Would you watch a Red Dwarf "reboot" with an all female cast?

Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Would you watch a Red Dwarf "reboot" with an all female cast?

This topic contains 201 replies, has 24 voices, and was last updated by  Hamish 2 weeks, 3 days ago.

Viewing 202 posts - 1 through 202 (of 202 total)

Jump to bottom

  • Author
    Posts
  • #236302

    Jawscvmcdia

    Like the successful Ghostbusters reboot of 2016 and similarly with the latest incarnation of Doctor Who, would you ever watch a reboot with an all-female cast? If so, who could play what character?

    #236303

    Bargain Bin Holly
    #236305

    GlenTokyo

    I’d get Pauline Quirke in as The Cat and go from there.

    #236307

    bloodteller

    They already did, it’s called Parallel Universe. Series 2, Episode 6

    #236308

    quinn_drummer

    Neither Ghostbusters 2016 nor Doctor Who (in any form let alone the next series) are reboots.

    #236309

    Flap Jack

    “Reboot” is a fairly broad term that just means a series is being started up again after either a length of time on the shelf or a significant enough change in direction/continuity. Both Ghostbusters 2016 and Doctor Who 2005 definitely qualify as reboots (albeit of different types), as does Red Dwarf 2009/2012, arguably.

    Doctor Who 2018 definitely isn’t one, though.

    Then again, Jawscvmcdia didn’t actually say that Doctor Who was a reboot, they just used it as an example of a main character changing gender, so I think we can let them off.

    My answer to the original question is obviously “yes”. Hard to say how different it would be given how traditionally male a lot of the character quirks are (like Rimmer’s superiority-inferiority complex about his brothers and the military), but hey, anything Red Dwarf is worth a watch! Even Timewave.

    #236310

    Toxteth O-Grady

    “Reboot” does seemed to be used a lot these days when “remake” would be more appropriate.

    I’d use “reboot” specifically for things that span multiple entries and media. “Remake” for anything which tells the same story as the previous version, and “re-adaptation” for any new version of something which originally exsited in a different media/format.

    But there’s a lot of overlaps.

    Ghostbusters (2016) is a reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise, and perhaps could be argued to be a remake of the 1984 film.

    King Kong (1977), and King Kong (2005) are remakes of the 1933 film.

    True Grit (2010) is a re-adaptaion of the 1968 novel, and not a remake of the 1969 film.

    Batman Begins is a reboot of the Batman movie series and a re-adaptation of (some of) the comic books, but not a remake of any previous film.

    Total Recall (2012) seems to be a remake of the 1990 film, and not a re-adaptation of the Philip K. Dick source material. It’s not a reboot of anything.

    Overboard (2018) is a remake of the 1987 film, with genders reversed. It’s not a reboot either.

    Casino Royale (2006) is a reboot of the 007 film series, a re-adaptaion of the novel, and not a remake of the 1967 film.

    The Red Dwarf movie seemed to have been planned as a reboot AND remake of the TV series, but with the same cast.

    #236311

    Pete Part Three

    Star Trek (2009) is a remake, a sequel, a reboot and a prequel.

    #236312

    Toxteth O-Grady

    What’s it a remake of?

    #236313

    Pete Part Three

    Billy’s Magic Rocket

    #236314

    bloodteller

    Robbie Rocketpants

    #236329

    quinn_drummer

    I’ve always viewed a reboot as starting a franchise over from scratch and telling a largely different story. The core concept remaining the same but the stories being different. i.e. all the different Spiderman trilogies or BSG

    Where as a remake is simply taking a single film (usually) and re-telling the same story but with just different actors and updated cinematography, as with a lot of Toxteth examples above.

    Doctor Who, albeit with a long gap between 1989, the movie, and 2005, is all a straight continuation of the same story, same characters, with a history and a canon (well … hmm) that isn’t broken. It might be said to rebooted because it has started up again, but from where it left off. It hasn’t started over from scratch so it doesn’t really seem like a reboot in the sense I view the term as. Otherwise every new Doctor and or show runner would have to be defined as a reboot surely?

    Ghostbusters 2016 (like Star Trek 2009) is a weird one because they exist in a universe where the events of their namesakes took place (albeit in different dimensions). So it sort of reboots the franchise by starting from scratch, but also acknowledging that the events of the other films did also take place and are connected to these ones in some way, so makes them both a continuation of the franchise, more than it does remakes or reboots.

    I think Toxteth has it right, reboot seems to get used in place where remake (or something else) would make more sense. I think, just because a franchise has started up again, doesn’t necessarily mean its been rebooted, its a little more complicated then that.

    #236331

    Toxteth O-Grady

    >Ghostbusters 2016 […] exist[s] in a universe where the events of their namesakes took place […] acknowledging that the events of the other films did also take place and are connected to these ones in some way.

    Did it? I only saw it once, but from what I remember the existence of ghosts is widely considered to be fanciful in the 2016 universe (although, bizarrely, this is the case at the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 as well). Was there ever acknowledgement that they weren’t the first Ghostbusting business?

    That’s why GB 2016 feels more like a remake to me (though it is also a reboot, considering the cartoon series and video game). It essentially tells the exact same story:
    – Ghostly mayhem begins in NYC
    – University scientists set up a ghost-busting service
    – They create specialised equipment, hire an extra ghostbuster, and respond to various callouts
    – They discover a world-threatening event is coming, and get ignored by the government
    – They eventually battle the big bad, and save the world.

    Mind you, Ghostbusters 2 also follows this same template almost exactly.

    #236333

    International Debris

    Reboot is a very commonly used word these days, to the extent that people are just throwing it in anywhere to mean “new series related to previous ones”. A bit like the way “canned laughter” is regularly used by people for anything comedy with laughter, studio or otherwise.

    The Dwarf film would have been a reboot (one reason I’m glad it never happened). Superhero franchises had a huge number of reboots throughout the ’90s and ’00s, which eventually got a bit confusing (something the ‘cinematic universe’ concept should hopefully stop from happening again any time soon).

    #236334

    Bargain Bin Holly

    The Force Awakens is for all intents and purposes a remake, little to no story differences unless the universe is just experiences a deja vu

    #236335

    clem

    There’s also things like Halloween H20 and indeed the new Halloween film out in October, both sequels which disregard previous sequels and establish alternate timelines. And The Force Awakens, which I believe renders the Star Wars expanded universe no longer canon? Is it fair to call these “semi-reboots”?

    #236336

    clem

    Didn’t Rob and Doug briefly consider female main characters for Red Dwarf right at the beginning? Feel like I’ve read that somewhere, possibly the Programme Guide which I don’t have to hand.

    #236338

    quinn_drummer

    > Did it? I only saw it once, but from what I remember the existence of ghosts is widely considered to be fanciful in the 2016 universe (although, bizarrely, this is the case at the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 as well). Was there ever acknowledgement that they weren’t the first Ghostbusting business?

    If I’m remembering correctly (I’ve only seen it once too) but I think it’s the case that they are in a different universe/dimension to the original films, but that ultimately makes them part of the same movie universe as there is a bit of portal cross over at the end or something, on of the ghosts is from the universe the original film is in or something like that.

    So it remakes the original story, but within the same movie universe, just a different dimension of it.

    #236339

    Flap Jack

    I’ve always viewed a reboot as starting a franchise over from scratch and telling a largely different story. The core concept remaining the same but the stories being different. i.e. all the different Spiderman trilogies or BSG

    Not an unreasonable definition! But it’s just not the one used by industry folks, the press etc. The evolution of language is all about usage, and the usage of “reboot” is just a lot more broad than that. After all, if that was all that it meant (in a film/TV context), then “hard reboot” and “soft reboot” would be redundant; no-one would ever use them.

    Think about it this way: when you reboot your computer, do you expect the hard drive to be wiped and the operating system to be upgraded?

    Doctor Who, albeit with a long gap between 1989, the movie, and 2005, is all a straight continuation of the same story, same characters, with a history and a canon (well … hmm) that isn’t broken. It might be said to rebooted because it has started up again, but from where it left off. It hasn’t started over from scratch so it doesn’t really seem like a reboot in the sense I view the term as. Otherwise every new Doctor and or show runner would have to be defined as a reboot surely?

    You can’t just say “albeit with a long gap”, when the 16 year gap is exactly what makes it a reboot! (Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.) The Doctor being recast isn’t the same as the show being cancelled and then brought back. You can’t reboot something which never went away.

    Of course, there are shades of grey in calling something a reboot, but Doctor Who 2005 is pretty ironclad. They literally called it “Series 1”! And they didn’t even make it explicit that it was in continuity with the classic series until “Human Nature” in Series 3.

    The Force Awakens is for all intents and purposes a remake, little to no story differences unless the universe is just experiences a deja vu

    Aww, come on, don’t fall into this trap. A film isn’t a remake just because it has similar structure or similar scenes in places. The villain of The Force Awakens is the son of 2 of the characters from the original trilogy. Its story literally depends on the films before it. You couldn’t do that in a remake.

    The Force Awakens is a reboot as well as a sequel though, naturally.

    If I’m remembering correctly (I’ve only seen it once too) but I think it’s the case that they are in a different universe/dimension to the original films, but that ultimately makes them part of the same movie universe as there is a bit of portal cross over at the end or something, on of the ghosts is from the universe the original film is in or something like that.

    Hey, I’ve seen Ghostbusters 2016 twice, and I can confirm that nothing like that happens in it. There’s a portal at the end, yes, but that was a portal to the ghost/demon realm, not a parallel universe. The only grain of truth is that Slimer appears in both 1984 and 2016 films.

    I’m sure that the 2 universes do cross over in the spin-off comics, but regardless, this wouldn’t stop it from being a reboot.

    Ghostbusters 2016 is actually an interesting case now I think about it, because the thing about “reboot” in the context of movies is: you don’t reboot films, you reboot series. So by calling a film remake (or different and long-awaited enough sequel) a “reboot” you create the inference that the film exists to spawn further sequels. GB 2016 isn’t getting any sequels for the time being, so is it still a reboot?

    Yes, probably.

    Another film I’d cite as an example of “reboot, but still in continuity with the original” is the recent Jumanji film.

    #236340

    Toxteth O-Grady

    Ah yes, at the end they mention Zuul; one who was a trans-dimentional antagonists of the original film. I guess that arguably puts the 2016 film in a parallel dimension to the the 1984 one.

    Regarding the new Halloween and the next Termintaor films which disregard previous sequels, The Simpsons coined a term which sums it up perfectly:

    Homer: “You guys saw the new Radioactive Man sequel?”
    Carl: “Uh, it’s not a sequel, it’s a reboot.”
    Lenny: “Actually this one undoes the stuff from the last one, so it’s a de-boot.”

    #236341

    Toxteth O-Grady

    >Ghostbusters 2016 is actually an interesting case now I think about it, because the thing about “reboot” in the context of movies is: you don’t reboot films, you reboot series. So by calling a film remake (or different and long-awaited enough sequel) a “reboot” you create the inference that the film exists to spawn further sequels. GB 2016 isn’t getting any sequels for the time being, so is it still a reboot?

    Well the original GB continuity was a series (the two films and the 2009 video game [and maybe the cartoon?]).
    GB 2016 was planned as the start of series wasn’t it? (everything is these days). But it was a flop, losing the studio tens of millions of dollars. Had it been a success a sequel would’ve been inevitable.

    #236342

    clem

    > “Actually this one undoes the stuff from the last one, so it’s a de-boot.”

    Ha, I like that. The new Halloween ignores everything after the very first one, but apparently they’ve even retconned the ending of the first one somehow, and they’re just calling it ‘Halloween’, so it’s Halloween -> Halloween.

    #236343

    Bargain Bin Holly

    The Force Awakens is beat-for-beat A New Hope tho,

    1. Ally to the protagonist escapes Empire-controlled ship
    2. Crash lands on desert planet where the protagonist lives
    3. The protagonist encounters a wise old man who aides them in their journey
    4, The protagonist gets involved with the Resistance and helps carry out their missions
    5. The Empire has possession of a Death Star(s) and blows up one/several planet(s)
    6. Our main antagonist takes orders from a higher power (Grand Moff Tarkin/Snuke)
    7. The wise old man is killed by the main villain clad in black during the escape from the Death Star
    8. The protagonists are able to escape the explosion of the Death Star as well as our main antagonist

    Its a remake in my book

    #236344

    Flap Jack

    Largely agree with your points, Toxteth! The use of Zuul or Slimer doesn’t really confirm parallel dimensions though (at least, not within the story). It just adds to the remake-y elements of the film.

