Future Extras Redux

Hello, all. Firstly, I must apologise for our continued lack of VIII review – Ian’s had a ridiculously busy two weeks with uni and other stuff, and is desperately trying to find time to finish it off. We will have it for you soon.

In the meantime, then, in response to Andrew Ellard asking what extras we would like to see on future Dwarf releases, I present: Future Extras Redux.

One thing I would say, is that that article is really just a compilation of stuff we’ve been going on about for ages – there’s no NEW or DANGEROUS ideas in there. So, if you’ve got any ideas we haven’t mentioned, give them below. This is our chance to Have Our Say – don’t waste it…

56 Responses to Future Extras Redux

Jump to bottom

  1. That’s quite a comprehensive list.

    > to hear the three of them in a commentary booth would possibly be the highlight of my life.

    The words ‘never’, ‘going’, ‘to’ and ‘happen’ spring to mind. Maybe Rob and Doug could sit in seperate booths…. Actually, it would be good for Mr. Ellard to somehow bag a Rob Grant interview for one of the re-bastered DVDs (didn’t he once say he’d be willing to take part?). But he would then have to admit to having seen the episodes. To be honest, sometimes I wish I’d never seen them…

    If we’re being realistic, I would say extras for series 1 re-mastered could comprise of a PROPER series 1 doco (including unseen rushes, and here the episode that got scrapped can be discussed), a series 1: re-mastered featurette, new commentary from random series 1 crew/fx (whoever they can get hold of), any missing footage from series 1 production that we haven’t seen yet, possibly a re-re-mastering of The End (I’ll never stop going on about that). Much else would be really pushing it, mainly because these releases simply won’t sell as well as the original DVDs. These sets really are for completists I would think. If the actual re-mastering had been a great success then it might be a different story.

    Though I’d trade all the extras for just half an hour of NEW Dwarf. If a TV special happened I wouldn’t be able to contain myself. I’d have to give my underpants an extra thorough wash afterwards…

  2. Danny John-Jules in character as The Cat on both The Smash Hits Poll Winners’ Party (BBC1, 1988) and Babylon II (BBC2, 1988)

    Various cast members plugging the show on Loose Ends, including Norman Lovett sort-of in character (Radio 4, numerous dates 1988-89)

    Craig Charles and The Sons Of Gordon Gekko doing ‘Money’ live on What’s That Noise? (BBC1 1989), Jakki Brambles’ Radio 1 show (Radio 1, 1989) and AN Other Children’s BBC show (BBC1, 1989). Also might be worth digging out some of Craig Charles’ sessions for John Peel/Janice Long, which may well have featured some Dwarf-related material.

    Numerous features on Red Dwarf on Open Air circa 1988-90, including phone-ins with viewers giving their opinions on the show (including the morning after the very first transmission of ‘The End’) and a couple of appearances by cast members.

    A brief ‘behind the scenes’ feature on an unidentifed BBC1 Saturday morning show in about 1989/90.

  3. A feature with Doug and Ed pouring over old newspaper clippsings? Kinds of like what we got in SOTB, but bigger.

  4. How about unabridged versions of the audio books on DVD in the same style as Identity Within? I don’t know if that would be technically feasible but it sounds a good idea on paper.

  5. A feature with Doug and Ed pouring over old newspaper clippsings? Kinds of like what we got in SOTB, but bigger.

  6. Damn, an MT fuck-up made me double up my last post. Sorry.

  7. A great little feature! Everything I thought of as I read the introduction turned up on that list, so…well done.

  8. Here’s me being honest: I’d be really baffled, even frustrated if 5 years from now I was wanting to buy only series 1 and 2 on DVD (as they’re my favourite series), and discovered that all the substantial extras for them were on the remastered discs.

    Television series and films get vanilla releases all the time. It’s cynical and wrong, but it’s typical for timing of releases to be worked out so true fans buy something they love more than once. We know this hasn’t been the case with Red Dwarf so it’d be acceptable in my eyes for special editions of series 1 and 2 to be released with the volume of extras we’ve seen since series III. It’s understandable because so much has been learned from the later releases, and the budget has gone up.

    I’d be happy if all the other extras listed in John’s article made their way onto the remastered discs. There’s a line to be drawn here between extras “of considerable value to the series as a whole” and “for fans only”. I’d say much of what John has listed falls into the latter category; the documentaries for series 1 and 2 don’t. I’d say lump the remastereds and smeg-ups/outs as one selling point with all the relatively obscure extras all over that set (it should be a set), and re-release series 1 and 2 (with much the same cover art as the originals if possible so it fits into the spine sequence) with documentaries, the “souper” smeg-up and Rob/Doug overviews if possible.

