Some news, there

Charles Armitage, there

From the Executive Producer that last year brought you the first proper indication of new Dwarf comes… some more news.

That’ll be charlesarmitage.com, then, giving us a couple nice morsels to chew thoughtfully on:

Scripts for Series X being written. New multi-media merchandise being developed for 2010.

Firstly, it seems ‘Series X’ is the official way to refer to whatever the hell’s happening next year. It would make sense to use either IX or X for the next full series as Back to Earth can comfortably fit into the ‘one off special’ or ‘mini-series’ category as is needed. X does have the advantage of looking far cooler, though, but that’s hardly going to help when/if XI comes around…

Secondly, NEW MERCHANDISE, and multi-media merchandise no less. This is a term that could cover almost anything, ever but never let it be said we don’t overreact to the tiniest detail, so I’m expecting no less than a video game, a new book, webisodes and a Red Dwarf branded mobile phone that makes ice creams – all by end of January.

It’s nice that we’re finally getting some post-BtE merch, though, and presumably the next series being very close to the green light has helped matters somewhat. I’m sure everyone will have their particular favourite for what they’ll like to see (cue Seb and his 5 year plan for action figures) but personally I would love to see a) a new book and b) an adventure game made by Telltale. I’ll give them longer than January to deliver them, though, because I’m just that kind of guy.

Tags: , , ,

136 Responses to Some news, there

Jump to bottom

  1. G&T Admin

    Something else to news yourself silly with which Jo spotted on the Client page: Chris is currently filming a second series of Britain’s Greatest Machines.

  2. Wow! Britain had 2 series worth of Great machines?!!

  3. The new series of Red Dwarf will now be titled Series One as Series X sounds like an ageing brand.

  4. According to Steven Moffat, audiences never refer to series by their chronological numbers anyway, so who cares?

  5. Hooray for merchandising! I’m still waiting for my Carbug.

  6. > According to Steven Moffat, audiences never refer to series by their chronological numbers anyway,

    This whole situation is ridiculous. As unimportant as series numbers might seem to 99% of people, what the crucified heckfire are they going to put on the DVDs? The Complete First Matt Smith Series??

  7. It’s a number. I find it bizarre that the series number has sparked more debate than the recording of Matt Smith saying SOMETHING WHICH IS A SPOILER.

    [edited by Seb for spoileryness]

  8. Because it’s a ridiculous thing to do, obviously. Why bother changing it?

    That’s why.

  9. It’s hardly an unprecedented “ridiculous thing to do” though, is it?

  10. I’m sure it’s happened before, and as soon as I find an example I’ll post it. Right now I’m going to bed.

  11. G&T Admin

    I recall that when Eastenders changed the number of episodes a week, they changed their episode numbers right back to 1. So it does sometimes happen internally.

  12. Maybe they should start numbering them in binary or hexadecimal or something.

  13. G&T Admin

    Or by years. It makes the most sense if they think people are going to be confused by the fifth series of something being called ‘series 5’.

  14. Or just call it Red Dwarf-The Next Generation. Series 1

    Or New Red Dwarf- Series 1

  15. They’ve devised a system to totally revolutionise series naming. Instead of series X, it’s the Decatave…

  16. Capps:
    Or by years. It makes the most sense if they think people are going to be confused by the fifth series of something being called ?series 5?.

    Not if they continue including the Xmas Specials with the following series (as Runaway Bride, the 2006 Xmas special, was included with Series 3, the 2007 series), no?

    I forsee it being some variation on “Eleventh Doctor, series 1”, followed by the old DVD sets being deleted, and reissued with Series 1 becoming “the Ninth Doctor series”, Series 2 “Tenth Doctor, series 1”, etc; and going back to do similarly-numbered series sets for the “classic” Doctors as they finish getting all their stories out on DVD. Especially since they’re going to be putting the new logo on everything, including the “Classic Who” DVDs.

  17. G&T Admin

    > Not if they continue including the Xmas Specials with the following series (as Runaway Bride, the 2006 Xmas special, was included with Series 3, the 2007 series), no?

    The Next Doctor was filmed as part of series 4, so it’s not unlikely that this pattern will continue with Moffat’s series, with the Christmas always being the last episode in any given ‘series’.

