Forum Replies Created

Viewing 61 posts - 1 through 61 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Craig’s Appearance in Series III #259961
    Manbird
    Participant

    RE Rimmer in S3, yeah I like a softer Rimmer who isn’t really a bad person, just chirpy and annoying.

    I like a balance. For me, the Rimmer in series IV seems to embody all the character’s faults and vulnerabilities. Assuming Lister and Cat are interested in his Risk stories and not batting an eyelid when they make it clear to him that really isn’t the case is rather endearing (and frustrating, admittedly). Also, his antagonism towards Ace feels very understandable as that episode progresses.

    in reply to: The inner darkness of Rob Grant #259960
    Manbird
    Participant

    I’ve got the theme from Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace in my head now.

    Manbird
    Participant

    In the meantime, you may wish to check out The Black and Blue Lamp (1988), an episode of the BBC2 drama anthology series Screenplay about a criminal from a 1940s police drama who mysteriously finds himself in a 1980s cop show…

    Manbird
    Participant

    Hey, don’t apologise. Fair points. I’m sorry if I gave the impression I was chastising you in some way. That wasn’t the intention.

    As for Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes: check out the Russian remake The Dark Side of the Moon about a 21st century cop having to navigate his way through the bureaucratic and repressive Soviet police force of the 1970s. It’s a wonderful spin on the concept.

    Manbird
    Participant

    I’m not sure what that infamous footage of a New York police union official going on an unhinged rant about protests is supposed to demonstrate? Other than American police unions acting like protection rackets, obviously.

    The point he’s making is that the police have been left out of the conversation and are being vilified by the media. There’s nothing unreasonable or “unhinged” in raising that issue. If there are systemic issues within the US and UK police forces then we need to make sure everyone’s at the table to discuss it, not just the ones who think spray painting “All Cops Are Bastards” outside their local supermarket makes them activists.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not being censorious or having a go – I just think we need to be very cautious when discussing this issue. When I said the language was becoming a little deterministic I was refering to sentiments such as how the world has “erupted in righteous anti-police protest”.

    Manbird
    Participant

    it feels extra weird to think about a new police-centered TV drama right now, when the world has erupted in righteous anti-police protest.

    one could still make the argument it glorifies policing as a profession.

    An important point to make is that it will be mainly set in the present day because unlike the “now” of LOM/A2A, which was *relatively* sterile & dull, the world we’re living in now is anything but that, & in fact a lot of parallels could be drawn to the more chaotic, transitional times of the 70’s/80’s, in terms of where we are as a society with sexual politics, racial tensions & police brutality, which I think is something Matthew Graham & Ashley Pharoah both have something to say on. (that was actually their “eureka” moment for bringing it back in fact)

    If they can make a TV show with police protaganists and also say “all cops are bastards though” I’ll be impressed for sure.

    Sorry, I’ve been trying not to get caught up in this discussion but you’ve forced my hand. I add the following link purely because it’s worth thinking about:

    Largely reasonable points have been raised in this thread, but some of the language is getting a little deterministic. If you want to discuss crime statistics relating to police brutality and hate crime in the UK and US we can do that, but idly throwing statements around and assuming a consensus opinion without the use of facts is deeply problematic.

    in reply to: Jupiter Moon: Crap TV Show #259449
    Manbird
    Participant

    Ben Aaronovitch (Doctor Who and Rivers of London) wrote a handful of episodes, y’know.

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #259419
    Manbird
    Participant

    YES, ‘X’ HAS

    Answer to the question “do any series of Red Dwarf have an episode that addresses racism in a really clunky and awkward way?”

    I see you’ve recontextualised a comment from another thread.

    I don’t like it.

    Manbird
    Participant

    Chibnall’s rationale for fiddling seems to be “I need to generate some more stories, as the scope of this show is clearly not large enough”.

    Possibly… I can’t help thinking it’s a bit more cynical than that. Chibnall’s run has been dogged by low viewing figures and fan outrage. The Timeless Children’s revelations and retcons come across to me like the product of someone running on borrowed time who wants to leave their mark on the show before moving on.

    Manbird
    Participant

    Nice video – I enjoyed it. Nifty use of supplementary material, too: seeing Rik Mayall brought a big old grin to my face. Love the animations, btw.

