SFX Stinker!

[si]

Got my new SFX today, found the review for the BtE DVD, and I’m not overly impressed – 2.5/5 for the story, 2/5 for the extras, plus some major slagging off of Doug Naylor’s direction.
But even worse, flicking through the letters page, there are two letters from ‘fans’, absolutely slating it. Were they watching the same show as me?

I write to you in mourning following the death of a previously much-loved friend.
Having currently endured two of the three […] eps […] I’m left bewildered and distinctly underwhelmed.
I’m not sure I can even bring myself to watch the third instalment, so bad were the previous two. – Simon Fowles

and

When I tuned in […] they seemed to be showing old episodes of Hyperdrive.
That would be the only explanation for the unfunny, flabbily written and charmless rubbish that I saw.
Oh, and Craig Charles taking the mick out of his drug habit. Woo hoo. -Keith Sullivan

Oh, fuck off.

Topic

[NoFro]

I’m not too bothered about the magazines opinion of the show, as it is just that and it isn’t going to change my opinion of the show, but surely the extras are worth more than a 2/5!? Could you possibly transcribe or scan the review?

Also, were both ends of the scale represented in the letters section? Because we all know that there were just as many people who loved it as there were who hated it so I wonder if it was fairly represented.

[Stabbim the Skutter]

I wouldn’t mind this so much if it weren’t for the fact that SFX actually WAS in Back to Earth. This reminds me of when I released part one of my group project fangame online and one of the project members gave it a rather scathing review…

[NoFro]

That’s a fine point… CUNTS! Using BTE as a tool for promotion and then shooting it down. Not cool.

[Jonathan Capps]

SFX being dead wrong, there.

[JamesTC]

I can’t believe the extras would get 2/5, I mean I have not seen them but looking at the past of the range I just can’t fathom how it could take a big dip.

As for 2.5/5 for the story, well that is just plain bull shit. I do know it gets bad reception but it doesn’t deserve that low a score.

[ChrisM]

>I can?t believe the extras would get 2/5,

Me neither. I can understand the dislike of the episodes (don’t get me wrongI liked them overall but these things are subjective) but that review is supposed to be of the DVD. Just looking at the amount of extras that should have earned a higher score.

[pfm]

I think we already know that 2/5 for the extras is pathetically wrong. It screams of someone throwing their toys out the pram and not even bothering to watch them, just because they disliked BtE itself. Even the short Making Of we’ve already seen, coupled with the web content, is worth at least 3. Smeg Ups, deleted scenes, featurettes, commentaries, a web link… how the fuck can they add up to only 2/5? How the fuck? The fuck? Fuck? ?

IMO Doug’s direction was pretty good. There’s only one dodgy scene, when Cat’s describing/re-enacting what happened with the squid, and that’s just an editing issue. Everything else is at the right pace for this kind of special, and most of the shots and setups were great. It’s only bad direction when you notice it, and for episodes 2 & 3 there were zero complaints from me. All the location stuff in particular was expertly handled.

[Andrew]

I seriously question the editorial decision to publish a letter from someone writing between episodes two and three. Of all the correspondence, the reactionary one – who couldn’t even find the basic critical faculty to watch the full story – is the one that beat the others to the page? It’s like writing your review in the interval of a play.

But then I guess there’s more fire in anger than in considered thought and evaluation. Bigger entertainment value.

The review I get: no fan like an angry fan. I think it’s ridiculous, the DVD score especially – are there any non-Who British shows who get this well-treated on disc? Two stars is surely the province of Primeval? – but I see how it got there. Bonus content for a show you didn’t care for isn’t huge fun.

The shows were given three stars on broadcast and I’m sure the on-screen appearance of the mag means someone wants to avoid any appearance of bias, causing a possible over-correction in selecting their reviewer.

Given their grudging reviews of the previous DVDs, though, I guess nothing’s entirely surprising.

[Carlito]

Andrew, you and the crew at GNP absolutely SPOIL the fans with the DVDs, and I really expect no less from Back To Earth, so don’t take it to heart. Red Dwarf DVDs are literally THE best DVDs I have ever encountered. You are spot on when you say no other show gets such great treatment. Fuck what SFX say.

[Pete Part Three]

>It?s like writing your review in the interval of a play.

Or walking out 2/3 of the way through?

