public feed.
     
  14. yeckel

    yeckel Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,613
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Location:
    Rural Washington State
    It must be my turn for the Andrew, earful - I say in the most respectful way possible. :-) Our own debate team winning champion, hopefully with the intention of learning and sharing, not just for winning.

    Wow, I must be hanging out with the wrong crew. While knowing about the cameras, and anything else should be interesting, there are times I try to slip out on these conversations. :-)

    This is where I think you start jumping the gun on my post. No where did I imply or state acting is not a craft. But it is not a concrete between actors. Sure you can watching Inside the Actors Studio, and learn how they got to certain points for that moment. There are tools that actors are taught to help open themselves up when in a rut. However it is still a highly reactive, and ever changing. The same path is not taken to all characters. It can be very hard to put into words for any actor, or else a complete works on "how to act" would be producing limitless acting greats and they would become as common as burger flippers.

    Rarely do actors just lay it down either, except for commercial cold reads (or when asked to read for a different part while at an audition)...then you likely have to just bring it with your few minutes. Having a hard time putting something into words to really describe is different than just laying it down. There are a few bring it moments though, such as when you or another actor has a breakthrough and takes a risk with it IN the moment of shooting - which happens. Then you and the other has to in the moment bring it to react (but you should already know your character by this point).

    Yet there are directors who are wonderful at expressing the technical needs but not the emotional needs of a scene in wording an actor can understand. There are directors that have made successful movies (and poor) that have had actor complaints that they do not communicate well with actors. It is the job of both the actor and the director to work on this skill.

    Agreed that it is unprofessional, but I widely believe crew get away with it more than the cast can. Then again I know actors tend to whine about things like how it is so HOT on the set, when they walk out between changes to equipment lighting and the crew are forced to stay in the heat while the talent is off preserving their make-up. :-) I get it that talent can be annoying for crew at times.

    This I would love for you to expand on. :-)
     
  15. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Aww, see, now I don't know whether to respond. "Earful"?!

    Ah well, the discussion's interesting, anyway. So assume this is all meant as an attempt to continue understanding, not to batter anyone into submission. (As it happens, with your post expanding on your point, we're actually in agreement on a lot.)

    Likewise. My point was really about expressing on Twitter, since that was the subject - obviously a DP and a director can talk for hours on some technical point. But you don't see that happening on Twitter a lot...outside of, as I say, a core group. Because Twitter is for an audience, and an audience needs to be drawn in, not bored and driven off!

    Oh, absolutely. But you could say the same for writing. Doesn't mean "how to write" books create a great author any more than "how to act" books are producing Brandos. Doesn't somehow compensate for talent.

    However we seem to basically agree that there are elements of technique at work. Again, since the angle was 'actors not talking about the craft on Twitter', not whether acting is a craft per se, that's the part that this was directed towards - your post didn't mention technique, which is by far the most 'twitterable' aspect of the job, so I introduce it simply as relevant. Not jumping the gun so much as including a relevant omission.

    However I think you've hit on what I was saying in my last post with the phrase "It can be very hard to put into words for any actor". That was, really, my key point: it's not that there isn't interesting, tweetable technique available to be discussed. It's that actors are not in the best position to adequately (to their own satisfaction) express it.

    I know. That's what I was saying - I said the writers who claim to do so are lying, unaware or just poor. I compared to writers because the same is broadly true for actors, who rarely lay it down either.

    I agree. That was, indeed, part of my point - difficulty of expression rather than lack of credible technique to express. But I think your original post hinted that acting was so much about imagination and emotion, and so personal, that there's only a negligible amount available to be tweeted about. I disagree, I think there's acres to be brought up...but articulating it well? Well now, that's a different thing.

    But that's not about the mystery - the emotion, the imagination - of acting. That's the willingness - or ability - of actors to communicate that way. And I think you're right, they have a hard time describing it. But while your post seemed to suggest that this was because it was, by nature, close to indescribable, my suggestion is that there's plenty within the craft that's describable - but actors are not always in possession of the skillset to do so.