    Comparing the Timeless Child reveal to the Eighth Doctor-half-human controversy is pretty apt. I remember doing all sorts of mental gymnastics back in ’96 to convince myself this fitted into the show’s continuity (like rewatching Ghost Light and pretending there was now an additional undercurrent to Josiah’s “I’m as human as you are” comment), but then I stopped letting myself get worked up about it and embraced the programme’s many contradictions and canonical dead-ends.

    I really haven’t enjoyed any of the Chris Chibnall era and I didn’t care for the retcon of the Doctor’s past in The Timeless Children, but one thing I am grateful for is that the show has now (finally!) eliminated canon and, through these hundreds of Doctors, left it up to the viewer to decide what counts continuity-wise. Now I don’t have to choose whether Jubilee or Dalek fits into my head-canon because technically they both can… in the same way that anyone who’s unhappy with the Chibnall-Whittaker Doctor can now discount them from history, or (being balanced for a moment) hold it up as a bold new beginning. Depends on how you see it, really.

    Anyway, like I say, good video. I’ll check out your other ones.

    in reply to: Doug’s Thoughts On More Dwarf #259100
    Manbird
    Participant

    What about a Big Finish-style continuation of Red Dwarf? Would people go for that?

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #256306
    Manbird
    Participant

    BEYOND THE WOKE

    A Back to Earth-style episode where a small but vocal group of Synthetic Justice Warriors complain that fictional characters absolutely MUST share their personal values or end up being denounced as racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic, etc [delete as appropriate] because they believe the audience can’t be trusted with morally fallible protagonists and/or complex ideas.

    in reply to: Top of the 2010s #256305
    Manbird
    Participant

    Television:

    1. Deutschland ’83, ’86
    2. Black Mirror (series 1-3, plus White Christmas)
    3. Ash vs. Evil Dead
    4. 1992, 1993
    5. Red Dwarf X, half of XI (Samsara, Give & Take, Officer Rimmer) and XII (Mechocracy, M-Corp, Skipper)

    Films:

    1. Loveless
    2. Phoenix (2014 film)
    3. Hard to Be a God
    4. Hell or High Water
    5. Bone Tomahawk

    And the world events I personally consider define the decade (presented objectively without endorsement or condemnation):

    1. The Arab Spring
    2. Trump’s Presidency
    3. Russia’s annexation/reunification with Crimea
    4. Brexit
    5. War in Yemen

    in reply to: Best And Worst Episode Endings #236924
    Manbird
    Participant

    When you say endings do you mean the last scene or plot resolution? For all the knocks it gets – quite rightly so, perhaps – “Officer Rimmer” does wrap everything up quite neatly (albeit unimaginatively). For sheer ‘we really can’t be bothered to think of anything better’-arsedrudgery, I’d say “Gunmen of the Apocalypse”. I’m not saying that to be controversial, I just feel it’s so half-baked building up the tension only to spunk it away on self-congratulatory bit of (in-episode) continuity fan-wank.

    Manbird
    Participant

    >”would the Cat have really been interested in a human woman if he met one? I wonder if it’s like, he think from chatting to Lister that he “should” want women, but he doesn’t really have any really feel for what that entails. Like when he meets the simulant and asks if he is Barbra Belini, he doesn’t really understand that this isn’t a woman.”<

    He seems to have a pretty fluid sexuality. It always strikes me in his dream sequence at the end of “Can of Worms” that he wants to recreate the ‘pipe down the throat’ approach to sex rather than, say, yer standard ‘man on woman’ action he’s been craving since we first saw him. Then there’s the cunnilingus gag in “Better Than Life” with the fish-headed mermaid… In this respect, he probably has the most open attitude to sex than any of the other characters.

    in reply to: Episode/s with the worst audience? #236922
    Manbird
    Participant

    I always thought it was very sweet in “Balance of Power” hearing what’s obviously a kid chuckling along to the chocolate wrapper gag; it’s a pity the same person goes with ‘Euuuugh!’ when Rimmer makes his “Imagine making love to a woman” line in “Waiting for God”. (Was that scene [re]shot at the same time as “Balance”? Now *there’s* a question for ya…)

    Most annoying audience member EVER, though, has to be the twat who does a joyless, practically phonetic ‘Ha haa HAAA’ to every other bloody joke in the Hancock’s Half Hour episode “The Coach Journey”. It may be almost sixty years old, but I just want to find where that guy lives (if he’s still around, that is) and get medieval on his ass. Fucking idiot.

    in reply to: Mac McTorchwood #227407
    Manbird
    Participant

    Is this RTD-bashing down to the fact that Davies recognised the programme has always been a family show and, therefore, drew on cultural elements that cross-generational elements in the audience could recognise? That doesn’t automatically mean dumbing-down.