If the intention was that Back to Earth was to be viewed liked a play, it should have been shown as such, rather than being split up into three episodes and inviting people to review them as individual episodes. I can watch four episodes of Ashes to Ashes and conclude that it’s not a patch on Life on Mars. I don’t need to see the arc in full to be able to form a critique on the acting and the writing.

You must expect people to form an opinion over 72 hours? The guy’s point was that he found the first two episodes so bad, that he couldn’t bring himself to watch the third.

I agree that SFX could have considered a more balanced representation of views, but who knows if they actually received any?

>I?m sure the on-screen appearance of the mag means someone wants to avoid any appearance of bias, causing a possible over-correction in selecting their reviewer.

Maybe.

[Seb Patrick]

Also, half-stars are for fucking cretins. If you want to judge it on a ten point scale, use a ten point scale. If you’ve got a stars out of five system, have the conviction to bloody stick to it. Twats.

[Pete Part Three]

Well that is true. Although when I used to read SFX, they gave everything A,B,C etc.

[si]

>I wouldn?t mind this so much if it weren?t for the fact that SFX actually WAS in Back to Earth

Indeed. The beginning of the review actually starts:

RED DWARF: BACK TO EARTH
There’s no kind of atmosphere
2009*TBC*75 mins*?19.99*15 June
Director: Doug Naylor
Cast: Chris Barrie, Craig Charles, a copy of SFX

Fuckwits.

[Dave]

Whenever The Sun gets attached to a campaign, it declares that victory is always a result of its efforts regardless of facts.

SFX smacks of the same desperation, their news section’s top story was once ‘Joss Reads SFX’.

Now I love Joss Whedon’s work and maybe there is a vicarious thrill in knowing he reads the same magazine, although I doubt it, but front page news?

[Pete Part Three]

>I wouldn?t mind this so much if it weren?t for the fact that SFX actually WAS in Back to Earth

Reviewing it is a bit of a no-win situation then, wouldn’t you say? If they’d given it 4/5 stars the naysayers would cite bias, anything less than 3 and they’re “snubbing them for the sake of it” it seems.

[John Hoare]

Exactly. Whether SFX was in Back to Earth or not should make no difference to the review at all. Complaining that they’ve given the show a negative review when they’re featured in it is silly.

I’ve obviously not seen the extras, but I very, VERY much doubt that I’d consider them worth less than four stars, if they’re anything like previous releases. Obviously I can’t comment properly until I’ve seen the DVD, but I’d be amazingly surprised if I agree with them there. The lack of reasoning in the review for the low score here stinks too – they’ve already REVIEWED the episodes last issue, so they should be concentrating on the DVD content for a DVD review this close to the broadcast.

As for the star rating they give the shows, though, they’re actually more generous than I’d be – I’d give it two stars. I recognise a lot of good ideas and a lot of thought went into the episodes – I just don’t think it came off. To give that some context, though, I’m enjoying the Perrin revival far more – and I’m only giving them three stars.

The tired LoG comparison is rubbish, mind.

[Dave]

>Complaining that they?ve given the show a negative review when they?re featured in it is silly.

Agreed, I appreciate it’s a different review, but the fact they gave it three stars on transmission is a bit of a kick in the face:
http://www.ganymede.tv/forum/2009/04/bte-sfx-review

[John Hoare]

SFX have a policy of giving the transmission and DVD releases of shows two different reviews, so there can be two different viewpoints in the mag.

I like the idea; it’s nice to have different reviews, and these are *personal* opinions, not magazine editorial viewpoints. But admittedly, it would have been nice to have concentrated on the extras slightly more in this one when the two are so close together.

[JamesTC]

>The tired LoG comparison is rubbish, mind.

No I disagree, I mean LoG came up with an original concept that has never been used ever in anything and Red Dwarf just copies it exactly.

Oh wait a minute, that is bull shit. I have already had an argument with somebody on IMDB who thinks Red Dwarf copied of LoG.

Still SFX have not given the most idiotic review I have ever seen, this is from IMDB – “if u think red dwarf back to earth is good, ur a retarded fanboi with no life and zero good taste. nuff said.”
I and another poster commented on his intelligence, his view on opinions and his spelling and got called “a pair of retarded fanbois with no life and zero taste”.
They should get him to write for SFX.

[Seb Patrick]

Exactly. Whether SFX was in Back to Earth or not should make no difference to the review at all. Complaining that they?ve given the show a negative review when they?re featured in it is silly.

