Ganymede & Titan

January 2005, then.

Gentlemen, the inevitable has been confirmed. Let's face it; we all knew that it would be somewhat of a miracle if all the financial problems were solved, a crew were hired and pre-production was completed within the next eleven days. Plus, half the crew are scheduled to appear at DJ in three weeks time. But reading that webpage makes it seem like it happened yesterday. Or something.

Anyway, as well as shooting slated for January 2005, we now know that pre-production "proper" will start in mid-July. This is a good thing, is it not? OK, the shooting date may have slipped by a whopping seven months, but we've got a definite pre-production date for the first time ever. There has been a read-through of the script, rehearsals and a head cast, but they were three bloody years ago. Now, we can expect real and actual updates on Friday afternoons, in about two months. Incidentally, for some bizarre reason, the old version of the crewing up page is still there, on a different address. Catch it before it's taken down.

This is not the only activity on TOS today, of course. There's a little DJ update, which doesn't mention Ed Bye, worryingly. However, everyone's favourite penguin's sidekick Andrew Ellard will be there, doing a little bit of Q+A. There's also a Cat quiz (stop linking to the sub-indexes for the main page, man), on which I only scored 19 out of 20. Bah.

Comments

Ian, may I ask how exactly you came by the July '04/Jan '05 page? I can't find it linked to anywhere on TOS. Or am I being foolish?

Ta.
BB

Posted by Blake at May 21, 2004 03:33 PM

The '05 one is right at the bottom of the front page, on the right hand side. The '04 one (which I expect will be updated very soon) is on the 'Movie Deck' index, on the top right.

Posted by Ian Symes at May 21, 2004 03:37 PM

Oh right. Cheers for that - can't say I've ever noticed that link on the front page. I normally just look at the updates at the top.

Well spotted.

BB

Posted by Blake at May 21, 2004 03:40 PM

Strange that they hide that bit of interesting news on an over-looked page, and make those crappy interviews with fictional characters the main focus of the updates.

Posted by Pete Martin at May 21, 2004 06:41 PM

I *suspect* that they haven't made it a main news story because it would make quite a lot of people whinge "don't tell us anything unless it's started shooting - we've had too many false hopes already". They can't actually win.

I may be wrong, though.

Posted by John Hoare at May 21, 2004 06:44 PM

I would guess John is right. It's good to see they are sounding very definite about the pre-production stuff, though.

Maybe the funding has been found and, as a result, they've been able to set new dates and that's why it's changed.

After the interview with Doug, when he explained that they just need the funding before then can start, I doubt they would have given us a new shooting date like next Jan unless something was definite.

Posted by Cappsy at May 21, 2004 06:52 PM

I agree that the pre-production stuff sounds very promising.

But then, I've always thought the movie would be made. Shouldn't have, really. I'd hate to commit myself and wind up looking a fool.

Posted by John Hoare at May 21, 2004 06:57 PM

But that page has now gone...

I wonder if it got slipped out accidentally...

Posted by Mr Flibble at May 21, 2004 08:49 PM

Both there for me...

Posted by Ian Symes at May 21, 2004 08:50 PM

Ahh yes, it's there now. I think my ISP's cache has been playing about recently, however much I press CTRL-F5.

Posted by Mr Flibble at May 22, 2004 10:11 AM

I'm wondering if they'll try and convince Lister is in his 20's :D

Posted by Drzymala at May 22, 2004 10:13 AM

Craig Charles thinks he is.

Posted by Joey at May 22, 2004 02:45 PM

Mr Flibble, what does pressing Ctrl-f5 do?

Posted by Pete Martin at May 22, 2004 06:30 PM

Oh yes. Sorry, minor brain slip.

Posted by Mr Flibble at May 22, 2004 06:52 PM

Januray? That's a new one, isn't it? Normally over the years the shooting has been slated for May or September (shoot me if I'm wrong). Maybe this means it's actually been set and not just estimated. I like the sound of pre-production beginning in 6 weeks or so.

Whatever, methinks we can look to a Spring 2006 release.

