Official Annoucement of Red Dwarf Special to come mid-September

[red-dwarf-movie-rip]

At least acorrding to Bobby Llew http://llewtube.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=841&start=15#p7829

Topic

[Jonathan Capps]

I’m still convincing myself we’ll see something this week.

[red-dwarf-movie-rip]

The sooner they Announce the Better it will be for all those on edge as to what is coming.

[Phil]

It would at least shut down these nasty rumors based on speculation. If it turns out NOT to be a clip-show then surely it’d be good to nip all these ITS JUST A CLIP SHOW DONT GET EXCITED articles in the bud.

…but, of course, I’m sure GNP need to wait for everything to become official–if it isn’t already–before they can speak. Ah well.

[red-dwarf-movie-rip]

If it is a Clip show you got to give them Credit for making the former Series stretch as far as it could.I suspect that Mr Naylor will not disappoint as he has indicated that we shall find his efforts worth it.

[Danny Stephenson]

I’m just happy we’re getting new Dwarf to be honest, but what’s nice to know is that even though Red Dwarf stopped in ’98 we really have been steadily getting new things to watch and gawp at with the DVD’s, not to mention things like Bodysnatcher and Identity Within. As Red Dwarf fan’s we really have been given ‘new’ material pretty much constantly since VIII ended. We don’t really have THAT much to complain about…

[Tonguetied]

>I?m just happy we?re getting new Dwarf to be honest, but what?s nice to know is that even though Red Dwarf stopped in ?98 we really have been steadily getting new things to watch and gawp at with the DVD?s, not to mention things like Bodysnatcher and Identity Within. As Red Dwarf fan?s we really have been given ?new? material pretty much constantly since VIII ended. We don?t really have THAT much to complain about?

Apart from the lack of genuinely sublime gags…bar BodySnatcher of course.

[Danny Stephenson]

I’m not talking about actual Red Dwarf itself, but just stuff we didn’t have during the runs of the original shows. Documentaries, behind the scenes footage, model shots, that sort of thing.

[Tonguetied]

True, we have had more in DVD extras, that other franchises, like Black Adder, and Fawlty Towers should have delivered. Red Dwarf has given it in spades, we’ve had more than a belly full . The sheer depth and effort into the production of the DVDS is astounding.It’s been a pleasure to be a Red Dwarf fan since 1998 passed, not that it hasn’t always been.

[thomasaevans]

Im pretty pissed off with the lack of news again this week. If I have to wait a month for official news, and its a sodding clips show… Im gonna be severley pissed off.

BTW Its like ressurection time lately.. Ghostbusters 3 practically official now aparently! But game delayed? poooo.

[ChrisM]

>Im pretty pissed off with the lack of news again this week.

Mid-September (if Robert Llewelyn is correct that the news will be broadcast then) is only a couple of weeks time.

Believe me, it’ll fly by.

At least it was interesting news this week. I knew about the calendar from this site, but I wasn’t sure of the content. Now I know. (Not sure I’m getting it yet though.)

[Phil]

>Ghostbusters 3 practically official now aparently! But game delayed?

Is it? I was under the impression that the game would be making use of script elements from what would have been Ghostbusters 3. Are they still trying to get it made?

[Pete Part Three]

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23180

Not sure why, but I’m not as opposed to this as most reunions (Red Dwarf, BTTF). They can ditch the whole idea if Murray says “no”, though.

[ChrisM]

Lethal weapon 5?

I’m really out of the loop…

(Mind you I didn’t like number 4 very much but the rest were great.)

[pfm]

My guess is that Murray has now said he would be onboard, otherwise why bother writing the script? It’s got to have him, Aykroyd and Ramis in it at the very least, otherwise they might as well just do a remake.

[thomasaevans]

Yeah Ghostbuters 3 is technically the game, but now the writers from ‘The Office’ are writing a script. Watch this space.

I love Rob Llew. He is my favorite guy in the world atm. I have a great respect for someone putting this much effort to get news to the fans. Most cast members would’nt give a fuck.

[Andrew]

> My guess is that Murray has now said he would be onboard, otherwise why bother writing the script?

It’s called development, and it happens all the time. Scripts are cheap, and can be used to attract talent – Ackroyd wrote his own third movie without Murray ever getting involved. And you can bet another half-dozen ‘Ghostbusters 3’ scripts by various screenwriters are out there – of course Columbia would want to spend a little finding ways to continue a profitable franchise.

The latest comment from Ramis is funny: “aykroyd, ivan reitman and i are consulting at this point, and according to dan, bill murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new ghostbusters video game, as did danny and i, and ernie hudson. the concept is that the old ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity.”