There’s such a thing as diplomacy, though. It’s quite unprofessional to have a working relationship with someone and then turn around and slag them off the moment you’ve got what you needed out of it. I’m not saying they should have given it a good review just because they were in it, but no-one can deny that there were good things to say about the show whatever you thought of it, and there are ways to not give a good review without also doing a hatchet job (and I’m sorry, but having seen the extras on the DVD, two stars for them IS a hatchet job). And printing the negative letters, without a counterpoint, makes it seem more like there’s an agenda at play.

[Seb Patrick]

>The tired LoG comparison is rubbish, mind.

Do they say that in the DVD review? Because for reasons that will soon become clear, anyone who says that AFTER (allegedly) watching the DVD just looks fucking stupid.

[si]

Again, I wouldn’t normally reproduce an entire piece like this, but I don’t see why anyone should have to buy this if they don’t want to, so:

RED DWARF: BACK TO EARTH
There’s no kind of atmosphere
2009*TBC*75 mins*?19.99*15 June
Director: Doug Naylor
Cast: Chris Barrie, Craig Charles, a copy of SFX
2.5/5 Extras: 2/5
There’s a clue in the title: Back To Earth. It’s a phrase that means “back to reality”, and, of course, “Back To Reality” is a classic episode of Red Dwarf, featuring a reality-warping squid. So as soon as you see a suckered tentacle in episode one of “Back To Earth” you can’t help but have a sinking “here we go again” feeling, no matter how much goodwill you may have for this much-heralded return of the show.
“Back To Earth” is a mish-mash of genius moments and misfiring gags that sorely tries your patience, but doesn’t quite tear it to shreds. Coming across more like a greatest hits medley than something new and fresh, it’s far from Dwarf‘s greatest moment but compared to some of the drivel that goes out under the banner of British sitcoms these days, the old flashes of magic shine through.
There are script problems. The central gimmick – the Dwarfers come to Earth to discover they’re fictional characters – is just the League Of Gentlemen movie rehashed, and the postmodern product placement gags are wearying after a while; similarly, the Blade Runner allusions become laboured and counter-productive. But the main problem is Doug Naylor’s stilted direction, which saps the life of even the good jokes, with lines delivered with curious gaps for a non-existant laugh track.
There are times when the old spark reignites. A Blade Runner gag is a peach, as is Rimmer’s solution to getting rid of an unwanted holographic science officer. While you can’t help thinking that at three eps the jokes are spread too thinly, there are signs here that there’s life in this show yet.
Extras: Commentaries by the cast and Doug Naylor; the Making Of special also shown on Dave; another documentary exclusive to this DVD; deleted scenes; “smeg up” bloopers. Dave Golder
i: The picture next to Kachanski’s [sic] by her gravestone is of Mel Bibby, a production designer on the series who died in 2002.

Ah. ‘”smeg up” bloopers’. Patronising bastards.

[Seb Patrick]

… okay, so he really didn’t watch The Making of: Part Two, then.

[Andrew]

That’s a pretty positive review for the score. Or is it just me?

> product placement

I think this irks me more than anything else. Showing a thing isn’t promoting it, and aside from the DVDs pretty much every bit of merchandise shown isn’t even commercially available.

[si]

Go Ellard! Show those SFX bastards!!

[si]

>every bit of merchandise shown isn?t even commercially available.

…Yet?

[John Hoare]

There?s such a thing as diplomacy, though. It?s quite unprofessional to have a working relationship with someone and then turn around and slag them off the moment you?ve got what you needed out of it. I?m not saying they should have given it a good review just because they were in it, but no-one can deny that there were good things to say about the show whatever you thought of it, and there are ways to not give a good review without also doing a hatchet job (and I?m sorry, but having seen the extras on the DVD, two stars for them IS a hatchet job). And printing the negative letters, without a counterpoint, makes it seem more like there?s an agenda at play.

It depends whether you consider the main review a hatchet job or not. I don’t, especially – I think it’s wrong in some areas (and as Andrew says, the product placement stuff is fucking nonsense too), but the review of the actual show generally reads like an honest review to me. But I think the review should stand or fall on its own merits – the past association the magazine had with the show shouldn’t figure in the review, for good or bad.

The LoG thing indicating they’ve not watched the MAIN FUCKING EXTRA is hugely embarrassing though, you’re right – that part stinks to high heaven. And it means I’m not really inclined to spend much more time defending the magazine, or the review!

