NEW DWARF STARTS SHOOTING 20TH JANUARY.

You heard. To quote Robert Llewellyn’s Twitter page:

Yes. Sorry to be tease. Can say we start shooting Jan 20th. Don’t know details yet. Not read script but all the ‘old’ dwarfers are in it.

EDIT:

Don’t know any casting details other than 4 old dwarfers

See below for more…

This is bloody excellent news for one simple reason – we have a date. Not “in the new year”, not “soon”, but an actual calendar date. Obviously, dates can slip, but this is a very positive move.

Is it worth speculating on his emphasis on “‘old’ dwarfers” returning? Probably not, but never mind. Does this mean no Chloe? No Hattie? How would you define an “old” Dwarfer? He probably just means everyone from Series VIII, but you never know.

Of course, this is all rather dependant on the core cast members not being in prison come January 20th. We’ll have more news on that tomorrow, I dare say.

Thanks to philmyer92 for posting this on the ol’ forum.

LEASEHOLDER ADDENDUM: Robert has posted two new twits. Or whatever you call them.

Don’t know any casting details other than 4 old dwarfers. Believe me as soon as I know/ am allowed to say I will. Not even seen script yet.

Don’t worry. I’m sure the producers plan is to make the shows available in the US, and around the world. I sniff a DVD release.

The second one is obvious, but the first one! The four old Dwarfers are undoubtedly Chris, Craig, Danny and Robert. I guess it’s not yet confirmed which Holly will be it, but what does that mean for Chloe? Not good, I don’t think.

Tags: , ,

101 Responses to NEW DWARF STARTS SHOOTING 20TH JANUARY.

Jump to bottom

  1. G&T Admin

    Ace!

    I guess the question now is: audience or no? And, if it is in front of an audience, is this date for the non-studio filming before we get another date for the studio stuff?

    TOS UPDATE, PLZ.

  2. At last! What would we do without Bobby?!
    Love love him.

  3. >Is it worth speculating on his emphasis on ??old? dwarfers? returning?

    So much for my dreams of the Kill Crazy spinoff in which he opens a restaurant with Archie and Pete.

  4. G&T Admin

    New details! See article.

  5. G&T Admin

    That is certainly IANteresting.

    It seems either the Holly casting is still being debated over or negotiated or… we’re not getting Holly at all. Which would be odd but of course not unprecedented.

    Either way, I think the chances for Hattie are looking about as slim as Chloe’s.

  6. Could this be a franchise reboot, perhaps? Or a “Ten years Later” deal? What if the “old” Dwarfers have been cast… but not as Rimmer, Lister, Kryten and the Cat?

    I would not, I’ll be honest, object to a recast reboot.

  7. G&T Admin

    > I would not, I?ll be honest, object to a recast reboot.

    Reboot? Great. Recast? Fuck it up the arse. Quite apart from the fact that it’d be horrible, Doug Naylor has spent the last few years fending off offers from studios who want to make the film but recast. It is NEVER going to happen, and damn right, too.

  8. Chloe might not want to do it.

    According to IMDB she’s done nothing since 2004.

  9. I’d be mildly shocked if there’s no Holly. It’s not inconceivable, but…I don’t know. I’m not convinced. Kochanski is another issue. I still maintain the character CAN work, but I wouldn’t be totally averse to losing her for the sake of a “back to basics” return.

    His “4 old Dwarfers” could just mean that four of them have been confirmed. As Ian mentions above maybe they haven’t decided between Norm/Holly. Or maybe they have decided and are just waiting to finalize it.

    Or, of course, 4 is right next to 5 on the keyboard and Robert made a typo. Call that my daily burst of optimism.

  10. This is very good news. I’d like to see Chloe back though

  11. Cool, 20th Jan. If I were the cast I’d organize a few get-togethers beforehand to get back into the Dwarf mode. Not that the chemistry has really gone away, as shown on the DVD commentaries. Speaking of them, it’s ages since I’ve listened to them, or put any of the DVDs on for that matter. I’m gonna go through everything again before new Dwarf arrives. The thought of watching them all again just gave me a chill of excitement. Am I sad or what?

