I’m afraid it is, Dad News Posted by John Hoare on 30th March 2007, 11:11 I just did a little bit of cum. I’m off out soon, so I’ll expand this news article tonight – but you hardly need me to tell you how amazing this is…
Lister’s single son? Okay… that’s strange. So they weren’t planning on following up from Future Echoes, then? It’s a shame they couldn’t recover (or didn’t write, I dunno) the whole script for “Dad”. I’m particularly interested in the “Lister’s Father” bit (mostly because I don’t think much of the answer given in “Ouroboros”).
Heck this rates above TOA. Infact given that Bodysnatchers was series one and these are from more around my own favourite time for the series, for me this latest announcement might even top that. I did a little bit of cum too (a bit more than John obviously)
I wonder where he would get a picture of his dad from though? Given that it’s said that the stuff about him being abandoned under the pool table comes from ‘Dad’.
I wonder where he would get a picture of his dad from though? He’s already got one, with a big dog in the foreground.
Yes, wonderful news.. Although I was a tad distracted from todays update by a message on the webboard from ‘Joel Sanders’ of the ‘Comedy Bunker’ http://www.comedybunker.co.uk/reviews/normaninterview07.jpg “Let it lie and move on” etc… Hmmm, I’m one of the 1% it seems… To reiterate a previous comment, “Tosser”
I wonder where he would get a picture of his dad from though? Given that it?s said that the stuff about him being abandoned under the pool table comes from ?Dad?. Maybe he finds a picture of the pub the night he was born or something? For the whole timesliding thing to happen, it doesn’t have to be a picture of his dad, just the place his dad is, no? Of course, there is that whole ‘in frame’ thing, but the part in the pub with his old self sort of seemed to ignore that – RD never has been big on continuity in any case. :)
This is hella lush. This new DVD is looking to be the bee?s mother titting knees. Pity most people would rather just Bodysnatcher, the docs and this stuff without having to pay for the filler :)
We really aren’t worthy of all this. But i’m not saying no to it all. Massive kudos to all people who are putting all these DVDs together, we truly are grateful! PS. What will the menus look like?
>We really aren?t worthy of all this. Amen to that. This probably isn’t even worth saying, as I’m sure almost all of us would say the same thing, but this release really has gone from, “Oh, I’d sure like to see those documentaries at least…” to “I NEED to own this package.” GNP: honestly, you are fantastic.
> He?s already got one, with a big dog in the foreground. I thought that was his step-dad rather than his REAL Dad. Besides if he can’t move out the frame that’s gonna be one pissed off mutt.
>there is that whole ?in frame? thing, but the part in the pub with his old self sort of seemed to ignore that – RD never has been big on continuity in any case. :) Yeah, Timeslides already violates the “in frame” rule that it set up for itself by allowing the Dwarfers to roam the inside of a pub but not allowing Lister to move away from the wedding party…it also seems to violate its own rules of causality and history-rewriting by allowing Rimmer and Holly to remember that something’s been rewritten but nobody else. I’m not normally pedantic about logic problems but for some reason they really bug me in Timeslides, and I think that’s part of the reason I never particularly liked that episode. Why the very same within-episode-contradictions don’t bother me in Tikka is anyone’s guess.
Well, yeah – two things here, really. One, the Timeslides rules are pretty vague once they become practically involved with the plot anyway. But two, since when has intra-series continuity been a big part of the show? Series III and IV changed Lister’s backstory with Kochanski and the century of their origin. You think adding one more photo to Lister’s collection – contradicting a series that, at the time, they’d asked not be repeated, and wasn’t available on home video – would have given the Comedy Police any pause? More importantly, this is Rob and Doug at their most open – test scripts. Built for the comedic and emotional experiment, as a try-out of what could be done. It’s not a scene designed to fit specific continuity. It’s not how it would have gone to the screen, because it was rejected before it got close. The final Dad wouldn’t have continued to ignore the Future Echoes promise laid out at the end of Parallel Universe. If made, some reference would have been pretty likely. (Even if it’s “Ah, so – not THIS pregnancy, then.”) But the point is, these ain’t just unproduced extracts – they’re scenes and concepts the writers put intentionally aside, long before plot holes and continuity were an issue. You all know how they work – great ideas first, fit to logic second. These scenes show not what would have gone to the screen so much as what Rob and Doug would come up with, alone at the keyboard, as they sketched out ideas for a new series. It’s a set of examples of the unimind at work as they brainstormed. How they’d have fit the scenes in is an interesting question. But don’t be under any illusion – at this early stage, it’s not something they were overly concerned with.