The letters page thing is tricky. It could be that those two letters were representative of the postbag. I doubt it, considering the general fan reaction, but we just don’t know.

[si]

The two letters I quoted were the only letters regarding Red Dwarf. Although in the ‘WAHF’ box-out, there were a couple of fans thanking SFX for getting a RD cover, another who was ‘feeling distinctly shortchanged by the resurrected Red Dwarf – “I missed the canned laughter as well as the original sets”‘

You just can’t please some people.

[John Hoare]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t clear – I meant we don’t know whether out of all the mail SFX recieved, those two letters were representative. Again, I suspect not, but we don’t know.

I don’t really agree with the tone or some of the points made in the two letters – but I’m long past the point where I expect most reader’s letters to be worth anything.

[John Hoare]

In fact, the letters thing brings up an interesting point.

EVERYONE who writes for G&T loved Back To Earth, apart from me and Tanya. And the general reaction on G&T, apart from a few people, was very positive. And whilst viewing figures are obviously not the whole story, they indicate – especially the figures for Part 3 – that a lot of people enjoyed the show.

And yet… weirdly, everyone else I know – including a lot who would have counted themselves as people who liked Dwarf – really didn’t like it.

It’s… disconcerting. And odd. I suppose all it says is that there have been a wide range of reactions on the shows, which we always knew there was going to be… but I find it odd that amongst my friends there is such a clear delineation amongst those who loved it, and those which… really didn’t. I would have thought that at least a few people I knew casually would have liked it!

[JamesTC]

Quite a few people I know didn’t like it, quite a few did. About the same each way really.

[pfm]

> And yet? weirdly, everyone else I know – including a lot who would have counted themselves as people who liked Dwarf – really didn?t like it.

Whether it was wholly deliberate on Doug’s part or not, I think BtE was squarely aimed at long-term fans and not ‘casuals’. You might think ‘ooh Corrie’s in it and they’re on Earth’ so it might appeal to a wider audience but I’d be willing to bet fans got much more of a kick out of that element than casuals, who might just be pissed off or confused.

I consider myself to be a ‘casual’ Family Guy fan, and I know I wouldn’t be arsed with an episode that was a different format and tone, it just wouldn’t sit that well with me because I’m not too invested in the show. Because I love Dwarf so much it gives me great joy to see it taken to new levels and, in particular, the character of Lister developed more. Casuals just want the reset button pushed for every time they turn over to a show.

This IMMFHO has nothing to do with how funny BtE was or wasn’t, it’s about being out of your comfort zone.

[Carlito]

> I consider myself to be a ?casual? Family Guy fan, and I know I wouldn?t be arsed with an episode that was a different format and tone, it just wouldn?t sit that well with me because I?m not too invested in the show.

I’m quite a big fan of Family Guy (the first three seasons, at least, were terrific) but I couldn’t sit through the Star Wars themed double episode (think it was called Blue Harvest)… doesn’t matter whether the jokes were great or not, I haven’t seen Star Wars, the references were lost on me, the show was out of its comfort zone even more so than it often tends to venture, and after about ten minutes I gave up and deemed it a bad episode… well, not neccessarily a BAD episode, but one that just didn’t work for me.

Now, I am too hardcore a fan of Red Dwarf to NOT watch anything new they release, especially brand new episodes of the show, but if I wasn’t such a big fan I would probably have given up on Back To Earth in much the same way as I gave up on Blue Harvest. I haven’t seen Blade Runner so the references were lost on me, and after episode 1, we were a world away from ‘standard’ Red Dwarf fare. I can see why a casual fan of Red Dwarf would have the same reaction to Back To Earth as I had to Blue Harvest.

That said, I really enjoyed BTE. I have two friends who I would consider big Red Dwarf fans… hardcores, if you will… and they really enjoyed BTE too.

I also have a lot of friends who were casual viewers of Red Dwarf in the past; not die-hards, but they would watch regularly and enjoy the show and probably make a point to catch it if it was on. Of those friends, not one of them expressed anything but disappointment. Comments ranging from “meh, it was okay, but not the same” to “it was a pile of crap”.