    > I forsee it being some variation on ?Eleventh Doctor, series 1?, followed by the old DVD sets being deleted, and reissued with Series 1 becoming ?the Ninth Doctor series?, Series 2 ?Tenth Doctor, series 1?, etc; and going back to do similarly-numbered series sets for the ?classic? Doctors as they finish getting all their stories out on DVD

    That really is a confusing mess of utter shit. Not to mention the fact that the only thing it would achieve would be another set of relablle DVDs for people to buy. Oh…

    > Especially since they?re going to be putting the new logo on everything, including the ?Classic Who? DVDs.

    Is this actually a true fact? Because if it is then someone *really* needs to die for this.

  18. >Is this actually a true fact? Because if it is then someone *really* needs to die for this.

    It is true, it is also true that they are putting reversible covers on. Dalek War had reversible covers but that just changed the new BBC logo to the old one, the next one will be for a proper reason, saying that I use the reversed non shit BBC logo side.

  19. And I bet there’ll still be re-released versions of the existing DVDs before The Happiness Patrol gets a fucking release.

    So, anyway… Red Dwarf, then?

  20. >And I bet there?ll still be re-released versions of the existing DVDs before The Happiness Patrol gets a fucking release.

    I know the answer to that and I know you won’t like it. Re-visitations boxset – coming 2010.

  21. > So, anyway? Red Dwarf, then?

    I like Red Dwarf. Red Dwarf is good. *nods*

    Forgot to tell you guys – the pic of the guy I showed you all with the fearsome goatee? IS CALLED LISTER ^__^

  22. > The Next Doctor was filmed as part of series 4, so it?s not unlikely that this pattern will continue with Moffat?s series, with the Christmas always being the last episode in any given ?series?.

    It is, however, unlikely that they’ll hold back the DVD of the first Smith/Moffat series until after Xmas….

    > Oh?

    You see, I see.

  23. The reason the Xmas special is put with the next series and not the previous series is because it is (usually) filmed in the same recording period as the rest of the series.

    Oh and what is Red Dwarf? Is it a new spinoff of Doctor Who?

  24. > Oh and what is Red Dwarf? Is it a new spinoff of Doctor Who?

    It’s supposed to be a comedy set in space. It’ll never catch on.

  25. >It?s supposed to be a comedy set in space. It?ll never catch on.

    So a crap version of Hyperdrive?

  26. But when Moffat says audiences don’t use series numbers, he’s only right concerning Doctor Who.

    Why would I refer to a show I’ve been watching for more than 40 years that’s had 10 different leading actors, as series 4?

  27. > The reason the Xmas special is put with the next series and not the previous series is because it is (usually) filmed in the same recording period as the rest of the series.

    But, again, Next Doctor was filmed with S4, and they didn’t hold back the DVD until after it was transmitted. They want to sell DVDs in the run-up to Xmas, after all.

    > Why would I refer to a show I?ve been watching for more than 40 years that?s had 10 different leading actors, as series 4?

    Because it’s only been continuously running for four series?

  28. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Colin Baker’s tenure interupted by a rather long hiatus with the show in temporary limbo? And, presumably, the show didn’t start again from Series 1 when it resumed?

  29. 18 months, when it returned it was with the same Doctor, same companion, same TARDIS console room, same Master, same TARDIS outside look, it was not like it is with Matt in which it has a new Doc, now companion, new TARDIS inside and out, first full HD series (which I’m sure would be a good selling point and make it easier to sell if they only need to buy Series 1 of an HD series instead of Series 5 of a non-HD series up unil half way through the previous series).

    Either way I think they changed it to series one for a reason, a good one, one that benefits the show, if it benefits the show then surely we can say a smaller number can’t we?

  30. >it was not like it is with Matt in which it has a new Doc, now companion, new TARDIS inside and out

    …old costume.

    In terms to continuity, this will be far more seamless than, say, (C) Baker regenerating into McCoy by means of a curly blonde wig.

    Same with the TARDIS redesign. If this was a NEW series (ie. like the 2005 series 1), they wouldn’t bother explaining why the TARDIS has been redesigned (like the TV Movie, for example) but this has been purposely worked into the Christmas episodes.

    >first full HD series

    Flimsy.