    Unless they’re gonna do this as a standalone story with no continuity from VIII I think they need Chloe onboard. In fact, I would definitely prefer it if she was in it. Of course, if she either doesn’t want to be in it or can’t, there’s absolutely no way they should recast Kochanski. I’m sure Doug would be able to come up with a quick explanation for why she’s not there. A nice gag about her going on a ‘solo voyage of discovery’ or something. Killing her off would be a big no no.

  12. >there?s absolutely no way they should recast Kochanski

    I know! Imagine the audacity of doing such a thing.

  13. Jonathan Capps has said some crazy things in the past…
    Reboot? Great. Recast? Fuck it up the arse. Quite apart from the fact that it?d be horrible, Doug Naylor has spent the last few years fending off offers from studios who want to make the film but recast. It is NEVER going to happen, and damn right, too.

    I know that Doug’s made a lot of effort to keep the original cast but, let’s be honest here, they’re not getting any younger. The only actors who could realistically continue their roles in a reboot are Robert and either Norm or Hattie (or both).

    I’m not saying I’d hate to see the original cast back – far from it – but if they want to reboot with the core premise intact I’d have a hard time believing that 40-something Craig Charles could play a man who believes that turning 27 is the end of the world. And Danny John-Jules has already proven that he can’t play “classic” Cat anymore, what with his terrible walk-on in Can’t Smeg Won’t Smeg.

    A full reboot with a fresh cast (ideally of unknowns) wouldn’t, in my mind, be a terrible thing.

  14. >with his terrible walk-on in Can?t Smeg Won?t Smeg.

    It hurts to watch that…

  15. . Of course, if she either doesn?t want to be in it or can?t, there?s absolutely no way they should recast Kochanski.

    They’ve done it before… but I agree. They should bring her back if she’s willing.

    According to IMDB she?s done nothing since 2004.

    I don’t think that’s quite true. Wasn’t she in a radio programme last year (or possibly earlier this year)? I didn’t listen to it myself but I think it was mentioned on the main site.

  16. > I?d have a hard time believing that 40-something Craig Charles could play a man who believes that turning 27 is the end of the world

    The original Red Dwarf concept had Lister in his 40s. A guy who’d wasted his life drifting. Then guys always adapt to the cast they have…

    > According to IMDB she?s done nothing since 2004.

    Depends how you view motherhood.

  17. Ooooooh goodie!

    I agree with Andrew’s other point; it’s potentially more modular than sweedish furniture. The characters have been dead, pregnant, married to gelfs, dismembered, abandoned for centuries and they bounce right back, more or less. Between that, the alternate universes and the agressive disregard for continuity I think they could get away with a whole lot.

  18. G&T Admin

    > The original Red Dwarf concept had Lister in his 40s. A guy who?d wasted his life drifting. Then guys always adapt to the cast they have?

    Presactly this. If anything, a reboot of the story actually makes the case to keep the original cast even stronger as their age matters even less, then.

  19. Depends how you view motherhood.

    But still, actresses tend to be back quicker than that if they want to be.

    And, as someone else said, IMDB could be wrong. (Hence I said according to IMDB)

  20. 4 of them back on Starbug, short explanation, “Reality bubbles” etc, last two series were all a dream…

    And the episode writes itself.

    Maybe.

  21. >Presactly this. If anything, a reboot of the story actually makes the case to keep the original cast even stronger as their age matters even less, then.

    And as I think I’ve said before, there’s a whole fresh well of pathos to be mined from a Rimmer who is actually past the point at which he could have done something with his life.

    Not that I think these specials will be a reboot. But if Doug ever wanted to do that, and take the opportunity to tweak the concept at the same time, I could get behind it.

  22. Pete Part Three has been taking writing tips from J. J. Abrams…
    4 of them back on Starbug, short explanation, ?Reality bubbles? etc, last two series were all a dream?