    #236346

    Flap Jack

    1. Ally to the protagonist escapes Empire-controlled ship
    2. Crash lands on desert planet where the protagonist lives
    3. The protagonist encounters a wise old man who aides them in their journey
    4, The protagonist gets involved with the Resistance and helps carry out their missions
    5. The Empire has possession of a Death Star(s) and blows up one/several planet(s)
    6. Our main antagonist takes orders from a higher power (Grand Moff Tarkin/Snuke)
    7. The wise old man is killed by the main villain clad in black during the escape from the Death Star
    8. The protagonists are able to escape the explosion of the Death Star as well as our main antagonist

    Its a remake in my book

    Ah, yes, Star Wars and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 2 films which each have exactly 8 beats.

    Seriously, this is such a bad argument I’m still trying to work out if you’re just trolling us, Timewave.

    Because even those 8 points only seem like exact copies because you’ve chosen to describe them in such specifc ways. Let’s go through this, shall we? FOR FUN.

    1. The characters you’re comparing here – other than being in a similar situation – are completely different. Finn is a stormtrooper who turned traitor after seeing the horror of battle, and is escaping mostly to save himself. C-3PO and R2-D2 are droids who happened to be working on a rebel ship, and are escaping specifically to enact rebel plans. You can’t say one is just a straight up remake of the other, because movies are more than just dryly described plot points – they’re about the characters and their emotional journeys.
    2. OK, this is indeed similar. But it’s just there as a means to get the plot together. “Crash lands on desert planet” is not the plot of the movie.
    3. Wait… did you seriously just describe Han Solo as a “wise old man”?! The story of TFA is all about how Han is a washed up loser who failed to save his son from the dark side, failed to save his marriage, has fallen back into all his bad habits, and is desperately trying to make up for his mistakes, but still fails. “Wise old man”? Come on. You might as well say that TFA is a remake of The Phantom Menace, and Han is Jar Jar.
    4. Only similar by the broadest of strokes. Luke tries to help the rebellion deliver the Death Star plans, but gets sidetracked by a rescue mission of his own making, and doesn’t help the rebellion with an actual mission until the very end of the film; Rey is just trying to find the Resistance, but gets captured, and all she does in the end is try to escape and beat on Kylo Ren for personal reasons, not as part of a Resistance mission.
    5. Sure, that detail is very similar, but by that logic Return of the Jedi is a remake of A New Hope as well.
    6. Grand Moff Tarkin is not Darth Vader’s superior, at least not explicitly. I think at this point in your list you must have realised that the direct comparison to Snoke you were thinking of was The Emperor, but that’s from a different film so you couldn’t use it.
    7. OK, there are SO many differences between these two things. Obi-Wan becomes at peace with himself and dies on his own terms before Vader can strike him, and achieves his goal of distracting Vader so the others can escape; Han gets stabbed through the chest by surprise by his son while he’s trying to hug him and bring him back to his side, and so fails to achieve his goal. One happens halfway through the film; the other happens near the end of the film.
    8. Yeah, “people escape a death star explosion” is a similarity, but other than that, ANH focuses squarely on ship-based fighting by Luke, while TFA ends in a lightsaber duel in a snowy forest area., while an actual living planet falls apart around them. How did you come out of that thinking “these things are exactly the same, totally”.

    Right, I’ve already written way too much on the subject of Star Wars on a Red Dwarf forum, but I’ll just echo something Andrew Ellard once said: structurally, TFA is like all 3 of the original Star Wars trilogy rolled into one, not just the first. But for me, its characters’ stories are a whole new thing.

    It is not a remake in any conceivable sense of the word.

    #236347

    bloodteller

    >Grand Moff Tarkin is not Darth Vader’s superior, at least not explicitly. I think at this point in your list you must have realised that the direct comparison to Snoke you were thinking of was The Emperor, but that’s from a different film so you couldn’t use it.

    Isn’t he? I thought Moff Tarkin was sort of the CEO of the Death Star, and Darth Vader was like a representative from the Emperor who had to swing by and check the plans were all going smoothly. Maybe not explicitly stated in the film, but I was sure that Moff was in charge of the operation and Vader was just sort of there for some reason or another

    #236348

    bloodteller

    We all know Mr. Stevens is the boss anyway. He’s Head Of Catering

    #236349

    Flap Jack

    The film is never clear about who is higher ranking out of Tarkin and Vader, but if Tarkin was just straight up Vader’s boss, then it would be made clear.

    The extra context of Empire/Return shows that Vader is the Emperor’s right hand man, so the chance of a Grand Moff having “appear as a giant face hologram and order Vader around while he kneels and says “yes, my master”” privileges is quite slim.

    #236350

    Taiwan Tony

    Probably Sarah Pascoe, Katherine Ryan, Gina Yashere and Luisa Omielan.
    You’d definitely need Romesh Ranganathan in it if you wanted to get it made though.

    #236352

    Pete Part Three

    >The extra context of Empire/Return shows that Vader is the Emperor’s right hand man

    To be fair, there’s a bit of backpedallig with The Emperor and Vader’s role in the sequels. Pretty sure that it wasn’t the original intention that the Emperor would be a Sith (and thus woudn’t have a close Master/Apprentice relationship with Vader). Admiral Motti’s dismissal of the Force doesn’t ring true if it’s something the Emperor is all over.

    #236353

    bloodteller

    Wasn’t the Emperor originally supposed to be a regular old politician-type character?

    #236355

    quinn_drummer

    You can’t just say “albeit with a long gap”, when the 16 year gap is exactly what makes it a reboot! (Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.) The Doctor being recast isn’t the same as the show being cancelled and then brought back. You can’t reboot something which never went away.
    Of course, there are shades of grey in calling something a reboot, but Doctor Who 2005 is pretty ironclad. They literally called it “Series 1”! And they didn’t even make it explicit that it was in continuity with the classic series until “Human Nature” in Series 3.

    I get most of what you’re saying in the rest of the post this excerpt comes from, but wanted to address this specifically.

    I don’t think a gap, no matter how long, should matter. Whether its 1 year or 16 years, its still a continuation. They start back calling it series 1 really just to simplify things, especially for new viewers … you don’t have to have seen the previous 40 years of the show to understand whats happening (RTD specifically wrote it in such a way too) but for fans that had seen the show previously, there would be stuff in there for them too. Otherwise why not make a point of having Eccleston on his first regeneration rather than the 9th? RTD knew he was continuing where the previous show had left off, he just created back story for the years it had been off the screen.

    The movie the comes in-between made a point of having 7 regenerate into 8 … The Doctor then confirms at some point he is on he 9th or 10th regeneration. It takes a while but Moffat then fills in the gaps with 8 and 9.

    If it isn’t mentioned before hand then School Reunion in the second series certain cements that the history of the show is relevant as they bring back Sarah Jane Smith.

    All that aside, I like the analogy of rebooting a computer. But I think the phrase is being used very differently, it certainly has different roots. Booting/Rebooting in computer terms refers to computers starting themselves up, coming from “pulling yourself up on your own boot straps” … its the computers ability to load itself rather then being fed programming and command.

    Rebooting in film/tv probably has borrowed the phrase and adapted it, and you’re right language does evolve etc … but I guess my pedanticism comes from how ambiguous the using of the term is, and why despite what the media and joe public say and mean, its necessary to have clearly defined terms used correctly (reboot, remake and so forth) to clearly understand what is meant because, as we have discovered with this conversation, it’s a complex minefield and reboot especially is being used liberally to describe very different things.

    <block quote> Another film I’d cite as an example of “reboot, but still in continuity with the original” is the recent Jumanji film.

    I really don’t think a sequel to a film, just because it’s 20 years after the original, can be called a reboot. If its set in the same universe and acknowledges the events of the first film (which I believe it does I haven’t actually seen it) then its just a sequel.

    Otherwise would we call Terminator 2 a reboot because it took 6 years to make? How long a gap does there need to be? What about Blade Runner? That is very specifically a sequel too but over 30 years later. Is that a reboot or just another film in the series?

    I think if we met half way we’d say a reboot is starting a fresh with something new. We could agree that Jumanji is a reboot, new characters, new story etc … but I think we’d then have to agree Blade Runner isn’t, even though by your definition just because it has been started up again several years later it is.

    Hope my points make sense, realise I’m rambling a bit.

    #236356

    Ridley

    Force Awakens is a redo of IV-VI as one film.

    It’s all in the tweetnotes: https://medium.com/@ellardent/tweetnotes-star-wars-the-force-awakens-ed8c7cd353d

    #236361

    Flap Jack

    I do totally get what you mean, quinn_drummer. While I still maintain that a reboot can be in continuity with the old version, it’s definitely a thing that “reboot” makes people think “oh, new continuity?”.

    Just to clarify my position on Doctor Who ’05 being a reboot a bit more, it’s not so much the gap of time ITSELF which makes it a reboot, it’s the way the writing reacts to the fact that it’s the first new series in 16 years. Because Series 1 actually isn’t a direct continuation of Series 26 – or the TV movie – at all. It’s set an ambiguous amount of time afterwards, and the only returning main character is The Doctor himself, and he’s changed face off-screen.

    If the revived Doctor Who were a hard, new continuity type of reboot, you wouldn’t need to change anything about it until School Reunion (uh… yeah, I screwed up in crediting Human Nature as being the episode which confirmed the classic series as canon; it actually just confirmed the 8th Doctor as canon. MY BAD.)

    Essentially, if ‘Rose’ had opened with Paul McGann exiting the TARDIS talking about San Francisco and the Master, then I’d agree with you that it’s not a reboot. It’s why the TV Movie probably isn’t one.

    So, a big gap doesn’t guarantee a revival will be a reboot, but it makes it more likely, as the writers won’t want to rely on their audience understanding the full context of the most recent series.

    This is also why I consider Back to Earth an incredibly soft reboot, too. Although it’s far more debatable there, because of how many specific back references it has, it still sets up a new, approachable status quo for the crew that absolutely refuses to be a direct continuation of Series VIII, or even offer any resolution to it.

    Films are a different beast because it’s easier to get caught up on a few films than several seasons of a TV show, so a big gap between releases doesn’t always make the difference. The key question for me is “Is this film selling itself as Film 1 in a new series, or as the long-awaited sequel to the last film?”.

    Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is definitely the former, because it’s only in continuity with the original via small references, not by being about any of the same characters.

    Terminator 2 is definitely the latter, because every aspect of its plot and characters are directly continuing on from Terminator 1.

    Blade Runner 2049 is also the latter, because despite the time skip its story is specifically following up on the resolution to the original AND it wasn’t created to spawn further sequels, but just to be a standalone sequel.

    Star Wars 7 is actually both a long-awaited sequel to a film and Film 1 in a new series, which is why it’s a serious edge case here, but for me it’s still narrowly a reboot.

    I think if we met half way we’d say a reboot is starting a fresh with something new. We could agree that Jumanji is a reboot, new characters, new story etc … but I think we’d then have to agree Blade Runner isn’t, even though by your definition just because it has been started up again several years later it is.

    Ha, I realise I’ve more or less come around to agreeing with you on most of this anyway. Good stuff. It helped for me to interrogate my own reasoning on this.

    #236364

    quinn_drummer

    Now we’ve cleared that up rather amicable (round of applause to us) who thinks series VIII has a few flaws?

    “Flaws?”

    *pause*

    *laughter*

    #236365

    Hamish

    But is Series VIII a reboot?

    #236367

    Toxteth O-Grady

    Series III-V is a soft-reboot of the show of series 1 and 2

    Series VII-VIII is a full reboot

    Back to Earth is a stand-alone remake of Back to Reality

    Series X-XII is a de-boot of series VII and VIII, and a sequel to series V.

    #236378

    quinn_drummer

    Howard Burden confirmed Robert still wears the same boots for Kryten he had in Series III, so nothing has been rebooted.

    #236382

    Toxteth O-Grady

    Howard Burden’s talking rubbish then, as I distinctly remember Kryten having very pointy boots in earlier series, whereas in later ones he’s essentially wearing DMs.

    #236384

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Those point boots always looked really stupid, like Kryten nicked them from a wizard. You can see them in Camille when he’s hanging off the ledge

    #236385

    Ben Saunders

    >Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.
    Graeme Harper, who directed Caves of Androzani amongst other things, also directed episodes for New Who right from the get-go.

    Also The Force Awakens being a remake of A New Hope (with elements from the other films) is surely common knowledge by this point. I don’t care if you like the film but I feel not accepting that fact is a bit out there.