    >one that benefits the show

    By confusing people. There was a genuine need to start afresh in 2005 and, not necessarily because of the long hiatus.

    The format of the show (generally 7 standalone episodes and 3 2 part stories, all around 45 minutes each) is completely different to what it used to be. This is not the case for the 2010 series which doesn’t even have the excuse that it’s separated from the preceeding series by a long length of time.

  31. >By confusing people.

    I don’t see why PEOPLE would be confused, in a general sense people wouldn’t give a hoot, they just see it as Doctor Who with that Matt Smith guy, not Doctor Who Season 31 or whatever you want to call it.
    Then we have the other people, the fans, they won’t find it confusing because they are fans, they no the score, they know it is all one show just with a track back in numbers.
    So either you have people who don’t care still not caring or you have the people who do care, they care enough to go online and see whta all this number stuff is about, they find out then they are happy, no fuss, no muss.

  32. >I don?t see why PEOPLE would be confused

    Yeah, you’re right. I’m looking forward to watching Series 1, anyway. And by series 1, I mean Series 1 (2010) and not Series 1 (1963) or Series 1 (2005) (get used to these brackets) all of which are part of the Doctor Who television series, which is the longest running science fiction show in the world, despite having 3 different series. Which is cheating. Probably.

  33. >So either you have people who don?t care still not caring or you have the people who do care, they care enough to go online and see whta all this number stuff is about, they find out then they are happy, no fuss, no muss.

    No other options are available.

  34. >Series 1 (1963)

    What you on about? You’ll need to make that post a bit clearer.

  35. >>So either you have people who don?t care still not caring or you have the people who do care, they care enough to go online and see whta all this number stuff is about, they find out then they are happy, no fuss, no muss.

    >No other options are available

    I’m just echoing Moffats comments the other day albeit in a nicer way which doesn’t make fans sound sad.

  36. And really it is only irritating to the people who will watch and buy the show no matter what anyway.
    Except I’m not that irritated by it, I call them Season 1, Series 1 and Series One. Even then, in the future I would probably say Matt’s first series or the 2010 series.

    To the general audience they just pick up the DVDs and not see David Tennant or Tom Baker on the front so know it is the new bloke.

  37. “I think we’re all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is: what are we going to call ourselves?”

    Info’s trickling out on the new series, Moffat’s talking all kinds of interesting sense in interviews, and *this* is the big problem?!

    Actually, I guess it is, since everything else we hear is basically good-sounding, so this becomes the major topic for disapproval right now.

    I mean, it’s obviously a stupid thing to do, based on vague branding bullshit rather than anything as prosaic as ‘keeping it easy to talk about and reference’. But at the same time it’s really not worth laying into anyone for, is it? I mean, it’s not hard to see that there’s absolutely some truth to the point that it won’t negatively affect the vast majority of viewers.

    I’m irked by it, absolutely, it seems a crazy choice to me with minimal usefulness, and an irritation going forward, since we’ll have to pause and consider how to describe each series when writing for others. But really, that’s all. An irritation. Nobody struggled to talk about Series One a few years ago with Old Who fans, did they? Even when people didn’t give it hard thought in the writing, context provided the missing info. We didn’t suffer greatly from that hardship. It’s not going to kill us to type “the first Matt Smith series” or “Doctor 11’s first series”.

    Of course it’s a bizarre and (likely) pointless choice. I seriously doubt that it’ll have a notable positive effect on DVD or TV sales or whatever, which must be why it’s ultimately being done. The reasons seem nebulous and unprovable, which is frustrating. But it’s not like the other side is incomprehensible. Just irritating.

    (Quick edit – sorry soundableobject.)

  38. > To the general audience they just pick up the DVDs and not see David Tennant or Tom Baker on the front so know it is the new bloke.

    I don’t know what everybody’s talking about – the new guy doesn’t seem too young at all.

  39. >What you on about? You?ll need to make that post a bit clearer.

    I’m sorry, did it confuse you?

  40. G&T Admin

    > I?m sorry, did it confuse you?

    I think his point is that you said series instead of season.

  41. Because it’s a UK show. I can call it what I want, apparently.

  42. >Because it?s a UK show.

    Doesn’t mean it is “series”.

    > I can call it what I want, apparently.