    It's like...being good at cooking doesn't make you a good teacher of it, or able to write a book about it. Yet the inability to teach or write isn't about cookery being too vague an art, it's not endemic to the medium. It's simply that teaching and writing skillsets are not required in cooks for them to be good at what they do.

    I don't disagree in any way whatsoever. But then I don't imagine you believe I would!

    But - again - just in line with 'speaking on Twitter', that there are people who have limits to skills on set doesn't alter my point. The directors you refer to - who can't communicate requirement to an actor - aren't likely to be trying to do that form of communication on Twitter. They're not going to be trying to get a readership to an emotional point in order to capture it.

    The skill of describing the nature of their technique was the one I said writers and directors couldn't do without. I stand by that. Sure there are exceptions, the odd bad communicator...but I don't think you find many of them tweeting.

    However: those are 'directing techniques', 'writing techniques'. 'Communicating emotional sense of a scene to an actor' isn't the same thing at all. (Both writer and director should possess this skill ideally. But it's only one of a million things and everyone has strengths and weaknesses.) Being able to describe how you get what you want from an actor (discussing the craft) isn't the same thing as being able to get what you want from an actor (working the craft). And the former is all I was referring to, that's the Twitter side of it.

    But yes, there's overlap. The best writers and best directors have to be able to communicate in clear words and statements to do their job well. Actors who can do the same do benefit, but it's not a requirement in the same way. Actors need to 'understand' far more than they need to 'explain' - is that fair?

    (Of course I'm skipping some directorial stuff here - in particular that sometimes the worst thing to tell an actor is a clear description of what you want. Depends on the film, depends on the actor - but sometimes what you want to capture would be ruined by the actor's overt awareness. Like Friedkin firing guns on-set, there are times when what's frustrating for the actor is better for the production. In that area acting is unique - you don't get a better shot by lying to the operator or a better cut by hiding facts from the editor. But you can get more from an actor when they're frustrated, confused or shocked...)

    I disagree - I don't know many crew members who'd take those kinds of complaints to a public forum. But then this is, presumably, just us coming from different disciplines - everyone thinks they have it worse! (Though, no, actually, I think it's totally even, cast and crew. Everyone wants to work again, nobody wants to risk their position.)

    Like this post isn't long enough already?!
     
  16. yeckel

    yeckel Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,613
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Location:
    Rural Washington State
    You seem very passionate about your answers, and at times it feels a bit like an attack. :-) Perhaps I am intimidated easy though and it is simply your matter of fact tone in your writing that I am misinterpreting. The result of that is I go into fight mode (I've never been the flight type - just ask my husband). I apologize.

    I see your point, if it is to be used as a marketing tool, instead of simple social ranting (which it often is).

    Perhaps it gets easier with time. I am glad to admit to spending the rest of my life as a work in progress. :-)

    After we see the finished product, we get it and really appreciate it. Even though at the time I may want to call somebody a smeg head (because the emotions are so strong in that moment). Yet another example of why actors can never think they are so talented they don't need direction.

    You forget Andrew, this isn't twitter. No limitations here. ;-)
     
  17. dvd3500

    dvd3500 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    I prefer flutter:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeLZCy-_m3s
     
  18. Sammy Psycho

    Sammy Psycho Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,378
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Newcastle UK
    I would like to put forward an idea for a new forum section, maybe we could have a "Doug's RD twitter" in the forum. Anyone that gleans any info from Doug's twitter about Red Dwarf could maybe post in this section to help others (like me) that can't get to grips with this twitter thing. What do you think Andrew? or should this just go in the Guesswork and Rumours section.
     
  19. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I don't think it warrants a new section - but certainly a new thread. Which you're very welcome to start!
     
  20. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I'm rarely, if ever, looking to fight! I guess it's the matter of fact tone, as you say. Cos that's what matters to me - keeping it clean and factual and sensible.

