Forum Replies Created

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 584 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: real world cultural references in the series #257547
    (deleted)
    Member

    Tell you what though, I think I’ll follow John out the door. Bye.

    in reply to: real world cultural references in the series #257546
    (deleted)
    Member

    I mean certainly you’d have to be insulting and ignorant to a fault to think that Grant Naylor’s writing process consisted entirely of two chuckling savants who existed somehow in a political and socio-economic bubble pulling wacky space shit out of their heads at random like a Mancunian Beavis & Butthead or a pair of PG Tips chimps flailing at an Amstrad.

    It’s neither my fault nor my problem that someone might be less interested in the social and cultural history of the 1980s than I might be, and there’s no point anybody flapping at me because they can’t be arsed reading about it.

    in reply to: real world cultural references in the series #257544
    (deleted)
    Member

    Summarised, it’s a satire of free market economics/free enterprise and yuppy culture. Bodyswap is more or less about the same thing – the politics and psychology of yuppy greed. Both episodes have tangible influence from the film ‘Wall Street’ (released in the UK in 1988).

    The Last Day is sharply resonant of issues that came into sharp focus at the end of the 80s/start of the 90s after the retirement/pensions equation was altered in a fundamental way by utilitarian Thatcher economics. These ideas were newsworthy when The Last Day was written and made, and despite all the robot jokes and the prominent Terminator parody elements in the Hudzen 10 character, the episode is essentially a satirical, post-Thatcher take on Logan’s Run above all else. The original themes of the episode are a bit muddled these days when planned obsolescence of technology is not only a real-life thing but a major moral and ecological issue of our time, but the effect as intended is about hyper-capitalism versus the elderly – another Thatcher story.

    Saying it can’t be so because Margaret Thatcher didn’t travel through magic polaroids is like saying Close Encounters isn’t about Watergate because Richard Nixon never boarded a flying saucer. Sci-fi has *always* articulated political discussion in a lateral way. I’m not trying to be pretentious or put forward an outrageous theory here, this is in the text and the context.

    Pretty much the entire original premise of Red Dwarf is a state-of-the-nation address about the class system and working culture in 1980s Britain, and Rob and Doug solidified the political elements around the time of III – see also the relentless allusions and imagery in the first two novels about the heroin problem in working class Britain (just as urgent and newsworthy as Third World famine and the AIDS crisis were in the late 80s before it became normalised out of antipathy).

    There is a definite gear change from IV onwards towards less heavy going subject matter, and a bigger focus on pop-psych and film parody (Polymorph becomes the template for IV-VI really), but I’m honestly not talking bollocks about how much politics and topicality was in the original incarnation of the show.

    in reply to: real world cultural references in the series #257542
    (deleted)
    Member

    Why is that mad? Particularly as we are currently in a world where a good 50% or more of popular drama is explicitly alluding to Brexit and/or Trump – this is surely not a wild concept to backdate 30 years. Dozens of big shows were modelled as attacks on the government of the time, some more subtly than others. Then again, if Timeslides was any more on the nose about Thatcher she’d be in the bastard thing.

    Only Fools and Horses covered all these *exact* same themes in the same year, btw. And that show wasn’t written by the former showrunners of the UK’s most popular political satire show and produced by the man who had been behind 90% of all the left-wing political TV comedy made throughout the entire decade.

    in reply to: real world cultural references in the series #257534
    (deleted)
    Member

    Nice to get a glimpse onto the factory floor to see the Ben-being-a-dick-to-me production line in all its joyless glory though.

    Bonus points for sarcastically referencing an unbumped post of mine in another thread from about six months ago. Not that you’re obsessed or anything.

    (deleted)
    Member

    Okay, I’m balls deep in this now, it’s got me. I didn’t expect the central plot to be so forward moving and engaging.

    (The ref to the “Huawei wars” took me by surprise, mind. Surprised that wasn’t cut in light of current events.)

    (deleted)
    Member

    I am trying very hard this year to become more passive as a viewer – less critical, engaged in things in a less intense way – to get my enjoyment of TV back which I think has been ruined by overanalysis, overinteraction, too much personal investment, hyper-criticism, entitlement (the end product of me using TV for three decades in quite a toxic way, as a self-medicating salve against a traumatic and stressy life – the reason I’m still sometimes a bit explosive and hairsore on here at times). Contrary to my posts about show 1, and in light of my pleasure at show 2 and Quinn’s post above, I think Avenue 5 might actually be doing the trick…

    in reply to: CBS Red Dwarf reboot rumour #257463
    (deleted)
    Member

    If they were to make Red Dwarf now they’d probably insist on a 50% BAME cast and a disabled writer.