It seems that you had to be a big enough fan of the show to recognise the back references (and have at least some knowledge of Blade Runner) in order to ‘get’ and enjoy Back To Earth. It seems most hardcore RD fans enjoyed it, most casual fans didn’t. That’s fine as a celebration of the show, or as a little gift to those fans who stuck with it through the drought, but it lacks psychology if the point of BTE was to whet the appetite for more Red Dwarf down the line. You would think the show should be more accessible than ever, to stimulate some interest for potential future viewers and new fans… instead it seemed to alienate them.

And I know its been said but to pastiche/explicitly reference Blade Runner, a near 30 year old movie, is baffling. They should have opted for a more contemporary substitute, or eliminated the ‘inspiration for your death’ aspect altogether.

In 2009, a three episode story largely revolving around a 30yr old movie that (what I will go ahead and assume is) the majority of viewers probably haven’t even seen, or at least haven’t seen for a long long time… it’s inexplicable really.

[Ben Paddon]

Interestingly, I think Blue Harvest is the single funniest thing Family Guy has done since it was uncancelled. It’s a brilliant take on the original film, and not being able to pointlessly and needlessly segue into irrelevant skits really seems to have benefitted the writing overall (one may recall that even though Family Guy always did the skit thing, in the first two seasons they were, at least, tangentally related to the plot).

It’s worth noting that the reviewer here didn’t bother to mention the Director’s Cut, let alone cover whether or not it was improved over the broadcast version. Methinks this reviewer either didn’t watch the entirety of the content on the DVD, or didn’t watch it at all. I didn’t stand for shit like that when Amiga Format were doing it with game reviews, and I won’t stand for it now.

Also: Every Red Dwarf fan I know here in LA who I’ve shown the specials to has absolutely loved the entire thing.

[Carlito]

> Interestingly, I think Blue Harvest is the single funniest thing Family Guy has done since it was uncancelled

Maybe so, but if you don’t understand the references, a lot of the humour is lost. Thing is, the first three seasons of Family Guy were packed with references to American culture which were alien to me, yet they were still hugely funny in their own right. You could basically get the gist of the intention, or it worked very well as a surreal moment. But with something being referenced SO specifically throughout the entire story, like the Star Wars films, you need to have seen them or you’re lost.

I haven’t seen Blade Runner so most of the Blade Runner references in Back To Earth were lost on me. I enjoyed BTE because I just loved the shit out of seeing new Red Dwarf. If it were a single episode in a full series, without the novelty factor of “first new Red Dwarf in a decade”, I may not have been so kind to it. But that’s just the opinion of somebody who hasn’t seen the movie it pays such a heavy homage to.

[Dave]

> Interestingly, I think Blue Harvest is the single funniest thing Family Guy has done since it was uncancelled

For the first three seasons Family Guy managed to shock me effortlessly and episodes fulfilled the Friends-style ‘The One With The…’ title description.

Then when it came back and it tried to shock, some of the cutaway gags succeed, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gqb9pLVzc4 , but many more are hollow.

I’m not surprised Blue Harvest speaks only to those who’ve seen Star Wars, but what’s amazing is that it does it so well. It’s an hour long and tells the story of the entire film without noticeably missing anything out.

Carl, you should watch the Star Wars films and review them in a Marleen-esque thread.

[Ben Paddon]

“Blue Harvest” speaking only to people who have seen Star Wars is rather like Buffy episode “Once More, With Feeling” speaking only to people who have seen musicals.

[Dave]

>?Once More, With Feeling? speaking only to people who have seen musicals.

Do you know anyone who has never seen a musical?

[Seb Patrick]

>Methinks this reviewer either didn?t watch the entirety of the content on the DVD, or didn?t watch it at all.

This is what I reckon, yeah. Listing extras is not the same as reviewing them. I mean, if you’ve got a word limit on a DVD review, it’s tricky to cover both feature and extras – but I remember when I was on work experience at Empire, I got asked as a sample bit of work to do a short DVD review. I did the Series VI set, and on my first attempt, all I had space within a 200-word count to say about the extras was to list them. Ian Freer told me off for what was essentially just listing stuff off the back of the box ;-) And that’s basically what this reviewer has done. You’re right, there’s no indication that they’ve actually even watched the DVD. Come to think of it, given lead times, and how recently other review copies were sent out, they may not even have done.

[Seb Patrick]

(I mean, even one or two adjectives would have done – “great documentary”, “dull commentaries”, and so on – to at least try and justify the score)

[Ben Paddon]

Do you know anyone who has never seen a musical?