Versions of that idea/script have been around for years, but ‘Dan says’ is the funny bit – because Ackroyd’s kinda known for jumping the gun. Seeing as nobody’s signed on the line, nobody’s greenlit anything, and that Murray’s ‘involvement’ is based on what could turn out to be little more than an aside at a voiceover session…I think we’ll assume it’s just more of the same old buzz.

Also: A new Ghostbusters film has a 78% chance of being rubbish.

[Pete Part Three]

>Also: A new Ghostbusters film has a 78% chance of being rubbish.

Well, quite. But there is some life in the idea mainly because GhostBusters II did absolutely nothing new. I hate the mentoring idea, though.

I’d imagine that Hudson and Moranis are shoe-ins. And if Sigourney Weaver is prepared to pop up in cack like Vantage Point for 15 minutes, she can probably be tempted. Murray really is the clincher for me, though.

Much as I like The Office US, it seems a bit strange that Ramis and Ackroyd aren’t writing the script for this current version.

[Phil]

>Also: A new Ghostbusters film has a 78% chance of being rubbish.

At least it’s not the Ghostbusters-in-Hell CGI fest we might have had a few years ago. That’d be closer to a 94% chance of rubbishness.

[Danny Stephenson]

At least it?s not the Ghostbusters-in-Hell CGI fest

Sorry, is this going to be a live action movie, now? I still had the impression it was going to be CGI…

Man, I really need to look into stuff more.

[Phil]

Well, I just assumed since it was a completely different project from Aykroyd’s (different script, different writers, apparently different leads) it’d have no real reason to still be done in CGI. But we’ll see.

The thing that scared me about Ghostbusters in Hell was how excited Aykroyd got about the CGI. He was saying all kinds of things about what they couldn’t do in the first two movies and how great it’d be to see all the amazing stuff on screen that we never could before…and never once did he get excited about, you know, the story, or the writing, or the dialogue, or anything that might actually make it a good film. It seemed like he was fully prepared to dive headlong into something that was primarily a feast for the eyes.

Honestly, the effects in the first two films (with one or two exceptions) hold up brilliantly today, but they aren’t what made the films so great. The fact that the ghosts seemed to fit so well into the reality of the work was a great bonus, but the real joy was to be had in just watching the characters interact and deal with things. That’s why I’d wish for a third Ghostbusters film that dealt with the original four coming out of retirement or something. I like those characters. I could take or leave the damn ghosts, and I’d much rather have the screen presence of Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis and Hudson than CGI representations fighting hordes of arcade-style demons.

[Pete Part Three]

>He was saying all kinds of things about what they couldn?t do in the first two movies and how great it?d be to see all the amazing stuff on screen that we never could before?and never once did he get excited about, you know, the story, or the writing, or the dialogue, or anything that might actually make it a good film. It seemed like he was fully prepared to dive headlong into something that was primarily a feast for the eyes.

I think this is called Lucasitis.

[Andrew]

> GhostBusters II did absolutely nothing new

I REALLY like the mood slime concept, which I guess you could argue was a development, at least. But yeah, it didn’t do much new.

Truth be told, I’m not sure there IS anything you can do with the first movie to make it satisfyingly franchise-able – the saving the world story was never the reason I loved it. The character beats, the jokes; the second movie’s a likeable coda. Taking the ‘busting ghosts’ concept in new directions…well, I can’t imagine any that wouldn’t disappoint.

> I?d imagine that Hudson and Moranis are shoe-ins. And if Sigourney Weaver

Weaver and Moranis (who’s pretty well retired) both turned down the videogame, mind you…

A new cast would miss what I liked in the first place, and the old cast would just seem kinda sad and misguided. I’m not a “Leave it alone” guy – I’m not anti-remake OR sequel, to anything, because I’ve never felt those things taint the originals, no matter how badly they go – but in this instance it all seems a bit no-win.

I’ve no desire to see a bald and wrinkly Murray bickering with Weaver, or Louis and Janine married with kids. There’s no version of those characters, aged as the cast now are, that will match what I need them to be in my head. They’re frozen in aspic.

Not that it’s going to happen eithrr way…

> The thing that scared me about Ghostbusters in Hell was how excited Aykroyd got about the CGI

Yeah, not a good sign. Though I thought he’d been talked off the ledge a little by Reitman, who wanted ‘Hell’ to be more like an evil version of New York? Which, played subtle and creepy, is a concept I could have really taken to…if they’d made it in he early 90s.

[pfm]

Maybe they could have done something along the lines of Demons and Angels where New York is split.