    (deleted)
    Member

    Watched ep 2. Either it’s settling in or I am (or both), but I’m quite engaged with it. Laughed out loud a good few times, particularly at “keep naming limbs”.

    in reply to: Stereo Shenanagins #257423
    (deleted)
    Member

    Stereo dubbing for TV was surprisingly crude right into the early 1990s, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in that.

    The stereo version of the 1987 end theme, heard between IV-VI, definitely is true stereo. Much is bounced into the middle but the ten-to-two on the double tracked tambourine is genuine.

    The Elvis version is definitely stereo.

    Something I noticed a while ago – the Smeg Outs version of Tongue Tied, with the finger clicks? The song is mono, the clicks are mono, but the digital reverb on those clicks is stereo, meaning they foleyed those in especially for the video. The actual master of Tongue Tied used across all versions also has a compromised freqency response and bass artefacts which suggest it can only have come off a domestic compact cassette.

    in reply to: Stereo Shenanagins #257414
    (deleted)
    Member

    Oh and the stereo version of the 1987 ending is mostly quite mono-ish anyway, due to way it was produced in a Wall Of Sound style – you mention the split tambourines at ten to two – they’re the only really wide part of it. But that’s just what the stereo version is like. It might be why they favour the mono mix or reprocessed versions of such later on. And the records it is a pastiche of were famously, aggressively, resolutely made in mono right into the stereo era.

    I did have notes on all of this once, when I thought I might do some fan writing for the anniversary. And I do have a CDR somewhere with every mix on it, in case the world ends.

    in reply to: Stereo Shenanagins #257412
    (deleted)
    Member

    Both of the ending themes were recorded in stereo originally, as was all the music. The mono mixes are just folddowns of the stereos as the episodes themselves were dubbed/delivered mono until series 4. Series 4 is indeed the first time that you hear the end theme in true stereo, and you’re right that some episodes of series 6 feature the series 3 end theme in stereo. Additionally, the Clayton Mark/Elvis theme is based on a remixed backing track of that 1989 version. It gets complicated after that, but everything later is either the stereo 1987 ending or the mono one with stereo reverb added. There are still essentially only 2 versions.

    (deleted)
    Member

    He’s got a guest role and also he’s written one.

    (deleted)
    Member

    Its tone is definitely that same fight-or-flight, aggressively hostile thing of everything Iannucci’s done since Thick Of It. I just struggle to buy into *any* sitcom, not just this, where most of all the characters are varying degrees of school bully/sociopath/nihilist and every other line is a put-down. It’s utterly dispiriting.

    It might settle down, and I’m intrigued enough by the world, cast and story to continue watching, especially as there’s a John Finnemore episode coming up. But it needs to lighten up as it is fighting itself. The best joke – the background screen with Laurie’s multilingual greetings – was its daftest. If it just relaxes out of that angsty Thick Of It default it’ll work.

    (deleted)
    Member

    I enjoyed it but I am also uninterested in ‘a load of cunts being cunts to each other’ as a sitcom genre so we’ll see as it goes on.

    It did feel like the violence and swearing was quite tacked-on though, as though there was something more accessible and networky at its heart that had been dressed up unconvincingly in ‘adult’ clothes. There’s something jarring about its shoutiness/grimness that felt to me like they were embarrassed that they’d come up with a solidly mainstream show, panicked and jammed it awkwardly back into their comfort zone.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257338
    (deleted)
    Member

    You make it sound like he’s bedridden.

    Lots of low-level ageism around these parts lately. We’re not in Logan’s Run.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257297
    (deleted)
    Member

    I think you might be too young to fully understand the old religion of Light Entertainment, so I don’t blame you, but it’s pretty much one of LE’s Sacred Texts.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257290
    (deleted)
    Member

    I would also like to point out that the distance between Hugh’s last appearance in ‘Descent’, and the Picard show, is longer than the distance between An Unearthly Child and Survival.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257289
    (deleted)
    Member

    I love The Five Doctors, it is 90 minutes of solid joy and probably my most rewatched DW story of all time. I wasn’t aware there was much dissent tbh. What miserable sods are saying otherwise?