    Is the Moffat-love down to the fact that he made it all dark and sexy? That’s adolescent thinking, not necessarily a formula for good drama.

    in reply to: Series VII Highlights #227248
    Manbird
    Participant

    > “So they’re resurrected before any of that happened (give or take a bunch of bullshit about Starbug expanding to justify some fancy location shots of its interior and the entirety of Duct Soup)” <

    This irritates me considerably. I can live with Doug revising the time drive so it allows you to travel in space as well as time (it helps if you consider each series as a jumping-on point), but all that shit about Starbug expanding to cope with the paradox is totally unnecessary. If you’re happy to change the continuity of a major plot point without explanation, how can you possibly justify wasting screen time discussing the whys and wherefores of the new, improved set?

    Yeah- small, shitty little point, I know, but it sums up what went wrong with VII for me: lack of focus and misplaced priorities.

    in reply to: Mac McTorchwood #227241
    Manbird
    Participant

    > ” I do prefer dark stuff, but for example I’m watching The Gunfighters right now and I think it’s a heck of a lot of fun. Not that good, but fun. And I like the moments of frivolity between One, Ian and Barbara in The Romans, for example.”

    Again, going back to the comment I made above, what makes Doctor Who unique is that can vary the style that way. Certainly when you go from The Rescue to The Romans there’s a considerable difference: taut thriller to knockabout romp. It’s one of the joys of the programme that one week you can get something ‘light’ (for want of a better word) but engaging, then flip it to something quite dark. If I were to list my favourite stories there’d be a real mixture of adventure, comedy and horror.

    It’s one of the reasons why the show’s survived so long, I think.

    > “I think DCM is -as far as the show should go-, though, and it shouldn’t go there too often, or even again. But I don’t regret it doing so once.” <

    Maybe – but, again, “scaring the little buggers” (as Robert Holmes said) has always been part of the remit, too. If DCM pushed it too far then that’s par for the course and necessary for establishing creative ground. There’s absolutely no way the show would’ve got away with that during the JN-T era with all the restrictions on what the show could and couldn’t do. (I remember Ben Aaronovitch saying he had to bring in the two dalek factions in Remembrance because he was told you couldn’t have two people shooting at each other.) There’s no doubt in my mind that Hinchliffe would’ve allowed DCM, though – if only for the reaction from Mary Whitehouse.

    in reply to: Series VII Highlights #227195
    Manbird
    Participant

    > “The Xtended ending is much better, I think.” <

    This. I don’t like the idea of the Dwarfers duffing someone up at the best of times, but when it’s done in a cartoonesque, Bottom-style (love that show, by the way) in a programme where actions supposedly have consequences, it not only betrays the verisimilitude of that universe but makes its protagonists look like deranged twats.

    in reply to: Series VII Highlights #227194
    Manbird
    Participant

    > “To be fair one of the points the episode was making was that Kennedy’s image became larger than life because of how he was assassinated, and how left to his own devices he would have left a far less flattering one. That is the whole reason he shot himself.

    It is more of a commentary on martyrdom in that respect than JFK himself.” <

    Fair point, and a bloody good one. I suppose it’s a bit like the Simpsons episode “Lisa the Iconoclast”, which acknowledges the necessity of myths to bring out the best in people. Having said that, I wish “Tikka to Ride” had been a bit more like “Lemons”: not that I particularly care for that episode, but it is overtly iconoclastic in the way it humanises the (fake) Jesus. “Tikka” just feels a bit too reverential to me, what with its chiaroscuro lighting on Kennedy and emphasis on his icon status without much discussion on what he actually achieved. (Rimmer says he was a fine man, and Lister refers to him as a cultural icon: it’s only in the deleted scenes we get a rationale – which, again, is not entirely true given what we now know.)

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ‘down’ on Kennedy as such – and I’m certainly not trying to offend anyone: I just think it’s odd for a show that champions characters who would otherwise be written off by society not reversing that model. Some might say it’s because the show was trying to play to an American market at that time, but I think that’s a rather glib argument.

