…but is there proof?

[flanl3]

I’ll admit, I’m a bit hard to convince of things, but is there any legitimate, in-show proof that Series X <i>actually does</i> come chronologically after the world’s second longest unironic Blade Runner reference, or is the idea that X comes after Back to Earth and that there’s no way there’d be an IX to fill in the <i>horrendously</i> large plot gaps just a supposition?

Topic

[Ian Symes]

Yes, the search for Kochanski is mentioned several times in X, and that only comes about at the very end of BTE.

[flanl3]

Alright, excuse the fact that I haven’t actually watched much X in a while, so my facts may be a little off, but is there anything to say that he wasn’t searching for her hologram disc for a C&P-esque situation, except using the power the ship has left over from not running Holly anymore instead? A simple ‘search’ for Kochanski could be searching through thousands of floors of clutter for the only remaining copy of her, albeit virtual.

Also, sorry for being crazy, but I suppose I’d just like to find any reason to believe that we’ll ever see the plot holes filled in.

[International Debris]

Yes, In Entangled he thinks Irene, as a living human female, might be her.

[flanl3]

His-dimension Kochanski, hoping she lived and escaped to elsewhere? I’ll say I didn’t remember that detail and it’s pretty convincing but still…

[Ben Paddon]

I’m pretty sure the intent is that he’s looking for the Kochanski we saw in VII-VIII.

[Hamish]

Also consider that in Fathers & Suns they seem to be resigned to the idea of replacing Holly with Pree while in BTE they still have some hope of “drying him out”.

I really wish they did not have the “after Series X” line in BTE when all of the other references are to the fictional Series IX.

[flanl3]

I mean the intent of which Kochanski, but at the same time the idea of ‘she died the only chance we have left is if the other one isn’t dead might as well try’ and I suppose we could go round and round on it all day and it would still be more likely that you were right, I’d just like to think I am.
Plus, on the note of ‘resigning’ to installing Pree, I think that could just be because she was recently found, not a resignation.
Either way, it’d be amazing to see a IX (or somehow otherwise numbered) series which did end up explaining (if not showing) the plot gaps, and if only it were to live up to ‘best series, if you ask me’, I would be amazed.

[Ian Symes]

There have been some terrible Red Dwarf-related ideas mooted throughout the years, some of which have ended up being produced, and some of which have been quite rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. Of all those ideas, I can’t recall a single one that’s worse than “after a comeback special and three full series of brand new adventures, and with the revived show having established its own identity that’s reminiscent of but distinct from that of the BBC days, let’s abandon this development in order to answer the question of what happened in between the least popular series from the last century and the least popular series from this century”.

[flanl3]

Doesn’t mean I don’t want to know.

[(deleted)]

If they ever look again at shopping round the comic book licence they were trying to float about ten years ago (still a shame that never really came to anything), it’s one for then, alongside the 4-part miniseries that fills in everything that happens between Parallel Universe and Backwards, and the one about the Cat Ark, and nice visualised versions of all the lore origin stories in the novels, and everything else the ship has completely sailed on showing on TV. Dealing with that stuff would be part of the burial process after the show officially ends.

Saying all that I still want a ‘what happened to Kochanski’ episode, however they want to do it. Chloe Annett is owed that moment.

[Author]

Replies