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257285
    (deleted)
    Member

    I wouldn’t even call it nostalgia bait, it’s more just the reactivation of a machine that was rolling relentlessly from 1987-2002 and then – as near as damn it – was turned off ever since.

    To me it *is* very much assuming the viewer is a veteran of the Berman era and can carry on where it was left off. And however much they’re trying to bring newcomers in gently, it’s unashamedly fanwanky in ideology. Hugh hasn’t been seen for over 25 years, for instance, and Seven for nearly 20. Picard is the Five Doctors of Star Trek and should be embraced as such.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257279
    (deleted)
    Member

    Happy to hear it all kind of makes sense at this stage. When you’re very deep in it all, it becomes impossible to tell.

    It does look though like it’s explicitly trying to tie several unconnected loose ends together from various Berman-era shows/films continuity, so if it does commit to going down that route the revision may become more essential as we go on (or it might not!). For example, the ‘B-4’ scene in episode 1 addresses and begins to resolve a story left open for 18 years (kind of Trek’s equivalent of the end of Only The Good).

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257276
    (deleted)
    Member

    Just seen your signoff – The Offspring wouldn’t hurt, but it’s a resonance/character thing rather than a continuity element. I would avoid Lore episodes unless you have to – they’re hugely enjoyable bits of Star Trek but they might overcomplicate things for you at this juncture.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257275
    (deleted)
    Member

    Forgot Hugh was a part of it. Just realised you’ll need some Voyagers as well to contextualise the Seven/Borg stuff. Scorpion, Drone and Dark Frontier at a bare minimum. Don’t think you’ll need further Romulan grounding as it’s fairly straightforward and Nemesis goes over it anyway.

    But it’s definitely a prep heavy show as it’s specifically aimed at avid fans from the 90s/early 2000s. Enterprise, the Abrams films and Discovery were all designed to swerve the immediate needs of the diehards (and all fractured, factioned and made very febrile the Trek fandom in turned), so the self-indulgent back referencing of Picard is earned three times over. This show is a peace mission for people who spent a lot of money on VHS releases in 1998 and have felt a bit fucked-without-a-kiss since Nemesis came out.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257272
    (deleted)
    Member

    At a push you could do it on that one, The Best Of Both Worlds, Family, and the films First Contact and Nemesis. It’s difficult to know what might pop up in upcoming shows though.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257268
    (deleted)
    Member

    THIS I DID NOT KNOW.

    I didn’t know it had been recommissioned either.

    Be still my ruined trousers.

    in reply to: Star Trek: Picard #257266
    (deleted)
    Member

    I really enjoyed it, and am enthused to see the rest. Being a quisling turncoat I do rather wish they’d plopped all four online at once to enjoy as a big film but hey.

    I have no comments or criticisms really, I just was in a very happy place as a viewer. It was enough like Star Trek to feel like Star Trek, but didn’t feel like a tired pastiche either. This hasn’t been achieved in quite a while.

    in reply to: good or near-perfect line readings? #257222
    (deleted)
    Member

    “When most people think of classic wines, they are unlikely to consider the Estonian reds, yet Estonian grapes are among the fruitiest and most subtle!”

    Mostly because of the way Danny sings the word “fruitiest”.

    in reply to: How woke can Red Dwarf go? #257197
    (deleted)
    Member

    To be fair, that was happening for a while and he was doing it more frequently as a result. At least continually calling him a cunt in every possible way underneath his bollocks seems to keep his attention for a while in one place.

    in reply to: How woke can Red Dwarf go? #257195
    (deleted)
    Member

    I already knew, but I had a 0.0001% sliver of optimism that it was genuinely beyond his control and I might be being needlessly nasty and cynical about it all. But no, he’s just a shit.

    in reply to: How woke can Red Dwarf go? #257191
    (deleted)
    Member

    If this thread has taught me anything it’s that Alex knows *exactly* what he’s doing despite all his many and various protestations to the contrary. The very last smidgen of plausible deniability just crawled back under its rock – he’s a wilfully obnoxious troll and a threat to the online safety of women, end of.