    I know this is dreaming and perhaps antagonistic, but our opinions were requested.

  9. James – interesting. I’d always assumed the majority would feel more ripped-off by I and II being re-issued, forcing the exact same eps to be bought again. It’s not like they were exactly vanilla to start with, which is the only way double-dip is really justified.

    (Mind you, we did our double-dip backwards! Vanilla second – which is an insane example of playing fair with buyers compared to the standard industry model. What’s more, it worked – demand was, and remains, high for JTS v1.)

    I imagined people would more appreciate, at this point anyway, any new docs being included with the remastered eps, given that we have at least had some requests for them, and so can assume some would buy anyway, regardless of extras.

    Which is to say, it’s very interesting to hear the opposite opinion!

    Great list John, and certainly food for thought. I’m surpised how little it threw up in terms of ‘new’ ideas, though – not much there, or on the boards, that hadn’t at least been considered. Not your fault at all, though – the DVDs do, at least, seem to have nailed most of major points, or had good reasons not to.

  10. “It’s not like they were exactly vanilla to start with, which is the only way double-dip is really justified.”

    True but then absolutely vanilla is either free with a magazine or cynically designed to grab people who don’t know better (people not yet used to DVD release patterns, or elderly grandparents thinking they’re getting the correct item!), who’ll then buy again when the special editions are released. It’s all skilfully orchestrated and it sucks. Plus there are often then several varients on special editions with all sorts of names that basically re-package the old stuff with new animated menus, or introduce a new retrospective documentary – take Terminator 2 – so it’s nothing unusual. And with Red Dwarf series 1-2 there’s a genuine feeling that stuff is missing from the first time around. Personally, I find remastered an abomination but I’d still feel like I was buying the *exact same* episodes again (they’re interesting to watch once as a curiosity, but still at times barely distinguishable to anyone who hasn’t already studied the originals) for the extras. Except the extras for series 1 and 2 would be spread thinly over many many discs with the original and remastered DVDs combined, in comparison with a more packed and accessible re-release of series 1 and 2.

    “I’d always assumed the majority would feel more ripped-off by I and II being re-issued, forcing the exact same eps to be bought again.”

    It’d be the exact same episodes but then (and let’s be fair here) some people wouldn’t have touched series VII and VIII had it not been for the extensive extras on the DVD. And you know that. Series 1 and 2 re-releases could include not only the appropriate documentaries but overview items that wouldn’t really befit anywhere but the start of the Red Dwarf project, comments from Rob and anyone else are best suited to that than the remastered smeg ups/out set.

    I’ve already said this but I think in terms of sales you need to consider when a Red Dwarf release might be edging a little towards the niche end of its market. The remastereds, for example. Some people prefer them, you’ve argued, but it was never so clear that they would get a DVD release after the 8 original series, so anyone who preferred them may still have bought the originals (and grown attached to them) in the meantime. Would they be likely to buy the remastereds or would they consider them “already owned” by virtue of the original series (and the Japanese The End) being on their shelf? Would you buy “Jaaaaam” separately if it hadn’t already been provided with the “Jam” DVD? I’m sure there would have been many requests for its release, but would these have been representative?

    It’s worth considering, you know. A Smeg Ups/Outs release on its own merits? Not without more rushes and outtakes than the VHS set, and only of value to people who love Dwarf so much to not have their requirements already met with the outtakes on the individual Red Dwarf discs.

    Anyway, I’m sounding awfully negative. I’m not suggesting something that lots of people want shouldn’t happen. You already know what I think about this now, so I’ll stop. STOPPED.

  11. “(let’s be fair here) some people wouldn’t have touched series VII and VIII had it not been for the extensive extras on the DVD. And you know that.”

    Much as the DVD team would like to take credit for the success of VII, I think that’s a huge overstatement.

    Sure, some were persuaded. But extras also put people off – the success of Just The Shows suggests that there’s a market out there made up of people who want the series on DVD (likely to replace VHS copies), but could care less about extras. They actively waited, ignoring even the ‘now-perceived-to-be-light’ I and II releases.

    Given that the sales petty much equate across all series, you could just as easily say that peple only upgraded ALL the series from VHS to DVD because of the extras. And if you do say that…well, I both disagree, and thank you!