    And the episode writes itself.

    Maybe.

    No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

    No.

  23. I don’t think the last two series should have been a dream, but I do hope they find a way to bring smarmy, neurotic dead hologram Rimmer back into it, rather than over-acting almost-likeable ‘one of the boys’ alive Rimmer.

  24. I hope they all get boners.

  25. Starbug hasn’t had a dancing role yet!

  26. I hope it’s a musical. Every last minute of it. Suck on that, Joss Whedon.

  27. >Starbug hasn?t had a dancing role yet!

    Starbug won’t be in the New episodes of Dwarf due to a scheduling conflict, it has been paired with Olga Kureshimakovich for the next series of Strictly Come Dancing.

    The bookies have been kind to the JMC green beauty, when comparing it to it’s competitors, Kirk’s Enterprise has been desribed as ‘spindly’, the TARDIS as ‘slow but steady’, the Liberator as ‘like John Sergeant after a big lunch’ and the Planet Express ship as like ‘Starbug’s plainest sister’

  28. Starbug hasn’t…didn’t have dancing capability.

  29. Are you kidding? It started to move it’s legs in the later seasons. True just forward and back but dances often start with a shuffle.
    “I ain’t here lookin’ for trouble, I’m here to do the..” etc. etc. (Much as I like Backwards that scene makes me wince inside.)

  30. > I hope it?s a musical.

    I confess it’s been a secret desire of mine to have a musical Dwarf ep.
    Not that I’d ever admit it in such esteemed company as this.

  31. Nice. As far as Kochanski is concerned, she doesn’t have to 100% be there, but it would help. If she wasn’t rubbish. Holly probably should be in there, I know he’s been absent before but with this long a gap I think he should be there… and obviously it would be nice if it was both Hattie and Norm.

    If they do pick up from the VIII cliff-hanger, an opening scroll and into the unused alone on the Dwarf ending would probably be best. Or something completely different. As long as it’s actually funny.

  32. At last! What would we do without Bobby?!
    Love love him.

    Harry Hill was taking the piss out of him on TV Burp tonight. >:-(

  33. Yeah, he said ‘so, what has Robert Llewellyn been up to since Red Dwarf finished?’ Clearly not a Scrapheap fan. Though at least he knew Bobby was in Dwarf. And FFS he could have at least said shooting starts for new Dwarf on 20th Jan to be broadcast on Dave later in the year. It would be funny if Dwarf itself appeared on TV Burp. I don’t see why they couldn’t include Dave programming (obviously they wouldn’t atm because Dave’s currently all repeats, also they wouldn’t atm because well, god, the taste…)

  34. G&T Admin

    I doubt they would do anything on Dwarf – I don’t think I can recall him *ever* doing anything about a comedy show before. It’s all soaps, docos, reality and fluff.

  35. > Yeah, he said ?so, what has Robert Llewellyn been up to since Red Dwarf finished?? Clearly not a Scrapheap fan.

    Well it’s just a feed line for a clip. If it was a Mark Hamill clip, he’d have led with a ‘Since Star Wars finished’ line, not ‘Since he stopped playing the Joker’.

    > And FFS he could have at least said shooting starts for new Dwarf on 20th Jan to be broadcast on Dave later in the year.

    Not sure you exactly understand how TV Burp actually works…

  36. I doubt they would do anything on Dwarf – I don?t think I can recall him *ever* doing anything about a comedy show before. It?s all soaps, docos, reality and fluff.

    He did Ashes to Ashes once (although maybe you’d put that under ‘fluff’ if you didn’t like it. ;)

    It was the scene where the lady-cop starts screaming after they apprehended the perp. Trigger PMT humor etc.

    But yeah, I wouldn’t take the inclusion of Rob Llewellyn on TV Burp as a dislike for a character/show/etc. The whole point of the show is to take the smeg, but it’s all in good humor, not malicious. In fact the ‘victims’ will often even appear on the show (beyond the clips, I mean) taking the joke further.