    Vader is very much written as an enforcer, subservient to Tarkin in IV, but its’s left ambiguous -enough- that the entire rest of the saga with Vader as the main character can still work with very little mental gymnastics. In the same way that Obi-Wan’s speech about him killing Vader really IS true, from a certain point of view.

    #236387

    International Debris

    And several writers for the RTD era Who wrote for the New Adventures series of novels, which are as close to an ‘official’ continuation of series 26 as anything. I don’t think it’s a reboot at all, it’s just a continuation.

    #236389

    Ben Saunders

    RTD was a very smart man who presented the show as both a continuation and a reboot to appease different fans/markets etc, it was all a bit vague intentionally I think

    He also saved Big Finish by loudly stating that he would “take care of it” during one of the preliminary meetings

    #236392

    Flap Jack

    Graeme Harper, who directed Caves of Androzani amongst other things, also directed episodes for New Who right from the get-go.

    Given that Graeme Harper’s last classic series story was in 1985 and his first new series episode was in 2006, I’m going to class this as “uhhh… kind of, but not really.”

    But even if Graeme was in both 1989 and 2005 crews, that wouldn’t prove that the 2005 series is not a reboot. The lack of returning crewmembers is just something which adds to the argument that something is a reboot, not the key determining factor.

    Also The Force Awakens being a remake of A New Hope (with elements from the other films) is surely common knowledge by this point.

    No, “The Force Awakens is noticably similar to A New Hope in a lot of ways” is common knowledge. “The Force Awakens is a literal remake of A New Hope” is a nonsensical assertion that I’ve not seen anyone earnestly argue for until now.

    #236412

    Taiwan Tony

    Marooned is a Das Boot of series three.

    #236416

    Seb Patrick

    In any sense that would give the term any kind of meaning, Doctor Who 2005 is not a reboot.

    We have a word for what it is, and that word is “revival”. Why ruin the meaning of “reboot” by using it to mean that?

    #236418

    Dave

    Restarting a series with a brand new “series one” that introduces a significantly different take on the show with a new cast and crew and minimal ties to old continuity is a perfectly reasonable description of a reboot, I think.

    A revival feels more like the kind of thing they’ve done in recent years with old sitcoms like Goodnight Sweetheart, Porridge and Open All Hours – bringing something back in a similar form to the way it used to be, playing on nostalgia and playing up ties to the past. All the kind of things the new Doctor Who initially avoided when it first came back.

    It’s easy to forget now how cagey the show was about even acknowledging the idea of previous Doctors or past history. What RTD did was clever, because he established the show as a new entity that you could come to fresh as a newcomer to Doctor Who, but without doing anything that contradicted the show’s history (which, of course, got gradually reincorporated into the new series more explicitly). So he gave us the best of both worlds.

    #236419

    Dave

    Or to put it another way, Dave Dwarf is a revival.

    If they had produced a brand new series called Red Dwarf Series One with new writers, a cast of new young comedians in the roles and a completely different look and feel and hour-long episodes, I think you’d be hard pushed to call it a revival – it would be a reboot.

    (Although obviously Doctor Who is kind of a special case in some respects because the show has a built-in mechanism that lets it change its cast regularly while still maintaining the ‘same’ lead character.)

    #236420

    GlenTokyo

    Doctor Who isn’t a reboot.

    It restarted with the 9th Doctor, it’s just written to make sense for people who haven’t seen all the others, like most sequels/things that follow on from other things that have had a bit of time between, and has featured from what I’ve seen K9, Sarah Jane, Tom Baker’s scarf, Peter Davison in a special I think, loads of other crap from the continuity that I can’t remember or be bothered to list.

    Also the series 1 stuff, did they even have series when it started? They had Stories. A few episodes in a story, which you then referred to, like Back to Earth.

    #236421

    Dave

    How about the Netflix reboot of Reboot? It’s a similar example to Doctor Who 2005 in that it’s a completely fresh take on the same material that gradually, over time, reincorporates elements of the old Reboot continuity to make it clear that the Reboot reboot and the original Reboot are linked in a similar way to old Who and new Who.

    I’d still call the rebooted Reboot a reboot even given the ties to the original Reboot.

    #236422

    Warbofrog

    It’s easy to forget now how cagey the show was about even acknowledging the idea of previous Doctors or past history.

    The sketches of past Doctors half way through series three felt like a massive acknowledgement at the time, especially with dubious McGann being so prominent. Come series 10’s opener, you’ve got things like a random Susan photo, casual background Movellans and literal throwaway vintage screwdrivers and it’s just trivia.

    #236423

    Warbofrog

    That came across like I was disagreeing, but I was supporting the really delayed watershed moment.

    #236424

    Dave

    Yep, I remember the sketchbook (and the montage in The Next Doctor) being massive deals at the time.

    Then you get the montage towards the end of The Eleventh Hour which I think really opened the floodgates.

    It will be interesting to see if Chibnall dials that stuff back.

    #236425

    International Debris

    I’m hoping Chibnall doesn’t do so much of that, though. The classic series rarely did, and it makes little callbacks feel special when they happen. Moffat threw in so many little bits in his run (four episodes in which we see every past Doctor) that it began to get a bit weighed down by its past.

    #236426

    quinn_drummer

    To be fair to Moffat, a lot of his writing of the Doctor (both Matt and Capaldi) is an exploration of who the Doctor is. 11 coming to terms with the Time War, then realising he didn’t actually slaughter two races, and Capaldi trying to figure out if he really is good etc, that it makes sense to look back and see those that came before them.

    Granted he was really only doing it to be able to get fanboy and make loads of references more than casual fans would get, but then when you’re writing on a show 50 years old, celebrating that history feels right too.

    I’d like to see Chibnall step away from it a little, but not ignore it completely and use it when its right to use it. Push forward but not forget the past completely.

    #236427

    Flap Jack

    In any sense that would give the term any kind of meaning, Doctor Who 2005 is not a reboot.
    We have a word for what it is, and that word is “revival”. Why ruin the meaning of “reboot” by using it to mean that?

    Doctor Who absolutely is a revival, but a revival is just a more specific type of reboot. You might as well say “Doctor Who is not a TV Show, it’s a Sci-Fi Drama”.

    You can fairly point out that this definition robs the term “reboot” of some inherent specificity that would make it more useful… and yeah, of course it does. It’s an overused media buzzword, so it just is used in a very broad way, and therefore has a very broad definition. Nothing really we can do about that…

    To put it another way, if the Doctor Who revival had occurred in 2015 rather than 2005 – and all of its content was otherwise exactly the same – then you can bet that every single major entertainment news outlet would call it a reboot. Guaranteed.

    I’d also disagree that this makes the term useless. A “reboot” can just mean any TV/Film series which comes back after a significant absence, to be outright remade or just majorly retooled, and that’s OK. It’s good to have umbrella terms for things.

    #236428

    Pete Part Three

    There, you see; you all groaned when Jawscvmcdia posted another stupid hypothetical question with a trolling statement, but it sparked an interesting discussion.

    #236430

    Katydid

    But is Series VIII a reboot?

    No, because a continuation of the same show with the same cast cannot by definition be a reboot. The internet loves to misuse the word “reboot”, because it can’t fucking process the idea that The X-Files or Mystery Science Theater or Red Dwarf could be simply be coming back to do their respective 11th season/series a decade plus after the original run ended.

    I mean the word _literally_ means to start over. You’d think it wouldn’t be too hard for fuckhead journalists to realize they’re constantly using it in situations that are quite literally the opposite of rebooting a show.

    #236431

    Katydid

    I mean Mystery Science Theater is probably not the best example because the rotating cast means the show is effectively if not literally on its third reboot, but it fit in with the “11th season” pattern.

    #236433

    GlenTokyo

    It’s just a boot. You’ve turned it back on after it was off.

    #236434

    Hamish

    I do hope you realize I was being flippant Katydid.

    #236435

    Katydid

    I do. I just had two cents about reboots.

    #236443

    Flap Jack

    I’m not sure if the people on the “it can’t be a reboot if it’s in continuity with the old version” side of things are certain that’s the definition, or would just prefer it to be that.

    Like, “that’s not what it means – it’s just that the media keeps misusing it all the time!” is not a great counter-argument, because as I said, language is defined by usage. If enough people keep using the word “selfie” to describe photos that also include people other than the person taking it, for example, then the definition will broaden to accommodate that.

    It’s not like “reboot” is a word the entertainment news media are appropriating either. That word – just in this context, obviously – pretty much only exists so that the media can use it to describe the phenomenon of shelved TV/film series making unexpected returns. It’s THEIR term, more or less.

    I think if the definition of a reboot were genuinely as strict as some folk here are saying, then when people see a headline like “There’s a Buffy Reboot in the Works!”, they wouldn’t feel the need to get clarification about whether it was going to be in continuity or not, just as they wouldn’t need to if the headline read “There’s a Buffy Remake in the works!” or “Buffy’s Coming Back For Season 8!”.

    #236450

    Katydid

    If I read a headline that said a show was rebooting, I would assume it was rebooting. I would not expect them to mean a revival with the same cast and crew, because that’s not what a reboot is. The media conflating “reboot” and “revival” just makes things more confusing, because they’re two entirely separate kinds of bringing back a show.

    They’re basically polar opposites – one a brand new fresh start and the other a continuation – and I don’t think it’s pedantic to expect people to differentiate between the two.

    #236459

    Dave

    Which is why Doctor Who 2005 is such a problematic example, because it manages to do both.

    #236460

    Lily

    I’ve never watched Buffy, but if there was a reboot I’d expect; different cast, same characters, story going back to the beginning and retelling of origins etc.

    If on the other hand there was a revival it’d be same cast or handing down to new generation, previous canon to be maintained, new stories going forward.

    But I’m not a film/tv buff, so I don’t know anything.

    #236461

    Pete Part Three

    >I’ve never watched Buffy

    You really should.

    #236472

    Ben Paddon

    I used to be quite anal about the way people used the word “reboot,” until I realized it didn’t actually bloody matter – a reboot can be a revival, a remake, a ground-up reimagining of a premise. I’ve no qualms referring to modern Doctor Who or Dave era Dwarf as reboots.

    Language is fluid and words change depending upon usage. We lost the battle when the definition of “literally” got amended in the dictionary to incorporate its frequent figurative use in modern parlance. It’s over. Let it go.

    #236482

    Flap Jack

    I do agree that when people here “reboot” they probably do think of the “completely fresh start” type before they think of the “direct continuation after a significant amount of time has passed” type, but there’s still a level of uncertainty, and the definition still absolutely covers both.

    You just need to google a phrase like “x files reboot” to make that clear.

    Even if you’re sure that a reboot can’t be a direct continuation, Doctor Who (as Dave said) is a clear example of how “revival” and “reboot” are in no way mutually exclusive, and there’s always going to be edge cases.

    #236483

    Flap Jack

    *clears throat* uh, I meant “hear”, naturally.

    #236490

    Ben Saunders

    Language is fluid but I would much prefer if words meant what they actually fucking meant, tbh.

    #236494

    Dave

    They do, by definition.

    #236496

    GlenTokyo

    I’m going to start saying Red Dwarf is a period drama because language is fluid.

    #236497

    Dave

    It’s not a period drama, it’s a period sitcom. It would be a period drama if it didn’t have any laughs.

    (So maybe Series VIII etc. etc.)

    #236499

    Lily

    The thing is that reboot is a pretty modern term with regards to entertainment. It’s only come into use the last few years when the film industry kept rehashing the same super-hero films over and over.

    If you look at at reporting in 2005 they all speak of Doctor Who’s ‘return’, which seems a more accurate term to me. Other terms used at the time were revival and resurrection.

    I guess it boils down to ‘reboot’ sounding all sexy and new, while ‘return’ or ‘revival’ lingers on the death of the original run of a show. Semantics aren’t sexy though.

    #236501

    Flap Jack

    “Language is fluid” doesn’t mean “Words have no consistent meaning at all, then???”. I don’t need to explain this, because it’s obvious.

    The evolution of “reboot” is interesting, though. It reminds of how originally “binge-watching” only described quickly watching all of a TV show which was meant to be watched one episode a week, in the era where DVD box sets where the big thing. But then Netflix Instant came along, and their shows were actually designed to be watched immediately one episode after the other. So now “binge-watching” means whenever you watch a whole TV series/season in one go, regardless of whether this is actually excessive behaviour.

    Just as with “reboot”, you may not like the way its definition has broadened through common usage, but them’s the breaks. :-P

    #236502

    bloodteller

    Binge-watching is awful, I think. I once spontaneously decided to binge-watch all of the Pink Panther films. By the end of the second one I was already getting a bit tired.By the time Joanna Lumley showed up I was feeling physically sick from boredom. I don’t get how anyone can watch all of anything at once-even if you like it a lot, isn’t it better to take a break every one in a while?