    Put another way, while I’m sure the extras gave a bump to the sales, and that the spine logo also influenced a few completists, there’s no way VII sold on that basis alone. Vocal minority or overwhelming popular opinion – however you see it, people simply do not buy shows they hate just to hear people talk ABOUT that show.

    “I think in terms of sales you need to consider when a Red Dwarf release might be edging a little towards the niche end of its market.”

    The thing is, Red Dwarf’s ‘niche’ end has yet to be tested. The DVDs and TV ratings make the show a popular success, not a tiny cult hit.

    For the sake of argument say a spin-off DVD happened – extras, remastered, smegs, or something else entirely – what if it only sold half of a regular release? Or a third? Or even a quarter? You’d STILL have a DVD with great numbers, well worth the making and distributing. The confidence we can have in those numbers justifies a bit of risk-taking, don’t you think?

    On second thought don’t answer that. We could go on forever…

  12. “there’s no way VII sold on that basis alone.”

    Yes Andrew but I very carefully said *some* people wouldn’t have touched series VII and VIII had it not been for the extensive extras. And I’m amongst them by the way. It’s not to discredit series VII now I have it on DVD as it’s not as bad as I recall it being in 1997 (I’m afraid the deep sinking feeling came with series VIII, and that’s never shifted as I’ve occasionally revisited my VHS copies off the telly), but I’d not have bought series VII if it hadn’t had the considered analysis by the cast and crew of what they think worked and didn’t about the series, as well as discussion about Rob Grant etc. I think that with all the episode variations as well, the series is very good value, whereas given a series 2 style release I’d not have thought so, even with its 8 episodes rather than 6. I’m not interested in talking again about why I value one series above another, I’m just evidence that extras do push people over the edge. Plus I’ve seen all the Red Dwarf episodes so often that buying any series purely for the episodes wouldn’t necessarily happen with me. I’m not what someone would call a hard-core fan of Red Dwarf though I may have been ten years ago. I watched the episodes so often when I was 16 that I know them all verbatim still, and sometimes by ten minutes into even the best ones I start feeling a bit nauseous because of this. So far since getting the DVDs I’ve watched the episodes with commentary and the other extras more often than the episodes in themselves. I’m aware that this puts me in a minority, but still.

    “however you see it, people simply do not buy shows they hate just to hear people talk ABOUT that show.”

    I think the mainstream of media purchasing has shifted to a more analytical era than when we were just buying 3 episodes for ?12.99 on VHS – people want a film school with every film, and I think that’s a good thing. I find the extras on VII giving depth to a series that is (to my mind) caricature-like at times. It’s not buying something I *hate* (as you put it) on the basis of its extras, and I agree that probably nobody would. By the same token, I might add, I’m disappointed to find through Cappsy’s view that everyone involved seems to be gleefully pleased with series VIII. I’m not wanting everyone to slag it off (before you put me in that category), but I’d like something reflective in there. Hopefully other reviews on the set will make this clearer.

    “On second thought don’t answer that. We could go on forever…”

    Don’t mind, as long as new things are being said and not the same points over and over. I’m glad that a quarter of the DVD sales you’re currently getting would still make the project worthwhile. I imagine that’s very rare. I agree that you should be taking risks, in that case. Release every fucking thing and PLEASE call the final set “scraping the bottom of the barrel” as George Harrison suggested the next Beatles CD / DVD project should be called. And re-release the first two seasons of Red Dwarf with decent extras, please, thanks. While you’re at it you can take the opportunity to correct the font-size error on the spine of series 2 and then re-release the entire eight series set to correct the peculiar alternation. There’s a good chap.

  13. “I’m disappointed to find through Cappsy’s view”

    Whoops – I meant Cappsy’s *review*.

  14. I must say, I was irritated myself that I couldn’t think of anything more original. I was sure I would, but… no. I am still thinking, so if I come up with anything else in the next few days, I’ll mention it here.

    I think fucking rachel stevens has come up with some corkers, though.

  15. there’s a market out there made up of people who want the series on DVD (likely to replace VHS copies), but could care less about extras

    Gah! Andrew, you’re not American! Don’t say “could care less”!

  16. “Firstly, I must apologise for our continued lack of VIII review – it’s Ian’s fault etc”

    John shouldn’t you end this string of DVD releases with a bang by reviewing series VIII as well yourself (I mean in addition, not instead of Ian)? Seeing as you’re one of the only people generally standing up for the episodes? Just a thought…

  17. I’m kind of half/half on VIII, to be honest. When someone slags it off, I want to defend it, and when someone defends it, I want to slag it off!

