"they look so old"

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Slainmonkey, May 9, 2012.

  1. Slainmonkey

    Slainmonkey Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,477
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    Well interestingly though that presents another problem because there is a lot of medical evidence stating that we are already living longer then we are genetically supposed to. That is why it is so often that we get ravaged by alzheimer's as commonly as we do in our twilight years. We do so much to try and make ourselves live longer that evolution hasn't been able to find a way of catching up yet so our brains pack in.
     
  2. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia

    Hmm, interesting. I'd be interested to see that medical evidence regarding the genetic side of it. Especially given the knowledge we now have that much of our genetic 'makeover' is often more to do with predisposition as opposed to predeterminations. We know now that even genes (not all but many) can be influenced, molded and changed over time and growth, and/or due to certain early life experiences and environmental influences, man-made or otherwise.

    I do see certain 'negatives' in living longer. But I see many more positives too. Part of the reasoning for people dying earlier in life in the past was that the environmental factors were much different back then, and many were not as understud as they are now. Also, we didn't have the knowledge we do now, so far as healthy eating, cures for certain illnesses - much like we haven't found certain cures for certain illness yet in this day and age. But that may change any day now.

    I think it's highly possible and quite likely that we simply haven't got the evolutionary balance right yet? Much like technology has seemingly evolved faster than we (or rather faster than our ancient yet still current "economy") can keep up with. This is why during certain (r)evolutionary time periods throughout history there were serious political talks and discussions about taking the ideas of purposely stopping any further emergence of technological progression to congress...to actually stop progression and efficiency because the now outdated system wasn't keeping up very well. And rather than adapting and evolving naturally, the old system was and still is clung onto for dear life, and the efficiency of the technology was to be blammed, while the inherent flaws within the invented system - these invented fragments of reality we still laughably call a true economy itself were, and continue to be ignored to this day by many. And thus we find ourselves facing extremely worrying levels of unemployment due to the ignorance that creates the exisyance of technological unemployment. Obviously it is not the technology itself to blame...it is our ignorance and stuborness to ignore the inevitable problems emerging from an unevolved and obsolete system based on the need for employment and consumption, rather than looking to the many potential positives to be found .Instead what are given is an ethos of "We live to work" and "we must earn our keep by the sweat of our brow" as input long ago by such social engineering - at the time believed to be necessary as an insentive sytem and basic conduct in order to keep this primitive mess afloat.


    I can certainly agree that each feeds the other to a certain degree. But I also feel that that balance shifts somewhat over time and established programing.

    Okay then try this one then (if you like, it is optional of course ;-) )...and I realise I may be taking a slight risk here, but here goes.

    Many moons ago it was considered the norm to go out at the weekend to watch Christians get thrown and fed to the lions - torn apart and devoured.

    Was this initially due to public demand? Or very carefully planned social engineering?

    It's an extreme example I know, but I think it's fair to suggest that this kind of "entertainment" was somewhat of an early version to reality TV in a sense. There were "villains" input to the programming and thus the public learned to see things that way.

    But yeah I know I'm making a bit of a leap there, but there are certain trends that do seem to re-emerge across the board, over time and too varying degrees. Often these are certain behaviour than didn't really exist in the mainstream sense prior to them becoming the status quo.

    Shows like Coronation Street tend to contain a lot of depressing story lines (seemingly on a continuous rotation) people drinking in pubs, materialistic and competitive values, young girls carrying their handbags in that weird modernized, Paris Hilton-esque way they do (*Sings* "I'm a little tea pot"* biased views about corporations and the Royal family, violence, violence and more violent story lines, continuous town gossip, story lines of abuse, an often silly level of unrealistic stereotypes, etc, etc.

    While I do see the cross over ('art imitates life imitates life imitates...etc), I must ask, at this specific moment in time, is all this due to public demand for the most part? Is this really what most people want? Or would a large portion of people prefer a bit more of a balance between dealing with serious yet often very negative issues and dealing with much more uplifting and inspiring story lines a bit more often? (and more importantly wouldn't uplifting story lines be better for people moral over all?).

    And how can we realistically answer that question if a real choice isn't given?

    And which came first? The chicken or the egg? Perhaps the correct answer is indeed both...and neither..haha. Since both are of course very much interconnected...in that they're part of the same emerging entity so to speak, in a symbiotic sense, and/or in a sense of much leftover evolutionary baggage.