    We need to stop pretending that it’s all fine or that he can’t help himself. He is fully capable of behaving himself (just like all the other neurodiverse people on here who seem to be able to keep ourselves largely in check), but chooses not to.

    in reply to: Star Trek Crap #257145
    (deleted)
    Member

    There is a much longer 3 hour rough cut of Nemesis with a lot more character stuff and humour, and apparently it’s much worse than the one that came out.

    I suppose the big issue with Nemesis now is that virtually every action, horror, scifi and fantasy film from about 98-04 shares an aesthetic that looks laughably cheap, naff, small and thoroughly unappealing now. From when they were starting to do a lot more digital grading to push more extreme and high contrast photographic looks and it’s just ridiculously amateurish to modern eyes. And Nemesis definitely has that Blade/Underworld-esque shiteyness to its look…

    in reply to: Star Trek Crap #257144
    (deleted)
    Member

    A lot of the criticism of Nemesis comes down to how unfamiliar with Star Trek Stuart Baird was – a few of the cast have been exceptionally bitchy on this score. But given that virtually all the criticisms of Insurrection correctly focused in on the point that it was too obviously the product of a well-oiled clique of tired creatives all giving it More Of The Same (TM), then bringing in newcomers was literally the only solution to that. I agree that the tone of the film is unpalatably nasty and that it’s downright dull in places, but none of these are the fault of the fact the director wasn’t a chummy veteran of a hacky production line already on the bones of its arse. A few more cringey comedy set pieces with the regular cast members wouldn’t have undone the fact that the public were bored of Star Trek and its ubiquity, and that 15 years down the line TNG had not only outstayed its welcome but was too evidently pleased with itself to a slappable degree. A truly noble failure is worth ten mediocre minor hits, and it *was* a noble failure, which Insurrection and Enterprise weren’t. There are only two hours of Star Trek that resemble Nemesis, and about a million hours of the version people say it should have been more like. In a world where the same Marvel film comes out every three months with the title changed we have to cherish the idea of franchises leaving their comfort zone once in a while. Even if – especially if – it doesn’t work.

    in reply to: Credits Framerate #257100
    (deleted)
    Member

    Video standards compliance is a bizarre and confusing universe at the best of times though. They’re incredibly strict about anything that flashes, flickers or strobes (this is why they were worried that the camera fault on Trojan would make the episode unbroadcastable), and certain shades of white and red are literally illegal. It’s all so boring though that it’s not really known about, but all TV goes through it.

    in reply to: Credits Framerate #257099
    (deleted)
    Member

    It does but it’s still airing in 50i with repeated frames. The frame rate is refreshing twice as quickly as it looks to be doing.

    in reply to: Credits Framerate #257097
    (deleted)
    Member

    Scrolling credits on UK TV shows must run at maximum temporal resolution as part of video standards compliance. The only other solution is to run the credits as static caption cards.

    The BBC will often run credits on feature films at 2x speed (and therefore videolook) as well though this is mostly to save time I think.

    Either way all UK HDTV output is being transmitted via a 50i carrier regardless of production source or how some higher-end smart TVs decode that at point of delivery. Everything is going through the same standard, so whether it was shot, partially shot or even delivered at 25p makes no difference to the way it’s being transmitted as a 50i picture.

    in reply to: What is the best 'final' episode so far? #257071
    (deleted)
    Member

    Yes, a maship.

    in reply to: What is the best 'final' episode so far? #257070
    (deleted)
    Member

    Real cats do regress massively over time in terms of general competence and coolness, though. By the end they are happy idiots and un-self-consciously goofy. I don’t think it’s deliberate character development (the Dave version of Cat is basically a greatest hits maship of the most comedically fruitful elements of his past characters – the naivety and selfishness from s1-2, the wisecracking smartarsedness of s4-5, and the childlike impatience of the s7 version). But it makes me smile.

    in reply to: What is the best 'final' episode so far? #257039
    (deleted)
    Member

    I love the XI/XII Cat. Probably a happy accident but it’s in tune with when an actual cat hits middle age, the hunting instinct falters, and they become slightly more vulnerable and slightly less bothered about stuff generally, but everything else ‘catty’ about them exaggerates.