>But two, since when has intra-series continuity been a big part of the show? See, this is actually the point I was trying to make…albeit poorly. I have absolutely NO idea why it bothers me about Timeslides but not other episodes. I chose Tikka because that’s another within-episode-contradiction. Other things, such as the Lister/Kochanski history being rewritten, doesn’t bother me. Thinking on it, though, maybe I do have a reason for not minding stuff like that: writers (good writers) are continually finding their footing. If they later realize that something isn’t working (or, in Dwarf’s case, that something would work better instead) they’ll make that change for the sake of quality. The difference between this and a novel, though, is that you can go back and change the novel as much as you like before publication and nobody will even know. In TV you can’t go back and change series I for the sake of a change you’ve made in series IV. It’s too late…it’s already been seen. So I’m not much bothered by the overall continuity gaps. I’m perfectly willing to sacrifice perfect logic for the sake of strong characterization. I do have to reiterate, though–especially now–that I have no idea why it bothers me in Timeslides. I think it’s kept me from ever really enjoying the episode fully…which is something that has never affected me anywhere else in Dwarf. Perhaps it’s worth re-watching with this in mind…maybe then I’ll be able to pinpoint it.
What annoys me most about Timeslides is the way it “corrects” the reason for Rimmer’s death into something that nobody remembers when they discuss the history of the programme. They remember that Rimmer died following the radiation leak sometime after Lister went into stasis in The End. He didn’t. He died when he touched a box in Timeslides that had a bomb in it or something.
But Rimmer doesn’t remember it all that way. Rimmer has to be told he’s alive, and we don’t know WHAT the otehrs remember. It’s like him recalling the loss of Lister, Kryten and the Cat earlier on – it makes no sense, but is acceptible enough within the ‘one episode continuity’. So, with that in mind, it’s possible that everyone in the show recalls Rimmer being a recurrected hologram, killed by the radiation leak. Even Rimmer. So they continue to see that as ‘the truth’. The science is wonky, but creatively it makes enough sense. Especially when you factor in that he MAY have died twice. We don’t know that he was saved from the radiation leak – my own pet theory (based on the dorm-room scene making the living Rimmer think differently in Stasis Leak) – he could have been killed, resurrected, then resurrected for real in a billion different sci-fi ways. Not unlike Series VIII, actually…
THis is really sad, but i’ve always had thoughts and theories about the restrictions of the photograph. If say you took a picture of a drive way up to and including a mansion, then surely, the further back down the photo you would go, the more width you’d be able to achieve (ooh pardon).
>If say you took a picture of a drive way up to and including a mansion, then surely, the further back down the photo you would go, the more width you?d be able to achieve OK then…..so what if you took a picture of a brick wall…..would you be able to go behind that wall?
Unless there was a gap visible in the brick wall in the photo no, you’d be able to look alongside the wall but you couldn’t go there.
I think you could as long as you were able to knock down the wall. The Timeslides thing with Rimmer always annoyed me too until I figured that maybe he still died in the radiation leak but was later resurrected by something that was invented as an indirect result of Thickie Holden becoming a billionaire at age 8. Yep, I have a lot of time on my hands.
> If say you took a picture of a drive way up to and including a mansion, then surely, the further back down the photo you would go, the more width you?d be able to achieve (ooh pardon). No – surely as you got closer and closer to the mansion it would get smaller and smaller?
