Jokes you don't/didn't get

[bloodteller]

“I’m so gorgeous, there’s a 6-month waiting list for birds to suddenly appear every time I am near.”

is Cat talking about legit birds here (feathery flying things) or is he referring to women using slang? Bottom Live 3 did this bird/bird confusion as a joke I think

[Plastic Percy]

It’s the lyrics to ‘Close to You’ by The Carpenters.

Why do birds suddenly appear
Every time you are near?
Just like me, they long to be
Close to you.

[bloodteller]

ohhhh, i’ve heard that song before! no idea why i didn’t realise the connection

[International Debris]

I’d like to be an arse and point out that the Carpenters version, while the most famous recording of the song, came out seven years after the first recording of the song by Richard Chamberlain. It’s a Bacharach & David song. And a bloody great one at that.

It’s also one of those jokes that’s utterly terrible and utterly brilliant at the same time.

[Taiwan Tony]

Why do birds!
Why do
Why do

Well you get the idea.

[Pete Part Three]

Let’s just post it for Bloodteller.

[Flap Jack]

I’d like to formally thank the Simpsons episode “The Way We Was” for obliterating any possible barrier I could have had to understanding that Cat line.

[Ben Saunders]

Isn’t it in Austin Powers 1? But yes, I think the Simpsons episode was my first exposure to it.

[Hamish]

> It’s also one of those jokes that’s utterly terrible and utterly brilliant at the same time.

That is basically the entire comedic potential of the Cat as a character in one sentence.

[Unrumble]

[Dave]

You know, someone should really post that clip from I’m Alan Partridge where he sings it.

[Pete Part Three]

It’s not in Austin Powers, Ben. It’s a Burt Bacharach/Hal David collaboration though, and has a similar composition to their songs; “What the World Needs Now”. (featured in Austin Powers IMOM) and “I’ll Never Fall In Love Again” (featured in TSWSM).

It is in There’s Something About Mary though, just in case you were mixing up 1990’s Hollywood comedies.

[Ben Saunders]

Nah I was definitely mixing it up with What The World Needs Now, which to be fair has a very similar melodic structure, at least to begin with

[Ben Saunders]

“Rubber shares went up this morning” always went right over my head when i was young. Is it implying Ace uses a lot of condoms or is it about his jumpsuits or what? I felt it’s a very funny line delivered well even before i could begin to get it.

[Pete Part Three]

Condoms. Or “Rubber Johnnys” as we called them back in the day.

[Flap Jack]

Specifically, it’s that everyone is panic-buying condoms when they hear Ace Rimmer is back, just in case they have the opportunity to fuck him.

It’s not about Ace’s personal prophylactic usage, because then it would be a joke about his libido, rather than a joke about how attractive he is.

[bloodteller]

>Specifically, it’s that everyone is panic-buying condoms when they hear Ace Rimmer is back, just in case they have the opportunity to fuck him.

are the condoms for Ace to wear or for the people buying them?

[Dave]

The way the stock markets work, it’s not necessarily that extra purchases have been made so much as the market expects extra purchases to be made (or even – depending on how far you take it – that the market expects the market to expect extra purchases to be made, and so on). So the condom sales may only be theoretical/expected.

I think the joke definitely warrants this level of analysis.

[Flap Jack]

That very much depends on the person, and the outcome of a discussion that they and Ace would have beforehand.

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

What even more depressing to think about, is that the people speculating on rubber stocks will have their lives ruined within 24hours. After they have plunged all their investment savings in rubber/latex/condom companies, Ace buggers off on a one way trip to explore the multi-verse.

Share prices would plummet on that news and everyone would lose out.

Now I was a spin off showing the dystopian world left behind in the wake of Ace vanishing and the planet/solar system’s economy crashing over night.

Also, something I’ve always wondered and will bring up now as it’s tangentially on subject. What the sodding hell is the point of test flying a dimension jumping ship if there is no way of knowing it succeeded? They lose their best pilot, they lose a massively expensive piece of prototype kit, and they basically lose the millions/billions spent on it because if they don’t know the success, or how to return it, they have no reason to carry on with the experiment. They certainly wouldn’t get any further funding after throwing it all way like that.

Know one would test dive a submarine knowing you couldn’t resurface it again. If it doesn’t resurface then you know there is a problem, but there at least has to be the mechanism built in to get it back, then you know you’ve failed.

By shooting Ace off into the multi-verse without a mechanism of retrieval, all they know is he has vanished.

[Ben Saunders]

Well if he vanishes i assume they assume he made it? They might have don’t support sciencey equipmemt to detect hawking radiation or tachyons or whatever they expect to be emitted from a successful jump

The people who test space rockets in real life know they might not come back, and many don’t

[Ben Saunders]

I somehow managed to type “don’t support” instead of “some”, there

[Dave]

Maybe as soon as their Ace shot out of their dimension, an alternative Ace from another dimension shot in.

Thus saving rubber shares from freefalling.

