Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Feature VS Specials

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2911
    locusceruleus
    Participant

    I’m curious…since we’ll be getting 3 X 30 minute specials, if we had a choice (which of course we don’t), would you prefer a single 70 minute (+ ads) feature length episode – a Red Dwarf TV movie, in essence, or the 3 separate installments we’ll be getting?

    I’ve certainly got my fingers crossed for a movie-style/length cut on the DVD.

    #92314
    Danny Stephenson
    Keymaster

    Yeah, I think it’s safe to say they will probably give us both, a l? Back In The Red.

    #92315
    pfm
    Participant

    Well, the plan was probably to have the two 23 minute Dave episodes on the DVD alongside a single extended episode of around 60 minutes or so. Now we may just get the three episodes.

    #92316
    locusceruleus
    Participant

    That’s what I was thinking. From the official site news this week it looks unlikely that there’ll be much in the way of deleted/uncut scenes left over at the end of it all, so I doubt they’ll bother recutting/reformatting it for the DVD.

    #92317
    Blisschick
    Participant

    I really like the Xtended versions I’ve seen. I would rather see the new stuff like that, but if that’s not an option, I’m not going to complain. It’s definitely better than having nothing at all!

    #92332
    ChrisM
    Participant

    Since it is all one story, I think the option to see it full feature on the DVD would be great. I don’t think it would be too difficult to have both.

    I’d imagine a ‘feature’ option that involves skipping start/end credits between the episodes would be fairly simple.* If that is too expensive an option, twice the space required for 2 versions (i.e. 3 episodes and the ‘feature cut’) would still come under 6 episodes on the other Red Dwarf disks.

    It might be worthwhile not even bothering with the separate episodes in the DVD version. Unless there are gags in the recaps etc, of course.

    *I seem to remember an option on the series 1 (and possibly 2) set where you could watch all episodes skipping the theme and credits. That would be even more worthwhile here.

    #92334
    Andrew
    Participant

    > it looks unlikely that there?ll be much in the way of deleted/uncut scenes left over

    Honestly, I’d hold off on second-guessing this until we get into post. We don’t know, as yet, how tight or loose this will be in the final cut.

    > I seem to remember an option on the series 1 (and possibly 2) set where you could watch all episodes skipping the theme and credits.

    We never did this. But I always put chapter points in FOR the credits, so they were easy to skip while you were watching via Play All.

    #92335
    Mr Flibble
    Participant

    Andrew, I know you can’t give anything away regarding the BtE DVD, but from your experience on 1-VIII would it be a lot more expensive to create a cut where all the titles and recaps were cut out?

    As in would doing that be a case of “that’s prohibitively expensive, we’d rather spend the money on something good” or “yeah, we might as well do that”?

    #92338
    Andrew
    Participant

    We did it for Back in the Red.

    Doing it as a branching version would be prohibitive. Creating and putting a second video on the disc would not.

    #92340
    Carlito
    Participant

    I watched the series 1 DVD a few days ago using ‘Play All’ and it definitely cut out the ‘2001 ASO’ intro. I remember specifically because me and my mate remarked on it at the time, it cut right to the last second of the Holly monologue, and fades straight into the episode.

    #92341
    Carlito
    Participant

    Which I have no problem with, by the way, who needs to see the opening sequence 6 times if you’re watching it in a row? And I’ll correct myself, it doesn’t miss out the whole Holly intro, just the standard ‘Three million years…’ one, and then cuts to the episode specific one.

    #92342
    Jonathan Capps
    Keymaster

    I’m absolutely positive the series 1 DVD doesn’t do that. Are you sure you pressed ‘Play All’ or just selected the first scene on the episode in its menu?

    #92344
    Andrew
    Participant

    Cappsy’s nailed it – on all series the individual episode menus start with the second chapter, the first scene of the episode proper. If you want to play the episode from the very start, the opening theme, click ‘play episode’ instead.

    #92345
    Carlito
    Participant

    Not 100% actually, I usually press ‘Play All’ but my mate had the controller. I assume ‘Play All’ but “ass out of u and me” and all that jazz, better be careful.

    #92346
    Carlito
    Participant

    We’ve been having a bit of a Red Dwarfathon since watching The End on the 20th anniversary last week. Gonna continue with it tonight, as well.