    #236503

    bloodteller

    The one saving grace was that in the last few films, William Hootkins (!) showed up and I briefly had a pretty good time as he’s a very funny actor. Still not worth watching the entire film series all at once

    #236504

    Dave

    I can’t binge-watch anything, it gets too boring and samey, even the really good stuff. The most I ever managed was getting through four or five episodes of ’24’ a night with the old DVD boxsets, and that’s largely due to the cliffhanger nature of the show’s episode transitions.

    I find with Netflix shows that are all dumped at once, I tend to naturally watch them around one or two episodes a week. It becomes overkill otherwise.

    #236506

    GlenTokyo

    I don’t think binge watching means watching it all in one go. I think it just means watching a lot of something in one, or fewer than however many episodes there are, sittings as it always has. That could be all of something but I don’t think the meaning has changed to mean that exclusively.

    #236507

    Dave

    Yeah, as with many terms I think it can be used in different ways – sometimes it’s used to mean watching an entire series that’s dumped all at once, and sometimes to mean watching a bunch of episodes in quick succession (but not necessarily a whole series).

    I think the latter meaning was maybe more common when that kind of behaviour was more unusual – when people didn’t tend to watch lots of episodes of a show in quick succession. Now that that’s a pretty standard viewer habit (thanks to DVD boxsets and streaming services) I think that meaning has maybe become a bit less common.

    #236509

    International Debris

    I can be quite a binger when it comes to serialised drama, can easily watch nine or ten in a row without a hint of fatigue. Comedy doesn’t work as well – I’ve often done a full six part series upon getting a DVD, but unless it’s a brand new show to me, I’m usually out of laughs by the final episode, whether it’s funny or not.

    My dad and I once watched all four series of Blackadder in a day, sort of by accident.

    #236512

    quinn_drummer

    I just rewatched all of the first series of Dexter yesterday out of sheer boredom. I did stop a couple of times, to eat and shower etc, but I went straight back to it. Even though I’ve seen it 3 times before, I just wanted to get to the end.

    I’ve always been like that with shows. Ever since I got a DVD player and boxsets. My first was X Files, then Stargate, then TNG, DS9 amd Voyager (though they were VHS I bought ridiculously cheap from a listing in the local paper). Once I start on a series I won’t stop until I’m at the end. So now I’ll likely watch all 8 series of Dexter even though the last few are rubbish.

    I quite often watch the entirety of a new Netflix show the day, or the day after release. Though I did struggle through the new series of OITNB because it was a bit dull. Only finished that on Saturday.

    I actually find it weird watching more than 1 show at a time now. I tried juggling a rewatch of House, with watching Handmaids Tale and the latest OITNB just couldn’t really do it. So finished off House, finished off first series of Handmaids then finished Orange.

    I’ll watch something else if I’m watching it weekly, or I just want a quick 30mins of something before bed, but otherwise I tend to stick to the one thing.

    #236538

    Ben Saunders

    I used to binge watch stuff a hell of a lot, but nowadays three episodes of Star Trek in one day feels excessive

    #236539

    Ben Saunders

    All i know of William Hootkins is he played Dingodile in Crash Bandicoot 3, so he’s alright in my books

    #236542

    bloodteller

    He was also Porkins in Star Wars- A New Hope

    #236543

    GlenTokyo

    I can binge TNG, VOY and ENT easily (skipping a few terrible episodes, like when Janeway turns into a lizard and fucks Tom Paris who is also a lizard etc) but Discovery is a bit hard going.

    #236545

    Dave

    I’m not much of a Star Trek fan in general but I liked Discovery – I enjoyed the fast pace and willingness to blaze through plots that would have taken up a whole season of some other shows.

    #236562

    GlenTokyo

    I watched Discovery despite the first episode being terrible, and was somewhat rewarded in the middle, but overall I feel like there’s more to not like than like.

    It’s written like they think they’re Aaron Sorkin, and are so clever and it’s so deep and layered but really it’s not very clever, obvious, and shallow. Also Michael Burnham, she’s like a Vulcan who’s repressed every emotion but ‘slightly pissed off’. She just seems horrible to know, whereas with Spock, Tuvoc, T’Pol it was believable that people would befriend them.

    Good points, Saru or whatever his name is, and Jason Isaacs, and it might mean other Star Trek series get made.

    #236565

    Dave

    Yeah, I can’t really disagree with you on any of that. The shallowness is part of the appeal to me though, it feels like a silly romp a lot of the time. Which is maybe part of why it doesn’t feel like good Star Trek to longtime fans.

    #236567

    Ben Saunders

    Whatever happens in Discovery, it cannot be anywhere near as bad as The Omega Glory from the original series.

    #236569

    Warbofrog

    I’m glad you didn’t go for Spock’s Brain, that hilarious B-movie that makes the world better.

    #236574

    Ben Saunders

    Spock’s Brain is excellent, in that it’s pretty shit, but the B-Movie feel to it is groovy. I think the ending is actually shit, though. Controversial opinion but Spock’s Brain is better than The Trouble With Tribbles

    #236600

    Plastic Percy

    I’m glad that Discovery is doing it’s own thing. Like Doctor Who, the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

    Also, Clem Fandango!

    #236602

    Ben Paddon

    Controversial and objectively wrong opinion from Ben Saunders, there.

    #236605

    Hamish

    > the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

    Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

    I am not going to comment specifically on Discovery as I have not seen it, but your argument does seem a bit like having one’s cake and eating it too.

    #236610

    Dave

    The ending of the first season of Discovery makes that point particularly well.

    #236613

    Ridley

    >Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

    Yeah but getting people to sign up to CBS All Access for a brand new show is a harder sell.

    Bring back Quantum Leap, Highlander, and do The Princess Bride as a TV series. *bangs drum*

    #236629

    Ben Saunders

    1) They like the idea of Star Trek and want to do something with that universe
    2) Marketing purposes/brand recognition

    Obviously when Star Trek fans tune into a new Star Trek show they expect to see something that at least feels a bit like what came before, with similar aesthetics, feelings and morality, etc. Otherwise there would be no point calling it Star Trek, other than to sell it. The same way that when somebody buys a Metallica album they don’t want to be hit with Queen, even if they might like Queen. All of the other Star Trek shows have managed to broadly feel like Star Trek, but I’ve yet to make my way to Discovery, so can’t really judge.

    #236632

    International Debris

    Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though.

    They like the existing universe and feel new, interesting stories could be told within that framework?

    #236637

    GlenTokyo

    A problem with Discovery is it’s after Enterprise but feels more lawless despite the Federation being a thing.

    If you want to do a sort of violent, moody, drama with sexual abuse plotlines etc, you probably shouldn’t put it inside the Star Trek universe. That’s not to say I’m adverse to new things, Enterprise was a different way of doing things, and some didn’t like it, but it was still Star Treklike, but Discovery goes a bit far, like doing a new series of Brum and making it about kerb crawling.

    #236642

    Ben Paddon

    Trouble with that is, we’re veering into Sequel Trilogy territory. Make it echo the older stuff, and people complain that you’re just “ripping off” what came before, but make it too different and you’re in “rabid fanbase petitions DIsney to let them remake The Last Jedi” territory.

    Personally, I like Discovery. Initially my thoughts were, “Well, this is very good, but it isn’t what I come to Star Trek for.” By the time I finished that first season and I saw what they’d been doing as a whole, I was in love. It’s easily the best first season of a Star Trek series since TOS, and it contains one of my all-time favorite Trek episodes ever. So… yeah.

    Different isn’t bad. It’s just… different. And people are inherently scared of different. It’s why people’s first instinct when they hear about something getting a remake or a reboot is to sort-of balk. It’s why some old-school fans of Doctor Who had already decided to hate the revival as far back as 2003, before they’d even shot a single frame of it. It’s why nerds are lashing out at the new ThunderCats and She-Ra cartoons despite the fact that we’ve seen virtually nothing of them. Different is scary, and so people get on the defensive about it when really there’s just as much a chance we’ll end up with a Battlestar Galactica or a Next Generation as there is we’ll end up with a Life on Mars or a Total Recall.

    FWIW, I’ve long thought a reboot of Red Dwarf – one that leans in a little to the comedy-drama tone of VII or BTE, though obviously funnier – could work. Like a comedy Galactica. Hell, I have part of a pilot script and a series bible sitting on my hard drive, because sometimes the only way to deal with a depressive bout is to sit and rework your favorite TV series into something new. I really think it could work.

    #236644

    Bargain Bin Holly

    I could never watch a Red Dwarf reboot, there’s only one Lister, Rimmer, Cat, and Kryten (post-Series II) for me

    #236648

    Hamish

    > They like the existing universe and feel new, interesting stories could be told within that framework?

    Sure, which means they like how something was done (thirty) years ago, and want to emulate it. Which is fine in and of itself. But it is the pot calling the kettle black to then turn around and dismiss all criticisms of the new show, whatever its flaws and merits may be, under the blanket statement that people just don’t want to see change.

    #236649

    Ben Saunders

    That criticism of people who criticise the sequel trilogy always sounded dishonest at best to me, since perhaps the reason people don’t like the films is because they think they’re shite, rather than the mere fact that we had one film similar to and one film different from the original trilogy. If either of those films were actually enjoyable (and bits of TLJ were) then we wouldn’t have an issue. There are good Doctor Who stories which are essentially rehashes of previous tales, and good Doctor Who stories which really bend the format and do new things with it. It isn’t purely a film being similar/different that makes it good or bad.

    #236650

    Hamish

    At the risk of sounding like an old man at the tender age of 24 though, what I will say is that there once was a time where you could go up to an aspiring young television writer and say “you could make the next Star Trek” without it being taken as read that you were literally meaning that they were going to make the next Star Trek.

    You may all tell me to get off your lawns now.

    #236651

    Hamish

    Forget to close one tag and suddenly you can’t stop shouting at everyone!

    #236652

    Flap Jack

    That criticism of people who criticise the sequel trilogy always sounded dishonest at best to me, since perhaps the reason people don’t like the films is because they think they’re shite, rather than the mere fact that we had one film similar to and one film different from the original trilogy. If either of those films were actually enjoyable (and bits of TLJ were) then we wouldn’t have an issue.

    It is a little tricky to rebut criticisms of the Star Wars sequels if the criticism is just the conclusion itself rather than the reasoning.

    “This is shite.”

    “No, it isn’t.”

    “Yes, it is.”

    “No, it isn’t.”

    “But it is though”.

    “Not really.”

    “Well I say it is.”

    “I disagree strongly.”

    “Admit it, it’s shite.”

    “Nope.”

    “Not enjoyable though, right?”

    “Well I enjoyed it a lot.”

    “No you didn’t.”

    #236653

    GlenTokyo

    Different can be bad though and often is, and as Ben and Hamish say, just because it’s been brave enough to try something new, that doesn’t preclude it being wank.

    I just really hate it when people write a show that has lore, and ignore the lore, when the major reason people are watching what they’ve written is the show’s universe. Discovery seems to pick and choose.

    There’s plenty of room within Star Trek to do interesting things, but warp is warp, Starfleet crew members don’t say fuck, stuff like that. If you just want to write GoT in space write something else for Netflix.

    Discovery is quite a good show in the middle but it’s a poor Star Trek show.

    Also they should remake Episode IX because it’s terrible, just as a film before you get to it’s place within Star Wars as a whole.

    That bit with the weird camel things and the little kid is as bad as anything George Lucas did in the prequels, there are just so many awful things that just don’t work. Luke assaulting a creature for it’s milk, the huge rubber fish, those furby things watching their family get cooked and eaten (was that supposed to be funny?), Rey and Kylo force Skype. Jesus.

    Mark Hamill is the only person in that film worth watching and I feel genuinely heartbroken for him that he had to make that shite.

    #236654

    bloodteller

    >Also they should remake Episode IX because it’s terrible, just as a film before you get to it’s place within Star Wars as a whole.

    Surely you mean Episode VIII? Either way, I think the argument that it should be remade is really stupid. It’s not an amazing film, it’s not a great film, but there’s absolutely no reason for it to be remade. There are plenty of shit films in the world, but none of those get remade either just because people don’t like them. I’d say just accept it exists, move on, and hope that Episode IX is better

    #236655

    bloodteller

    I didn’t like it a lot either but all the people pleading for a remake is a bit much I think.