    Then why are you complaining about the new series being called Series One, you can call it whatever you like. You could call it ‘Hot Sex IV’ if you want.

  43. You do realise that I’m quoting you when I say I can call it what I want? And yes, I could call it Hot Sex IV but even less people would know which show I’m referring to than by calling it “Series 1”

    Do you see the irony in reacting to me calling the first batch of William Hartnell’s episodes “Series 1?”, despite the fact this is a perfectly valid way of describing them?

    Do you see the further irony in asking me to clarify what I meant, when I in turn said, that this, by its very nature, invites confusion?

    Christ. Listen, I think Moffat’s a terrfic writer and will do wonders for the show, but I’m not going to blindly say that this is a good idea just because he’s in charge now. No, it’s not a big deal and it is only a minor irritaion, but it is minor irritation that has come about; not because it’s unavoidable but because they made a conscious, albeit daft, decision.

  44. I’m sure we’ve done this before, but – as one of the most ardent “UK English is ‘series’, US English is ‘season'” arguers out there (no, seriously, check some Wikipedia talk pages some time) – Doctor Who is the unarguable exception. Even before America was discovered, Doctor Who series were being referred to as “seasons”.

  45. G&T Admin

    Well, it’s referring to the fact that it literally was a season of television. I’m sure other shows from back then were structured in a similar way and would’ve been called seasons, too.

  46. > Even before America was discovered

    It must gave been fun drinking in the heady medieval atmosphere of pre-Renaissance Who

  47. >You could call it ?Hot Sex IV? if you want.

    Even then this causes confusion, do you mean the fourth series of the award-winning ?Hot Sex? or the new and racy ?Hot Sex IntroVenus?.

  48. It could just be ‘X’ as in the letter x, as in an unspecified new series. Then again I suppose it could be series 10. And probably is.

  49. Am i right in thinking that the next series could actualy be set ‘before’ Back to Earth ?

    [Back to Earth takes place after ‘series ten’]

    it would be better than a quick sum-up of wtf has happened since VIII.

    And if we do get to see the pencil Red Dwarf Mkii, it would be nice if they hunt out the unused model. they could blow the frack out of it on screen =D joy

  50. I doubt it.
    ‘Back to Earth’ felt like it was setting itself up for a possible future series (but leaving it with a great ending if it didn’t return).

  51. I’m pretty sure Doug already covered this.

  52. Would be nice to see or hear of events from the missing years in flashbacks and in the dialogue between the characters.

  53. Not ALL the missing years. That would be tedious. During the odd episode, have the characters reminising about occurances that we’re unaware of from the missing 10 year period.

  54. They already talk of off screen adventures anyway, remember last christmas with the pan-dimensional liquid beast from the Mogadon Cluster?

  55. Everything that happened on “earth” was a hallucination caused by the squid! So the fact that they talked about a series IX or X should be irrelevant.

  56. G&T Admin

    Yeah, I’m happy to classify BtE as series IX. It would work either way, really.

  57. maybe twenty years down the line when the next wave of dwarf vids are released (this being when we’ve reverted back to vhs ofcourse) it’ll be dubbeed as RED DWARF IX

  58. Everything that happened on ?earth? was a hallucination caused by the squid! So the fact that they talked about a series IX or X should be irrelevant.

    The DVD (and Blu-ray?) states BTE takes place after series ten, though.

    Have there been any issues with someone who doesn’t know better asking where series IX and X are?

  59. > The DVD (and Blu-ray?) states BTE takes place after series ten, though.

    Except Doug has already told people that they’re not to read too much into that statement. He made a comment about it at the BTE premiere, and fans got all up themselves about What Doug Meant, and then he (or Andrew, or Robert, or whoever) told everyone to stop reading so much into it because it didn’t mean anything.

  60. G&T Admin

    The DVD (and Blu-ray?) states BTE takes place after series ten, though.

    But the DVD itself is part of the delusion. So in actuality, no-one has actually bought the BTE DVD. It doesn’t technically exist, you just think you’ve bought it. The Blu-Ray is a residual effect of the delusion as well.

  61. > The DVD (and Blu-ray?) states BTE takes place after series ten, though.