  37. Yeah. The Harry Hill hour (YBF/TV Burp) is the funniest thing ITV have got.

  38. OK, my last guess at what the ‘clip show with a difference’ is – the Dwarfers (jn character) have to sift through their past adventures in order to find the solution to something that’s happening in the present. They come to the conclusion that they must go back in time to 20th Century Earth (that’s right, travelling in time AND space…) and acquire two humpback whales that can help them repel a dangerous probe that, for reasons known only to the gods, understands whale song.

  39. And then they can jump the whale.

  40. I like that it’s not just them sitting around discussing their past though.

  41. They couldn’t just do that… that’s what the two NEW episodes are going to be about….

  42. I know there will be two completely new episodes. (Those are what I am most looking forward to) I was referring specifically to the ‘clip show with a difference’ episode, i.e. I like that THAT episode isn’t just … etc. etc.

  43. Quick update by Robert Lllewellyn.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnj_hYCVEXs

    It’s mostly an (interesting) rant about the ‘dinosaurs of Topgear’ and ‘Electric car technology’ but there’s a nugget of new Dwarf stuff at the end.

  44. G&T Admin

    Oooh, good update! It’s bizarre that they don’t know if Holly’s going to be in it. Surely Hattie and/or Norman will know by now, so why haven’t they told the rest of the cast?

    God, this suddenly got a couple of degrees more real watching that, though. They’re casting his mask TOMORROW!

  45. Where would we be without him? We’ll have no tidbits of information to obsess over!

  46. I second on the bizarreness; but for suspense, you can’t beat it with a stick.

  47. I would not, I?ll be honest, object to a recast reboot.

    I agree with what Jonathan Capps said, up the bum!

    As for Holly I love Hattie and I can’t imagine it with no Holly at all. As for Kochanski, I could care less if she’s in it to be honest.

  48. Queeg for Holly.

  49. G&T Admin

    As for Kochanski, I could care less if she?s in it to be honest.

    So, you care quite a lot if she’s in it? Certainly, you care to some extent – more than not at all, which would be the least amount you could care.

  50. Image no work.

    > So, you care quite a lot if she?s in it? Certainly, you care to some extent – more than not at all, which would be the least amount you could care.

    It’s funny because it shows up the way language has evolved in a manner that appears contradictory.

    Next week: Symes eradicates inflammable and deboned from the dictionary, explains why using ‘literally’ for something figurative should lead to an extended turn on the rack, and shoots anyone who says ‘dishevelled’ in the head because there’s no such word as ‘shevelled’.

  51. There’s no such word as “hevelled”, if anything. ;)

    As for “could/couldn’t care less”…
    – it’s only an evolvement when the incorrect version is made the new standard for something by the majority of users… and in this case I’m afraid there are still too many people who use the correct version… the one that makes sense. :p

  52. > There?s no such word as ?hevelled?, if anything. ;)

    Ah. Oops. Yes.

    > and in this case I?m afraid there are still too many people who use the correct version

    Who says? It’s in popular, mainstream usage in America. Both versions are in parallel use right now, and will likely remain so, as per flammable and inflammable. The meaning is understood, and those using it do so from learned behaviour, not as some kind of attempt to make a point. Pye didn’t invent the usage, and digging at them for using a popular and well-understood expression is hardly fair.

    Aside from anything else, isn’t it a truncation of “I could care less, but not by much”? So it’s like saying “When in Rome.”

  53. Making a relative statement and cutting off the reference figure is at the very least imprecise and misleading. Take “When in Rome.”: I have no idea what it means. It’s just not very smart. It’s even less smart in cases where the term is in danger of being understood as the exact opposite, and even much less smart if people understanding the opposite of the intended are actually right, by grammatical standards as well as custom… And frankly, I just don’t see the benefit.

    It’s like saying “I like brittle chocolate” and cutting off before “but I like all other kinds of chocolate more”. Then you have no right to complain if people keep buying you brittle chocolate. Which, by the way, is lovely.