    I still maintain that all four main characters have been through bigger, more life changing experiences during the Dave era than the BBC. Whether these are things that are actively referenced later in script or performance is irrelevant, these are things that are still there for the viewer to accumulate.

    in reply to: good or near-perfect line readings? #256991
    (deleted)
    Member

    Oh, Danny’s “I will!” after his bulk order of trout a la crème.

    in reply to: SVC Television showreel 94-95 (Inc. Red Dwarf) #256990
    (deleted)
    Member

    Not sure about Henry – possible as you say! Seems like Henry was just a more powerful build of Harry, and pioneered the ‘layers’ system we now know from Photoshop etc. It would certainly make sense for SVC to be taking on some extra ‘paying for our Henry suite’ work around that time.

    Not sure what was powering the morphing in Emohawk – those are proper morphs aren’t they? A couple of early attempts at that done for TNG on Harry are essentially manually animated, so maybe this is indeed a clue to use of Henry…!

    in reply to: SVC Television showreel 94-95 (Inc. Red Dwarf) #256982
    (deleted)
    Member

    I *think* that is HARRY as well. I’m not 100% though so just guessing. But there’s nothing as good in McCoy Doctor Who suggesting it probably wasn’t Paintbox. If it is Paintbox then it’s virtuoso stuff. But I agree, it’s a very impressive sequence.

    in reply to: SVC Television showreel 94-95 (Inc. Red Dwarf) #256979
    (deleted)
    Member

    Interesting to hear comparisons about the Polymorph/Emohawk VFX, as for VI SVC worked entirely on the HARRY suite, which was previously used on III, albeit for one day. In theory… they could have used it on Polymorph transitions instead of the moving photos sequence. Who knows.

    The HARRY stuff done in the first few years on TNG by the way – none of it is as good as that Timeslides shot. Saying that there’s a HARRY showreel from the late 80s on YouTube which is flawlessly impressive even now. It’s just beautiful.

    in reply to: Better Than Life re-release? #256897
    (deleted)
    Member

    They are cheaply-made ‘seconds’ – official Penguin editions yes, but not true ‘reprints’ as such, done to order on cheap paper stock in very small quantities. I mean it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, but they are poor quality and quite expensive, and I would assume the new editions will be more robust and collectable. Assuming we’ll get new forewords too.

    in reply to: Doctor Who – Series 12 #256882
    (deleted)
    Member

    I still haven’t watched any of series 11. They’re all piling up on the planner as a massive box set. Partly because my DW enthusiasm is on a temporary leave of absence, partly because I really like the idea of watching the entire Whittaker era in one go when it’s over, in a Netflixy kind of way. I got the feeling in the Smith era that I was really losing out by keeping to the one-a-week pace rather than just waiting for a bit. As an experiment I saved up and watched the last Capaldi series in one go at the end of 2017, leading slap bang into Twice Upon A Time, and got so much more out of it by being patient and giving it that focus. So I’m doing that on a grand scale with a whole Doctor’s era.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf theme reggae cover #256848
    (deleted)
    Member

    The other interesting thing about that song is that it was written the year after number 1 smash The Chicken Song, penned by one of the Red Dwarf composer’s best mates and the two writers of Red Dwarf. I do wonder if there was a conscious decision there to attempt to bathe in the same river twice.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf theme reggae cover #256847
    (deleted)
    Member

    But it’s not supposed to be about space!

    It’s supposed to be an early 60s girl group song about a tropical holiday, a 20th century anachronism a bit like how the Michael Crawford film is used in Wall-E, Daisy Daisy’s appearance in 2001, or indeed how the Joan Baez songs sit against Silent Running. The idea of all of those is to ‘look how much humanity we had to lose in order to get here’. None of which works if it’s a sassy Hitchhikers-esque number about how groovy corporate space travel is.

    I only think those extra lyrics are incredibly rough draft placeholder ideas he’s singing out by the way, rather than an intended extension of the song we know. Any theoretical full length version would surely have had a full middle eight for variety’s sake, and the musical setting would suggest by example the addition of both a sultry intro and an instrumental with a breathy spoken section…!