Nope. But I also don’t know anyone who has never seen Star Wars.

[si]

I hadn’t seen Blade Runner pre-BtE, so I missed a lot of references, but then went and bought the movie, so I understood more gags afterwards.

As for Star Wars references in Family Guy (and Spaced, for that matter) – I haven’t seen any Star Wars movie in over twenty years, but the stuff surrounding those gags is enough, plus Star Wars is embedded enough in popular culture to give me some idea of what they’re on about.

[Phil1034]

> Plus Star Wars is embedded enough in popular culture to give me some idea of what they?re on about.

The same. My only exposure to Star Wars is having seen Episodes I and IV once and I laughed like a drain upon my first viewing of Blue Harvest. I still don’t care about Star Wars but I’m terribly excited about Family Guy’s follow up.

[Andrew]

> And I know its been said but to pastiche/explicitly reference Blade Runner, a near 30 year old movie, is baffling. They should have opted for a more contemporary substitute

But this isn’t Scary Movie 4, spoofing whatever ‘the kids’ have just watched. BR’s a massively iconic movie. It’s like saying Family Guy should have made a Michael Bay Transformers special instead of Blue Harvest just because the movie’s more recent. (Or that the 2001 gag at the end of Queeg should have aimed more towards that year’s Short Circuit 2.)

> “Blue Harvest? speaking only to people who have seen Star Wars is rather like Buffy episode ?Once More, With Feeling? speaking only to people who have seen musicals.

I disagree somewhat, in that too many of the best jokes don’t play anywhere near as well if you’ve literally never seen Star Wars. “That’s great kid, don’t get penisy” – without knowing the original line, what is that?

[pfm]

The bottom line is everybody’s heard about the bird ba ba ba bird bird bird, b-bird’s the word a-well-a BIRD BIRD BIRD, THE BIRD IS THE WORD a-well-a BIRD BIRD BIRD, THE BIRD IS THE WORD WELL DON’T YOU KNOW ABOUT THE BIRD WEELL EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE BIRD B-B-B-BIRD BIRD BIRD, THE BIRD IS THE WORD

SUUUUUUUURRRRRRFINNNNNN BIRRRRRRRBBLBLBLBLLBLLBLBLLBLBLBLBLBLLBLBLBBBLLBLOWEEAAHWEEAHWEAHEWEWEAAAAAAAAGH

[Danny Stephenson]

I am sat at my desk with tears rolling down my face… Good work!

[Somebody]

I… actually find it very difficult to disagree with a word of the review about the show itself.

And I take “postmodern product placement” to be a free acknowledgement that the stuff isn’t out there – it’s mocking product placement, but it does so tiresomely enough that it’s as bad as REAL product placement. And so snipping the adjective for a quote and claiming “but… but… you can’t even BUY the stuff!” isn’t a valid criticism of the review, but a strawman.

[Ian Symes]

I couldn’t give a shit about the episodes review, or the letters. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, no matter how obviously wrong it may be. But I really REALLY have a problem with giving the extras 2 stars without even having seen them. It’s so blatant – look how vague the description of “another documentary” is. This was clearly written without a review copy of the discs, and without even a full extras list. There is no possible way they can justify giving a bad review for something they know nothing about.

[Carlito]

> But this isn?t Scary Movie 4, spoofing whatever ?the kids? have just watched. BR?s a massively iconic movie. It?s like saying Family Guy should have made a Michael Bay Transformers special instead of Blue Harvest just because the movie?s more recent.

I get your point, but a LOT more people I know have seen Star Wars than Blade Runner, probably aided by the fact of the newest Star Wars movies actually being released within my life time. Blade Runner was released before most of my mates and I were even born. Now obviously that’s not indicative of a cross-section of viewership… maybe there were lots and lots of viewers in their 40s and above, or who have seen Blade Runner in the interim… but Star Wars has got to be the more well-known and iconic movie by a large margin. It is a much more recognisable and accessible target. Even not having seen the movies (bar Phantom Menace), I managed to get SOME of the references in what I watched of Blue Harvest. NONE of the Blade Runner references made sense to me, and if it wasn’t for this website pointing them out, they would have been forever lost on me.

[Carlito]

I think it’s just a case of Doug (and/or GNP in general) believing that Blade Runner is a lot more well-known than it actually is by the general TV viewer in 2009.

[Author]

Replies