    Ah well. The debate goes on, as they say.

    in reply to: Mac McTorchwood #227191
    Manbird
    Participant

    > “Moffat’s era has plenty of flaws, but I found it considerably more enjoyable than RTD’s era which was, for the majority of the first three series at least, horrifically broad and unengaging.” <

    Moffat’s stewardship was more consistent, I’ll give him that, but I can’t agree with you about Davies’ first three series. I don’t know if you’re referring to the varied mixture of styles they explored, but if that’s the case then, for me, that’s part of the joy of Doctor Who. Jumping from the wild, Douglas Adams-esque lunacy of New Earth to the grim horror of Tooth and Claw, only for that to be followed by the swooning stateliness of The Girl in the Fireplace makes sense in the programme’s “go anywhere, do anything” philosophy. As for unengaging, I personally found Rose’s character arc (to use a random example) extremely absorbing. I will admit that Davies’ vision of the show started to falter towards the end of his tenancy and it did get lazy (The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End, The Next Doctor and The End of Time immediately spring to mind), but there was still a sense of – again – *joy* to what he was doing. I never felt that with Moffat after series six. Ben Paddon’s already said that series seven was pretty shit, but that felt like the point that Moffat had said everything he wanted to say, do everything he wanted to do, and was just recycling aspects of the mythology that he’d built up in his head and setting it to a very uninspired Movie of the Week concept with very little tonal variation. That’s not to say I disliked everything that followed, but I certainly felt that was the point where Moffat’s Who (for want of a better word) metastasised and just became an endless series of “ooh, look at this!” moments instead of cohesive narratives and characterisation.

    > “Moffat wrote some of the best episodes of New Who and one or two of the worst, and he oversaw one of the most consistently good seasons the show ever saw” <

    Five works. Six sort of works, too – but after that it runs out of steam. I admire The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances (who doesn’t?), Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, The Eleventh Hour, The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, Heaven Sent, and take my hat off to him for commissioning strong episodes from other writers (The Lodger, The Doctor’s Wife, The Crimson Horror… I even enjoyed Hide while few other people did), but I can’t get with his vision of the show. That’s probably my failing, I respect your opinions, but… I don’t know. To be honest, I’m just glad the decks have been cleared and we’ve got a fresh slate.

    > “I don’t want to start a flame war” <

    No one would accuse you of that at all, and I’ve got not wish to cause one either. It’s all debate, innit?

    in reply to: Mac McTorchwood #227180
    Manbird
    Participant

    > “Anyone who can watch Moffat’s run of the show and look at brilliant, layered, well-considered characters like Amy Pond and Clara Oswald, and call it “negligible characterization” frankly doesn’t deserve to own a television.” <

    I wouldn’t exactly describe them as “layered” or “well-considered”.

    Using Clara as an example, all the way through series seven we sold this notion of her as The Impossible Girl – and that’s it. The Doctor finds her interesting, so we’re supposed to find her interesting despite the fact we knew absolutely nothing about her except she did a bit of babysitting and spoke in sassy one-liners. We had no sense of what she wanted from life, why she wanted it and where she was going. To be fair, Day of the Doctor introduces a profession (teacher) – but again, all she really does is act as an ersatz moral compass for the audience when the Doctor’s faced with the Moral Dilemma of the Week and doesn’t look as though he’s going to act in the way we want him to. The only remotely ‘real’ side of the character I can think of is in Deep Breath when she has trouble accepting the newly regenerated Doctor. ‘Course, Moffat undercuts the drama and a potential moment of character development by then having his previous incarnation tell her over the phone that he’s the same man as the grumpy Scot with big eyebrows standing before her…

    I’m sorry, but to describe the character as layered and well-considered is a bit of a stretch. Moffat wraps his characters round the plot, not vice versa. Take River Song as another example of this. “I’m going to be someone important in your future, someone you trust absolutely,” she teased. Funny thing is, we never actually see that happen: Moffat gets the Doctor to say she’s someone he trusts (and loves) without giving us any indication of why that should be. Again, we’re *told* rather than shown because that would slow down Moffat’s posturing.

