Would annoying hard core fans have liked RD 7 if..

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Ant the Dragon, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. Angelic_Storm

    Angelic_Storm Catering Officer

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I think saying Red Dwarf fans who don't like series VII, (or at least think it's weaker than the preceding series') are "annoying" and "hardcore" is a bit stupid. You could also level that accusation at fans who unequivocally think that every episode of RD is equally great, and just the name is enough to justify them being classed as such. It really works both ways...

    Personally, I do feel series VII is weaker than the preceding series'. And yes, it is for the obvious reasons. It is pretty obvious to me, that Kochanski was brought it in to fill a gap because of the lack of Rimmer. And sadly, aside from the fact she is a romantic interest for Lister, when Rimmer wasn't, it does seem like she was given a Rimmer type role in the show. And frankly Kochanski, as a comedic character is leagues behind Rimmer. The chemistry in the show drastically changed with the exit of Rimmer, and not for the better. Some people have said it was the loss of Rob Grant to the writing team that really damaged the show after his exit. In series 7 at least, I do not believe this to be the case. Tikka To Ride, Stoke Me A Clipper and to a slightly lesser extent, Blue, are all great Red Dwarf episodes to me. And parts of the rest of the episodes are great too. The thing which really makes the other episodes in the series weaker than the ones I just mentioned, is the abscence of Rimmer and Kochanski replacing him. Episodes like Nanarchy and Epideme had great ideas, and moments in them. But the lack of Rimmer's charismatic and comedic character, (and probably more importantly, Kochanski's lack of charisma and comedic prescence) stopped those episodes becoming the classics they could so easily have been.

    Just my little 2 penneth worth on the issue lol
     
  2. Bluey

    Bluey Science Officer

    Messages:
    12,704
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    As much as I love Rimmer, three of the episodes he wasn't in are among my all-time favourites: Duct Soup, Beyond a Joke and Epideme.
     
  3. Lala2616

    Lala2616 Third Technician

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    I think Rimmer has always been a great source of humour in Red Dwarf (the friend nobody likes forumula) and the four main characters contrasting characters really made that humour and the whole show.

    I suppose fans thought he was being replaced by a character less funny and it made them not like series 7 as much.
     
  4. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Well, isn't that what happened? I know he came back for series 8 but having that knowledge now doesn't make me like the character of Kochanski in series 7 anymore than I did without such knowledge. She was used far better in series 8 but I still think she's not needed with Rimmer around and is better off left as a cameo now and then for Lister to chase after.
     
  5. Lala2616

    Lala2616 Third Technician

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Well yes personally I think that is what happened but I didn't want to make it as a statement cos I didn't want to come across as cocky or have someone saying, "Well no that's not true actually because of these reasons..."
     
  6. talkie3000

    talkie3000 Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,048
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Location:
    Red Dwarf, Deep space
    there was a clearly obvious change to the show, i mean all in all all series 2-6 are like the shows all fans can come together and say they like, from 7 onwards it starts to get abit critical
     
  7. RotootHununga

    RotootHununga Third Technician

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    I find the anti-VII thing a bit weird all right.
    The sets look lovely, the filmic quality looked great too.

    Rimmer's leaving and Kochanski's arrival? Part and parcel of change... it happens. If Rimmer has stayed VII would have been indistiguishable from VI. Where's the fun in that.
    Kochanski might not have lived up to her potential but her introduction changed the mould enough to keep things interesting. Sure there are clangers in VII, but no more so than usual, methinks.

    Tikka to Ride, Stoke ne a Clipper, Ouroboros, Epideme and Nanarchy are all joys to behold in my opinion.
    Is Beyond a Joke any worse than the borefest of Confidence and Paranoia, the goes-nowhere wtf of Kryten or the Joke-lite Legion?

    The nanobyte revelation was clever and very Red Dwarf and the simple fact that Kochanski was there when it was revealed seems to change everything.
     
  8. platini

    platini Third Technician

    Messages:
    35
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Yes (though I'm not annoying and decidedly softcore).

    And no. I liked her.
     
  9. Tex_Rimmer

    Tex_Rimmer First Technician

    Messages:
    157
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Ganymede Holiday Inn
    Viewers leaving a show because it no longer entertains them is also something that happens.