    In the meantime, through the week I been watching the DVD documentaries (finished series V “Heavy Science” last night). Seen them all before, of course, but they’re bloody brilliant.

    #92347
    JamesTC
    Participant

    Are you going to watch ‘Body Snatcher’ and The End: The Original Assembly?

    #92348
    Carlito
    Participant

    We did watch The Original Assembly, in lieu of the real The End (having seen that one a thousand times before anyway).

    Dunno… if we watch Bodysnatcher, we also gotta watch Identity Within, haven’t we? Maybe when everything else is in the can.

    #92350
    Mr Flibble
    Participant

    We did it for Back in the Red.

    Doing it as a branching version would be prohibitive. Creating and putting a second video on the disc would not.

    Oh, I know it was done for BITR. But that could have been seen somewhat in the same way as Tikka Remastered as an attempt to reduce some of the criticism of these three episodes (the third one especially), and therefore seen as a “feature” and given a feature’s budget. (I know Tikka Remastered was paid for by GNP)

    I’m sure that most people here couldn’t give a stuff if that sort of thing was branching or not, as long as it’s there!

    #92353
    Andrew
    Participant

    > But that could have been seen somewhat in the same way as Tikka Remastered as an attempt to reduce some of the criticism of these three episodes (the third one especially), and therefore seen as a ?feature? and given a feature?s budget.

    I don’t understand – you asked if such a feature would be cost-prohibitive. What does the motivation (to ‘reduce criticism’?!) have to do with the cost? And how does being known as ‘a feature’ alter whether it’s affordable on the DVD production budget?

    Tikka:Remastered required newly-created CGI FX, putting it beyond the range of what we could afford – at least without dropping other significant content. BITR: Xtended didn’t need extra FX, and so was within our range. Thus the former isn’t really useful off an example of whether ‘cutting off the titles and credits’ can be financially viable, but the latter is.

    #92359
    Mr Flibble
    Participant

    I don?t understand – you asked if such a feature would be cost-prohibitive. What does the motivation (to ?reduce criticism??!) have to do with the cost? And how does being known as ?a feature? alter whether it?s affordable on the DVD production budget?

    I wouldn’t really consider the BITR full length on the DVD to be a feature. Neither would I consider a full length BtE to be a feature. Nice to have, maybe. But not something I’d be mentioning first in trying to sell it. It’s getting close to “Animated Menus” in the feature department. (You say BITR was Xtended, but that’s hardly noticeable, whereas it is in the VII Xtendeds)

    The motivation to reduce criticism obviously does have something to do with the cost. As far as I can tell, GNP and Doug are fully aware of the fans view of BITR Part III and Pete. We all know that BITR was intended as a 1 hour show originally. Therefore it could be seen that it is worth spending money on re-editing to improve perceptions and say “look, here’s what we *tried* to do” and make this a feature. Much as the same as with Tikka Remastered, but it was cheaper and therefore could come out of the DVDs budget only, rather than needing GNP to pay. If the motivation didn’t have anything to do with cost, Tikka Remastered wouldn’t have happened.

    Therefore, I personally wouldn’t want a feature’s worth of budget* to be put to making a cut together version if there is no significant new content. I’d rather it was spent on something more interesting. But if it’s cheap to do, why not.

    * Before you tell me, yes, I know different features will have different budgets, but you see what I mean, I’m sure.

    #92361
    JamesTC
    Participant

    >You say BITR was Xtended, but that?s hardly noticeable, whereas it is in the VII Xtendeds

    I always watch the xtended version of BITR now, I see an obvious improvement in the story, it flows better and the odd extra joke here and there goes a long way.

    #92362
    Mr Flibble
    Participant

    I always watch the xtended version of BITR now, I see an obvious improvement in the story, it flows better and the odd extra joke here and there goes a long way.

    But the thing is, how much of that is actually down to new stuff, and how much is just chopping out the titles and Hollister droning on.

    Maybe I watched the originals too many times, but BITR Xtended still seems like 3 episodes to me.

    #92363
    Andrew
    Participant

    I still have no idea what it is you’re trying to say!

    > I wouldn?t really consider the BITR full length on the DVD to be a feature.

    It costs the same whether you call it a feature or not.

    > Neither would I consider a full length BtE to be a feature. Nice to have, maybe. But not something I?d be mentioning first in trying to sell it.