    I could go into the whole thing with Amy’s Doctor fixation (my, how that “Raggedy Man” tag conveniently papered over the problems with their relationship), pregnancy and split-reconciliation with Rory, but I’d just be repeating myself.

    in reply to: Series VII Highlights #227170
    Manbird
    Participant

    Tikka’s JFK hagiography gets on my tits a bit given we know from official documents released from the Pentagon that “the liberal icon” was planning a nuclear strike on Russia.

    Not Dwarf’s fault, of course, but… Well, as a Russian-Jew the goo-goo-eyed encomia of this episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    in reply to: Mac McTorchwood #227169
    Manbird
    Participant

    There’s more death and resurrection in Moffat’s vision of Doctor Who than in the New Testament. Somewhat killed the drama for me, sorry – as did the negligible characterization, timey-wimey (gimmicky-wimmicky) plotting and taciturn continuity references. In my opinion, anyway.

    Anyway(!), yeah – re. Big Finish: I’d recommend the Klein trilogy (A Thousand Tiny Wings, Survival of the Fittest and The Architects of History) as essential listening.

    in reply to: PLUG: A new podcast about movies about toys #227168
    Manbird
    Participant

    I’m looking forward to the BBC’s upcoming range of Classic Drama action figures. The Cathy Come Home set features a fully poseable Cathy with pram accessory, and the Social Services figurines come with authentic child-nets and scale paperwork. The Singing Detective one features two Michael Gambon toys (one psoriatic and bedbound, the other a ’40s gumshoe complete with microphone), and at least three Mark Binney/Finney variants.

    Sorry, got side-tracked there. We were talking about toys-?

    in reply to: blog plug #227164
    Manbird
    Participant

    Can we all get in on this?

    [Coughs]

    http://rjeinc.blogspot.co.uk

    [Spreads hands and walks away]

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #223676
    Manbird
    Participant

    How about we go right back to the first series, where Lister, Rimmer and Cat are haunted by the ghosts of dead crewmembers. They decide to pool their resources and set up a paranormal investigation agency to “bust” these spooks. They become a quartet when Kryten joins them, and Hattie Hayridge’s Holly becomes their ditzy receptionist. The ship is attacked by a giant marshmallow man, later revealed to be a polymorph.

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf started at series X? #223674
    Manbird
    Participant

    >”Trojan sort of relies on you knowing about Rimmer’s relationship with his brother(s), Fathers relies on your knowledge of what happened in Ouroboros. Or does it, really?”<

    I think Trojan would work as an introduction to Rimmer’s familial relationships: starting with sibling rivalry would – hypothetically – allow you to expand to generational conflict.

    Lister being his own father (which, incidentally, I’ve never liked and overlook in my own head-canon) would be too gimmicky a concept to introduce in the early stages of a series where your central protagonist is meant to be the last human. It invalidates any sense of getting to find out who he is or what he wants when he just *is*. You can bring that revelation into the seventh or tenth series once you’ve established the character’s world and personality, but any earlier than that leaves you with nowhere to go.

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #223671
    Manbird
    Participant

    >”‘kryte-hands’: basically it’s a bottle episode which is a long shaggy dog story told by kryten about how his hands got so big which also brilliantly explains why he can’t tell the difference between a construction worker’s helmet and a cloche. the audience laughter dies out early on and he actually cries three times during the story. after the story there is just silence for ages and then lister starts to spit the names of bread products like he does with talky and a ginormous hip hop beat comes in which thunders the whole ship with talky as the dj. cat, lister and rimmer jump around and throw their hands in the air but when kryten joins in he concusses them all and the episode ends.”<

    See also that episode of The Simpsons about Mo’s dishcloth.

    in reply to: Revisiting Series I with fresh eyes #223665
    Manbird
    Participant

    Anyway, yeah – Red Dwarf, Series One: it’s always a pleasure to return to it. Waiting for God certainly grows in the mind, and the imagination, as the years go by. Criminally underrated in my view.

    in reply to: Revisiting Series I with fresh eyes #223662
    Manbird
    Participant

    >”Oh, this looks fun. It’s so hard to watch any I-VIII episodes these days, what with the scripts being burned into my memory, but my ongoing love of those shows continues through fan criticism of them, so this sort of thing is always welcome.”<

    Agree totally: it’s always good to step back and find a fresh perspective. I’ve been doing the same thing recently with the first two seasons (actually, bollocks to that – they’re *series*) of The Simpsons. Glad I did, too, as they’re bloody delightful.

    in reply to: Revisiting Series I with fresh eyes #223658
    Manbird
    Participant

    Welcome to G&T, Captain No-Name!

