'Jump The Shark' – Guardian article

I -genuinely- feel like I’ve read this article before. Not deja vu, not reading a -similar- article, but -this- article.

The writer disqualified himself when he knocked The Brittas Empire.

> But, with the chances of matching its imperial phase receding faster than Chris Barrie’s hairline

LOL RECEDING HAIRLINES!!!

Cunt.

Wow. This is the first time I’ve seen you express an opinion, Jawscvmdia. Keep it up.

I’ve seen him express three.

Combined as one.

> Depends what you think of jokes about receding hairlines, I suppose.

Either way Chris has been quite open about the fact, making reference to it in the recent documentary. You seem to be taking it a bit more personally than perhaps he would?

>I mean The Simpsons have made more than enough episodes now but aside from that why does any show need to end just arbitrarily.

So, aside from *that* show, other shows should continue?

> Either way Chris has been quite open about the fact, making reference to it in the recent documentary. You seem to be taking it a bit more personally than perhaps he would?

I only said the word “cunt” mate. You’re acting like something important has happened.

The problem with that article is that there isn’t an original thought in it, it’s superfluous and unnecessary, and it makes false claims.

“Wobbly staging” – as with Classic Doctor Who, the sets probably wobbled a grand total of two times
“Seemingly exposed as the straight man… drought of comic invention…” – contentious
“Navel-gazing that strove for poignancy but palled into dullness” – debatable
“It killed the franchise for a decade” – it didn’t
“Utter smegging ineptitude” – unfair
The writer – a cunt

Considering how brief this article is, it’s pretty much right on the money. Is there really that much here to disagree with?

– He praises the concept, that cast, the writing, and the sheer originality of the show.
– He says that by 1990, it was the best British sitcom on TV.
– He points out that Grant left after VI, and that the Emmy award represents the show’s highest plaudit.
– He notes that VII crept into comedy-drama, and was considered a disappointment.
– That VIII was even worse, undermining the whole concept of the show.
– That BTE was hugely anticipated, but inept.
– Finally he says that X and XI were “much better”, but the chances of the show again reaching its early 90s peak are unlikely.

Overall, that’s 100% correct for me. And judging by the results of G&T’s ‘Silver Survey’, it chimes with the general opinion on here too, no? Why is this article receiving such backlash?

The one point I’d disagree with is that Barrie choosing Brittas over RD is the greatest snub imaginable. So I’ll give you that.
But the rest? Remarkably accurate for a short, opinion-based, mainstream newspaper article about a cult TV show.

If it’d been posted on here and not The Guardian, would the author still be called a cunt and told to fuck off?

That’s what’s most annoying about it, for me. I agree with the broad gist of the article – that Red Dwarf got worse after Series VI – but the individual points it makes to back it up are clichéd and/or inaccurate. It’s bad writing.

I don’t get why “stop making it” seems to attract more ire than someone simply saying “it’s shit”.

It’s just one person’s opinion. It has no effect on the commissioning process of a television show.

I think there’s an attraction on “going out on a high”, much like a celebrated sportsman picking the right time to retire. It’s not really about how the show is viewed *now*, it’s about the legacy it will leave behind. If there’s a epilogue after the peak or after the perfect ending, which would rather be forgotten, than that’s pretty unwelcome.

There’s also more to it than “people still watch it, it keeps making money, so let’s make more”. It’s the same problem as movie sequels or remakes. It’s studios banking on “sure things”. Using an established name; irrespective of whether there’s a valid creative reason to continue because they know a loyal audience will still be there, even if it’s just out of morbid curiosity. I don’t think that’s a position that is conducive to being particularly creative.

From my personal experience of S.O’s “safe” example; whenever I stumble across The Simpsons on a channel-hop, there’s a brief moment where I identify when, roughly, it was made. It will look roughly like the show I love, it will sound roughly like the show I love; but there’s no guarantee it will be the show I love. Instead it will be likely be a bastardised version of it which brings me no enjoyment whatsoever, featuring characters I know longer recognise in situations devoid of any humour.

This brings to mind John’s recent article about being a fan. Making a conscious decision to stop watching something which you were “emotionally invested” is quite a big thing. it certainly was when I decided after struggling through the 16th season of The Simpsons, that if the show wasn’t going to call time, then I would.

The Guardian article is clearly written by a passionate fan of the earlier series. I don’t like the way it’s arrived just in advance of Series XII (ot whether it’s been recycled to coincide), but I don’t really understand the anger.

If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

(That’s what one says in these conversations, right?).

You might look at something and say it is creatively bankrupt or just a cash in but other people may still get the love that you got from the earlier stuff.

Not enjoying something is fine. Saying it is shit is fine. Saying it should end because you found it shit and have an internal struggle over your continued viewing of the show despite other people not finding it shit is selfish.

I regret watching Futureworld. I think it is the worst film ever made. It was purely made to cash in on Westworld. Should that film not have been made? Nah, it should have. Some people do like it. I just read a review that says “with its visual ingenuity, interesting ideas, and a winning couple of leads, I like this just enough to give it a recommendation”.

Come series XII, I’m sending Johnny Vegas round to arrest this cunt.