    I think we're confusing fiction with real life here. If Lister was a real person, then of course he'd have to take life as it came to him, including dealing with change, even something as drastic as losing Rimmer. But what you and jmc2000 (with his description of the "liberal" fan) seem to be presupposing is that the viewers are as stuck with Lister's situation as he is.

    Of course, they aren't. If they aren't entertained by what they see, they switch channels and watch something else. If enough of them do it, the show doesn't continue. Your reasons for accepting the changes don't apply to viewers, they only apply to characters inside the story.

    Honestly, anybody who felt "stuck" with the show to the extent you and jmc are describing, to the point where they felt they had to watch anything called Red Dwarf, no matter how good or bad it was, I'd consider to be a fanboy. (And when it comes to feeling obligated to having to defend Red Dwarf USA, then we've definitely crossed over that line).

    That doesn't mean that I consider Series 7 or 8 to be not worth watching, only
    that such a thing could happen. Like with Trek. I loved the original series, and so, when Next Generation premiered, I watched it just because it was called Star Trek. But when the entire first season of that show was mediocre, I drifted away from it. It became a good show later on, but I never really went back. And I never felt obligated to watch much of the spinoffs. DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, I tuned into just enough to see if I'd like them on their own merits, and when I didn't, I tuned them back out again. I still liked the original series, though and still watch that sometimes. If Red Dwarf ever got as bad as Star Trek: Voyager, I'd definitely stop watching it. But I'd still enjoy the earlier episodes.
     
  10. jacksmith

    jacksmith Catering Officer

    Messages:
    389
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    Halesowen, West Midlands, Earth
    I don't think series VII would've been the same as series VI whichever way you slice it. It's filmic direction and individualy light scenes make it different enough, even not taking Doug's solo path he took twith the series in to acount.

    You know, i actually think series VII's laughter track was awkward, would have been better to have non like in BTE, it just killed the atmosphere, one of the things in Bte was how lonely the ship felt without the audience, just like how it should.
     
  11. Tex_Rimmer

    Tex_Rimmer First Technician

    Messages:
    157
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Ganymede Holiday Inn
    All right, well if you only mean that the "liberal" fan will be more receptive to change than the "conservative" one, that might be generally true.

    Personally, I'm open to formatting changes, but sometimes need a little time to assimilate them. By the time I first saw the show, Holly had already been replaced, so I went into it knowing in advance that there were two different Holly's, so had no problem there.

    Season 7 has definitely improved for me over time, but I don't know if that's because I became more used to its changes, or because it became clear that Rimmer's absence was temporary. If a show remains good, I'm willing to put up with a lot. I absolutely hated it when Mike Nelson replaced Joel Hodgson on Mystery Science Theater 3000, but kept watching the show because the quality stayed high. (though I did know some fanboyish types who just flat refused to watch without Joel, period). With last year's Get Smart movie, there were people who watched it and tried to like it just because of the title, though really, the only thing it had in common with the series of the same name was the title and character names. Their personalities were all different.

    With Series 6, I disliked the loss of Red Dwarf and Holly, and thought they relied a tad too much on running gags, but overall it was a good series. But here's a point. Some changes are only good in the short run. Doing a series or two without Red Dwarf as an experiment is okay. But doing without it permanently would have been harder to accept. Red Dwarf without Red Dwarf would be like Chico and the Man was without Chico. Or Laverne and Shirley that last year without Shirley. Or even the Lone Ranger without that Indian bloke. I liked the Lister-Kochanski dynamic, but not as a permanent replacement for the Lister-Rimmer one.

    Basically, I'm saying there can be a difference between novelty and permanent format changes. The problem in TV is that there isn't that much time. A change that people will like in a year isn't good. You've got to keep the audience going right now.


    That does happen, though I had in mind the sad experience of Voyager and Enterprise fans, who would watch the shows and jump through incredible mental hoops to rationalize that they weren't as bad as they seemed to be, just because it was Star Trek (in name at least) and they felt they had to be loyal to "the franchise", and that anyone who didn't just suck it up and watch a bad show was somehow being disloyal. Of course, in a way, they were responsible for the problem. The reason Paramount wasn't delivering a good show is because its core fans weren't demanding one.
     
  12. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,916
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    I wasn't all that into the original Star Trek series (although I largely like the films) and I wasn't keen on The Next Generation (although I liked specific episodes and the universe as a whole that they live in.) On the other hand I really liked Enterprise.

    Then again I wasn't really a ST 'fanboy' in the first place...
     