  54. > Take ?When in Rome.?: I have no idea what it means. It?s just not very smart.

    Doesn’t mean you get to stop people using it. (And since it would kill a great running joke in Anchorman, please don’t begin a campaign!)

    Regardless, none of this is the fault of the person who posted using the original common-or-garden phrase. You don’t have to like it. But you cant exactly hold them accountable. The beast is already loose, and making fun of their use is criticising something that has, like it or not, already become valid.

  55. It’s strange how these things evolve. The phrase “I lucked out” has come full circle and now means the exact opposite of its original usage. Now it’s used by Americans who feel the got a lucky break, but originally it meant they had run out of luck. Which frankly makes a lot more sense.

  56. He’s got another thing coming / He’s got another think coming

    Who’s right? There’s only one way to find out…

  57. it’s a shame we didn’t get a report on the making of Kryten’s new mold being taken this week, I could just see the story title “Getting Mouldy” or “Mouldy Once More”, may be we will get a brief right up nearer Xmas a treat?

  58. > Both versions are in parallel use right now, and will likely remain so, as per flammable and inflammable.

    Flammable = Can be set on fire
    Inflammable = Explosive

  59. > Flammable = Can be set on fire
    > Inflammable = Explosive

    There are variants, but both also simply mean ‘easily enflamed’.

  60. So Red Dwarf eh?

  61. Andrew, the point of getting wound up over the “could care less” thing is not just that it’s wrong, but that it means the exact opposite of what the people who use it think it means.

    >explains why using ?literally? for something figurative should lead to an extended turn on the rack

    … and I don’t know what tree you’re barking up with this one, because there is simply no justification whatsoever for using the word “literally” for emphasis. If you’re attempting to defend Jamie Redknapp, you ain’t going to get any friends around here.

    I know you’re right about a lot of things, but your wishy-washy bleeding-heart liberal attitude to language misuse holds no truck with me ;-)

    And Pete : it’s “think”. No matter what Cappsy tries to tell you. But the last time we had this conversation I lost a tooth, he got a black eye and we had to replace six windows.

  62. G&T Admin

    > And Pete : it?s ?think?. No matter what Cappsy tries to tell you. But the last time we had this conversation I lost a tooth, he got a black eye and we had to replace six windows.

    No matter what the original phrase is, “Another thing coming” makes more sense than “Another think coming”, despite what the original phrase was. If you want to use the latter, the use the full phrase, otherwise it’s just a load of bollocks without the context.

    NO COMESIES BACKSIES.

  63. G&T Admin

    Of course, the REAL reason I use “another thing coming” is because it is literally the only version I’d heard until very recently. In all honesty, I could care less about which version people use.

  64. >If you want to use the latter, the use the full phrase, otherwise it?s just a load of bollocks without the context.

    I never use it without the context, though. I always precede it with “If you think that…”

    I say “always”, but I can’t remember actually using it, ever. Only arguing about it.

  65. G&T Admin

    > I say ?always?, but I can?t remember actually using it, ever. Only arguing about it.

    Quite right.

  66. [Black Card]

  67. > Andrew, the point of getting wound up over the ?could care less? thing is not just that it?s wrong, but that it means the exact opposite of what the people who use it think it means.

    I’ve no idea why you think this comes as news to me…

    Still doesn’t make the poor sod who used the phrase deserving of a lashing. It’s in common usage. Lambasting one person for that is unnecessarily harsh.

  68. G&T Admin

    I think “lashing” and “lambasting” is putting it too strongly, considering it’s no different to any of the fun poking everyone gets around here.

  69. Karl, stop trying to drag Colin into an argument!

    I think everyone needs to calm down and take a step back.
    Now, it appears that we’ve lost sight of the real issue here, and that is… what is ‘brittle chocolate’? Is it really lovely?? and where can I get some???

  70. Now, when do we start on “momentarily”?

  71. > Now, when do we start on ?momentarily??