    in reply to: Red Dwarf theme reggae cover #256840
    (deleted)
    Member

    I think the problem is that for MCPS reasons they are only *supposed* to play published recordings on air, from their original sources (David Arnold’s Little Britain theme which he played at the start just about counts as it’s on a David Arnold sampler promo), and nobody ever thought to put a true authorised version of ‘Theme From Red Dwarf’ out in 32 years. Which is ridiculous really, given that plenty of its TV contemporaries had their themes turn up on singles or compilations, particularly in the 1990s and usually in their TV versions. Few are as demanded but also as elusive as Dwarf’s – maybe the TV version of Father Ted (which has never turned up anywhere, although it probably would have appeared on the cancelled 1999 single of Songs Of Love alongside My Lovely Horse) too? And I think an attempt to put out Absolutely Fabulous was thwarted at the eleventh hour for publishing reasons and necessitated a repress. But at least they were trying…

    Even Danny’s cover is only on the 7″ of Tongue Tied, so not even easily obtainable. Particularly as the last time Craig Charles tried to play the A-side, in Danny’s presence, their source was clearly YouTube.

    So yeah, if they want to play the Red Dwarf theme on air, they have only terrible versions to choose from.

    in reply to: good or near-perfect line readings? #256771
    (deleted)
    Member

    “I swear, one time I caught this two pound black-ribbed knobbler”

    “Look at that! It’s a bucket and spade! Look at that… it’s, it’s clever that, innit?”

    (I’ve just realised one of my favourite Red Dwarf bits is in Pete. Something for everyone.)

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256681
    (deleted)
    Member

    Well that’s this thread ruined now.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256679
    (deleted)
    Member

    With respect, this is supposed to be a thread about Sonic the Hedgehog and I’d appreciate the conversation being kept on-topic.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256677
    (deleted)
    Member

    I can’t believe he’s still here. There are antisemites in the Labour Party who’ve been kicked out faster than this guy.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256532
    (deleted)
    Member

    I can only admire your patience and restraint at using the word “bordering” there.

    in reply to: The Mandalorian #256407
    (deleted)
    Member

    Could someone throw this cunt into a volcano, please.

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256335
    (deleted)
    Member

    Metalhead’s a pastiche of Duel but the truck is replaced by a fictional Boston Dynamics style robot. That’s basically all it is, but it’s done as well as its inspiration.

    in reply to: What the hell, it's for a good cause! Celebrity Catchphrase #256314
    (deleted)
    Member

    “There’s Mr Chips, washing his hair OH GOD THAT’S NOT MR CHIPS”

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256312
    (deleted)
    Member

    Bandersnatch is a fun little FMV game really. It’s like a modern version of an interactive CD-ROM or a Sega CD kind of thing. I know the PR revolves around it being A Proper Episode (TM) but it’s closer to Night Trap or Toonstruck than it wants to admit. And it’s a great example of what it actually is, even if it’s not a great example of what it’s pretending to be.

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256310
    (deleted)
    Member

    I haven’t got around to s5 yet (I am very tortoise-like with modern TV) but I thought s4 had some of the best stuff they’d ever done, and with no duds. ‘Metalhead’ was amazing.

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256308
    (deleted)
    Member

    Did series 4 of Black Mirror fuck everyone’s mum or something?

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #256260
    (deleted)
    Member

    Also:

    Johnny Vaughan wrote ‘Orrible which starred Angel Coulby
    Angel Coulby appeared in The League Of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse with Reece Shearsmith
    Reece Shearsmith appeared in The World’s End with Pierce Brosnan
    Pierce Brosnan appeared in The Thomas Crown Affair with Faye Dunaway

    Carl Reiner > Norman Pace

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #256259
    (deleted)
    Member

    (You can actually get from John Wayne to David Baddiel in two moves via the film Brannigan and the booklet for Genesis’ “The Beginning” albums box set, thanks to Tony Robinson who has worked with both.)

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256167
    (deleted)
    Member

    FOR CHRIST’S SAKE MAKE IT STOP

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256130
    (deleted)
    Member

    To be pedantic, very little of Adam & Joe on 6Music was broadcast this decade. 3 shows in 2010 and about a dozen in 2011 was all it was? Really I’d say the show was 2008-2009 and the rest was rigor mortis.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #256072
    (deleted)
    Member

    They don’t vary, they just don’t have a 30p standard. NTSC takes a 24-frame second and spread it evenly across a 60 field sequence without time alteration.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256051
    (deleted)
    Member

    Strike that, I would instead like to see all the Worms fuck all the Lemmings.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256050
    (deleted)
    Member

    Surely there must be Earthworm Jim erotic fanfiction by now. He’s essentially a wisecracking phallus, it writes itself.