> I think you could as long as you were able to knock down the wall. Well in the aforementioned mansion question, would you be able to go into the mansion? If not, then what kind of interactivity is one capable of within this environment? Does this mansion have a locked door? Can the windows be smashed? What if someone opens the door – can you go in then? Can you move around in the house? The limitations of the photograph from left to right are one thing, but as time is moving forward it complicates matters – if someone were to open the door, would you be able to go in and stray within the hallway? Are you limited now by the width of the door according to the vantage position of the camera? I suspect that you wouldn’t be able to knock down the wall. I think the “wall” would be as much a barrier as the left and right confines that we see Lister jabbing his nose into in the wedding photo. If there was a door in the wall but it was shut when the photo was taken, then you entered it, I don’t think that them opening it would make you suddenly able to go through. I think Lister would jab his nose again. I was going to say he could climb onto the wall and look over, and suggest that he wouldn’t see anything there, but Lister managed to steal Hitler’s suitcase so this wouldn’t be true.
All I know is that someone got it in their head a short while back to keep editing the Dwarf Wiki entry to say that Rimmer died touching a box, not from the radiation leak. It might be strictly accurate when you follow the show’s chronology (then again, it might not, if you take all the continuity holes as proof that some of the different series take place in slightly different universes, which has always been my preferred get-out clause), but if you’re trying to sum up the concept of the show in an encyclopaedia, surely adding that bit of pedantic clarification is unnecessary in the extreme…?
How is it more pedantic than saying Rimmer died from the radiation leak? I don’t understand. It’s not like the events in Timeslides should be skirted over when they’re part of the history of the series and actually have never been contradicted since that episode. Indeed I always thought that the events in Justice took the events of Timeslides on board, for if Rimmer was to be perceived as having “murdered” the crew, then he must not have been one of the victims of this radiation leak himself. In my order of Red Dwarf events, Rimmer died from touching a box in Timeslides, but prior to this he was known to have died from the radiation leak. Why should the other way round be more primary? Indeed if you’re going to say one way is more pedantic, you could just as well say so is the other. Trace someone’s IP address, what the hell? Are you paranoid?
I think the angle on it is that both before and after THERE HAS been referencing to the story about the drive plate. Equally it’s part of the established mythos of RD. It’s something which is set out in the first episode, it’s part of ‘the bible’. If someone comes along and reads the wiki and it says ‘Rimmer died after slamming his fist on a box’ and then somebody starts they’ll wonder why on earth it’s never mentioned (bar in one episode) and why there are far more references in the TV show and the books to the drive plate scenario. Sure Rimmer dies in two ways I) Drive Plate II) Box in Timeslides and sure both are deaths and so both are equal but Rimmer’s death via the first of these two methods is one of only a few bits of consistent continuity within the series, whereas as the later is self-contained. Remove the episode Timeslides and it’s like it’s never happened. Basically Rob and Doug screwed up the continuity for the sake of a gag but one is a massive part of the series and the other angle is a one-off in a single episode.
> for if Rimmer was to be perceived as having ?murdered? the crew, then he must not have been one of the victims of this radiation leak himself. Also, you can’t be accused of murder for killing yourself. Which I’m pretty sure is what the writers were getting at. > Rimmer died from touching a box in Timeslides Or “Smashing his fist down on a box of three-million year-old explosive”, to be slightly more accurate about it. But we don’t know if he survived the radiation leak, or if he was resurrected to die again. In BITR1 Lister says “This is gonna sound nuts, but the whole crew died – including you.” Which suggests that the original death remains canon. Additional deaths are not character-defining backstory.
Karl: I’m not disputing the position of the *drive plate itself* within Dwarf history. I agree that it’s part of the Dwarf bible as you called it. But as far as I’m aware the events of Timeslides don’t remove this aspect from continuity, just Rimmer’s death at the same time as the rest of the crew. I’ll accept Lister’s line in BITR1, which I’d forgotten about, as contradicting the events of Timeslides to establish that Rimmer died with the rest of the crew after all. VIII is a series I’m happy to cut out of continuity altogether to be honest, but in this case I’ll concur.
I do kind of see your point and tbh I’d be equally happy to forget Series VIII. I just concured with Seb that it was a bit pedantic to take a comedic event from one episode over the established setup for the series.