    :-D

  72. While you’re at it, can we do ‘decimate’, ‘nonplussed’ and ‘uninterested/disinterested’?

  73. G&T Admin

    ‘oblivious’ is another misused word. It means that you once knew something but have since forgotten it, not that you’re unaware of something’s existence.

  74. ?oblivious? is another misused word. It means that you once knew something but have since forgotten it, not that you?re unaware of something?s existence.

    Really? I always believed it meant the latter…. which supports your point, no doubt.

    Since ‘oblivious’ shares a root with ‘oblivion’, I guess that makes sense. I.e. for something to suffer oblivion means that thing has to have existed. Since most people know it as the latter meaning however, I think this qualifies as a word that has changed meaning now rather than a misuse (although it no doubt started misused.) Another much more ancient example would be the Anglo-saxon ‘wyrd’ which roughly means ‘destiny or fate’ (but more than that. It refers to the interconnectedness of things.) The modern version ‘weird’ now means ‘strange’. A different meaning… but not entirely inappropriate if you think about it.

    ‘Couldn’t care less’ is the term I’m most acquainted with, although I’ve seen ‘Could care less’ in American books and on forums so it seemed pretty obvious what was meant in context. Certainly not worth poking someone about. Unless it’s in a sexy way. (Where is my mind going?)

    ‘Another thing coming’ is the term I know. Although ‘Another think coming’ makes some sense (albeit grammatically a bit rubbish.)

    Anyway, new Red Dwarf stuff! Yay! Hopefully a bit of feedback on Rob’s face-mold ordeal soon, either on the main site or one of Llewellyn’s sites.

  75. Certainly not worth poking someone about.

    Yeah misuse of language should always be ignored, clearly.

    Still doesn?t make the poor sod who used the phrase deserving of a lashing. It?s in common usage. Lambasting one person for that is unnecessarily harsh

    Oh come on people! You’re over-reacting a little here.

    Can I just remind you of the comment you’re going mental over?

    “So, you care quite a lot if she?s in it? Certainly, you care to some extent – more than not at all, which would be the least amount you could care.”

    The reply by Ian was jokey, good humoured (AND ACCURATE) maybe a little dig at the poster, but it’s one of Ian’s pet peeves. But ‘lambasted’ and ‘lashed’!?!? Really!??
    You think if Ian was genuinely trying to attack this person this it the response he would have used?? It doesn’t even have the word ‘cunt’ in it.

    Get a bloody grip.

  76. SingingPotato I will fight you.

  77. G&T Admin

    You’ll have to be covered in mud first, though. It’s Phil’s lady fightin’ rules.

  78. > Yeah misuse of language should always be ignored, clearly.

    By a person on a posting board? It’s excusable, surely? Reasonable to let it go?

    But then it’s only misuse until it’s common use. And now it is, I’m sorry, common. Giving a person the benefit of the doubt for using the term, rather than ridiculing that use, seems fairer to me.

    > Get a bloody grip.

    To be fair, I started with an equally jokey defence of the person in question. It’s only when issue was taken with that defence that it all started going bonkers!

    Ian’s post – to me – read as a little insulting. It read as saying they were essentially wrong/stupid for using the term, which I maintain is absolutely unfair given that it’s become common parlance. But I don’t live with him, and if he actually meant “Did you know this term is actually contradictory despite its prevalence? Interesting, isn’t it? Anyway, carry on” then I apologise.

  79. G&T Admin

    > But then it?s only misuse until it?s common use. And now it is, I?m sorry, common.

    This is *exactly* how Nazi Germany started.

  80. G&T Admin

    But I don?t live with him

    I know. :o(

  81. > This is *exactly* how Nazi Germany started.

    Yeah, but it’s also how the apostrophe started, so it evens out… :-)

  82. G&T Admin

    I’m sorry, I should let this go, but can’t…

    But then it?s only misuse until it?s common use. And now it is, I?m sorry, common.

    I’ve nothing at all against the evolution of language. Without it, we’d all be speaking like Chaucer. I partake in a bit of slang, and I find it pleasing when unusual neologisms make it into the dictionary.