    But that packaging is just quoting the series, the box is meant to mirror the on-screen content – it’s like buying a replica. I’ve got a sonic screwdriver toy, doesn’t mean every time I use it my playtime becomes canon for the series. :-)

  62. >I?ve got a sonic screwdriver toy, doesn?t mean every time I use it my playtime becomes canon for the series. :-)

    I would rather that be canon than ‘Dimensions in Time’.

  63. But that packaging is just quoting the series, the box is meant to mirror the on-screen content – it?s like buying a replica. I?ve got a sonic screwdriver toy, doesn?t mean every time I use it my playtime becomes canon for the series. :-)

    That’s a lot of faith in the box’s inverted commas when it comes to getting people to buy them off the shelf. ;)

  64. > That?s a lot of faith in the box?s inverted commas when it comes to getting people to buy them off the shelf. ;)

    I’m sure the world is awash with confusion.

  65. All I knows is that 10 years has passed! After that, I get confused!

  66. I?m sure the world is awash with confusion.

    #Woah-OH-oh

  67. wtf do we do when we buy series x and the box reads “series ten takes place after Back to Earth”

    ‘off the shelf buyers’ have no chance :-S

  68. G&T Admin

    > wtf do we do when we buy series x and the box reads ?series ten takes place after Back to Earth?

    This is actually a very amusing thought.

    > ?off the shelf buyers? have no chance :-S

    Well, either that or they’ll shrug it off and beat a path to the checkout. Or buy it online and not read the blurb until they’ve already put the disc in the machine.

  69. its like ketchup on lobster, it’ll blow there head off as they read it

  70. > Everything that happened on ?earth? was a hallucination caused by the squid! So the fact that they talked about a series IX or X should be irrelevant.

    I’m still not entirely sure if I buy into that (the it’s all a hallucination arguement). I mean it’s an easy way to dismiss anything that happened or was discussed, but the Dwarfer’s ultimately figure their own way out of the hallucination, presumably they recall it too (as they do their encounter in Seas…serie…in ‘Back to Reality’.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a justified arguement when discussing “which series will the the next one be”. We’ll just have to wait and see what the new one gets branded as. However in terms of it’s a hallucination ere go we can ignore anything that happened I don’t really agree. The Kryten / Kochanski stuff for example.

  71. >its like ketchup on lobster, it?ll blow there head off as they read it

    It’ll stand you in good stead in life to learn the difference between there, their and they’re.

    It’s and its I often get confused about myself so I can’t say anything about that ;o)

  72. > However in terms of it?s a hallucination ere go we can ignore anything that happened I don?t really agree. The Kryten / Kochanski stuff for example.

    Sure, but while Kryten and Lister both have direct memories of Kochanski’s departure, neither of them ever looked up during the eight previous series and and asked “Hey, what series are we in now?” They don’t halt for credits, they don’t cut to the next scene, and they don’t have lengthy recaps in the middle of experiences because there was an episode break. When there’s a conversation about some event that occurred between episodes or series – Lister forgets where he parked Red Dwarf, say – doesn’t mean there’s a lost episode which requires a title and a series allocation.

    A series definition comes from outside the fiction, it’s hard to impose if from within – especially when the 4th wall break was revealed to be imagined, and only tangentially related to OUR universe. In that universe, the Rovers Return is a building, not a frontage and separate studio interior. What the hallucination elected to name as Series I to X doesn’t directly relate to what we call them. How can it, when there was no Series IX? We didn’t get one, but the viewers within the fiction did. Best series ever. But it wasn’t, we never saw it, so how can it be directly comparable?

    What was imagined in the hallucination is separate from what was recalled and referenced from the crew’s true reality. Rimmer’s memory of childhood hand-washing is a ‘true’ memory for the character, it really happened to him; Lister meeting two kids on a bus didn’t. As such any information derived from – rather than ‘recalled in’ – the dream is untrustworthy at best, and provably fictional for the most part.

  73. If the new series is branded as series X on the basis of BTE being series IX, I’d say fair enough… maybe pushing it a little, but still… okay.

    But if its billed as X on the basis of continuing the storyline of BTE, then it should be XI.

    So if it actually is going to be “series X” then it has to be because BTE now counts as “series IX”. But I think its probably moot, and the next full series will be referred to as IX.