    (No one said that to me when I joined but, y’know – fuck ’em.)

    Nice blog. Maybe cut the number of rhetorical questions, but it’s definitely one I’d follow. Like the breakdown of character tics (Rimmer’s exercise regime, for example) and how you place the show into the context of the late ’80s TV landscape.

    Oh, and:

    >”Blog posts will be subjective […] with a tone that probably leans more towards analysis than trying to be especially funny myself. Red Dwarf is a comedy, my blog posts not so much.”

    This is refreshing and certainly not something to apologise for. Everyone seems to think they’re a bloody comedian these days.

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf started at series X? #223656
    Manbird
    Participant

    Now that’s a bloody good question.

    I reckon it would’ve ended up either like Hyperdrive (a minor cult show with no longevity) or The Mighty Boosh (a popular but short-lived success with an on-going following).

    That’s not a reflection on the quality of the show by the way, just that nowadays the television landscape doesn’t allow for programmes to grow in the way they did back in ’87/88 – and even then the BBC was changing to reflect a more commercial model.

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #223640
    Manbird
    Participant

    They discover a society structured around gay stereotypes where negativity is illegal.

    Sorry, no – that was The Happiness Patrol. Or was it Timewave? It was bad agit-prop, anyway.

    in reply to: Who would win in a fight? #223639
    Manbird
    Participant

    Who would win in a fight between Gandalf and Magneto?

    in reply to: Which do you prefer, Clare Grogan or Chloë Annett and why? #223585
    Manbird
    Participant

    I fancy Clare Grogan, but despite finding Chloe Annett a bit unsympathetic and cold she’s the best Kochanski.

    But why did I combine three, etc.

    in reply to: I forgot how utterly terrible the series X Kryten mask was. #223584
    Manbird
    Participant

    The nose was a bit loose, but to me that’s…

    No. No, it isn’t.

    Manbird
    Participant

    C’mon, everyone – this is childish and unnecessary. Let’s talk about something else.

    So… How many foreskin and circumcision jokes have we had now in Red Dwarf?

    in reply to: The BBC Are CUNTS….. #223580
    Manbird
    Participant

    I expected this to happen sooner (cf. around the time Doctor Who Confidential ended).

    It’s pretty appalling given how supportive DWM has been since the show’s revival, plus the longevity of the magazine and how it gave so many people who now work on the programme (not forgetting related media, benefitting the BBC) their first professional break.

    Sad times, indeed.

    Manbird
    Participant

    >>”this was just a rural goth going about his day”<<

    You absolute bastard. Here I am, a semi-pro writer trying to make a name for himself, hugely fond of ghost stories, somewhat resentful of Mark “I Bloody Love Nigel Kneale, Me!” Gatiss getting recognition for coining the term ‘folk horror’, about to unleash the epithet ‘rural gothic’ on the world in an upcoming article for a well-known film magazine, and you trump me to the term before it’s even reached print.

    How do you sleep at night, eh?? Not knowing I was here, never having heard or met me, but getting to put into print a term that I was hoping to dine off for years…

    You unbelievable git.

    in reply to: Theory on Kryten being Additional Zero Zero One #222607
    Manbird
    Participant

    Btw, not being adversarial, but:

    >>”If you read The Writer’s Tale and some interviews with RTD, it’s very clear that the late McCoy/New Adventures era is what influences RTD’s era the most – but he does take it in his own direction and do his own thing with it.”<<

    I know and I agree.

    >>”I’m aware a lot of people don’t like him but who cares what other people think (^:”<<

    Is this payback for my Trojan thread? For what it’s worth, I like the cut of your jib, Ben Saunders – even if your avatar is questionable :)

    in reply to: Theory on Kryten being Additional Zero Zero One #222606
    Manbird
    Participant

    I dunno… Despite my earlier remarks, there are some great episodes and individual elements in the Moffat era (not reversing my opinion, just giving credit where credit’s due) – but most of it’s left me cold and more than a little confused by the fanfare it’s received.