    OD is going to have a big reviews database at some point soon (something *badly* missing in the Dwarf fan community – I just love episode reviews), with everyone being able to contribute – I may well just do my VIII reviews there.

  18. “Gah! Andrew, you’re not American! Don’t say “could care less”!”

    YES! I thought I was the only person to care about that! I almost pointed it out but stopped short for fear of appearing the anal language picker that I am.

    Yes everybody, anal language and it can be picked.

  19. “I may well just do my VIII reviews there.”

    Yes John but it’s exciting to read reviews of DVDs before they’re publically released!

  20. I don’t have the DVDs here – Ian’s got them, and lives 200 miles away.

    Hopefully he won’t be long.

  21. YES! I thought I was the only person to care about that! I almost pointed it out but stopped short for fear of appearing the anal language picker that I am.

    It’s one of my biggest peeves.

    Most Americans don’t seem to be able to grasp that if you “could care less”, that means that you actually care, thus defeating the point of what you’re trying to say. It’s basically the complete opposite of “couldn’t care less”, which is what said people are usually trying to say.

    Like I say, though, I thought it was an American epidemic. I didn’t realise it had spread ;-)

  22. Or it could have been a typo. I often accidentally fail to swich a word to its negative.

  23. Deliberate, I’m afraid. And I don’t care! Ha ha!

    I didn’t think about it when I did it, but my general opinion of American English is this: it’s more willing to adapt and shift than the UK version. And for me, language is a living, breathing thing that can and should be manipulated as its users see fit.

    Everyone got what I meant, and that’s all it’s for. The difference, beyond the technicality, is that ‘could care less’ flows better. Style over understanding would be a bad thing; but style over the stringent rule is fine. It’s how directors realised that the 180 line could be crossed, how artists came to think that you could paint outside the lines. (Okay, no artists were using paint-by-numbers, but you know what I man.)

    Also, I always assumed it might be respresentative of a longer sentence – an “I could care less, but not by much’ kinda thing.

    We have to face it – the yanks sound cooler. That’s why they make movies with action heroes, and we make rom-coms with bumbling idiots. :-)

  24. Just a thought – how about a “Series 1 & 2 Extras Discs” package, featuring replacement extras discs for both series? Then we could buy that, swap them into our cases and Bob’s your skutter.

  25. Ah, but your use of “could care less” really jarred with me. I had to go back, read it again, and tell myself it must have been a typo. It ruined the flow of an otherwise good post ;)

    You have a point about language evolving, but if it’s going to evolve to a point where things mean exactly the opposite of what they’re suppoosed to, then you’ve got to worry!

    And Americans clearly aren;t cooler than us. This is why British people usually play the ace baddies in their action flicks! Action Heros be damned!

  26. Perhaps there could be a re-mastered extra analysing why people say ‘I could care less’. It could be narrated by Norman in character as Holly (thereby balancing out the appearance of Hattie on A Life In Lame). Yep, I think I’d pay ?12.99 for that alone, the re-mastered eps and a series 1 doco would just be superfluous.

  27. People saying “could care less” really annoys me. It should be “couldn’t care less”! “Couldn’t”
    !!! It annoys me almost as much as the expression “have your cake and eat it too” – what the fuck else would you do with it? Shove it up your arse?

    I’d say lump the remastereds and smeg-ups/outs as one selling point with all the relatively obscure extras all over that set (it should be a set), and re-release series 1 and 2 (with much the same cover art as the originals if possible so it fits into the spine sequence) with documentaries, the “souper” smeg-up and Rob/Doug overviews if possible.

    If that happens I will feel ripped off. I’m not prepared to re-buy the same twelve episodes just to get two extra documentaries and another smeg up, but I’ll still know I’m missing out and grow to hate everything GNP because they’ll have torn me between missing out on the docos and owning two useless DVDs.

    So I’d like to ask one thing of Grant Naylor Productions: I’d like to ask you to be nice. Release the remastereds with the Series 1 and 2 docos, so we can still see them without having to re-buy Series 1 and 2. Then wait for a few years, and THEN re-release Series 1 and 2 with the docos for the people who didn’t buy the first time round and the completists. Then I guess you can re-release Series 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as they are, again for the people who haven’t bought them yet.