    Which doesn’t alter the production cost one iota.

    > It?s getting close to ?Animated Menus? in the feature department.

    You know they cost money too, right? I still don’t see how a semantic judgement alters the production cost.

    > (You say BITR was Xtended, but that?s hardly noticeable, whereas it is in the VII Xtendeds)

    Again, whether you consider it noticeable (is that relevant?) doesn’t change the fact that a) extra material was inserted, b) it costs a certain amount to join the eps with or without those additions, so go ahead and use Pete as an example instead if the extra content is clouding things, and c) It’s ‘BITR: Xtended’. I didn’t use the name to make any wider point, that’s just what it is.

    > The motivation to reduce criticism obviously does have something to do with the cost. As far as I can tell, GNP and Doug are fully aware of the fans view of BITR Part III and Pete.

    They’re also aware of the criticisms of the whole of VI, VII, I and a great many other things. You think we put those stories – single, full-length stories – together to deflect criticism? This long after broadcast? You seriously think it radically alters the public perception of a show watched by millions on broadcast to show it to a few hundred thousand on DVD in a different form? You think THAT was the motivation?!

    As opposed to, say, presenting two multi-part stories in a single part? Which makes a perfect amount of sense? And isn’t that different from the way some Buffy and Friends eps are shown on DVD?

    No offence, but you’re seeing this from a pretty self-important perspective if you think some decade-old fan reaction is more important than basic creative common sense.

    None of which changes the original point: how does factoring in that peculiar motivation alter what the making such an edit costs?

    > We all know that BITR was intended as a 1 hour show originally. Therefore it could be seen that it is worth spending money on re-editing to improve perceptions and say ?look, here?s what we *tried* to do? and make this a feature.

    But we didn’t make the one-hour version. And people watching on TV, I think, didn’t need to be told that “Back in the Red 1”, ‘Back in the Red 2’ and ‘Back in the Red 3’ all joined together to make one long story. I’m confident that would have been sussed without any word about a one-hour original script.

    More importantly, “This is what we tried to do” isn’t close to being the same as “This is done to appease fan criticism”.

    When Lucas adjusted THX 1138 for DVD, was it because people complained about the shots he changed, or because he wanted the thing to be seen a certain way? We wanted to offer the choice, to reinstate some cut-for-time moments and present the story in a single-slice version – as an alternative. If we’d been trying to avoid part three criticism, surely we’d have removed the broadcast versions from the DVD?

    Though again I say – whichever reason the thing was done, it would have cost the same. So I still don’t follow your point.

    > Much as the same as with Tikka Remastered, but it was cheaper and therefore could come out of the DVDs budget only, rather than needing GNP to pay. If the motivation didn?t have anything to do with cost, Tikka Remastered wouldn?t have happened.

    The FX would have cost the same either way – out of GNP’s pocket or the budget. Motivation didn’t alter the cost, it only altered where the money came from.

    The question you asked was whether it was possible to afford a BtE feature-length edit. Which, since you’ve seen the VIII DVD, you already knew the answer to. Yet I answered anyway.

    So, instead of caring about IF it’s affordable, you consider where the money COMES from to be the important factor, how on Earth would you expect the question to be answered now? You’re asking if a hypothetical edit would be paid for by the DVD budget or GNP? Even though you know the new Tikka was based on original dissatisfaction. We haven’t even SHOT BtE yet, so how can I possibly speak to any feeling about its broadcast version?!

    > Therefore, I personally wouldn?t want a feature?s worth of budget* to be put to making a cut together version if there is no significant new content. I?d rather it was spent on something more interesting. But if it?s cheap to do, why not.

    I think you’re hung up on some idea of “a feature’s worth of budget” that doesn’t exist. Every feature costs a different amount, so you could mean a tenner or you could mean ten grand. The two can’t possible be seen as the same. Some features are cheap, some are not. They’re all features…no matter what you prefer to call them, or why they are being made.

    > * Before you tell me, yes, I know different features will have different budgets, but you see what I mean, I?m sure.

    Hardly at all!

    #92375
    Mr Flibble
    Participant

    Hardly at all!

    In which case there’s little point in my trying any further to make my very simple point make any sense.

    #92422
    Ridley
    Participant

    Well, at least I don’t have a ridiculous walk.

    #92431
    James
    Participant

    I thought you had cystitis?

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.