    Plus no matter how many times you remade it, Daisy Ridley would still be playing the main character, so the film would automatically lose points due to her constant case of, for lack of a better phrase, “resting bitch face” and total inability to act or deliver any of her lines convincingly.

    #236657

    Hamish

    > Different can be bad though and often is, and as Ben and Hamish say, just because it’s been brave enough to try something new, that doesn’t preclude it being wank.

    Actually my argument was more that they are not being that brave, that in many ways they are all just as bad for being stuck in the past, and that it would be hypocritical of them to point fingers over a nostalgic desire to go back to the well once more.

    #236658

    GlenTokyo

    Yeah VIII sorry, I think the problem with it (and I know it’s not going to be remade, I am sane) is that it’s killed so many of the good parts of VII (and maybe even the entire series) and it can only really maintain or get worse because of the plot inconsistencies and generally not very exciting plot threads that can be continued.

    At least we’ve got Solo 2 coming.

    Daisy Ridley is an odd one, she was great I thought in VII, but it was like she’d completely forgotten the character before VIII, even her accent is a bit different.

    Sorry Hamish, misread your argument.

    #236659

    Warbofrog

    I bet Star Wars nerds will still be complaining about VII and VIII decades down the line when they’re barely relevant any more, the losers.

    #236660

    Pete Part Three

    The Last Jedi is far from fautless, but it was the best thing to happen to Star Wars for 34 years.

    #236661

    Dave

    Dark Forces came out in 1995, not 1983.

    #236663

    Flap Jack

    Even if The Last Jedi were Attack of the Clones levels of bad, immediately remaking it would be the most unavoidably disastrous course of action Disney could take. It would completely alienate the majority of the audience (who liked the film), it would waste hundreds of millions already spent on Episode IX, it would confuse the fuck out of everyone, and most of the Last Jedi detractors would probably still hate it.

    The idea also presumes that all of the required cast and crew would be totally cool about doing this new film – a film they are almost definitely not under contract to produce, a film which only exists to trash another film they dedicated years of their lives to making. The idea is so unbelievably stupid that I’m still not convinced that the whole #RemakeTheLastJedi campaign isn’t just one big joke that got out of hand. Like, do they think that personally hating The Last Jedi has slid them into a parallel universe where it wasn’t a commercial and critical smash hit?

    I do recommend you follow the updates if you fancy a chuckle, though. They include such highlights as “Snoke – a fascist dictator who believes in the inherent superiority of evil – says that bloodlines are important for the force, yet the film shows that this is not true later. IS THIS BECAUSE THE MOVIE IS DUMB???” and “Our remake would respect the late Carrie Fisher by including her performance as stock footage, and also we’re completely changing the story. Somehow.”

    Thankfully The Last Jedi is not Attack of the Clones levels of bad, and is in fact comfortably one of the best 3 Star Wars films ever made, so we can all stop worrying.

    #236664

    quinn_drummer

    I think they should reboot Star Wars with an all female cast …. and I still wouldn’t watch it.

    #236665

    tombow

    “>Surely you mean Episode VIII?”

    no, he’s just seen the leaked reddit pics of Episode 9’s filming, and he can already tell how SHIT it is

    #236666

    tombow

    I didnt like Last Jedi so much at the cinema because I just found it a bit depressing, but I’m starting to appreciate it re-watching it on DVD. I kind of like Luke being non violent, the more I think about it.

    #236667

    Ben Saunders

    All the stuff with Luke and Rey on the island, and the Rey and Kylo stuff was pretty interesting. Everything else was absolutely mind numbingly dreadful. Who cares about these characters?

    Do you know what was bold and different from Star Wars but still managed to be actually good? Empire. Heaven Sent is a good example of something being different, but still incredible. TLJ sucking arse has nothing to do with it being different. The plot contrivances/unlikable characters/comedy of errors/pacing/four B-plots thing has been covered by many other people much better than I ever could. I don’t want them to remake VIII, I want them to stop.

    #236668

    Ben Saunders

    Also interesting to hear people liking Ridley in VII but not VIII, very odd. Her character was actually better in VIII imo and she actually rather impressed me towards the end of the film, whereas in VII she could have been anybody. The real tragedy is Finn, who was one of my favourites in VII but reduced (further) to comedic relief (like everybody else) for VIII

    #236670

    GlenTokyo

    I think the anthology films are where you go for new quality Star Wars anyway. Solo is in my opinion the best Star Wars film since 1983 but wasn’t monetarily successful unfortunately.

    I don’t think the majority of Star Wars fans like TLJ either, the uses score on metacritic is 4.5, IMDb’s page is sponsored by TLJ so that’s that out of the window, and of the critic reviews knocking about there’s not one negative one, not one? Does anyone else find that suspicious?

    #236671

    Flap Jack

    I don’t think the majority of Star Wars fans like TLJ either, the uses score on metacritic is 4.5, IMDb’s page is sponsored by TLJ so that’s that out of the window, and of the critic reviews knocking about there’s not one negative one, not one? Does anyone else find that suspicious?

    Metacritic user ratings are not a good metric to judge by, because most movie-goers are not Metacritic users, but a dedicated group of detractors will gladly go the effort of bombarding the page with 1 and 0 ratings to deliberately skew the average.

    Also there’s nothing “suspicious” about it being difficult to find negative professional reviews. Sometimes a film is just that good, or sometimes there’s just naturally a disparity between general audience and critical reactions. Pretty normal.

    Who cares about these characters?

    Do you know what was bold and different from Star Wars but still managed to be actually good? Empire.

    Empire was only the second film! It barely had anything to be different from !

    Unless you’re talking about the recent TV series, Empire, in which case I totally agree.

    The real tragedy is Finn, who was one of my favourites in VII but reduced (further) to comedic relief (like everybody else) for VIII

    This statement is absolutely bizarre to me, because if anything I thought that Finn had less comedy to do than in The Force Awakens, and his story in the film – where he starts with selfish motivations, but learns to genuinely care about the plight of the resistance, among other developments – was great.

    Actually I’d say The Last Jedi was bleaker and less comedy-focused than The Force Awakens in general. Don’t know what film they showed you, but this wacky comedy version of The Last Jedi doesn’t exist in my memory. (It still had plenty of funny moments, though, don’t get me wrong.)

    #236672

    Dave

    I quite liked The Last Jedi. Hamill in particular is great in it.

    #236673

    Ben Saunders

    Solo was alright, pretty boring on re-watch though. I enjoyed Rogue One at the time but don’t want to watch it again in case the same holds true for that one.

    The problem with the comedy in The Last Jedi is a concept known as bathos, “an effect of anticlimax created by an unintentional lapse in mood from the sublime to the trivial or ridiculous.” Essentially, The Last Jedi never allowed itself time to be serious or thought-provoking, every single instance of pathos in the film is -immediately- undercut with some shit joke that isn’t funny anyway. It’s pathetic. It’s as if they’re afraid of coming off as boring to their audience. A good example of mixing humour with seriousness is Star Trek TOS, none of the jokes in that deflate or ruin serious or dramatic moments. Even a show like Chuck, which is overtly comic, allows itself moments of seriousness and drama from time to time, without having to resort to a lousy joke.

    It’s sort of the same problem some modern Dwarf has. Too many lousy jokes, because if the audience isn’t laughing they’re probably bored, right?

    #236674

    bloodteller

    I quite liked the unnamed hackerman they find in the prison in The Last Jedi. Though I was annoyed they never gave him a name. How are people going to know who you’re talking about?

    #236676

    Ben Saunders

    Bit too convenient that they found -another- master codebreaker in the jail of the place they went to find “the only man in the galaxy” who can help them, or whatever. And a bit rich for a Disney® Star Wars™ film to go down the “rich people are evil lol war is bad” route, I felt. I mean, I guess? But you do realise you’re The Disney Corporation?

    #236677

    Ben Saunders

    Benicio himself was decent, though. One of the few twists that was actually interesting

    #236678

    GlenTokyo

    Hamill is great in TLJ, apart from the weird milking section. Best thing by miles.

    Overall though the film was so bad I had to watch it in two sittings because I couldn’t do it all at once.

    While I absolutely think the abuse aimed at the people in it is uncalled for, Rose was shocking, and her plot with Finn is just hard to get behind, you don’t want them to be together, you don’t care.

    The characters that were so good and got me excited in VII were all so radically different in VIII that I just don’t give a shit about most of them now. Rey, Finn, Poe especially.

    And I just can’t like any film that had FUCKING PRINCESS LEIA USING THE FORCE TO FLY LIKE SUPERMAN IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

    VII was thinking your football team has the players to mount a promotion challenge, VIII is the chairman selling all your best players on deadline day and now you’re wondering if you’re going to get relegated.

    #236679

    Ben Saunders

    I don’t think a single person on the planet could argue against TLJ being too long. My mate fell asleep in the cinema and my arse started to hurt. At least TLJ continued the tradition of the longest Star Wars film being the worst one, since Attack of the Clones previously held the record. But I know which one I’d sooner rewatch. (AotC)

    Thoughts about the direction of the character aside, Mark Hamill did an excellent job with what he was given. He even played the milking scene well, his little grimace is genuinely funny.

    Abusing actors for being in a bad film is utterly abhorrent. Rose Tico can drink from my unflushed bog, but Kelly Marie Tran seems nice.

    #236681

    Hamish

    I think VIII is an improvement on VII, but honestly all of the prequel films are better.

    *ducks from the barrage of rotten fruit*

    #236682

    Dave

    I think VIII is an improvement on VII

    And it’s not often you’ll hear that on this site.

    #236683

    Pete Part Three

    >FUCKING PRINCESS LEIA USING THE FORCE TO FLY LIKE SUPERMAN IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

    It’s not flying, it’s using the Force’s brand of telekinesis, and rather than lifting a small object to your hand, it’s dragging yourself to a large object…without resistance because it’s, er, the vacuum of space.

    >Bit too convenient that they found -another- master codebreaker in the jail of the place they went to find “the only man in the galaxy” who can help them, or whatever.

    Bit too convenient that Luke crashlanded on a planet and happened to be 20 feet away from the Jedi master he was looking for? Oh, I guess that one gets a free pass?

    > “rich people are evil lol war is bad” route

    Or maybe the “rich people who profit from war are evil” route.

    And the reason that it got great reactions from critics, is because critics generally haven’t spent 2 years cooking up their own headcanon about where the film should go , what should happen to the characters and how this should leave things for Episode IX. Strangely enough, they are actually quite pleased that the series has finally deviated from a bunch of cyclical tropes that hamper innovative storytelling.

    But whatever, you want to see a 65 year old Luke acting like the Jedi badass he never was in the original trilogy? I’m sure there’s a thousand shitty EU novels to cater for those needs.

    #236684

    bloodteller

    I’m probably the only one who thinks this, but I liked Rose. She was cute in that one scene at the beginning, and although she didn’t really get that much development, she was fun to have around and the actress played the character pretty well. I liked her a lot more than Rei (Ray? Rey?) who just pisses me off in every scene she’s in. Really, that’s the problem with VII/VIII for me- Ray and Kylo are present in quite a lot of the films, despite their characters being A. fucking boring and B. played by people who can’t act, so the vast majority of scenes they’re in just leave me pissed off.

    If VIII had just been a film about Rose, Fin, and Unnamed Hackerman going on a big space adventure, I probably would have enjoyed it a lot more since the scenes with the three of them were generally quite good, I thought.

    #236685

    Flap Jack

    (Re Ben & Glen’s comments)

    Imagine liking a Star Wars film that undercuts dramatic moments with jokes…

    Seriously though, I genuinely can’t think of any times The Last Jedi does this. I remember jokes for sure, but not any that could be said to have ruined the drama.

    Otherwise:

    – The movie is not too long. I know this because making it shorter would require scenes to be cut, and there aren’t any I’d want to lose.
    – Leia using the force to fly through the vacuum of space is awesome and perfect.
    – “Bit rich for a Disney movie to criticise war profiteering” is one hell of a take. You do know that movies are written by writers, not executives? And even if they weren’t, Disney became massive by selling art, not by selling ICBMs to ISIS (as far as I know).
    – I have no idea what the character of Rose Trico did to warrant such direct bile – so much that Kelly Marie Tran was harassed off social media – but frankly I’m not sure I want to. The Finn/Rose arc was solidly good as far as I’m concerned.
    – Them finding a master codebreaker next to them in jail sure was a coincidence, but Star Wars as a series – and fiction in general – is full of coincidences. It’s the kind of thing you only complain about if you dislike the film for other reasons and want additional points to bolster your argument.