  13. platini

    platini Third Technician

    Messages:
    35
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Well, it's interesting that TREK gets mentioned because as far as I'm concerned, if it ain't Shatner, it ain't Trek. Not because of some high-minded principle, but because I just like it. Some years ago BBC4 was having one of its themed nights (Parallel Universe night or something) and they ran an old episode of the original Shatner Trek - and it was great, and even though I'd seen it before I stayed with it and enjoyed it. They followed it with an episode of Next Generation and I had to switch off after about 10 minutes because I just didn't care. It's shiny and new and has whizzo computer effects and a Jerry Goldsmith theme, whereas the original was a bit creaky and old-fashioned, but it had some kind of indefinable charm the new soulless one didn't; when Whoopi Goldberg came on in a silly hat I had to leave and find something more interesting to do.
     
  14. GTaDave

    GTaDave Catering Officer

    Messages:
    460
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Location:
    Driving an Italia Gagliano, The Grizzly Circuit, M
    I grew up Watching TNG I do Love the classics now but for me I think TNG was the best Star Trek series. It went downhill after that. I will admit TNG had a few horrible episodes but overall it was still alot better IMO it had a much more technical sci fi feel whereas the older Star Treks felt at times unbeleivable. The films are still my favourite though. From motion picture to first contact.
     
  15. matgrowcott

    matgrowcott Skutter

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    The problem with fans of anything is this:

    There is and ALWAYS will be people who are unimpressed with something. Every decision, by every writer, artist, director and producer who has ever worked on an adaptation or continuation of something popular has come under fire by the fan just because THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.

    Probably one of the more famous examples: Bob Dylan losing countless fans because he started to use the electric guitar on his albums. Despite the fantastic Bringing it all Back Home album being just that, fantastic, some people refused to listen simply because of the type of guitar used on one side.

    Extreme, perhaps.

    Some people refused to watch Blade Runner because it was nothing like 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'

    Rehashes of older franchises are constantly panned: Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Blackadder, Auf Wiedersehen Pet, Final Fantasy 7 spin-offs, countless bands who have recently done reunion tours, the discworld 'films'. The list is, perhaps, endless. And if it weren't for the fact it's 12:30 I could probably come up with more.

    It's not that the items in question are bad and, usually, viewing figures and ticket sales back up that the internet people who moan are in the very small minority. It's simply that most die-hard fans have tinted views of what they love so much.

    The problem is that people lack objectivity, they have a feeling of ownership over a project (despite the fact they probably lack the key talents needed to even get to the quality they are mocking.) and when an artist attempts to stretch their own limitations there are always going to be people who fall by the wayside.

    Now that we have the internet, these people bitch in large quantity as if their opinion was the only one that counted.

    What they don't realise is, like Dylan, there is ALWAYS a market for the new product. There is a reason that 10 year olds were walking around with Indiana Jones T-shirts almost this time last year. There is a reason Blade Runner is now one of the most popular sci-fi films ever. There is a reason 'Like a Rolling Stone' is constantly voted the best song ever.

    I enjoyed Series 7 and, taking into consideration the massive changes going on behind the scenes, thought the end result happened to be remarkable. Fans will nit-pick and argue over every piece of continuity, over costumes and sets and sound. That's because thier love for the series as it was makes them unable to enjoy the series it is as much.
     
  16. platini

    platini Third Technician

    Messages:
    35
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    So if I loved it less, I'd enjoy it more? :-) In that case, I'd probably really enjoy an episode of Last Of The Summer Wine as I can't stand it!

    For me I don't think it's got anything to do with closed-mindedness or a strange Bob Dylan-inspired refusal to accept change (I wouldn't listen to Bob Dylan if you paid me, whether he's using an electric guitar or a tuba) - I genuinely believe that the changes between 6 and 7 were not to the show's benefit. The loss of a/the principal cast member and character, half the writing team and the live audience (not to mention to the film-look effect) didn't work in its favour.

    That's not unnatural - you can have the same cast, chcracters, writers, shooting style, director, everything, and have a fairly dull episode like Better Than Life sandwiched between great episodes like Kryten and Thanks For The Memory.
     
