SFX FEATURE!

[si]

My subscriber’s copy of the December issue of SFX, #189, has just, JUST, dropped through my letterbox. I noticed on the contents page a picture of the erstwhile RD crew, and, figuring they wouldn’t be carrying the ‘new series’ news, found, on pages 58-59, that the mag’s regular ‘Rewind: The TV shows that shaped a generation’ feature (generally very good – it did Eerie Indiana recently, that was great) ‘does’ Red Dwarf this month. I haven’t actually read it yet, so I’ll let you know later what it’s like…

Topic

[si]

It’s actually on pages 58-61.

[si]

Right, just read it. It’s actually pretty, what’s the word? Respectful? The show as a whole is looked upon fondly, and there aren’t too many mistakes:

Rimmer coming face to face with his alter ego Ace Rimmer in “Dimension Jump” (not so much “jumping the shark” as “surfing the alligator” in the opening credits)

and the frankly confusing

Suzanne Rhatigan, the then girlfriend of Craig Charles, was meant to play Kochanski. Ultimately, she didn’t appear in the final episode, although she was still credited as “Kochanski Camille”.

Huh?

[Andrew]

They’re mixing up her appearance – with that character name – with the replaced performance of Tracy Brabin. Oops.

It does genuinely worry me that often, when I see a journalistic piece on a subject I know a fair bit about, there seem to be glaring errors. If it’s true for the subjects I know about, presumably it’s true for the majority of topics about which I’m ridiculously ignorant. Which really is very unsettling.

[JamesTC]

I think they should watch the BTE DVD.

[hummingbird]

Didn’t they give BTE a pretty lame review? Or was that someone else?

[Tarka Dal]

> . If it?s true for the subjects I know about, presumably it?s true for the majority of topics about which I?m ridiculously ignorant. Which really is very unsettling.

Absolutely this.

[JamesTC]

>Didn?t they give BTE a pretty lame review? Or was that someone else?

They given the DVD a bad review which I am sure we are well aware is complete rubbish regardless of the main feature.

[si]

> . If it?s true for the subjects I know about, presumably it?s true for the majority of topics about which I?m ridiculously ignorant. Which really is very unsettling.

Absolutely this.

I’d not really thought about it like that before, but yes, definitely. I’m with them.

[Author]

Replies