    I get into trouble when people mistake my defence of - and interest in - facts and logic for an opinion on a subject. I'm happy - keen, really - to debate a topic without matters of taste and preference getting in the way of base comprehension, getting us all on the same page of understanding.

    I think we benefit from understanding...but the internet is such a haven for strong opinion that it's hard to people to realise you're staying detached. Weirdly, I have (almost) none of this kind of problem on Twitter. Maybe because it's default nature is less about disagreement. A battle is rarely assumed.

    Bah, anyway - I've found this very interesting, Yeckel. And maintain the same respect I've always had for you in responding.

    Well, even in a non-marketing way there's common sense. If you have a rant in a pub and people start to ignore you because you're going on too much, bringing people down, changing your tone isn't 'marketing'. It's just good sense.

    If you tweet a lot of moaning - and Twitter is about 'followers', remember, which is importantly different from Facebook's 'Friends' - you lose followers. And the ones you do have will give you a tough time. It's hard to take that flack and not reconsider your behaviour. Likewise, if you're a bore about lenses and lighting rigs don't expect that many people to stay interested - to buy you a second pint and ask you to stick around.

    But I really wouldn't call that 'use as a marketing tool'. It's a lot more organic - and less mercenary - than that.

    I think that's an excellent approach, and one most artists in all areas would agree with.

    I'm constantly reminded of Michael Caine's advice to 'pick an eye and stick with it' - when looking at another actor on-screen - when I watch Kate Winslet in Titanic. She's never been told that. And while you can argue that it's inorganic or whatever (as if it would show in as rigid a film as Titanic), Caine's right - it makes her weaker on-screen. Her eyes forever dart back and forth as she looks as DiCaprio, eye to eye, they never settle, and it's not always - or even often - to the benefit of the scene.

    That one bit of advice is wonderful. I've used it and given it. It has a huge impact on a close-up. And it came from an actor who knew his stuff and understood the medium. And who was old enough to analyse what he's done, understand it and articulate it.

    If someone was tweeting stuff like that, I'd follow them like a shot!

    Heh. I know. But I'd just read that "earful" comment and it just seemed like and invitation to trouble... :-)

    Right, well, there's a generalisation I need to make here. A broad stroke. I know actors differ, just as not all writers are self-aware. But most good writers are self-aware...so this is intended in the same vein, with the same understanding. That I generalise, but don't mean to condemn utterly all with no exceptions.

    So, Twitter: Writers talk craft, bring anecdotes, provide observations. Often they raise things that only involve them as an observer. Directors, it seems to me, are quicker to give strong opinion, to accept or reject. Both, one can't help but observe, seem to be broadly part of their skillset in their chosen profession.

    Producers all too often use Twitter to promote, unaware that it's an off-putting thing to do and will lose them followers. Idiots.

    Actors, though. Man, I really don't follow many. Because...they mostly talk about themselves. Oh, you got a new dog. You like so-and-so on Britain's Got Talent. You had a great meal at the Groucho. Your new clothes are just so not what you thought they were...

    Now, far be it from me - I'm sure there are plenty who find my Twitter feed to be horribly self-centered. But it strikes me that this 'notice me, here's me, follow me' attitude - where posting regular trivialities is preferable to posting more interesting content less frequently - goes hand in hand with a profession that is, often, one which attracts those who like/need attention, desire it. People who have an interest in eyes being on them.

    But, since they're not writers, since their skill is in 'being able to draw attention', the tweets rarely come with the deft observation, analysis or other aspects that I consider worth following. All sparkle, little substance. Empty feeds, busy, but packed full of nothing.

    I should add that, pretty obviously, actors are far from being the worst for this. Packaged pop stars - pretty people with average voices - are infinitely worse. And actors with broader horizons - hyphenates who are also comics, directors or writers themselves - struggle far less with the problem. Nor - I repeat - should the generalisation be seen as without exceptions.

    Anyway - that's kinda what I meant.
     

Share This Page