[Quinn: Clochebusters World Champion]

Space rocket pilots have a built in mechanism for return. They know they might die accidentally, but they’re not sent to space on a one way trip. We reserve that for animals.

So that begs the question. If they have a process of testing whether it succeeded by some science technobabble … why not do the test jump remotely?

Dave makes a good point. I’ve always considered there only being one Ace at any given moment, and he passes the baton when he dies to a new Ace. But that’d be impossible with the sheer number there have been that we see in Stoke. There’d have to be more than one traversing the multiverse at any given time.

[Pete Part Three]

Yes, it’s pretty daft. TBF, Rob Grant seems to have realised this as when the same mission is explored in Backwards (the novel), the ship has been designed to break the light-barrier. Another Wildfire then arrives (with a dead, char-grilled Ace Rimmer) 3 days before the intended launch date, and Tranter believes that the ship has also mastered time-travel. Later, Ace and Spanners realise that it’s actually the Wildfire from another dimension, and they argue this point.

Um, HERE. (You can possibly cling onto the Tachyon message idea for the rationale in the TV show):

Ace exhaled a thick, blue cloud of cheroot smoke. ‘No. ‘Fraid not, Admiral. As far as we can tell, dimension travel’s something of a one-way street. Look, if the infinite-dimensions theory is correct, every single second of every single day, millions of people are making key choices that affect the course of their existences, each decision spawning yet another reality. It would be impossible to map a way through. Frankly, even if we thought we could find a way back, it would be impossible to establish for absolute certain whether or not the reality we returned to was the one we left.’
Tranter poured himself a glass of water from his unusually large carafe. ‘So the upshot is, Commander, you’re expecting me to give a green light to this trip, knowing that the best we can hope to achieve from it…’ he sipped, ‘… is flushing thirt billion dollarpounds of hardware and the best pilot we’ve ever had straight down the khazi?’ No doubt about it, he’d have to choke down his pride and send those bloody stars back as soon as they arrived. In fact, he might do well to check up on the second-hand value of the stars he was already wearing.
‘Uh, Admiral, we’re about ninety-seven per cent certain Wildfire One could fire off a tachyon message complete with digitalized video footage of the new universe, so long as he got it off inside, say, fifteen seconds of arrival, while his trail back was still warm, uh, as it were, ‘
‘Oh, much better. A blurry shot of some stars that are probably identical to the ones we’ve already got, and a soundbite for the News at Noon. That’s a fabulous return for an outlay of thirty billion. That’ll probably snag me the cover of Investor’s Chronicle. I mean, at least the original moon shots from Earth gave the world Teflon.’
‘Oh, come on, Bungo,’ Ace cooed, ‘You wouldn’t stop a girl going to a big dance like this, would you? Who knows where the technology could lead? “We’ve got to try it, now we know it’s there.”

[Nick R]

bloodteller:

one other joke i didn’t get was in an episode of VII (i can’t remember which, they all sort of blend into one) where kochanski moans about how she hates being stuck with some “neurotic droid who’s completely obsessed with my pants drawer!” to which kryten responds “you mean I’m not alone?” what does this mean? is kryten being really self-deprecating or is there actually another android onboard going around perving over kochanski’s knickers?

I always thought the joke was meant to be that because of the word “some”, he mishears “some neurotic droid” as “some neurotic droids”, so he thinks a different mechanoid is being referred to.

Ben Saunders replied above saying that he doesn’t recognise Kochanski’s phrase as being a description of himself. I disagree; I think he does recognise that she’s referring to him, but he’s so accepting of own his neurosis and cleaning obsession that he doesn’t recognise that he’s being criticised, so he ignores that bit and focuses on the plural.

However you interpret it, it’s a convoluted joke.

[Pete Part Three]

Pretty sure the intention is that Kryten initially believes that Kochanski is referring to someone else is obsessed with Kochanki’s pants drawer. Kryten momentarily believes he is not alone in his obsession, and then realises Kochanski is referring to him.

I don’t think mishearing “droid” as “droids” changes that.

But does it work? Nope. If Kochanski said “neurotic moron” rather than “neurotic droid”, then I could accept that Kryten thinks someone else is obsessed with Kochanski’s pants drawer (Lister, The Cat). But she says “droid”, so there’s no room for ambiguity there.

And because Kryten’s initial reaction is to “So, I’m not alone?”, than that means he already accepts that *he’s* obsessed with Kochanski’s pants drawer…so there should be no confusion.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

[International Debris]

Yeah, it’s a cheap gag but it would work better if there was a possibility that there *could* be someone else. As it is it’s just a cheap gag that doesn’t work.

[bloodteller]

maybe the other droid obsessed with her pants is Frank, the washing machine mentioned in i think either Duct Soup or Blue

[Plastic Percy]

I think that’s one of the better jokes VII, naming a washing machine Frank as he works better with an identity.

[RickLee84]

That very much depends on the person, and the outcome of a discussion that they and Ace would have beforehand.

Well, he’s strictly butter side up so he would be the one using the condoms, not the people he has sexual encounters with.