    I’m not one of those joyless arseholes who gets a kick out of adopting a contrary position, btw: just sceptical.

    in reply to: Theory on Kryten being Additional Zero Zero One #222582
    Manbird
    Participant

    >>”I never got so much of a New Adventures feeling from the new series, particularly given that The Master is given a much better backstory in The Dark Path than the totally contradicting one in The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords. I like the hints of mystery presented in the McCoy era, but not the conclusion of it in Lungbarrow.”<<

    I dunno, I found the RTD era reminiscent of the New Adventures in the way it drew on interpersonal relationships, loose story arcs and high concept sci-fi played out in sub/urban settings. For the record, I think he did a fine job, too.

    For what it’s worth, I think Moffat also drew on the NA line but took the taciturn, self-mythologising, continuity-heavy approach and, in my view, turned the show into a Gary Russell-style wet dream.

    Manbird
    Participant

    >>”Yeah, there are a couple moments listed here as faves that just leave me thinking… THAT’S your favourite moment from Dave Dwarf?! What a world.

    Moose is great, obviously. And Kryten explaining the ERRA institute I really appreciated, as well as Rimmer turning softlight.”<<

    Hose that man down and give him a hat.

    in reply to: Theory on Kryten being Additional Zero Zero One #222517
    Manbird
    Participant

    And when the idea demands a revision, it allows for the strengthening of characters, concepts and themes.

    In terms of Red Dwarf, retconning the relationship between Lister and Kochanski so they’d actually *had* a romantic involvement adds texture to the moment in DNA where Lister explains to Kryten being human isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Okay, Grant and Naylor could’ve substituted another (previously unseen) love interest of Lister’s into the dialogue, or have him discuss something else entirely, but they chose to build on something we knew about the character in a way that allowed for verisimilitude. The fact that it contradicted (if memory serves) one line in Balance of Power doesn’t matter: if the idea’s good enough, then bollocks to continuity.

    That’s not to say it isn’t important, but it should be flexible. If Doug came up with an incredible story idea, one that would really knock everyone’s socks off but contradicted a line of dialogue from, say, Quarantine, would you tell him not to go with it-? Such is the life of a writer, or any creative.

    I like we’re just discussing some insignificant detail of a new series trailer with such attention to detail, btw: it’s heartening to see such passion for a new series.

    in reply to: Theory on Kryten being Additional Zero Zero One #222515
    Manbird
    Participant

    >>”I think Doctor Who’s relationship with continuity is fine. When you can use it to strengthen a story, you use it. When you can ignore it to strengthen a story, you ignore it.” <<

    This, one hundred perfuckingcent.

    Manbird
    Participant

    Tom Hardy as Rob Grant.

    in reply to: Should they have continued Red Dwarf after Series VI? #219993
    Manbird
    Participant

    Personally speaking, and I’m speaking personally here, I like that there’s a very clear cut-off point between the BBC and Dave eras. Back to Earth reset the show’s continuity, and although the show still occasionally harks back to past glories (Fathers and Suns, Can of Worms, etc) the later episodes themselves largely stand on their own.

    I know quite a few people who’ve gotten into the show via X and XI, and they don’t give a shit about supposed tonal and stylistic inconsistencies in the way you and I do. For them, looking back on older episodes isn’t visiting a by-gone age so much as seeing new material. They don’t have the dangerously proprietorial attitude we long-term fans have.

    Let’s rephrase the title of this thread: would we rather the programme ended after VI just to please a lot of hard-core, joyless fans, or are we better off welcoming new audiences to one of the smartest, most imaginative shows ever to grace British television?

    Manbird
    Participant

    Are people aware that this isn’t a full transcript of Barrie’s interview, rather the finished article by a journalist who seems to have an agenda?

    It strikes me the author of the piece has taken Barrie’s comments, edited the positives and tried to suggest that the series was imploding. Check the date: it’s when the show went into its first hiatus, around the time that Grant left and a full three years before it returned with VII.

    Barrie’s concerns may be legitimate, and with the benefit of hindsight they fit in very conveniently with fandom’s perception of the programme’s decline in the late BBC years, but let’s not be fooled by this and accept it as ‘fact’.

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf had started in 2016 and not 1987? #219989
    Manbird
    Participant

    Fade to black as Yello’s “Oh Yeah” plays out on the soundtrack.