That’s what’s most annoying about it, for me. I agree with the broad gist of the article – that Red Dwarf got worse after Series VI – but the individual points it makes to back it up are clichéd and/or inaccurate. It’s bad writing.

That’s pretty much it. The overall trend in the show described in the article is roughly one most people here would probably agree with, but it seems to have been written by someone who’s done ten minutes’ research online about fan opinions on the show, rather than by someone who has a passion for the programme and actually understands the nuances of its different eras, and the writers (Doug being the ‘less funny’ of the two maybe held up for the novels, but much as I dislike VII and VIII, I’d take ANY post-Rob Dwarf over Dark Ages and The Strangerers in terms of humour).

The final paragraph’s “it’s actually quite good again now, but it still should have been cancelled” conclusion is fucking ridiculous. How about “after series VIII, it seemed that, perhaps, the show’s legacy would be stronger had it not continued after series VI. However recent series, if not quite as essential viewing as the show’s peak, have softened the blow and provided enough laughs to feel positive about the show once more”?

Considering he decided to leave BEFORE Series VII and was only coaxed into doing a couple episodes with the prospect of Ed Bye returning, I’d say that’s completely accurate.

Also, I watched two episodes of The Strangerers and laughed maybe one and a half times.

To be fair though, he never says it should stop being made. Some of the reactions on here suggest he wrote “I don’t think it’s as good as it used to be, so nobody else should get any more episodes, even if they still enjoy it”.
To me at least, the last sentence seems to be questioning what the overall legacy of the show will be if you keep producing stuff that isn’t as good as it once was. He’s not saying it SHOULD BE CANCELLED.

But, as Warbodog has said, once the damage is done, and you might as well continue.
I’d further add that once you’ve reached the nadir (VIII/BTE) and you’re now improving (X, XI) then you may as well continue, BUT don’t kid yourself that legacy hasn’t been devalued.

I’m always happy that there’s new Red Dwarf episodes coming up, but at the same time I genuinely wish series VIII never happened. I’m looking forward to XII, but part of me thinks that had the series ended with the margarita scene at the end of Out of Time, Red Dwarf would probably be held in higher regard. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I would have always wanted a series VII.

Like The Simpsons; I don’t want Red Dwarf to end, but I also think its critical legacy would be better if it had done – long ago. That seems to be the point of this article, not “Red Dwarf has been shit for years, end it now!”

P.S. Barrie became disillusioned during VI and made the decision to not do all of VII. Now the article doesn’t present it quite that accurately, but it also doesn’t say he left halfway the production of VII either.

To be fair, this is what Barrie was facing in Series 7 (look at how unhappy he is):

> Red Dwarf jumped the shark when they brought Rimmer back to life in Timeslides, only to kill him off again immediately. How can you play with someone’s life like that, for a cheap gag – imagine ending an episode with the death of a character. As a gag.. Like if someone fell out of an airlock. A woman, for example. Possibly named Irene. It’s shocking, really.

Much like the Guardian article, this is a technically valid comparison that misses or deliberately obscures most of the finer points. Such as that laughing about Rimmer’s death in Timeslides is earned to a degree by his actions earlier in the episode, that his death in TImeslides does not bring with it unpleasant connotations about the treatment of women, and that the joke in Timeslides does fit in with the overarching theme of the episode in a way that Irene’s death really does not in Entangled.

I will grant that it is still a bit naff though.

Its not that Rob was the funny one and Doug isn’t, its that 2 minds are better than one.

Legacy is a weird idea to me because like, those old shows still exist. They’re exactly the same. They still have exactly the same impact, historically and to a modern audience. Yeah The Simpsons have twenty shite seasons, but that doesn’t mean people remember the good ones any less fondly, or that they’re retroactively shit. They’re still held in just as high – if not higher – regard.

I don’t think Irene’s death does anything as grand or important as “bring with it unpleasant connotations about the treatment of women”, it’s just a bit naff. If Irene had been male she would have been dealt with in much, if not exactly, the same way.

Eh, in the wider scheme of social issues, and also in context of a TV show in which women haven’t always been portrayed brilliantly, there’s something a bit dodgy about blokes not caring that an unintelligent woman has just fallen out of an airlock. Obviously it’s not intended like that, but it’s a shame that a little more care wasn’t put into considering wider implications is all.
And yes, it’s also naff. I can’t help feeling she could have at least been turned back into a chimp, or she decided the crew were too sophisticated for her and felt left out so decided to go back to the ERRA institute. There were plenty of potentially better ways of getting rid of her. I suppose Entangled is pretty full as it is, plot-wise, without extending that section further.

Or, for those who don’t mind that awful canned laughter but do mind the word “fuck”:

> Eh, in the wider scheme of social issues, and also in context of a TV show in which women haven’t always been portrayed brilliantly, there’s something a bit dodgy about blokes not caring that an unintelligent woman has just fallen out of an airlock

But Rimmer does care, in so far as it ends his chances of getting laid, which was part of the joke if you will remember. Ha ha, nothing ever goes right for Rimmer. Which is actually the same joke from Timeslides, only here someone else dies because of it.

“Have you got a pen” is still a good line though.