  17. bedfordfalls

    bedfordfalls Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    1,862
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I think you've missed his point with the Dylan stuff. The fact that you can't stand to listen to him and yet he simultaneously has millions of fans who love what he does shows that for everything you hate there are millions of other people that love it.
    It doesn't have to follow that you had to hate series 1-6 to love Back to Earth either. Some enjoy both some like yourself enjoy only one, some enjoy none but might think that Last of the Summer Wine is fantastic.
    It's down to individual tastes and what he's saying is that for every fan who loved Red Dwarf but hated BTE there is probably a new fan who'd never heard of Dwarf before BTE but fell in love with that show.

    Nothing illustrates this difference in tastes more than your closing comment about BTL being an "average" episode, when many other people think its one of the best.

    People have different tastes and just because more than a few people came on the Red Dwarf message board with their silly anti-red dwarf petitions or their legitamate complaints about the show doesn't make their view universally the correct one.

    Their will always be critics of anything produced due to the fundamental differences between people. All an artist can do is try to follow their own vision and be true to themselves.

    This isn't something I think Doug has always done but I think he did it with BTE to the best of his ability.
     
  18. matgrowcott

    matgrowcott Skutter

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Thank you Bedfordfalls for getting to this before I could.

    And yes, if you loved the earlier series less, you'd probably enjoy the latter series more. If you could let go of the principles that make you dislike series 7 and 8 (and the specials) perhaps you could enjoy them as they are, rather than what you think they should be, an assertion that you're only qualified to make based on you being a fan of Red Dwarf.

    Of course, I could now ask you how YOU think 7 should be? Bear in mind, Rob Grant had left of his own free will, Chris Barrie didn't want to perform in front of a live audience any longer (One of his provisos for doing half a series) and you've got a bigger budget then you've ever had before.

    On top of this, Rimmer (the only real antagonist of the main cast, all the rest whom get along) is only there for the half a series. So you'll have the last human, a robot and a cat all getting along, watching Buddy Movies and drinking urine recyc wine.

    You can't NOT do Red Dwarf because you're legally bound to the BBC for two more series, and attempts to get out of it have been scuppered.

    No doubt you'll turn around and say "Well, i'm not the writer, it was up to Doug Naylor to sort that out". All of the changes you listed, the faults you find with the series, were forced upon the team by circumstances outside of their control.
     
  19. Tex_Rimmer

    Tex_Rimmer First Technician

    Messages:
    157
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Ganymede Holiday Inn
    Yeah, but not every new product is good (because different doesn't necessarily equal good any more than it necessarily equals bad). There's certainly a market for even inferior products, but a strong marketing wing doesn't mean that your product has any quality. And not all markets are the same size. There was a market for Star Trek V, but it wasn't nearly as big as the market for Star Trek IV. Your argument in no way answers the people you're trying to answer.

    I haven't seen Indy 4 yet, so I have no prejudices about that. But are you honestly trying to tell me it's a good movie because some kids wore Indy t-shirts last summer? They might not even have seen the thing. The parents who bought the shirts might not have seen it either, they may have bought them because of their memories of Indy 1-2-3. The fact that junk gets marketed doesn't prove much. How many kids are wearing Indy t-shirts this summer?


    If you don't care about continuity, costumes, sets and sounds, what exactly do you care about? On what basis do you say that it was good, if not those things? Quality of the one-liners? Your post says a lot about what doesn't matter, but not much about what does.
     
  20. Tex_Rimmer

    Tex_Rimmer First Technician

    Messages:
    157
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Location:
    Ganymede Holiday Inn
    That was my problem with the post, too. It presupposed that Series 7 was good (for reasons never explained), and then attempted an ad hominem debunking of anyone who disagreed. I think I've got a fairly balanced view of 7. It was good. Wasn't as good, though.

    I'm not sure about the live audience. That wasn't a huge issue for me. And I liked the remastered episodes with no laugh track at all. The film effect is something I'd like to know more about. Were the earlier episodes shot on film or on videotape? I saw the way they tried to remaster the earlier episodes, and the way they filmized them was really bad. I saw the remastered Stasis Leak, and it had motion blur in it from what they'd done. Series 7 seemed okay, though.





    I'm confused. You seem to be making excuses for the flaws, but before you seemed to be saying that they weren't flaws at all. Which is it?

    If you ask me if Series 7 was as good as Series 6, you'll get a completely different answer than if you ask me whether I wish Series 7 hadn't been made at all. (Well actually, that's not quite true. You'd get the same answer, "No", in both cases, but it would mean completely different things.)
     

Share This Page