    Short version:

    #236686

    International Debris

    Now I know how it feels to be one of those people who hates Doctor Who.

    #236687

    Dave

    I’m looking forward to Episode IX. With JJ Abrams back it will be interesting to see whether it follows any of The Last Jedi’s leads or snaps back to a more Force Awakens style of movie.

    #236691

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Hopefully neither

    #236693

    GlenTokyo

    A character who has never shown any force powers other than a sort of long range empathy when it comes to her family are suddenly being able to survive in a vacuum and drag herself around is perfect and awesome?

    Ok then.

    Flap Jack says its fine, shut it down, we’ve all got agendas.

    #236695

    Bargain Bin Holly

    I wouldn’t mind her having force powers, but the concept of using the force to float in space is pretty stupid.

    #236696

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Cheers to Flap Jack for the dedication tho

    #236698

    Pete Part Three

    >the concept of using the force to float in space is pretty stupid.

    Well yeah. Because *floating* in space doesn’t require the force at all. Gravity is on short supply.

    >A character who has never shown any force powers other than a sort of long range empathy when it comes to her family are suddenly being able to survive in a vacuum and drag herself around is perfect and awesome?

    I like how you dismiss “long range empathy” as nothing much, when it’s simply evidence that Leia is one of the few force users in the OT and basically means she’s “magic”. As for never showing any force powers; how do you know? She’s known she’s a Skywalker for 30 years. Her use of the force is clearly meant to be instinctual; must like her “long range empathy”. She survives, but immediately falls into a coma afterwards.

    #236700

    Bargain Bin Holly

    You know what I mean.

    If its never demonstrated or even hinted at on-screen can you blame him for not seeing evidence of Leia having force powers in the prior films.

    #236701

    tombow

    if you take the whole series as canon, her father Anakin was born of the force so it’s not surprising she would have some subconscious force protection. I did not mind that scene, it was a bit magical and the fantasy side of SW to me.

    #236702

    GlenTokyo

    No scientific evidence obviously but anecdotally twins in our galaxy have said they have been able to feel when their twin is in trouble and shit, and I’m sure those kind of “I knew my twin had crashed his car” stories have been around for ages, and for TV and film it’s almost a trope, don’t think it was written a precursor to Leia being unveiled as more powerful than actual trained Jedis in a later film.

    #236703

    Bargain Bin Holly

    If I remember correctly, cause I haven’t seen the prequel movies since last decade, but wasn’t Luke and Leia’s mother void of force powers? Is it not as equally plausible for her and Anakin to birth one child with the force and another who lacks it?

    #236705

    Flap Jack

    I feel like if you’re coming out of The Last Jedi trying to decide if a character has the right parentage to plausibly use the force, then that’s a sure sign you’ve decided to ignore the core message of the movie.

    Never mind that Leia is Luke’s sister – so if you must go by the genetic argument then she could easily be equally capable as him – Leia explicitly uses the force in no fewer than 3 other films, and enhancing your movement is like Standard Force Power C.

    Leia’s force-sensitivity is so enshrined in the Star Wars canon that Luke straight up says “The force is strong in my family. My father had it, I have it, my sister has it” in the trailer for The Force Awakens and it was no big deal. I even remember people being disappointed after the film itself came out and Leia only used her usual “interstellar empathy” power in it rather than pulling out a lightsaber and bouncing off the walls or what have you.

    Well, Rian Johnson finally let Leia use other types of force ability without it feeling gimmicky. But now this thing is also a reason to complain, apparently. ^_^

    I’ve never heard anyone calling BS over Luke being able to blow up the first Death Star without computer aiming, even though his force powers were nowhere near as foreshadowed as Leia’s.

    I’ve never heard anyone calling BS over Harry Potter being able to blow up his aunt in book 3 despite not doing any “Aunt Inflating” lessons in book 2 either. (OK, I know that was random as hell, but it just popped into my head as a similar example of instinctive, untrained magic usage.)

    Also, I’ll say it’s rather nice to be in a thread where I so wholeheartedly agree with Pete Part Three. It took disagreeing with most of the other people in this thread to achieve it, but still.

    #236707

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Yes, so enshrined in the canon it was only first revealed 38 years after the first movie beyond speculative theories never confirmed in the original three movies prior.

    Even then, if it was foreshadowed, hinted, or even explicitly stated in the original trilogy at any point it doesn’t make the scene of Leia in space any better beyond nodding to continuity.

    #236708

    Ben Saunders

    >Bit too convenient that Luke crashlanded on a planet and happened to be 20 feet away from the Jedi master he was looking for? Oh, I guess that one gets a free pass?
    Criticising another film is not a defense of anything, ever

    #236709

    Ridley

    >I’m sure there’s a thousand shitty EU novels to cater for those needs.

    The Hero with a Thousand Faeces.

    #236710

    Ben Saunders

    >And the reason that it got great reactions from critics, is because critics generally haven’t spent 2 years cooking up their own headcanon about where the film should go
    Also a strawman, I had no theories going into it, I just wanted something that wasn’t shite, bit tired of hearing this honestly.

    “I love you/I know” is a much better “joke” (if you can call it that) than anything in TLJ, because it was in character and born out of the situation. It wasn’t a joke for the sake of a joke, it was Harrison Ford understanding his character perfectly and ad-libbing an iconic line.

    #236716

    Pete Part Three

    >Criticising another film is not a defense of anything, ever

    Which means that praising another film (“Bold”, “Different”) is irrelevant when critiquing a film to the same standard, then. You were the one who brought up Empire.

    And I’m not criticising Empire at all. Luke crashlanding next to Yoda doesn’t bother me in the slightest, just as the Codebreaker mix-up didn’t in The Last Jedi. If you really think plotholes are the reason you didn’t like a movie, I’ll happily supply plotholes of movies you do like and expose how ridiculous that theory is.

    The ‘bathos’ stuff, the “comedy of errors” critique; all seem very familiar from YouTube videos. They’re interesting, but they don’t seem to be coming from you. Your criticisms seem to be limited to “It was too long!” and “There were plotholes”.

    >Also a strawman, I had no theories going into it, I just wanted something that wasn’t shite, bit tired of hearing this honestly.

    My comment on critics going in without a headcanon, was in response GlenTokyo’s theory that was something suspicious about the good reviews it had recieved from the press. Glen is also concerned about plot threads being dropped that he was invested in, and wants the film to be remade.

    There’s more than you on the other side of the debate, Ben. Please take your accusations of strawmen arguments elsewhere.

    #236717

    Flap Jack

    Yes, so enshrined in the canon it was only first revealed 38 years after the first movie beyond speculative theories never confirmed in the original three movies prior.

    “First revealed 38 years after the first movie”? She literally uses the force in both Empire and Return, and the latter movie makes it clear that this was the explanation.

    Like, did you need the film to briefly cut away to George Lucas speaking to camera, “Hi guys, just wanted to clarify that the reason Leia can sense the emotions of her friends and relatives across space? That’s because she’s Luke’s sister and can also use the force. You know, like how other force users such as Obi-Wan and Vader are shown to have that exact same ability? Yeah. Anyway, just wanted to make sure nobody thought that this was just a random, unexplained skill. Kthnxbye.”

    Also, R.I.P. Timewave Part Two, a classic username that will live forever in our hearts.

    Criticising another film is not a defense of anything, ever

    I get that, but when you cite that exact film as the perfect counter-example to the film you’re criticising, then I think you forfeit your right to make the “another liked film doing it is not an excuse” argument.

    Unless you were actually talking about the recent TV series, Empire, in which case I totally agree.

    “I love you/I know” is a much better “joke” (if you can call it that) than anything in TLJ, because it was in character and born out of the situation. It wasn’t a joke for the sake of a joke, it was Harrison Ford understanding his character perfectly and ad-libbing an iconic line.

    Well, I definitely laughed when I first saw it! I think the line’s iconic status has possibly made people forget how unexpected it was.

    Saying “the jokes in TESB were perfectly in character, the jokes in TLJ were just random and ruined the drama” is obviously valid if that’s how you read them. I vehemently disagree, but unless you eventually cite actual examples it’s not really possible for me to vouch for them.

    #236724

    tombow

    Loathe to say this because I like TLJ and the Leia flying scene, but I’m not sure Lucas had decided on Leia being Luke’s sister or a force user by ESB? You could simply interpret that scene as Luke being able to project his thoughts. Although if it’s canon you want, Leia was a full blown saber wielding Jedi in EU canon for 20+ years.

    #236725

    Dave

    It’s pretty explicit by Return Of The Jedi, with the lines “you have that power too, in time you’ll learn to use it as I have”, and “the Force is strong in my family, my father has it, I have it, my sister has it”, and so on.

    It kind of seems like a silly argument by this point. It’s fine to say you don’t like the Leia/Superman scene in The Last Jedi for various reasons – the effect looks odd and artificial, it’s initially unclear that she’s using telekinesis rather than flying, it’s ghoulish for viewers to see her frozen face in space after Carrie Fisher died – there’s lots of problems you could reasonably have with it. But claiming that Leia wasn’t established as being Force-sensitive in the original trilogy is just nonsense.

    Personally, I thought the scene was a bit naff when I first watched it, but on subsequent viewings it didn’t bother me as much.

    #236729

    Pete Part Three

    >I’m not sure Lucas had decided on Leia being Luke’s sister or a force user by ESB?

    I would agree with this, but definitely by ROTJ, it’s established that she’s force-sensitive (she, er, senses stuff). Like the retcon of her being a Skywalker, it could be read that the projection works *because* she’s force sensitive. (Luke and Vader have the same thing going on, after all).

    #236732

    Dave

    Also, it seems to me that part of the point of that moment in The Last Jedi is the very fact that we’re seeing Leia use Force powers in a way that hasn’t been seen in the movies before. It plays into the idea of people finding reserves of strength at times of great crisis or danger.

    It wouldn’t be as impressive or meaningful if we’d seen her running around using the Force willy-nilly in The Force Awakens. (The only moment I remember from that movie is her sensing the death of Han Solo.)

    #236742

    Ben Saunders

    I was using Empire being different to Star Wars as an example of something being different from the source material but still extremely well done, in the context of the argument regarding people disliking The Last Jedi “because it’s different”. It was a separate argument, you see.

    Does a critique of a film have to be wholly original for it to be true? Is that a real opinion? Yes, I got the “comedy of errors” phrase from RedLetterMedia, but I disliked the humour in The Last Jedi, and the film itself, while I was watching it in the cinema. I didn’t get my opinion from them, they put it into words. The videos about VIII came out several weeks/months after the movie, but I hated the movie right from the get-go. Do you understand this?

    Leia wasn’t Luke’s sister by the time of Empire I don’t think, Luke’s sister was going to be another character introduced later and used in VII-IX, or something. But then Lucas decided to wrap everything up with VI. At least that’s -one- of the official stories, of which there are many.

    #236743

    Ben Saunders

    Leia in space is probably the most ridiculous way of showing her latent force powers that anybody could possibly imagine. Ignoring the fact that she got BLOWN THE FUCK UP, it just looks utterly absurd. It was the first moment in the film that made me think “this is going to be shite, isn’t it”? After the “yo momma” prank phone call in the beginning

    #236747

    Flap Jack

    No, the most ridiculous way of showing Leia’s latent force powers would be if:

    – She confronts Kylo Ren.
    – She says “The dark side sucks bantha peen, son. I’ll show you the true power of the light side … FORCE SLIME POWERS: ACTIVATE!”.
    – Then she turns around, pulls down her pants, and starts shooting a stream of glowing green goo oiut of her arse, accompanied by a comically exaggerated fart noise track.
    – The green goo floats into the air, and coalesces together to form a 40ft tall replica of Mr. Blobby.
    – The Blobby beast comes alive and starts laughing maniacally, before charging at Kylo, all while shooting pink fireworks out of its eyes – the explosions from which are the only sound loud enough to drown out the sound of “Remember You’re A Womble” playing in the background.
    – Finally, one of the fireworks hits Ren square in the face.
    – The blue smoke clears to reveal a small baby lying in Kylo’s clothes.
    – Still with her pants down, Leia rushes over and picks up the baby.
    – Happy tears in her eyes, she says “… Ben? It’s you! So this is it… a fresh start. This time, I’ll get it right.”
    – She then force pushes baby Ben directly into Blobby’s mouth, and Blobby contentedly chews and swallows him.
    – “Not letting that little fucker get old eniugh to do fascism again” she says, before turning to directly face the camera and winking.