  74. Possibly. If it’s numbered I think it will be X.

    I know BtE isn’t called Series 9 (or IX), and being much smaller than a normal TV series it’s tempting not to regard it as a series. However, in the literal meaning of the word it qualifies as a full series. And it’s the ninth one in succession.*

    Bear in mind Americans would consider 6 episodes as a mini series. So the term ‘mini series’ is a bit of a misnomer really. With the literal interpretation of series. Still it seems to me a mini series qualifies as being a short series rather than a segment of a series.

    On the other hand… oh who cares, why am I writing an essay about this? Doug can call it what he likes. Main thing: there is quite possibly a new series on the way! “Yippee!” as Darth Dwarf from the Phantom Menace would say.**

    *It’s the ninth in a series of series. Ahahaha. Wibble.
    **Was that non PC?

  75. I guess “X” would be better than “IX” for marketing and with this being the first full series for a long time they would want it to be a strong campaign.

  76. > But if its billed as X on the basis of continuing the storyline of BTE, then it should be XI.

    Andrew’s point nicely counters your “should” here, I feel. Keep in mind, also, that the blurb on the back of the DVD and Bluray puts “Series X” (or “Series Ten” if you’ve got a first run copy) in inverted commas. That’s hardly standard practice, and while it might not make much sense to your average viewer it’s an important fact to consider.

  77. Ok then, replace “should” with “would”. I don’t think the hallucinated events of BTE ought to (nor will) have any bearing on what the next series is titled, but there are those suggesting the next series will be ‘X’ because of a throwaway comment Doug made in BTE publicity and due to the existence of additional seasons within the BTE story. My point is that if those espousing this theory were correct, by their interpretation of the numbering, next time we see Red Dwarf should not in fact be series X, but series XI. Y’know, because in the made-up storyline of the show, IX and X already happened.

    But because we’ve only seen 8 series of the actual television programme Red Dwarf, the next full series in my opinion should be Red Dwarf IX. But if they decide to call it X ‘because BTE was series IX’ then fair enough.

  78. We here in america would love some Red Dwarf &/or StarBug KEYCHAINS… We americans love key chains. Cause we have so many darn keys!

    Please Please Please…. commision some StarBug &/or Red Dwarf Keychains!

    I will commit to importing to the USA several thousand worth. ;) I know I could easily sell them here in america!

    TGC

    P.S. Call it IX, Call it X or even call it XI we americans don’t care! We are just happy to get another series/season. However… In american terms we would call IX and BTE would be a what we call a special in between.

    Don’t know how many of you are familiar wiht “24” with Keifer Sutherland. But During the American Writers strike where “24” was postponed a complete season. They did a TV “Movie” in the interim. We don’t count that as a season. For us a season requires no less than 13 episodes. Then again that’s american standards.

    One thing I have to say about american standards. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t try to make Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, or Torchwood to american standards. (Or any other British comedy or sci-fi) If you did, It would RUIN it! So PLEASE don’t!

  79. You make a good point there.

    There was a format change with the 2005 Series 1 of Dr. Who, in that (in America anyways) was considered a 1hr show. The “Classic” Dr. Who is blocked out in 30 min time slots.

    So for us americans it seems very logical for Doctor Who, starting over and calling themselvs Season/series 1.

    On the other hand… Red Dwarf… we americans would prefer to call it season 9. But like I said in a previous post. Please please don’t make any of your wonderful british series to american standards. But at the same time, Don’t forget that there are literly millions of us americans that will gladly spend our hard earned cash on Red Dwarf, Doctor Who, & Torchwood wood DVD’s, Blu-rays & merchandise. As well as support those TV stations here in america that purchase the rights to air Red Dwarf, Dr. Who, & Torchwood.

    TGC

  80. Dave / Fri, 2009-11-06 10:38 / #

    >You could call it ?Hot Sex IV? if you want.

    Even then this causes confusion, do you mean the fourth series of the award-winning ?Hot Sex? or the new and racy ?Hot Sex IntroVenus?.

    Nakrophile / Fri, 2009-11-06 14:04 / #

    It could just be ?X? as in the letter x, as in an unspecified new series. Then again I suppose it could be series 10. And probably is.
    ———

    Sounds like to me any show about “Hot Sex”, “Hot Sex IV” or “Hot Sex IntroVenus” would all be “X”! at least here in the states in bible belt country! it would be X! LOL Although I think now adays thats been changed to “NR” hard to keep up.