>Why should the other way round be more primary? Because the radiation leak is referred to throughout the entire 8 series of Dwarf, whereas the explosion in Timeslides is referred to in that episode only. One is a piece of knowledge you should have in order to understand Red Dwarf. The other is a joke occuring in the last 30 seconds of a single episode. Tell me if I’m moving too fast for you. >Trace someone?s IP address, what the hell? Are you paranoid? And you wonder how we know which differently-labelled comments are coming from which people. It’s not rocket science, here.
I could never see the point of disguises or hiding on the net unless your up to no good but each to their own…
Sorry to go OT, but… I disagree. Not everyone who protects their real identity on the Internet is up to no good. IMHO, it’s perfectly fair to maintain some privacy so long as it isn’t abused, but each to their own as you say… ;)
Well, it’s getting a bit late for me to do a proper story on this now. And the comments thread is more interesting than anything I would have come up with anyway. Honestly though – in my wildest dreams, I never thought we’d get anything as good as this is looking…
Indeed Leelu, it was a broad statement on my part and your right to disagree with it, although there is an element of ne’er do wells.. In relation to sites like the Dwarf based ones, there is evidence to suggest that some people use any old name to make points of a negative nature. For all I know it may just be someone out to *wind* everyone else up, I’ve no idea who they are, it confuses the hell out of me. On the other hand, what prat would hide behind a name like Captain Darling? :-)
Steve and Leelu: I think you’re both right, and also both WRONG. There’s nothing at all wrong with using a pseudonym on the internet – as long as you’re consistent with it! It’s people that use a different name every time they post on the same board that tend to be up to no good. I’ve seen this on so many forums. Well, two.
>There?s nothing at all wrong with using a pseudonym on the internet – as long as you?re consistent with it! Right. I don’t mind people knowing my real name, but I don’t expect the same of everyone. I’m perfectly willing to refer to you as Cowshine Moonrider or whatever else your internet handle is… The problem is when someone switches handles with every comment…it’s impossible to carry on a discussion that way. And even if the people involved are aware they are talking to the same person, it’s needlessly confusing to everybody else, and they don’t know whom to address if they have their own ideas they’d like to bring to the conversation. >there is evidence to suggest that some people use any old name to make points of a negative nature. I have to admit, I’ve rarely seen anonymous posters turn up somewhere to leave positive feedback or encouraging words.
Indeed, it was those that continually change that I was referring to.. It would be wrong of me to suggest that someone that uses the same user-nick name all the time is up to no good..
I mean, who’d have thought that Leelu was a hairy, 20 stone, dock worker from Liverpool with the real name of Bernard? Not me, for one minute ;-)
> I have to admit, I’ve rarely seen anonymous posters turn up somewhere to leave positive feedback or encouraging words To be perfectly honest, I’ve not seen *you* post anything of this nature either. I’ve just seen evidence of your negative outlook.
You’ve not read Phil’s first comment on this thread then? >We really aren?t worthy of all this. Amen to that. This probably isn?t even worth saying, as I?m sure almost all of us would say the same thing, but this release really has gone from, ?Oh, I?d sure like to see those documentaries at least?? to ?I NEED to own this package.? GNP: honestly, you are fantastic.
No I hadn’t read that. In that case then, since Phil used the word *rarely* rather than *never*, I’d say Phil is positive and encouraging *about as often* as the anonymous posters. At other times, he’s pointlessly finding certain elements in people’s posts that will allow him to have a go at them, and ignoring other elements. See above where he repeats Karl’s assertion that the drive plate is essential to Dwarf lore, even though this has never been disputed, and even though I had responded to Karl’s post explaining that it’s Rimmer’s death from this event, not the radiation leak itself, that I was suggesting was altered by the events in Timeslides. And then Phil’s “tell me if I’m moving too fast” comment. It’s unnecessarily sneery and rude, and it’s always based on some misunderstanding or not paying attention to clarification.
Yeah, it can be really annoying when someone decides to post under a different name for no good reason. You’d have to be an idiot to do so. I mean, just get a grip on your identity ffs and stop playing these silly games with yourself that can only lead to multiple personality disorder crossed with a severe bout of wrack and ruin. Norm xxx