    #236785

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Digging through some news articles and discovered even Dave Lister himself called Dave Dwarf a “reboot”, heh

    I think we want to film more episodes, the reboot went so well

    https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/2017/03/10/news/craig-charles-hopes-red-dwarf-crew-can-make-space-for-arena-tour-960713/

    #236789

    Katydid

    There are a lot of kinds of revivals and plenty of words people can use that would actually describe them more specifically, so I don’t see why everyone insists on using “reboot” as a catchall.

    #236790

    Katydid

    And I thought the Last Jedi was an incoherent mess of a movie that was too busy trying to subvert audience expectations it couldn’t be bothered to actually bring any kind of satisfying narrative resolution

    #236791

    Pete Part Three

    What specific thing were you hoping to resolve in this; the middle part of a trilogy?

    Was it Luke’s story? Luke, who spends much of the film coming to terms with the responsibility of failing Kylo Ren, and struggles to reconcile the man he is with the legend that surrounds him. He responds to Leia’s call when she needs him most, faces down the First Order, and allows the rebels to escape. In doing so, he becomes the legend that will inspire the next generation by pulling off the biggest force trick of all.

    Was it Rey’s story? At the beginning of the movie, Rey attempts to give the lightsaber to Luke. She wants to pass the baton back to the old generation, so he’ll swoop in and end the war. Luke knows he can’t do this (see above). The first 2/3 of this movie are about Rey coming to terms with the fact that *she* is the protagonist, and this responsibility now falls to her. By the finale, we finally have her ready to be take the reins. Lucky the story isn’t over…

    Was it Poe’s story? Poe, who in The Force Awakens was simply a hotshot pilot who could supposedly do no wrong, but in this movie learns the cost of irresponsible actions and what being a true leader is. He wants to win whatever the cost, but this movie shows what the cost is. He learns a lesson from Holdo and Leia. As a result, it’s him who tells Finn that his intended self-sacrifice is stupidity, and it’s him who twigs that Luke is creating a diversion. He becomes the leader he thinks he is at the beginning of the movie, by leading the rebels to escape.

    Was it Finn’s story? Finn, who spent the entirety of The Force Awakens chasing Rey and his own selfish goals. In this movie, he actually *joins* the Resistance as he realises what they’re fighting for. By the end of the movie, he’s intent on stupidly sacrificing himself. His story is not over. He’s now where Poe was at the start of VIII.

    Incoherent? The film is a lesson in how to handle multiple characters arcs.

    The only way The Last Jedi subverted my expectations was by being so much more interesting than I ever could have hoped after decades of this series stagnating.

    If you’re disappointed the following happened:

    * A Jedi Master sacrifices himself to allow his friends to escape
    * The protagonist learns an upsetting truth about their parents
    * The key baddie kills his boss before we learn anything significant about him.

    I’m a bit confused as to what your expectations of a Star Wars movie are.

    #236792

    NoFro

    I did not like VIII at the cinema (with the caveat that I did go to a midnight showing so was maybe not in the ideal movie watching mood) but I’m a stupid Star Wars fan so have bought the 4K disc to revisit. I’m looking forward to rewatching it and hopefully liking it a lot more though my main concern is that the humour will still be crap and undermine serious moments and entire characters. Also, my partner hasn’t seen it yet so I will be interested to see what she thinks. She really liked TFA – I thought TFA was pretty good.

    I can’t say I met anyone who really liked VIII when it first came out, and every pre-Christmas 2017 social event seemed to have at least one moment where someone brought it up. Felt like I spoke with most types of viewer as well: people who have been watching since ’77, people who grew up with prequels, people who love prequels, hate prequels, don’t really give a shit about Star Wars and just saw it as “a movie”, TFA lovers, TFA haters. Even those who did like it, I had to ask their thoughts about Canto Bight, Space Leia and Captain Phasma and things that seemed to be universally controversial and even then they caveated that those bits weren’t so good. I accept that there are a lot of people who I obviously didn’t speak to who really do love VIII though. Hopefully I’ll become one of those people through another viewing.

    Also re: Leia in space – absolutely fine as a concept. Execution was naff.

    Also also, most people I spoke to, lovers and haters, mentioned that the Rey/Kylo fight was awesome. This is one part I have revisited through YouTube as I didn’t get the hype and yeah… it is terribly choreographed.

    #236793

    Katydid

    I’m not even going to try to debate this, but much more knowledgeable people than me have torn this film apart in ways that align with my thoughts watching it.

    #236794

    genericnerdyusername

    I’ll take your word for it. Pete’s points refute a lot of the criticism I’ve seen online. I found the film unimpressive when I first saw it. I just found it a bit boring, but there’s nothing to be offended by in terms of storytelling. A lot of people are being ridiculous about it. While browsing HMV in Wimbledon there was a guy working there who said to two different customers “they killed Star Wars!” which is a pretty laughable thing to say. At least they took the “last” one out of the hands of the guy who made the fucking Book of Henry.

    I would watch a reboot of Red Dwarf with an all female cast and I thank the creator that I don’t have to cast it.

    #236799

    Ben Saunders

    > the humour will still be crap and undermine serious moments and entire characters
    Glad I’m not the only one

    Almost everybody I’ve spoken to irl disliked the film as well, and we’ve had some pretty lengthy and intense discussions about exactly why we think it didn’t work, including some concepts which I haven’t seen come up in online discussion much. For example, the universe of the sequels feels incredibly small, like everything takes place over a couple of days in a handful of locations. The OT, and especially the prequels for all their faults, were epics, taking place over several years and over a vast array of diverse locations. This is one area in which I think the sequels are genuinely lacking, worldbuilding. Can anybody explain the power dynamic between the First Order and the New Republic without referring to non-movie material?

    >Also re: Leia in space – absolutely fine as a concept. Execution was naff.
    Maybe. Maybe.

    >Rey/Kylo fight
    Again, a nice idea executed poorly. A director like Tarantino or Kubrick or somebody would have done more takes and got the choreography done much better, I should think. Johnson (and potentially Ridley) don’t seem up to it.

    Safe to say TLJ killed all interest I have in the sequel trilogy, I’m sure I’ll check out IX out of brand loyalty and some deep seated hope that JJ might just turn it all around at the last moment. I’m not even excited by the prospect of an Obi Wan trilogy or whatever if VIII and Solo is the best the Disney team can come up with at this time.

    #236804

    NoFro

    The fight could definitely have done with a few more takes. I didn’t feel like I was watching the characters act defensively; I felt like I was watching the actors work their way through the choreography. Admittedly Driver did a better job than Ridley.

    And the choreography is horrible. Guards keep ducking out of shot to stand around and do nothing(!?), leaving their colleagues to fight 1 on 1 with Ren/Rey. At one point Rey meekly kicks one guard and three fly backwards. A weapon is CG’d out at one point because if it was kept in Rey would have had to have been sliced across the stomach. Yeesh.

    #236809

    Ben Saunders

    Yeah, it really is a clusterfuck. Again, a nice -idea- to do a fight scene with long shots like that, but it didn’t pan out. Have you seen the videos where they sync up the TLJ fight with different pop songs? The Britney Spears – Toxic one is incredible.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG2Dsr91kZM

    Just watching it again, right off the bat that guard on the left just starts spinning like fuck when in reality he should be absolutely pummeling Rey to death, jeez. They aren’t even using any force powers or anything to make it more plausible that they could win such a fight. Also I don’t want to see anybody referencing the fight choreography in any other movie as a defense as again, that’s not what the discussion is about.

    #236814

    Flap Jack

    Also I don’t want to see anybody referencing the fight choreography in any other movie as a defense as again, that’s not what the discussion is about.

    Exactly! The discussion is about an all-female Red Dwarf reboot, innit. Anyone got any new casting ideas? My suggestions:

    Lister – Maisie Richardson-Sellers
    Rimmer – Daisy Ridley
    Cat – Michaela Coel
    Kryten – Gwendoline Christie
    Holly – Amanda Lawrence
    Kochanski – Felicity Jones
    Hollister – Laura Dern

    #236815

    Katydid

    Yeah, the world building was a thing that was really getting to me. I feel like I have no idea how the First Order even got into power in the first place. They just kind of did. The fact that Snoke wasn’t important just leaves more questions unanswered.

    I mean everyone is laughing and celebrating at the end when BASICALLY EVERYONE THEY KNOW IS DEAD. You’d think there’d be some solemn reflection on the trauma we just went through, but like so much of The Last Jedi it feels like you’re supposed to accept what it presents at face value and not think about it. Because if you just accept the film at face value it is a gorgeous movie with some good action. It just completely crumbles under analysis, unless you leave out all the shit that didn’t make sense and only focus on what it was trying to do.

    And I really do feel like a lot of the time the film’s defenders just don’t see the reams of logical inconsistencies. I’m not expecting the film to be perfect, but the sheer amount of stuff that doesn’t add up is pretty astounding if you sit down and actually question the logic of events as they transpire. I’ve been watching all sorts of different reviews and they always manage to find something new to say, and Plinkett’s suddenly comes out and unleashes a whole host of other problems I hadn’t seen addressed elsewhere. He made some very good points that put into words things I felt but hadn’t analyzed the film enough to really articulate. Not even minor points, really major things that could resolve the entire story in seconds.

    But the thing that really bothers me is I feel I get attacked for not liking the film; that I get grouped in those crazy fanboy jackasses who drove the actress who plays Rose off Twitter because they can’t differentiate fantasy and reality. I’m really not a fanboy. I honestly I have only seen the original trilogy once, and Episode VII and Rogue One. I’m not approaching this from the perspective I would on Red Dwarf where I’m fucking obsessed and know everything about the production and lore. I’m really an outsider when it comes to Star Wars, and I saw the initial backlash against the film and kind of accepted the idea that it was just stupid fanboys hating something different.

    But then I watched it, and it just failed to engage me as a film. I didn’t find it interesting, downright boring at times, and I didn’t feel like it was actually at the level of sophistication it was trying to appear. It didn’t fly over my head, I understood all the grey morality and rampant narrative subversion and what have you that it was trying to pull, I just don’t think it succeeded at it. The things that people point to when they say it was a good movie, I don’t think that the film actually managed to pull off what they’re saying it did – but it certainly _looked_ like it. It just felt…I guess the only way to put it is faux-intellectual. It showed a pretty picture but didn’t have much substance.

    And I don’t want anyone to feel like I’m judging them for liking the movie in the same way I wouldn’t want to be judged for not liking it. It’s just really hard to have a civil discussion about it when tempers get so inflamed, and especially when I feel like I can’t even voice my opinion without being attacked.

    I don’t think think I’m going to convince anyone who liked it that it wasn’t good, and more power to them. They really win, because they’re the ones with a new Star Wars movie they really love. I’m the one who’s stuck sitting here without a new movie to enjoy. All I really want is my perspective to not be dismissed as utterly invalid, but I guess I’m kind of shutting down people who liked the movie inherently. I don’t know. I really don’t want to fight about it, I just want to be able to say what I think, and I’ve been deliberately dancing around actually going into specifics because the specifics don’t really matter. It’s the conglomerate of them all, the experience of the entire film. I clearly had a very different experience from other people. I don’t want to dismiss the positives they saw in the film, but I guess I just they wouldn’t dismiss the negatives I see either,

    God, really, when are they going to announce Red Dwarf XIII? Please just fucking announce it so we can have it next Fall. I really don’t want to have to wait until 2020.

    #236816

    Warbofrog

    Reboots/revivals I’ve loved (past decade): Battlestar Galactica (didn’t see original), Doctor Who series 5 (into 6, then back to not really being my thing again), every new Alan Partridge cross-platform thing written with the Gibbonses (who I just found out come from my hometown. Someone finally had to).

    Reboots/revivals that have been a waste of time: The X-Files (just one keeper), Twin Peaks, Jonathan Creek series 5 (more recent special was okay), The League of Gentlemen (dull fan service), Abrams Trek (I’m not the audience though).

    Dave Dwarf’s alright.

    #236817

    Warbofrog

    Star Trek: Discovery’s a spin-off, not a revival or reboot. But I was more interested in that than any Trek since DS9 ended. The lazy fan service is putting me off continuing though.

    Not much of a Star Wars guy (only have enthusiasm for IV & V), but I at least found the new films watchable, unlike the prequels which I remember being more like watching my brother play a PS2 game than a cinematic experience. Haven’t bothered with extracurricular stuff like Rogue One or watching people dissect films I don’t really care about though.

    #236818

    Bargain Bin Holly

    God, really, when are they going to announce Red Dwarf XIII? Please just fucking announce it so we can have it next Fall. I really don’t want to have to wait until 2020.

    This x infinity.