    Cast:

    Pete Tranter’s Sister…………..Agitator

    si……………………………………..Wise Man

    Ben Paddon………………………2nd Wise Man

    flanl………………………………….Non-Sequitor

    Manbird…………………………….Witness

    bloodteller…………………………Paramedic

    pad_ehh……………………………Priest

    Phobos And Deimos…………..Undertaker

    Fade in – post-credit sequence.

    Manbird: Are you still here? It’s OVER! Go to another thread. Goodbye.

    [Closes laptop]

    Fade out.

    Music sting: #Shugga-shug-a-shig-SHIGGA#

    in reply to: Who has has a Red Dwarf dream? #219988
    Manbird
    Participant

    I have a Red Dwarf dream.

    [Cue Land of Hope and Glory]

    I dream that Dave stops showing the remastered version of Marooned.

    I dream all that shtick about Lister being his own father never happened.

    I dream that series VIII wasn’t a creative cul-de-sac.

    I dream, etc.

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf had started in 1967 and not 1987? #219987
    Manbird
    Participant

    >Doug McClure is real?<

    Yeah! You may remember him from such films as Warlords from Atlantis and Cannonball Run II.

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf had started in 1937 and not 1987? #219986
    Manbird
    Participant

    KRYTEN: Goodness me, it’s Marlene Dietrich!

    LISTER: She’s a machine-mensche.

    in reply to: Idea for an episode. #219981
    Manbird
    Participant

    The vicar’s coming round and Lister isn’t wearing any knickers.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf Movie References #219449
    Manbird
    Participant

    That meant to say ‘Note to self’ in the previous message… Effing lack of edit options (or, more likely, my lack of message board nous)

    in reply to: Red Dwarf Movie References #219448
    Manbird
    Participant

    Back to the film references, we also have a Wizard of Oz comparison, too; Lister’s Dorothy, the innocent negotiating their way through a strange land; Rimmer’s the scarecrow, the hollow man; Cat’s the Cowardly Lion and Kryten the Tin Man. Naturally, that makes Holly the Wizard – the one who can get Lister home, despite his/her fallibility..

    in reply to: Red Dwarf Movie References #219447
    Manbird
    Participant

    “I’ve wondered which single thing (film, TV show, book, etc.) has been directly referenced/homaged/mined for ideas by Red Dwarf the most. For a while I assumed it was the Alien franchise. Now I’m pretty sure it’s the Bible.”

    I’m not that hot on Judeo-Christian theology (I’m from a Jewish-atheist background) but you’ve definitely got a point: we’ve had resurrection; Lister leading the Cat people to Fuchal in Waiting for God (Moses and Christ); Lister as Father and Son (does that make Rimmer the Holy Ghost?); the crew meeting Richard O’Callaghan’s God-like writer character in Back to Earth and discovering the rules surrounding their existence, not to mention confronting an apparently sentient universe in Krysis; Jesus in Lemons… I’m sure there’s a Solomon reference in Demons and Angels, too.

    It’s Friday night, for Frankenstein’s sake – why am I posting this??

    [Not to self: ask that girl you like at work out, and soon.]

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf had started in 2016 and not 1987? #219445
    Manbird
    Participant

    So.. see you all on another thread, yeah?

    Nice try, Pete.

    in reply to: Red Dwarf Movie References #219444
    Manbird
    Participant

    Never thought of The Fly in DNA, but now you mention it I think you’re onto something… Didn’t pick up on the Die Hard reference, but then I’ve never seen Die Hard (unforgivable, I know).

    The First Contact parody in Twentica kinda bugged me, I must admit: getting Lister to say what a hackneyed cliché it was reminded me of the way Doctor Who: Last Christmas conveniently “borrowed” plots of other movies only to heap scorn over them. I’ve always felt great parodies and homages were affectionate, even at their most cutting.

    Gotta say, my favourite Red Dwarf movie references are Full Metal Jacket in Meltdown and The Wild One in Kryten… and was that a Right Stuff spoof in Trojan where the suited-and-booted crew walk in slow motion towards the recovered ship?

    (Oh, and Clem – I agree wholeheartedly about Ishtar being unfairly maligned.)

    in reply to: What if Red Dwarf had started in 2006 and not 1987? #219421
    Manbird
    Participant

    “You mean persuade Robert De Niro not to make…?”

    Well, the choices are limitless, really.

Viewing 61 posts - 1 through 61 (of 61 total)