[Pete Part Three]

I actually watched Ghostbusters II earlier today. I really like the first ten minutes (Winston and Ray doing children’s parties, Peter presenting psychic shows) and then it just runs out of ideas and recycles the first film.

(Having said that, I’m currently watching “Greatest Ever Comedy Movies” on Five and people are being alarmingly generous to Scary Movie. Perhaps I should be kinder)

[Danny Stephenson]

I dont mind Scary Movie, it’s the endless junk that’s been thrown out after. This new “Disaster Movie” couldn’t be further from the truth…

[Phil]

>(Winston and Ray doing children?s parties, Peter presenting psychic shows)

Yeah, see, that stuff I really like about the second movie. It sort of copes with the idea of the developing franchise by making fun of it. I like all that stuff. And, to be frank, I like the mood slime. I like the toaster. I even like the Statue of Liberty bits.

But yeah, on the whole it all feels a little too…restricted. The Vigo stuff isn’t nearly as cool as the “What the FUCK is happening to New York?” plot of the first film. Also, from what I understand, Bill Murray improvised a lot of his stuff in the first film, which is probably why he feels so much wittier in that movie compared to the second. There are good jokes in the second movie, but they feel more…effortful.

[Nakrophile]

I don’t know. Obviously the cg one was a terrible idea, but I can’t really see a proper third film happening, even with all this news. If it did, though… they really would need everybody back to make it work. But if they did get everyone back, then it would probably be pretty good. If it is at least on a par with the second one (and with the time gap it could be loads better) then I’ll be happy. Actually fuck that, as long as they get everyone who should be there there, it’ll be a winner.

Lethal Weapon 5, though… why? They pretty decisively ended everyone’s stories and the entire series in the fourth one.

[Andrew]

> as long as they get everyone who should be there there, it?ll be a winner.

Four words: Indiana. Jones. Four. Shit.

[Nakrophile]

> Four words: Indiana. Jones. Four. Shit.

Very true, and I was half-conscious of this while I was typing it. Thinking about it now, I expect if it ever gets made it’ll be a pile of balls, but I was having so much fun getting excited about Indy 4 before it came out.

So the moral is, get excited about something until it comes out even if it’ll probably be shit, including lying to yourself when you see trailers. Only when you’re actually watching the film in the cinema can you relax in the shitiness of it all, go home and visit the internets for truth.

[Squeaky Gibson]

>Four words: Indiana. Jones. Four. Shit.

I didn’t get around to seeing this on the big screen, seemms I didn’t miss anything! I must admit i’ve also got a bad feeling about Lethal Weapon 5, i’ve totally given up all hope for Star Trek XI. seeing Simon Pegg as Scotty, is enough to make a fan cry.

[ChrisM]

Despite having gone off Star Trek lately…. I’ll admit I’m rather looking forward to the new film.

SPOILERS-
*
*
* Since blank lines tend to get edited out….
*
*
*
I think the whole time travel thing has been done to death in Star Trek films (and Enterprise for that matter, although I rather liked that one… at the time anyway.) It’s a shame they couldn’t have left it out of this one.

That being said I’m looking forward to the reappearance of Leonard Nimoy.
And Romulan baddies! Hopefully they’ll make more use of them than they did in the previous film (although I didn’t dislike the Remans.)

[Nakrophile]

I don’t see why they feel the need to keep revisiting the past. Enterprise was good, but it did get cancelled. Back to the 24th Century, I say!

[Pete Part Three]

Don’t give me that Star Trek crap etc…

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

Funny thing, I just got both the Ghostbusters films on DVD a few days ago. (Good deal, too.) I loved those films back when I was too young to appreciate them properly–I got hooked on them from the animated series. I about wore out our VHS copies by watching them over and over. But it would take me years to “get” exchanges like this (paraphrased):

Ray: …until dickless here shut down the containment grid.
Mayor: Is this true?
Peter: Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.

The only thing that kinda bothers me a little bit, now I’ve watched them with a more critical eye, is that their main female character, Dana Barrett, is really nothing more than a magnet for trouble/Damsel In Distress. But the films do so much else just right (Egon was my favorite character back then, and he still is now) that I really don’t want to throw out both these films for it.

[Dave]

Official Annoucement of Red Dwarf Special to come mid-September

Here it isn’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YOd7SrFUOI

[Pete Part Three]

Yay, Bobby following a frustratingly vague YouTube video with…a frustratingly vague YouTube video!

[Squeaky Gibson]

nothing of note then, shame I was looking forward to watching this at work.

[Ben Paddon]

I think he’s de-vagued a lot of what went into the first video, TBH.

[Anonymous]

deleted

[Author]

Replies