    Sifting the topic away from Star Wars, which I think is in everybody’s best interest, why are we hearing almost nothing yet about a new series from UKTV or Dave? I’m expecting an announcement or some kind of update at Dimension Jump this October from Doug regarding XIII, cause we haven’t had new Red Dwarf filmed since early 2016.

    I’m certain Doug is working hard to get new stuff commissioned, but let’s speed it along a bit m8. Let’s get XIII, a crossover with a certain popular show on Dave, and maybe a tv special done before 2021 comes around.

    #236820

    tombow

    “The X-Files (just one keeper)”

    I know, the lizard man ep was great, wasn’t it.

    #236821

    Warbofrog

    Yeah, I’ve rewatched it since. I found Darin Morgan’s season 11 one enjoyable, but more like a tribute to his other, better ones.

    #236822

    Ridley

    >I’ve been watching all sorts of different reviews and they always manage to find something new to say, and Plinkett’s suddenly comes out and unleashes a whole host of other problems I hadn’t seen addressed elsewhere. He made some very good points that put into words things I felt but hadn’t analyzed the film enough to really articulate. Not even minor points, really major things that could resolve the entire story in seconds.

    Personally, I thought he was being surprisingly petty and deliberately missing the point in places.

    Luke’s stalling is what saves the day. When Leia gives up, Luke steps back into his own legend and keeps hope alive.
    That kid wielding the Force is the movie saying it’s not just about midichlorian breeding after all.
    Rey already has the books, Yoda says so.
    Why assume Leia was taught nothing by Luke?
    And so on.

    #236835

    Ben Saunders

    The thing about Plinkett’s review is he didn’t want to waste his/our time by going over the same tired old points that thousands of internet commenters and dozens of video essays had already done to death, so tried to cover new, fresh ground. He did well on that front, especially with the Comedy of Errors bit, but people looking for a prequel-review-tier teardown of the movie are left wanting.

    The Wine Tasting skit is brilliant, though. The problem with Rian Johnson’s subversion is that he thinks just subverting our expectations for the sake of it is satisfying and worthwhile. It isn’t. After the initial shock factor (and once you realise halfway through the movie just what he is doing, making the later twists ironically predictable), you realise just how hollow and unimportant everything is, and how Johnson failed to plug the gaps and replace predictability with something genuinely more interesting. I appreciated Rey’s lineage being unimportant, but Snoke’s death was a huge eyeroll. When worldbuilding is a massive problem in your trilogy and you decide to make the one character who could almost potentially be interesting a nobody, you’re not exactly making your universe MORE interesting. There isn’t even any mystery, there’s fucking nothing. And that’s the point. And that’s shitty.

    #236836

    Ben Saunders

    Also did Rian Johnson watch The Empire Strikes Back? He knows that Yoda was only acting like a goofy prick to test Luke, right? Yoda being a goofy prick in TLJ is bizarre. And the puppet looks like shit, people like to cream themselves over the practical effects of the sequels despite TFA using more CGI than TPM, and a bunch of the puppets/animatronics looking like cartoony bullshit. Lucas himself couldn’t make a convincing Yoda puppet for Episode I either so I gather it’s pretty difficult, to be fair. There was also some really shoddy compositing during the Crait battle, one shot of Finn in his cockpit in particular looked abhorrent if I remember rightly.

    One of the first things people who criticise the film say is “hey at least it looks incredible!”, but does it? The colours look really shitty, the casino planet and the animals on it look dreadful and the throne room fight looks like a 2000s music video.

    #236866

    Ridley

    The Yoda puppet likes fine in behind the scenes footage eye em oh. Whatever they did to it in the film makes it look like CGI.

    #236867

    Ridley

    And looks fine.

    I do miss the colour of the prequels. The sequel aliens tend to be various earth tones.

    #236872

    Pete Part Three

    I love a lot of what RLM does, but their Half in the Bag on The Last Jedi from December 2017 was unfocused and the recent Plinkett review was no better. It was one of the more entertaining negative reviews of the film but unfortunately it descended into nitpicking, to the point where I might as well have been watching one of Mauler’s terrible “reviews”. (Ben; one for your subs, if it’s not their already),

    I rewatched the (very brief) Plinkett Rogue One review recently. The main focus of that is a triangle which says that a Star Wars film should have Story/Character/Emotion. I wholeheartedly agree that, on that criteria, Rogue One is a pile of wank. By that logic, however, The Last Jedi, however, earns a big fat tick in every corner. So go figure.

    I’ll skip over the comments about figh choreography and CGI because, well, they’re about fight choreography and CGI.

    Snoke dying saves us from a rerun of the Emperor/Vader dynamic in Return if the Jedi. Been there, done that. The only world building I care about is how these characters relate to each other, and how Kylo Ren relates to Snoke was the same tropey Master/Apprentice stuff that we’ve already seen. Snoke was a mad old Sith guy who was wounded in the Clone Wars on the battle of Yatanta IV in the year 17ABY who travelled to Mustapha to make a pilgrimage to I’m making this up, by the way, because who the fuck really cares? Positioning the whiny little butthurt Vader fanboy as the true villain of the piece is much more interesting, because he has an established relationship with the heroes.

    #236881

    Ben Paddon

    I’m really glad this turned into a debate about the merits of The Last Jedi. There really hasn’t been enough discussion of that movie online, and this – a thread about whether or not we’d watch an all-female Red Dwarf reboot or not – certainly seems like the best place for such a discussion to occur.

    #236882

    Ben Saunders

    Half in the Bag is not the place you go for in depth, focused discussion honestly, it’s just two or sometimes three dudes rambling about whatever movie they just saw.

    I don’t give a fuck about Rogue One honestly, it’s the Disney Wars film I enjoyed the most but that really is damning with faint praise.

    >Snoke dying saves us from a rerun of the Emperor/Vader dynamic in Return if the Jedi.
    Yeah we just got it in VIII instead, complete with looking out a window at a space battle and offering your apprentice a difficult choice. Episode III was more subtle with its riffing on the throne room in VI and that was supposed to be obvious.

    Not caring about worldbuilding is just absolutely bizarre. I don’t care how the sequel characters relate to each other because I don’t care about the sequel characters. Kylo Ren was almost interesting in VII, and I appreciated the moment where he destroys his helmet near the beginning, it was a nice piece of symbolism.

    But subtlety is not a strength of Rian Johnson. If he had left it there, if that one scene of Kylo destroying his helmet was the only thing in the movie about letting go of the past etc, it would have been a nice theme. But it went beyond symbolism. Eventually the characters began LITERALLY STATING to each other that they should forget the past. That is shocking writing. It is “from my point of view the Jedi are evil”, “I wish I could just wish away my feelings” tier writing. And it’s hideous how the movie attempts to come up with catchphrases or through lines or whatever, with the constant “kill the past lmao”, “the fire that lights a spark that blah blah”, “everything you just said is wrong”, just atrocious stuff.

    Forget the past, kill it if you have to, but don’t forget to go see Han Solo: An Old Character From The Past in four month’s time

    #236883

    Flap Jack

    Also did Rian Johnson watch The Empire Strikes Back? He knows that Yoda was only acting like a goofy prick to test Luke, right? Yoda being a goofy prick in TLJ is bizarre.

    Ah, yes, it’s accepted fact that if someone’s behaves like a goofy prick for a particular reason, then they can’t possibly ever act like a goofy prick for any other reason. Like someone doing a fake sarcastic laugh at a bad joke, then later doing a real laugh at a good joke. Doesn’t happen.

    Maybe Yoda’s initial goofiness to Luke wasn’t even just an act, and he was genuinely enjoying screwing around with him, just as he was enjoying screwing around with him in TLJ… ? Nah, you’re right, it’s completely unbelievable and Rian Johnson must just be stupid.

    *CinemaSins “Sin Added” sound effect plays*

    I love a lot of what RLM does, but their Half in the Bag on The Last Jedi from December 2017 was unfocused and the recent Plinkett review was no better.

    The Half in the Bag review of The Last Jedi was so bad. They just went back and forth between making criticisms that would apply equally or more to The Empire Strikes back, and Rich Evans sarcastically going “No don’t you see that doesn’t matter because it subverts expectations, which automatically makes it amaaaaazing!”, and I’m like BITCH, maybe actually read the articles and essays you’re so desperate to mock, don’t just reference the headlines and pretend that was the entire argument.

    So, from that it was clear that the Plinkett review would not be worth my time. I even stopped watching Half in the Bag, because for the next few episodes they couldn’t stop themselves from taking every possible opportunity to make jabs at The Last Jedi. It just gets tiring if you’re interested in their opinions on unrelated films, but they keep going off track to remind you of one of their worst videos.

    It’s such a shame, because I know from their past work that they can do so much better than this hackery. Oh well.

    Best of the Worst is still pretty good, though!

    #236885

    Ridley

    >I’m really glad this turned into a debate about the merits of The Last Jedi.

    We love going on about VIII.

    It’s not like the question was posed with sincerity.

    #236887

    tombow

    No, I not watch a Red Dwarf reboot with a female cast. I would of course, simply out of curiosity, check out ANY version or remake of Dwarf – even if they made one cast completely of American youtube alt-right commentators, I would check it out simply for the sake of being informed on Dwarf history. But women in the posse would upset me too much. It’s BOYS from the Dwarf people.

    #236889

    Ridley

    It’s not like the question was posed with sincerity.

    #236893

    Flap Jack

    No, I not watch a Red Dwarf reboot with a female cast. I would of course, simply out of curiosity, check out ANY version or remake of Dwarf – even if they made one cast completely of American youtube alt-right commentators, I would check it out simply for the sake of being informed on Dwarf history. But women in the posse would upset me too much. It’s BOYS from the Dwarf people.

    “Boys From The Dwarf” is just a fun catchphrase that’s uttered only very occasionally, it’s not the title. There’s nothing in the core premise of Red Dwarf that requires the characters to be male.

    I did initially misread your post and thought you said you’d actually prefer the cast to be alt-right American YouTubers than women, which was even more alarming.

    #236896

    tombow

    sorry bad joke

    #236902

    Flap Jack

    Ah, that’s OK tombow. It’s not like you did something truly evil, like hating The Last Jedi.

    #236919

    NoFro

    STAR WARS VIII’S A BIG PILE OF SHIT.

    #236925

    tombow

    Sacred Jedi Texts. That should be good for a
    couple of hours.

    Three days without food, and the walls of civilisation come
    tumbling down!

    What d’you mean?

    Been on the island for a few years, and you’ve turned into a barbarian.

    I’m just burning a book!

    It’s not just a book. It’s the only copy of probably the
    greatest work in Jedi literature. Probably the only copy left in
    the entire universe, and you’re quite happy to toss it on the fire to
    keep your little mitts warm for fifteen minutes?

    There’s nothing else to burn.

    That’s it, then, is it? Goodbye Darth Bane? Farewell Revan?
    Toodle-pip Nomi Sunrider?

    Have you ever read any of it?

    I’ve played Knights of the Old Republic. That’s based on one of them.

    Yeah, but have you actually read any?

    Not all the way through, no. I can quote some, though.

    Go on, then.

    “There is no emotion; there is peace. ” (Long pause.) That’s all I can
    remember.

    Where’s that from, then?

    Master Vandar Tokare, you moron. The speech that he does at the
    beginning. (Declaims) “No emotion…” something something something. It’s
    brilliant writing. It really is. Unforgettable.

    OK, I’ll save it till last. (Holds up another.) Marvel’s Leia Pin-Ups. Is it
    OK if I burn Marvel’s Leia Pin-Ups.?

    Save page sixty-one.

    #236927

    Jawscvmcdia

    >There’s nothing else to burn.

    This man can talk, do you know what I mean?!

    #236941

    Flap Jack

    Ha, I took approximately 10 seconds too long to realise what you were doing there. Perfect.

    #236942

    Dave

    Yes, that was very good.

    #236946

    tombow

    thanks friends

    #237100

    International Debris

    God, really, when are they going to announce Red Dwarf XIII? Please just fucking announce it so we can have it next Fall. I really don’t want to have to wait until 2020.

    Doug’s just been announced for this year’s Dimension Jump, so I’m guessing then.

    #237121

    Bargain Bin Holly

    Doug’s just been announced for this year’s Dimension Jump, so I’m guessing then.

    Hopefully, otherwise Doug can expect me to hop on the Timewave sucks-bandwagon out of spite.

    #237125

    Hamish

    Hence the name change.

Jump to top / Jump to 'Recent Replies'

Viewing 202 posts - 1 through 202 (of 202 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.