    Things change over time. But if the old trends are clung onto - just continued without inputting new ideas, new concepts and outlooks, then things tend to become somewhat stagnant to a certain degree. People are judging on the decisions made at a certain point in time, without knowing about possible alternatives, because perhaps they don't exist yet, in the major mainstream sense at least.

    I think we all understand the mass media’s role in shaping attitudes and behaviours,
    especially prejudiced attitudes and behaviours to some extent, whether it be perpetuating competition, nationalism, biased views about said nation's armed forces, pop music trends or just trends in clothing brands, fast food and fizzy drink brands, etc.
    And in the sense of soaps the individual nature of each soap is created through an established long-term familiarity. And I think the 'reality tv' genera is now heading in a similar direction of establishment, and will likely continue that way for some time to come. They will continue to be popular because of that evolutionary established progmamming.

    "There is ... a ... subtle sense in which soaps can be considered instructive. Since they
    concentrate on inter-personal relations ... set in a social and political milieu intended to
    parallel the surrounding society, they can hardly fail to send messages about appropriate
    or expected behaviour." ~ Audrea Millwood Hardgrave (from 'Soap box or Soft soap? Audience attitudes to the British Soap Opera')

    On the other hand, I do of course also recognise that both of these things can provide a catalyst for positive conversation too.

    Erm, but yeah I've just realised the extensive degree this tangent tour has taken, I'm off the rails..and off the hook! Oh yeah! 8)

    Wait, wat!? ;-)

    Anyway, I’ll stop my off-topic-ness now. Back to the elderly Dwarfers..;-)

    Edit: Link added. May contain occasinal strong language, I honestly can't remember if it does or not.
     
  3. counting_sheep

    counting_sheep First Technician

    Messages:
    168
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire, England
    A friend of mine said to me the other day that they were no longer funny as they were too old. This made no sense to me as surely it is the script that makes them funny not their age.
     
  4. Slainmonkey

    Slainmonkey Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,477
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    because there has never been such a thing as a middle aged person in comedy....the very idea!
     
  5. counting_sheep

    counting_sheep First Technician

    Messages:
    168
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Indeed. He also said as Craig Charles was now in Coronation Street he was no longer funny :?
     
  6. Slainmonkey

    Slainmonkey Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,477
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    That.......gives me a headache.....I mean isn't it an actors job to act? I mean doesn't that mean they are supposed to be able to play more then one role at a time? No offense to your friends, I'm sure his a great guy but he seems to be a little mixed up in the logic department. Either that or his just messing with you because he knows your a Red Dwarf fan.
     
  7. Stephen

    Stephen Console Officer

    Messages:
    4,986
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Location:
    Hillingdon
    Series 1
    [​IMG]

    Series 2
    [​IMG]

    Series 3
    [​IMG]

    Series 4
    [​IMG]

    Series 5
    [​IMG]

    Series 6
    [​IMG]

    Series 7
    [​IMG]

    Series 8
    [​IMG]

    BTE
    [​IMG]

    Series X
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Slainmonkey

    Slainmonkey Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,477
    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    Well I really mean in relative terms, Red Dwarf is an old show and as such it's be pretty hard to keep the fresh faced look well into their middle age.......but in those relative terms they could all look a hell of a lot worse.
     
  9. IoHouse

    IoHouse First Technician

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Hey, nice set of photos, thats made my day that has :-D

    Some people just never age do they, the lucky so and so's.
     
  10. SixthDwarfer

    SixthDwarfer Supply Officer

    Messages:
    582
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    They all age somewhat between VIII and Back to Earth as it's all ten years later. Except Bobby. He'll always look the same with that mask on. Danny has become a bit more lined in the face, Craig is starting to fill out a bit more and become a bit more husky (his voice is deepening, sounding much older than he did in I and II) and Chris, sadly, is losing the fight up north with his hair.
     
  11. Bluey

    Bluey Science Officer

    Messages:
    12,864
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Though his suit can't disguise the fact that he's gained a lot of weight.
     
  12. SixthDwarfer

    SixthDwarfer Supply Officer

    Messages:
    582
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Well, by Bobby's own admission, it's not as bad as his 'pork out mode' in Series IV.
     
  13. Pecospete666

    Pecospete666 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    374
    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    They all look pretty good for the time between shows. I hope they make the Movie soon! Time marches on.I hope they know when to quit! It would be sad if they continued on like the Rolling Stones or the Beach Boys. I cringe every time I see them on tv. Sad!
    But look how long Coronation street has run! If they start introducing new characters it could go on. But you could never replace " The Boys In The Dwarf "
     

Share This Page