    TGC

  81. >How can it, when there was no Series IX? We didn?t get one, but the viewers within the fiction did. Best series ever

    They must really love mobisodes.

  82. >There was a format change with the 2005 Series 1 of Dr. Who, in that (in America anyways) was considered a 1hr show. The ?Classic? Dr. Who is blocked out in 30 min time slots.

    Except the classic series also had 45 minute episodes for a while.

  83. G&T Admin

    But we don’t talk about that.

  84. TexasGrillChef, there… speaking on behalf of all of America.

  85. >But we don?t talk about that.

    I’m sure you are well aware of my stance on the 45 minute classic Who episodes.

  86. G&T Admin

    > I?m sure you are well aware of my stance on the 45 minute classic Who episodes.

    Hence why we don’t talk about it.

  87. Allright shut up about Who allready.

    > What was imagined in the hallucination is separate from what was recalled and referenced from the crew?s true reality. Rimmer?s memory of childhood hand-washing is a ?true? memory for the character, it really happened to him; Lister meeting two kids on a bus didn?t. As such any information derived from – rather than ?recalled in? – the dream is untrustworthy at best, and provably fictional for the most part.

    I agree with regards to the series naming btw, which is pretty much why I’ve kept out of that whole debate. However what interests me is where the line between recall and imagination meets.

    Yes the kids are imaginary, and without there’s an argument right there that anything they say is therefore void. However we’re in a world of imagination, a dream if you like, and a group one too let’s not forget. So I’m not so convinced that you can deal in absolutes. All four characters have hallucinated the bus, perhaps the children are infact a product of Kryten’s psyche and their revelation a confession on his behalf as he’s too guilty to confess to Lister directly.

    Additional: I can’t believe I just said that.

  88. > Yes the kids are imaginary, and without there?s an argument right there that anything they say is therefore void. However we?re in a world of imagination

    Sure. Anything about the crew’s about the crew’s actual world stated inside the hallucination is suspect – though the basics of storytelling tell us what’s truth and what isn’t. Certainly there’s a plausible deniability for anything revealed if it’s needed down the line…though that’d feel like a cheat.

    But yeah, that can’t apply to the show being fictional, since – for the characters – it ain’t. Lister’s Lister, not a character played by Craig Charles. And the numbering of series definitely comes under the same banner. What they discover the series number to be is wholly ignorable once the nature of the reality is revealed.

  89. >http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s8/torchwood/news/a186616/russell-t-davies-planning-torchwood-4.html

    After Torchwood: Children of Earth comes…Series 4. What happened to Series 3? That WAS series 3…

  90. is bored with the whole X / IX / XI thing

  91. Maybe Maybe not….

    As “we” americans once tried to spin off an american version of Red Dwarf some years back. With great failure I might add.

    We also tried to spin off an American Dr. Who version as well. We failed.

    We tried spinning off an American version of “Coupling” too. We failed again.

    About the only British spin off we have done with any success in America is “The Office” and personally, I can’t stand the american version. The British version is much better.

    I am sure there are even more British shows that our Hollywood has tried to spin off but with great failure! So much so they failed to even make me remember what they were.

    P.S. I am sure there are some americans who disagree with what I have posted so far. I won’t doubt that for a moment. But there are many americans who would agree. ;)

    TGC

  92. >We also tried to spin off an American Dr. Who version as well. We failed.

    Ratings smash in the UK. Plus it spawned one of my favourite Doctors. And it was the first Doctor Who story I ever seen, I hold it in high regard.

  93. > I am sure there are even more British shows that our Hollywood has tried to spin off but with great failure! So much so they failed to even make me remember what they were.

    How did Stamford & Son go down?

  94. Multi-media sounds a bit hefty, as long as they don’t disappoint us and it doesn’t turn out to be one item, I’m expecting’multi’ as the title suggests. Considering Red Dwarf has had it’s heyday I think it’s aiming quite high for a multi-media project, very ambitious but if they pull it off and it sells well I will be a happy customer.

  95. > How did Stamford & Son go down?