  28. “You have a point about language evolving, but if it’s going to evolve to a point where things mean exactly the opposite of what they’re suppoosed to, then you’ve got to worry!”

    Welcome to a language that includes both ‘flammable’ and ‘inflammable’…which both mean the same thing. It’s way too late for meaning to be literal, no matter how mad that seems.

  29. Andrew it’s utter bullshit that the US language has scope for more evolution than the UK version. By all means adopt daft Americanisms (which by the way flow LESS well with people who identify them as precisely that, rather than simply adopt them mindlessly, as Cappsy has pointed out) but don’t try to use evolution of language as the excuse. Yes, language should evolve. That’s how English as we know it grew for heaven’s sake. Various invasions and rulers over centuries meant that we absorbed certain languages and dialects, and were able to manipulate them into our unique grammar structure. Various forms of standardisation have occurred of which “BBC English” is currently one. American is the worst standardisation of all if only because it comes from the disproportionate amount of films and television we get shoved in our direction much as we get Coca Cola and McDonald’s thrown at us! Evolution in language comes from regional variation, Andrew! Not from Scary Movie 3 and Sabrina the Teenage Witch!

  30. “By performingmonkey on 22-03-06 @ 04:15”

    Haha you went to bed later than me. Erm… unless you live within a different time zone which you probably do. I need some sleep.

  31. Andrew, you think this sounds cool:

    “Frankly my dear, I could care less.”

  32. James, take a sedative, willya? :-)

    “utter bullshit that US language has scope for more evolution than the UK version”

    Is that what I said? I don’t think so…

    But – in my opinion – American English is faster to adopt change, because British English tends to work harder at standardisation. There’s an aspect to that culture that is less draconian about its language. You may not like the ‘changes’, but the fact that they sweep them into common usage so easily is, to me, a positve aspect of the American culture.

    Moreover – and, again, like it or not – the dominance of American media globally causes a faster proliferation. Worldwide, more people will comprehend American colloquialisms then equivalent British ones.

    “By all means adopt daft Americanisms…but don’t try to use evolution of language as the excuse.”

    Um…number one, I SAID it was a retrospective consideration. But you may have to live with the idea that someone disagrees with you. There’s really no need for the attitude!

    I didn’t say *I* was trying to evolve the language – I’m saying it’s evolved, it’s spread, and it slipped into my common usage. That IS the evolution of language. It’s not an excuse, it’s just what happened.

    I’d be happy if you could suggest another reason for my use? Did I do it to ‘sound cool’? (If so, well, I kinda covered that in my post, too.)

    “American is the worst standardisation of all”

    Which makes me suspect that you don’t actually disagree with my points, just that you hate that it’s happening. That’s legitimate, but not really what Iw as getting at. Like it or not, it’s happening.

    My point was that ‘standardisation’ is the enemy of growth, and I like seeing the language grow. And that I see that growth happening more rapidly in the American idiom – possibly because they have fewer people who kick up a fuss when new forms are adopted.

    English-English seems to have a lot more people who want to stand as border guards to the lexicon, refusing entry to anything until its credentials are proved.

    “Evolution in language comes from regional variation, Andrew! Not from Scary Movie 3 and Sabrina the Teenage Witch!”

    Well, gosh, don’t I just feel put in my place! You can debate without the vitriol if you like…!

    Evolution in language isn’t limited to regionality, and using those examples actually makes my point – the number of people who see junk TV and film is HUGE. You can’t seriously claim that that does not to have an influence.

    Surf-dialect spread through Bill and Ted and Wayne’s World. Origination may be regional (which can’t be limited to georgraphy – net-speak is a region of its own, and is influencing spoken as well as written language), but its spread comes through, amongest other things, popular culture.

  33. I made a good point. Can someone comment on that instead of wittering on about English/American.

  34. “You can’t seriously claim that that does not to have an influence”

    Me trying to use English, there. Excellent.

    I am this: an arse.