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256031
    (deleted)
    Member

    The ten year decline in physical media being given some damn respect makes this decade a write off, particularly as within a few short years people will be screaming for it to come back.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #256014
    (deleted)
    Member

    I already saw it on the front page of the Sunday Times.

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255982
    (deleted)
    Member

    Mitch Hedberg was in Almost Famous with Jason Lee
    Jason Lee was in the Alvin And The Chipmunks films with David Cross
    David Cross was a regular in Mr Show With Bob And David alongside Tom Kenny

    Phil Spector > Griff Rhys-Jones

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255975
    (deleted)
    Member

    Ryan Gage was in parts 2 and 3 of The Hobbit with Stephen Fry
    Stephen Fry directed Simon McBurney in Bright Young Things
    Simon McBurney appeared in the 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate with Bruno Ganz

    Stephen ‘Blakey’ Lewis > Rob Reiner

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #255934
    (deleted)
    Member

    How does Jawscvmcdia compare against a normal human? For reference.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255914
    (deleted)
    Member

    Filmed ones do, yus. NTSC is a monstrosity, although some early US colour experiments from the 60s are incongruously high quality compared to 70s/80s stuff.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255913
    (deleted)
    Member

    I must confess to being surprised that Britain’s Biggest Mosque did a Christmas special.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #255912
    (deleted)
    Member

    They could then cross over Sonic into other well loved franchises, such as The Daily Politics, The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas, and the Nicholas Lyndhurst WH Smith adverts.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255897
    (deleted)
    Member

    No, PAL conversions are faster. You speed up so its running time is 96% of the original. It works on a 3:2 basis – NTSC you work on a timebase of 24fps>60i, PAL is 25fps>50i.

    PAL>NTSC you slow down.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #255874
    (deleted)
    Member

    I liked the one where Sonic repeatedly harrassed a woman online after being told to stop several times. They could do a crossover with that and the Sex Offender’s Register.

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #255871
    (deleted)
    Member

    Remind me, is Sonic the blue hedgehog that goes around collecting rings? Used to struggle with that when I was young, couldn’t get my head around the concept. All a bit Oxbridge for me. I mean, I really tried to get my head around the ‘him being blue’ thing, but I lost it at the rings. And then someone said that the ‘hedgehog’ element was literal and I just thought ‘leave this to the academics, I’m out’.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255863
    (deleted)
    Member

    Also, I’m too used to the sound and rhythm of PAL speedup Simpsons to ever be able to comfortably enjoy it at correct speed now anyway. It’s too burnt in.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255838
    (deleted)
    Member

    Disney+ might have Frozen and every episode of The Simpsons ever made, but does it have episode 2 of The Jumbo Jet: 50 Years In The Sky and no others? I rest my case.

    This is going to go even more badly than BBC Store did isn’t it.

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255811
    (deleted)
    Member

    Other than them both being synonymous with the concept of childlike exuberance and joy, yes.

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255808
    (deleted)
    Member

    Conan O’Brien has regularly interviewed Mel Brooks, who produced (and ghost co-wrote) the film My Favorite Year starring Peter O’Toole.

    Norman Lovett > Walt Disney

    in reply to: New Sonic Trailer #255807
    (deleted)
    Member

    I wish they’d release an improved version of you following a fan backlash.

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255795
    (deleted)
    Member

    Oh and I proffer Mel Smith > John Lennon.

    in reply to: Six Degrees Of Separation #255794
    (deleted)
    Member

    Patrick Troughton was in The Omen with David Warner
    David Warner was in Time Bandits directed by Terry Gilliam
    Terry Gilliam provided voices on Frank Zappa’s track ‘America Drinks And Goes Home’ alongside Harry Shearer
    Harry Shearer was in Dick with Ryan Reynolds.

    in reply to: Zany IMDb "trivia" #255782
    (deleted)
    Member

    This is what happens when people legitimise “head canon” as a form of textual analysis. Reality gets dragged along with it.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255771
    (deleted)
    Member

    If you’re watching new DW in order, you can’t skip *any* specials. They’re all cliffhangered into for a start, but even the ones that don’t have major plot developments or character introductions are either important for character development reasons or are referenced later. Or even just for juxtaposition of tone.