    Isn’t it Sanford?

  96. The Americans tried to develop their own Fawlty Towers, what, three or four times? Next up is the US version of Gavin & Stacey…

  97. >Ratings smash in the UK. Plus it spawned one of my favourite Doctors. And it was the first Doctor Who story I ever seen, I hold it in high regard.

    I heart Paul Mcgann!

  98. I am the king of envy. My crown is bejeweled with emeralds.

  99. > Isn?t it Sanford?

    Probably.

  100. Paul McGann is a very nice man but his missus is even nicer.

  101. My thoughts on the discussion so far:

    1) Moffat should get over it and call it series 5.

    2) They should have said “after series 9” in BtE.

    3) Considering that at one time or another both these shows were as likely to be back on TV as Gary Glitter presenting Play School, more Red Dwarf and Doctor Who is excellent news. Fan griping optional.

  102. >1) Moffat should get over it and call it series 5.

    Yep, he should go back in time using the new TARDIS and change all that paperwork, clapper boards and codes on tapes and stuff because people can’t be bothered to use a smaller number.

    >2) They should have said ?after series 9? in BtE.

    No they shouldn’t, people shouldn’t have took what Doug Naylor said at the screening as solid which it seems like they have unless they have indeed counted BTE as Series IX. They should get Moffat to change it.

  103. “Paperwork and clapperboards”?? I care not for these backstage things. They can call it series E or series 32 or series Giraffe if they want to in production, but hae two “series 1″s out there in release form is needlessly confusing and pointless. The DVD packaging will look shit too.

    And yes, they should hae said series 9 in BtE. Then we (and they) can both start simultaneously on series 10, with series 9 being our Time War, our lost event. It’s not the end of the world of course, would have just been a nice bit of synchronicity.

  104. >2) They should have said ?after series 9? in BtE

    Series X was after series 9

  105. >The DVD packaging will look shit too.

    Yes, I’m sure they will have a giant “1” on the front and it will instantly make the packaging shit. It is a fucking number, just roll with it.

  106. >because people can?t be bothered to use a smaller number.

    FFS! *sigh* Yeah that’s exactly what it is. Can we please just all agree to disagree on the fucking Doctor Who numbering issue? I’m sick to death of reading about it now.

  107. G&T Admin

    I agree.

    It *should* be series 5, though.

  108. >It *should* be series 5, though.

    But it isn’t. ;)

  109. It is to me.

  110. To me it’ll always be Season Eighty. Every season is Season Eighty.

  111. Well that is just stupid, it is the new series, it would be Series Eighty, pfft.

  112. No. Season Eighty. Forever. I WILL CUT YOU.

  113. It’s not rubber. It’s Season Eighty.

  114. why cant they just do series bloody nine! im dying to know what happens after the last episode of series 8 and how rimmer gets out of that one!

  115. > why cant they just do series bloody nine! im dying to know what happens after the last episode of series 8 and how rimmer gets out of that one!

    Red Dwarf has a history of completely and utterly ignoring its cliffhangers that, I think, deserves a little respect.

  116. >im dying to know what happens after the last episode of series 8 and how rimmer gets out of that one!

    Given that he’s a hologram in BtE, it’s a fairly safe bet that he doesn’t.

  117. Red Dwarf has a history of completely and utterly ignoring its cliffhangers…

    When?

    Given that he?s a hologram in BtE, it?s a fairly safe bet that he doesn?t.

    Unless it’s the original hologram back to explain his perspective on the Despair Squid in what I think would be a horrible, horrible move.

  118. >Unless it?s the original hologram back to explain his perspective on the Despair Squid

    Actually Doug Naylor does suggest that this is the original hologram version of Rimmer in his commentary. I can see other interpretations, but there you go.

    I like to think the human version is still out there somewhere. Perhaps he got tapped on the head by a mysterious yet strangely familiar assailant, only to wake up in the pilot seat of a spaceship on autopilot…wearing a silly wig. Rimmer not the spaceship.

  119. I’m of the opinion that the BtE Rimmer is actually the Series VIII who has softened after 9 years with the rest of the crew, in the same way that Series I Rimmer softened over time

  120. The series VIII Rimmer softened by the third episode.

Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Comments'

Leave a Reply