    However, no matter how common a mistake is, a mistake is still a mistake. Otherwise “thi’s” would be a correct way of saying “this”. Apostrophe misuse and the like can be easily and fairly uncontroversially identified as definitely wrong, but judging whether turns of phrases are right or wrong is much more tricky.

    Personally, I define it as something which doesn’t successfully convey the meaning that the user is trying to envoke. “I could care less” simply doesn’t mean the same thing as “I couldn’t care less”. Similarly, “he’s literally sold him a dummy” (a genuine Jamie Redknapp quote) just isn’t the same as “he’s metaphorically sold him a dummy”, which is the meaning that should have been conveyed.

    That’s why these two particular examples don’t fall under the blanket of “language evolving through common use”, and why I see them as something that’s unilaterally wrong.

  83. Oh Lord, really? Okay…

    It’s not like I don’t get all of that.

    But you did understand what was meant – in both examples. So did everyone reading, I’m sure. So meaning was successfully conveyed. The use is now too familiar to cause confusion. All that’s left is mock confusion made by those who wish to make a point. Holding one poster to account for the use is like blaming an Audi driver for the features offered by the manufacturer.

    Bottom line: They’ll still be in use in a decade. More than that, they’ll likely be in the textbooks. More weird and contradictory bits of English.

    So I’m saying wrong target, shot fired after the war’s already over. Gay people ain’t always cheerful, but the time to register the complaint about the formation of a second meaning has long since passed…and certainly taking one user to task won’t achieve the full reversal you want. Or likely change any minds.

    Regardless, it’s a personal taste thing. We don’t get to decide unilaterally on the way these things work – and it’s behaving like we do, using ‘right and wrong’ easily, that makes me uncomfortable. Correcting someone on something that comes from their culture makes me uneasy when it comes with a sense of absolute ‘right’ behind it. Particularly when the only major harm being done is to the blood-pressure of self-appointed language-guardians.

    If a vast majority genuinely didn’t comprehend the meaning of the two examples, it’d be different. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s the way it is, and that there are better windmills to tilt at.

  84. I understand “literally” as “literally” and I had no idea that people use it as a substitute for “metaphorically” until you mentioned it to me. I was shocked, and I fetl queasy. Then I felt reminded of language abuse in famous football quotes, and I was amused. But I’m not sure I’ll ever get used to it or be able to accept it as “correct”. But it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as “I could care less”. I don’t know why that is. Maybe “I could care less” has become some sort of symbol for a certain philosophy that I loathe. A certain way to mistreat language for the sake of convenience. I thought about it and I’m fairly convinced that it’s not a matter of choice. I just can’t. But Germans are, of course, notoriously priggish. Don’t get me started on apostrophe misuse (fairly common in German, too) and the Deppenleerzeichen (idiots’ blank). I just can’t deal with it.

  85. Personally, I thought it started well but fell apart. All that stuff about Phil lady fighting in custard – that was great. Then it all went ‘literally’ this and ‘apostrophe’ that and I fell asleep.

  86. G&T Admin

    > But you did understand what was meant – in both examples. So did everyone reading, I?m sure.

    When I first saw it being used (by you I think, on here) I genuinely thought you’d made an hilarious typo and had no idea it was in ‘common use’.

  87. >But you did understand what was meant – in both examples. So did everyone reading, I?m sure. So meaning was successfully conveyed.

    When Tom was 3 he used to call parrots – carrots. But we all knew what he meant so we never bothered correcting him, I’m sure it’ll be fine as long as he doesn’t go into zoology or something…

  88. Yeah misuse of language should always be ignored, clearly.

    Except it’s debatable that it WAS a misuse though. That was the point people were making (although I’m with you on the use of the word.)

    Oh come on people! You?re over-reacting a little here.

    But yeah, fair enough. :) People react. Others react to their reaction. Oh WHEN WILL IT END?

    (Snigger.)

    /End dramatic moment. That was fun.

Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Comments'

Leave a Reply