    I repeat – surely the sole point of a show being put up for streaming is to be able to watch all the episodes in order? Anything else is stealing pieces out of a jigsaw.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255743
    (deleted)
    Member

    I meant *all* the shows on there, not just DW. Only Fools for example. Without the specials the ongoing story is wrecked. But there are loads of programmes there where major events with consequences happen in the specials, or even, in the case of Vicious, complete the story.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255738
    (deleted)
    Member

    It really is baffling how ritually sacrificed all these shows’ special episodes seem to have been though. Especially as in a great many cases they are vastly important in order to binge these shows in sequence, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE SERVICE.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf is now on BritBox in the US #255735
    (deleted)
    Member

    There’s nothing there for adults either. At least not adults with a collection of more than two DVDs.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255716
    (deleted)
    Member

    On a related tangent, Red Dwarf VIII was really late on to have been made in 4:3. Particularly weird as Re-Mastered went to great effort to pretend it was a 14:9 terrestrial TV blowup of a native 16:9 production.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255715
    (deleted)
    Member

    I’m actually not bothered by feature films using whatever they want – film is an open canvas and 16:9 TVs are the perfect middle ground to display the lot at home, so whatever the director/DOP feel they need is fine. There are also some interesting modern experiments in variable ratio such as The Grand Budapest Hotel which I think are valid.

    But actual telly made only for telly made in anything other than the shape of everybody’s telly? Wank off.

    in reply to: Silent Running #255714
    (deleted)
    Member

    You could fill a coffee table book with Dark Star screengrabs that look like Red Dwarf.

    (deleted)
    Member

    Did Jon Pertwee repeatedly harass a woman online several times after being told to stop? Asking for a friend.

    in reply to: Filming of Red Dwarf #255691
    (deleted)
    Member

    There were some genuinely bad audiences for XI/XII, so I think they may have tipped the scales slightly too far the other way. Obviously you don’t want too sycophantic an audience noise either, but if you get audiences where half of them don’t seem to want to be there to the point of causing trouble, you may need to allocate a certain amount through the Fan Club again.

    X had it about right I think.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255622
    (deleted)
    Member

    Dr Strangelove changes aspect ratios continually all the way through of course.

    in reply to: Aspect Ratios #255619
    (deleted)
    Member

    It’s been a valid cinematic aspect ratio for a long time – we’re essentially talking about Cinemascope here, and equivalents of – but you’re absolutely right both about it looking vain and *ridiculous* on TV shows and absolutely stupid when displayed without black bars on YouTube etc outside of a set 16:9 frame.

    in reply to: Silent Running #255540
    (deleted)
    Member

    Star Wars and Indiana Jones are basically two strands of the same idea though, no? They’re both camp as tits at heart, and if ever they’re not, they fall on their arse.

    Star Wars has been massively derailed by po-faced overanalysis and point-missing attempts to make it progressively darker (I’m not even a particularly big fan of Empire for this reason, give me the vaudeville puppet jollity of Return Of The Jedi any day), but it’s the same thing as Indy – tongue-in-cheek pastiche/recreation of old genre movies combined with modern effects techniques, lots of humour and rollercoaster-ride sensory thrills, to synthesise a new kind of popcorn movie for a family audience using a Rutles-style screenwriting technique. But those scripts really are not meant to be taken apart and looked at as any other than a means to an end – both Star Wars and Indiana Jones are designed to be purely aesthetic pleasures, never cerebral ones (regardless of whatever Lucas says now, the self-aggrandising bollock that he is). The dafter they get – whether jamming with Max Rebo or hiding in a fridge – the truer they are to their intention; and the more serious and nihilistic, the further they drift from what they’re supposed to be (yes I mean you, fucking Rogue fucking One, you nasty bag of joyless wank). I wouldn’t like either franchise if that wasn’t their home base.

    in reply to: New Ed Bye Interview on Talking Bottom #255539
    (deleted)
    Member

    Other than the first and last episodes, series 3 is absolutely cringeworthy and completely phoned in. Like a different show.

    in reply to: Doctor Dwarf: The Books #255445
    (deleted)
    Member

    Page 267 is the best page of Soupy Twists.

    in reply to: Smegazine clippings: The "Great" Red Dwarf Debate #255420
    (deleted)
    Member

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

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

    in reply to: How did it feel when Rob and Doug broke up with each other? #255395
    (deleted)
    Member

    Read eight posts back and repeat until it clicks.

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 584 total)