Smegazine clippings: The "Great" Red Dwarf Debate

[Warbodog]

(If they do say so themselves).

In this school-debating-society-style face-off to fill a couple of pages, Steve Lyons (Programme Guide) and Joe Nazzaro (The Making of Red Dwarf) argue the case for ‘Old’ (series I-II) vs. ‘New’ (series III-V) Red Dwarf.

I found this pretty interesting as a teenager (when I hadn’t seen all of the series yet, so wasn’t sent into a rage by Lyons’ stupid accusation that series V isn’t very funny), but reading again, it’s a bit less astute and more superficial (Nazzaro) than I remembered, especially coming from professional TV critics.

Still interesting to see the contrasting views that Red Dwarf had either found its feet or lost its soul as it entered the 90s, back when there was only good Red Dwarf to argue about (the Smegazine sometimes used Meltdown as a punchline like we use Timewave now, that’s how spoiled they were).

Some vintage opinions to enjoy or tear to shreds if you’re in the mood.

[Dave]

I think it’s an interesting argument, but I also don’t think that the split is as clean as that pair of articles suggests. You can point to loads of counter-examples (eg. Kryten being a sci-fi cliché played fairly straight as early as series 2 episode 1; or loads of great, rich character moments from series IV and V).

I think the superficial differences make people feel like there’s a much bigger change in terms of the writing than there actually is. I agree that the ideas tend to get a bit more outlandish as the series goes on, but that’s probably true of many other (grounded) sitcoms too, as writers look for new situations and angles.

[Warbodog]

Steve likes the comedy, Joe likes the sci-fi (paraphrased quote).

Lyons’ write-up is the better one (Nazzaro was more a behind-the-scenes writer, so would be more interested in visual and technical things), but he’s being selective and his exaggerations for effect made me expect series V to be really doom-laden and serious when I’d only read [his!] Programme Guide synopses and seen photos. I was surprised when I rented the Quarantine video from Blockbuster shortly after and it was really funny.

Star Trek is often funnier, too!

Star Trek could be funny when it tried, but the funniest thing in the whole franchise wouldn’t come close to “what the hell happened to my teeth,” “oh, sir, you’ve got it in your jacket,” “people… I met” and the rest.

[(deleted)]

I think there’s more of a line in the sand between III and IV than there is between II and III. I think people think about the set too much.

IV and V are a slightly different show. VI is another again although I tend to file it alongside those previous two. VII/VIII is its own era, embodying Remastered and Red Dwarf Night, there’s the wilderness/DVD era, then Back To Earth/X, then Baby Cow years.

I think I’m saying that if this was written now, it might go on a bit.

[Warbodog]

It’s all transitional, but I associate II & III more than I do III & IV, IV & V or especially I & II, which have always felt very different.

Steve Lyons sees that line in the sand after III and doesn’t care for it. I think it got better.

[Spare Hand One]

Anyone know what Lyons and Nazzaro are up to these days? Do they ever come to the conventions or post at this forum?

(Great post by the way, Warbodog).

[cwickham]

Steve Lyons still occasionally writes Blake’s 7 and Doctor Who stories for Big Finish. Joe Nazzaro has written some books about the Star Trek reboot movies quite recently.

[si]

We require a new Programme Guide update.

[Warbodog]

We require a new Programme Guide update.

I do like a good companion book, and it’s nice to have all the info conveniently in one dog-eared place for reference, but Red Dwarf pretty much has it covered nowadays with:

– TOS and the Tongue Tied wiki for episode/cast/production details and trivia
– DVD/Dave documentaries for the illustrated oral history
– G&T for reviews, niche analysis and sweeping up obscurities

Some nice books to have would be:

– A series of BFI TV Classics style books, each dedicated to one specific episode with essays going full-on with the influences, similarities to other works and insightful/wacky literary theory. One covering the novel/s too. Me² and Back to Reality getting the same volume of coverage as a Kubrick film.

– Red Dwarf: The Movie – One Man’s Struggle to etc. etc., an account of the failed project with its colourful cast of zany characters, complete with concept art and a script or two.

– The Art of Red Dwarf, lavish hardcover reprinting production sketches and photos of finished props, sets, costumes and make-up. Probably nothing new, but nice.

– Cash-in Red Dwarf and Philosophy/Psychology/etc. books, like you get for more popular American shows, which could actually be interesting, considering so many episodes are specifically grounded in these concepts.

– A Red Dwarf version of The Doctor, The Eye Doctor and Me: Analogies and Parallels Between The World of Doctor Who and the Syrian Conflict, making really stretched comparisons about familiar episodes from a fascinatingly atypical perspective.

– Phil Farrand’s Nitpicker’s Guide for Dwarfers, if there are enough continuity and production errors to justify a whole book… oh hang on, forgot what show I was talking about there.

– The Red Dwarf Cookbook: 20 Recipes for Complete Smegheads!, written from an in-universe perspective by the characters, because that’s plausible. (I don’t actually want this, but I’m surprised it’s never been released as an easy stocking stuffer, since it writes itself and I can already picture exactly what it looks like. Maybe it’s not worth the inevitable health-related lawsuits when people actually try it out).

– Oh yeah more novels.

That got a bit out of hand.

[(deleted)]

I do think we were cruelly denied a big coffee table book for the 30th. Something a bit like ‘Timeframe’ or ‘The Vault’ did for DW’s 30th and 50th respectively.

Anything and everything visual, whack it in with a nice textual history all around it.

[Author]

Posts