    (Ooh look, a sentence structure that evolved on the internet, not in any specific region, and proliferated by a mass medium! I feel like that makes some kind of point, I just can’t quite put my finger on it…) ;-)

  35. Andrew it wasn’t an attack at you it’s a dismay that globalisation basically means Americanisation. Something that we apparently agree with but I think it’s parodoxical for you to say “‘standardisation’ is the enemy of growth” and yet yield to American vernacular. I don’t hate all that America stands for, but that its government, media and corporations are so enormous and relentless, and the way its vested interests are accepted by a seeming majority regardless of the damage or otherwise it does elsewhere. I regard the Americanisation of language to be a result of the dominance of its films and television over here – my comment about Sabrina and SM 3 was about that and not you. Text messages of this kind do not demonstrate the intent of humour very easily. It’s not to do with junk TV/films per se, but the fact that (for example) America owns our multiplexes so we get American films of whatever quality rather than a rather more representative sample of world cinema accepted into the mainstream.

    Anyway I’m tired but I wasn’t being vitriolic. Specific things were meant to be humourous but I guess dryness just comes across as grumpy when it’s written in size 10 Arial or whatever this is.

    “I made a good point. Can someone comment on that instead of wittering on about English/American.”

    Sorry. Carry on.

  36. Hmmmm, being of the mind the DVD series is the best I?ve seen anywhere, I?ve given the thought of future releases some thought of late. Like with most things in life, we can all look back and see where things could have been done better. I guess the DVD process has been something of a learning curve for GNP, and of course, the small matter of budget makes a huge difference, we?ve all seen the DVD?s evolve.

    I consider myself a huge fan and am bordering on being a ?completist?, but I can see no point whatsoever in a re-release of any series DVD, the re-mastered issue leaves me cold now and I?ve had my fill of smeg-ups. Having had two releases a year, my own view is that they are within anyone?s budget and the average fan will have bought the DVDs by now, and ?just the shows? will provide those not interested in extras with a comprehensive set. I suspect in time to come, all the DVD?s will be available cheaply via places like ebay and numerous bargain bins etc.

    There seems some debate as to weather the ?Extra?s? are the main reason for the success of the DVD?s thus far, but I?m convinced the ?extras? have played a huge part and the timing of releases has helped with the fans, budget wise. All in all, I now feel the shows have travelled their course, and any re-mastering, past or future isn?t going to sell without extensive additional extras.

    For me, new original documentaries, bits like ?Identity within? and ?stuff? not yet released are the only things likely to spark major interest. Re-mastered, smeg outs and re-hashes of previously released material isn?t going to work with the average fan or those with perhaps just a passing interest.

    Some kind of ?box? for the already released full set seems the most asked for thing so maybe any future DVD release could be tied up with this, otherwise I?m erring on the side of negativity myself and it?s the first time I?ve used the word negative in relation to Red Dwarf.

  37. P.S, on the language front and the Americanisation of everything…

    Personally I couldn’t give a freakin smeg you MF’s.

    It is odd though, this particular bastardisation seemingly makes no sense…

    As for writing ettiquete, isn’t it a bit rich though, taking offence at a twist of language by our American cousins, when we see nowt wrong with F’ing and blinding!

    [Thought for the day]

    Anyway, have a nice day y’all….

  38. P.S, on the language front and the Americanisation of everything…

    Personally I couldn’t give a freakin smeg you MF’s.

    It is odd though, this particular bastardisation seemingly makes no sense…

    As for writing ettiquete, isn’t it a bit rich though, taking offence at a twist of language by our American cousins, when we see nowt wrong with F’ing and blinding!

    [Thought for the day]

  39. “[Thought for the day]”

    Hey, you posted it twice – does that mean you don’t have to have a thought tomorrow? :-)

  40. I made a good point. Can someone comment on that instead of wittering on about English/American.

    But threads are constantly evolving, Kirk! Standardisation is the enemy of growth!

    But seriously, I think this is a good idea. Maybe some sort of release through rd.co.uk would work well?

    I am this: an arse.

    (Ooh look, a sentence structure that evolved on the internet, not in any specific region, and proliferated by a mass medium! I feel like that makes some kind of point, I just can’t quite put my finger on it…) ;-)

    Ahh, but those examples, when broken down gramatically, actually mean what they’re supposed to mean. They’re not some awful mangling of the language which, when looked at closely, totally undermine the point you’re trying to get across.

    And as much as I feel uncomfortable with American spellings infiltrating the UK, I don’t really have anything against the evolutions coming from the US. But it’s completely absurd to take away a ‘nt out of a word and expect people to know what the hell you mean. It’s daftness!

    I should give a damn but I do anyway.
    I would eat that if I were you, it’s poisonous.
    I did enjoy that performance, the acting was awful.
    I could give a damn if you live or die.

  41. I think there should be a feature on the DVD where Cappsy, James and Andrew are all placed in the same room to have an argument over the Americanization of language. Just to see who survives.

