Red Dwarf kind of sucks

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by mychemicaldwarf, Aug 26, 2016.

  1. mychemicaldwarf

    mychemicaldwarf Second Technician

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    The ship, i mean! Big ugly thing. Starbug is loads better! It's a thing of real beauty. In a parallel universe, the show is actually called Starbug!

    I can't wait for Starbug XI to start. :-D

    Quick poll... which is betterer... Red Dwarf or Starbug?

    Anybody who says Blue Midget is sick. And not in a cool way. :-(
     
  2. Pendo

    Pendo Supply Officer

    Messages:
    596
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2001
    Location:
    Liverpool
    I think the fact that it's big and ugly has always been the point. They didn't want to go for a sleek, clean feel like Star Trek, but more of a working, industrial feel. The Series VIII / Remastered ship is too nice-looking (and fake looking). The original Red Dwarf is an absolute think of beauty, it's fantastic!
     
  3. Callisto252

    Callisto252 Supply Officer

    Messages:
    701
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Totally agree with this, I can even get quite emotional when watching flypasts of the original ship (particularly in the opening credits of I and II). Aside from the beauty of the model itself, there's just something about its hopeless situation and the fact that it's supposed to have been trundling on for three million years that really gets me. I never get this feeling with Starbug (much as I love it), and I've never been keen on either version of Blue Midget. But Red Dwarf... I think a lot of effort (love?) was put into building that model, and it really shows.
     
  4. Sarah

    Sarah Console Officer

    Messages:
    3,666
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Location:
    Cotswolds
    Totally agreeing with both of you:-D
     
  5. Stephen

    Stephen Console Officer

    Messages:
    4,986
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Location:
    Hillingdon
    Since when is a mining ship meant to be attractive/look good? lol
     
  6. Callisto252

    Callisto252 Supply Officer

    Messages:
    701
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    True, and I was really talking about the model itself being beautiful. I suppose a real life version of Red Dwarf would be considered ugly (I don't think you could better the description of it given in Infinity, 'a big, red, red, big clenched fist of metal'). But I've always been drawn to ugly, industrial things like pylons and cooling towers - they're just so much more interesting than the beautiful things!
     
  7. mychemicaldwarf

    mychemicaldwarf Second Technician

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    It probably doesn't help that i have a Corgi model that doesn't look anything like the ship!

    Everybody knows the ship is quite short and squashy, not long and thin. :-(

    (lights fuse...walks away...)
     
  8. Strat-tastic

    Strat-tastic Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    7,754
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Location:
    Scandalous Grace
    This not good enough? :-)
     
  9. longusernamebecausetheforumwantsone

    longusernamebecausetheforumwantsone Second Technician

    Messages:
    73
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Southern California, USA
    No way, Red Dwarf > all others. I was not happy when they "lost" RD for two whole seasons. So happy when it showed back up at the end of S7. Also, I am much partial to the longer version in the remastered episodes and S8. The original didn't seem to be "five miles long" no matter which way you sliced it, while the longer version clearly is. Plus, the original had no sort of "lines" at all in its design it was just a big, blocky, ugly thing.

    If we're going to be stuck with "short" Dwarf, I like the S9 and onwards revamped version that is basically just a shorter version of the long one. At certain angles it looks mostly the same too, so it's better (in my opinion) continuity wise.

    The only thing I didn't like about the way the long version was portrayed in the episodes, is the model coloring was too saturated. It made it look artificial. They should have dulled out the red coloring to be more like it is now.
     
  10. jamespotter

    jamespotter Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Some great interior shots in BTE. That's what we need more of this time round.
     
  11. Smegerama

    Smegerama Supply Officer

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Location:
    Garbage World
    This was entirely the fault of the CGI model, which was vibrantly red and evenly lit from all sides (probably to hide that they didn't have the computing power for the details to cast any real shadows at all, let alone the hard shadows that characterized the original model shots). They inexplicably thought they could get away with showing close-ups of it, despite many of the fine details being flat textures.

    [​IMG]

    Whenever people say special effects are so bad they "look like a PS1 game", it's hyperbole. Not here. I cannot believe somebody thought this closeup was a usable shot.

    [​IMG]

    Series VIII hid these problems better by wisely choosing to avoid closeups of the ship and toning down the hideously vibrant red, but then made everything extremely shiny. This is responsible for the "clean" and "sleek" look we all hate, one which is not at all present in the flat, lifeless Remastered version. Also, you can remember all the original Red Dwarf shots, but can you think of any one in particular from VIII? Of course not, almost every one used the same exact high angle shot.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]



    In stark comparison, this credits fly-over of the actual model built for the Remastered was much more in keeping with the feel of the original model shots made in Series I (however I still think the original looks better). It's lit harshly from one angle and a much duller red.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Let us not forget the current design for Red Dwarf, that same Remastered model refurbished and four feet shorter.

    [​IMG]

    Personally I think there's nothing too sleek about the pencil design itself. The cheap 3D model failed it. Here's some direct comparisons between the model Dwarf and the CGI Dwarf. In comparison, the vibrant red of the CGI Dwarf is downright hideous. But then the Remastered was ugly and over-saturated in general, so I guess it fits perfectly.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And to answer your question, yes, I do have every Red Dwarf raw effects reel on my computer.

    Fake yes. Nice, not even remotely.
     
  12. longusernamebecausetheforumwantsone

    longusernamebecausetheforumwantsone Second Technician

    Messages:
    73
    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Southern California, USA
    Yeah, you identified exactly the problem I have with the portrayal of the "long" version of the Dwarf: it was failed not by design, but by the 3D model. They should have just filmed the physical model they took the time to build, the fact that they built it just so they could render it in CGI boggles my mind.
     
  13. Seb

    Seb Captain Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,802
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    JMC HQ
    They didn't! They built the model to shoot in miniature but it ended up being too big to fit in the motion control studio, so they had to render it instead.
     
  14. jaybo1973

    jaybo1973 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Man, that's what makes red dwarf. It's a mining ship. Someone above said they'd like to see more inside and i agree. I'd love to see them walk down the technician quarters corridor and see the old room to show that they just keep moving to different parts of the ship and to show continuity. Pop back for something like that blow up banana lol.
     
  15. Goit_84

    Goit_84 First Technician

    Messages:
    180
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    The original Red Dwarf model was OK when TV resolutions were low and VHS recordings were all the rage. It still looks good on HDTV's when watching it on Netflix or DVD, but it must be said that the vac-formed panels are rather obvious now.

    The CG versions of the ship were all hideous failures, however. Completely lacking the details required for a ship of such a grand scale. The camera work was lacking, either going in too close and exposing the basic geometry, or pulling too far back and making it look small. Terrible.

    Series X Red Dwarf is by far the best. I'll always love the classic shape but the X ship is the only one that looks legit.
     
  16. Captain_Star

    Captain_Star Third Technician

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    The current ship would look far better with the original ragged circular collar dividing the nose from the rest of the ship restored & the current Clangers style meteor should be re-textured and look built in.

    The abstract detailing on the original model was far more interesting to look at, with pin prick windows mostly visible in close ups. The windows on the current model are still far to large for a five mile ship & made the original redesign look like a cruise liner, plus the way they converge to a point at the front with no regard to any internal deck layout always bugged me.
     
  17. Callisto252

    Callisto252 Supply Officer

    Messages:
    701
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Sorry, deleted my post here which messes up your reply a bit! I seem to have a shortcut to the forum that always goes to this thread, not sure why or how.
     
  18. Ant E

    Ant E Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    7,202
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Racist? What??
     

Share This Page