[International Debris]

Unless he has sex with a pre-op trans woman with an STD.

[Ben Saunders]

I for a moment there thought he was using butter side up to mean he only tops

[Hamish]

I think Bongo would be cool with that.

[Lily]

>“some neurotic droid who’s completely obsessed with my pants drawer!” to which kryten responds “you mean I’m not alone?” what does this mean?

I’ve always taken the joke to be:
– Kryten does not consider himself obsessed with her pants drawer
– He thinks he’s ‘alone’ in being the only droid on the ship
– “you mean I’m not alone” = ooh there’s another droid?!
– shame face = oh, you’re calling me neurotic and obsessed with pants :(

Question for the Americans though: how well does this translate that the whole issue is regarding underwear and not pants/trousers?

[bloodteller]

oh okay, i think i get it now. cheers for explaining, that joke always confused the hell out of me.

surely with americans the joke still works even if they think the conversation is about trousers- a droid obssessed with jeans and such is still as strange as a droid obssessed with underwear.

[International Debris]

Underwear is more pervy though.

[Taiwan Tony]

Or is it more – understandable?
Who is the sick man? …In his suit and tie…?
Etc

[Dave]

Aaaaaaaaaaah

[Unrumble]

I’d always interpreted it as Kryten saying “you mean I’m not the only pants-obsessed droid?”

[Ben Saunders]

I can’t believe this is a debate hahaha Series XIII where are you

[Pete Part Three]

Ok, last pass at this:

Kryten is obsessed with Kochanski’s pants drawer, and freely admits to this. However, he doesn’t believe himself to be a “neurotic droid”.

Saying “alone”, in this sense is related specifically to believing that someone else shares his viewpoint. So, he believes that there is someone else on Starbug who’s obsessed with Kochanski’s pants drawer (like him)…who is a *neurotic droid*.

Then he twigs that he is the “neurotic droid”, so the person who is obsessed with his pants drawer (like he is)…is him.

[Pete Part Three]

It’s still shit, though. There’s not enough ambiguity over who’s neurotic (it’s the droid…and there’s only one onboard), so the confusion Kryten momentarily has is…just… dumb.

[bloodteller]

there’s a lot of weird jokes like that in VII, really. i was watching Epideme the other day and momentarily thought i’d somehow stumbled upon the deleted scenes or some weird bizarro version of the show- there’s a lot of moments in it that i don’t remember being there originally and they all feel really really odd.

there’s one bit where lister and kryten make a crack about kochanski’s cold personality and then do a cheeky look and giggle at each other like naughty schoolboys. it was funny but also rather disorientating. is this red dwarf or grange hill?

[International Debris]

Having watched VI to death, I basically stuck to my VII off-airs for ages after it was first on, and going back to VI I actually remember feeling uncomfortable at how cold Lister and Kryten can be to each other – Lister telling Kryten not to sacrifice himself because “I’m not doing my own smegging ironing”. If that was VII, Lister would be far less flippant. VII is definitely more ‘chummy’ than the earlier series, and VIII even more so (Lister and Rimmer being pretty much mates at that point). I wonder whether some of the overly cunty behaviour in XI and XII is Doug still trying to accurately redress the balance after that.

[bloodteller]

honestly i really like the “chummy” feel of VII and VIII, though that’s likely just me. it’s quite nice to see the main characters getting along, having a laugh and just generally being mates. you get the feeling that they’ve all bonded and become good friends with each other- even VIII Rimmer, who’s barely got to know them all, doesn’t even think twice about staying in the mirror universe and instantly heads back to save everyone. or in Pete, when everyone is just genuinely happy to see Rimmer and Lister have escaped from The Hole- it’s a nice break from how cruel the show can feel at times.

i really didn’t like the nastiness between the four in X-XII. i mean, yes Cat was nasty to Rimmer in VI but there’s a more jokey feel to it. in the Dave era, it feels like pretty much everyone except Lister and Kryten despise each other. rimmer’s talk about how he’s annoyed kryten has been thinking for himself lately in Siliconia was rather unpleasant too.

[bloodteller]

i get that conflict is important but it gets a little uncomfortable at times just seeing them all be so cold to one another

[bloodteller]

watched Holoship last night, and there’s one line i really don’t get. after Rimmer complains that you’re defined by your job, Kryten starts listing great people who had mundane jobs- Albert Camus, Albert Einstein. he then goes on to say “And of course there’s the oft told tale of the simple carpenter’s son who went on to own the largest chain of pizza stores in history, Harry Bedelbau(?)”

i’m sorry, who? i even tried googling this one and got nothing. what’s all that about.

[Dave]

Not sure if you’re joking, but the implication is that he’s about to tell the story of Jesus – “a simple carpenter’s son who…” – but it then turns out to be somebody (fictional) who is a lot more mundane than you were led to expect.

[bloodteller]

oh, that makes sense. i probably would’ve got it if there was a pause between “simple carpenter’s son” and the rest of the sentence, but since it’s one unbroken line i just assumed it was about a real person.

[Author]

Posts