  42. > As for writing ettiquete, isn’t it a bit rich though, taking offence at a twist of language by our American cousins, when we see nowt wrong with F’ing and blinding!

    Oh, bullpats. You’re saying that swearing isn’t proper language? A version of ‘cunt’ was in The Canterbury Tales!

  43. A version of ‘cunt’ was in The Canterbury Tales!

    A version of cunt? How many ways can you spell cunt?

  44. Let’s see: cunt, kunt, cunnt, kunnt, cundt, kundt, cunndt, kunndt…

    Anyone think of any more?

  45. Andrew, I largely agree with you about standardisation of language and so forth – I’m a quite strong descriptivist, so I’m all in favour of the growth and evolution of language, and of ignoring silly rules that only exist because someone said they should.

    On the other hand… “could care less” still makes no sense to me. If you could care less, that means you care, and that defeats the point you’re trying to say. That’s why it’s such a pet peeve. And, like I say, while I’m all for language evolving, we musn’t forget the single most important thing that language is there for – to communicate understanding. If a phrase makes no rational sense, therefore, it has no place being used, in my opinion.

    On a third hand (call me Zaphod), antipodean, “have your cake and eat it too” does make sense when you realise what the “have” part means. What it’s saying is that you want to eat your cake, but still have the cake available to you after you’ve eaten it. If people said “eat your cake and keep it too”, I think the phrase would make a bit more sense and communicate its meaning a bit better.

  46. I think my intent has been misunderstood a little, here. I didn’t use the phrase as an example of “ain’t this great?”, I would never have held it up as a good example of language evolution at its best. I was just trying to explain that, having used it, maybe this is why.

    Because I used it without thinking about it. Instinctively. It makes sense when I hear others use it, I like the rhythm and, subconsciously, it became part of my personal speech pattern. I’m saying it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, just trying to suggest how it might have happened – not whather or not I thought that it should.

    I don’t think anybody has made points that I massively disagree with. (Though James and I do, I think, mean very different things by ‘standardisation’.) What’s worying is that everyone seems to disagree with me. Which is odd, because I wasn’t suggesting we all take this phrase on and use it daily or anything!

  47. > A version of cunt? How many ways can you spell cunt?

    Well, Chaucer plumped for “quonte”.

  48. You know, now I’ve got all the obvious extras out of my system, I’ve got a few more original ones!

    Got to write the VIII review first (got the DVDs today – will be up tomorrow night), and then I’ll either give them here, or turn them into another article.

  49. On a third hand (call me Zaphod), antipodean, “have your cake and eat it too” does make sense when you realise what the “have” part means. What it’s saying is that you want to eat your cake, but still have the cake available to you after you’ve eaten it. If people said “eat your cake and keep it too”, I think the phrase would make a bit more sense and communicate its meaning a bit better.

    Ah.

  50. The Quonterbury Tales we called it at my A level college because we were brilliant.

    Fact: experts in Chaucer can speak in the precise accent, plus they leap around on tables and spit everywhere with enthusiasm. Sometimes they help you to know what’s going on by breaking the dramatic flow to explain what the words mean. I swear I was falling asleep until our Chaucer expert said the “quonte” line, paused and then elaborated, “in other words, her cunt”. In such a matter of fact and unmarked way, no humour in his extrapolation, then as if it hadn’t happened, back on he went with “Hosbandes I had fyve” or whatever.

    A level English this! And nobody ever mentioned it after that so we all must secretly think we imagined it!

  51. VIII review will be up this evening.

    It’s nearly written, but I’m too tired to proof read it. And I’m playing badminton at 11, and I don’t want to get a cock in my face.

    I think the fact I’m even going to post that joke means I need sleep.

  52. “Haha you went to bed later than me. Erm… unless you live within a different time zone which you probably do.”

    I live on Jack Bauer time.

  53. “you could ask this chap if he’s still got the animations he made:”

    John, what became of the Future Extras Redux II? Because, aside from anything else, if people have found stuff like this it’s worth letting us know…

    If you have links, info, anything at all regarding the first two series and possible DVD extras stuff, post on the RD boards, on here, or (if it’s private info) email webboard@reddwarf.co.uk.

    If we DO get the chance to do this Remastered stuff, I want to make sure we get everything we can find/afford!

  54. Good point, Andrew. I’ll try and get it done in the next couple of days.

Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Comments'

Leave a Reply