Posted by overmydeadbody at May 24, 2004 02:41 AM

I wonder whether the production will take into account the ages of the actors. Since they're making an alternative version of the story rather than continuing it, it would be good if they considered their original intentions of having Lister as in his 40s etc. Otherwise they'd have to accept that the actors are quite far away from their 1980s/90s appearances, and that the pretense of Craig Charles et al being in their twenties would be jarring. Even that the cast wouldn't be given those roles were they to apply for them as unknowns today.

In fact, if they were to be starting from scratch, and insisted the characters had to be younger, there would surely be other actors better suited to those roles. Would it be controversial to say they might be better re-casting for this entirely different "potential" for the Red Dwarf story if they were still wanting the characters to be young? Which would you prefer - our older, familiar actors playing inappropriately youthful characters (complete with the considerable ambition / excessive slobbishness of youth), a re-cast for the younger roles, or the older cast playing altered versions of the characters?

A question for debate, not argument there, please.

Posted by jesley carrion at May 24, 2004 10:20 AM

> Which would you prefer - our older, familiar actors playing inappropriately youthful characters (complete with the considerable ambition / excessive slobbishness of youth), a re-cast for the younger roles, or the older cast playing altered versions of the characters?

The latter, which will almost certainly be the case. I remember talking about this to someone at last year's DJ, who said "do you seriously think we'd get away with pretending Craig Charles is 25"?

I was ruminating to myself the other day at the possibility of a full re-cast. If, for example, the movie is delayed for another few years, I reckon it will be sufficiently distanced from the TV series to make this acceptable. It would have to be a *full* re-cast, of course; having Craig and Danny along with a different Kryten and Rimmer (for example) would be shit. I reckon that a few years down the line, a movie could be seen as a complete re-make of the original (cf. Lost In Space, Hitch-Hikers), rather than an alternate version (cf. Star Trek).

I'm hoping it won't come to that, of course - at this point, I'd only accept the proper actors.

Posted by Ian Symes at May 24, 2004 11:00 AM

I'll believe it on the day they start shooting.

Posted by Adam Bailey at May 24, 2004 11:20 AM

Believe what?

Posted by jesley carrion at May 24, 2004 11:59 AM

"It".

Posted by Ian Symes at May 24, 2004 12:00 PM

Ah, yes.

Posted by jesley carrion at May 24, 2004 01:46 PM

Remastereds of a sort here, if anyone is interested:
http://cztoondb.tripod.com/cztoondb/popeye/popart1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/3359/porky.html

The "Colorized Cartoon Database" main page here:
http://cztoondb.tripod.com/cztoondb/index.htm

Posted by jesley carrion at May 24, 2004 02:31 PM

Oh yeah, fucking wicked.

Posted by Interactive Menu Beholder at May 24, 2004 11:18 PM

I would accept a film with a younger cast, especially if it's an 'origin' movie. However, it would be very difficult for them to get the cast right, AND some suits would probably demand an American cast or else they'd cut their funding, AND most fans would be put off by the lack of Charles and co.

Personally, I think we WILL see a younger cast, ALONG WITH the usual Dwarfers (well at least a young Rimmer and Lister). If they are still going to do Lister living in Liverpool to start with. I wouldn't mind if we get the younger Rimmer and Lister when the crew get wiped out, then we get a title saying twenty years later or something (I know I know...), then we can join the crew basically as they are now. Imagine the events of series I-VIII took place in that gap.

Posted by overmydeadbody at May 25, 2004 07:06 PM

Well that's what I was originally asking - whether you would want to have the cast as they are now, playing older versions of their characters rather than pretending they were all 25 again. You wouldn't need to have a "20 yrs later" tag if we just accepted from the start that the crew of RD was always an older team.

Can anyone tell me the benefits of keeping the older cast and aging characters? I mean, we have a fondness for them from the original series, and some of us feel the film wouldn't be Red Dwarf without them. But truly - why would they be picked off the street and cast as those characters today?

Posted by jesley carrion at May 27, 2004 12:31 PM

Post a comment


(Required)


(Required, but will not be made public)


(Optional)

Remember personal info?




<trackback>

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://admin.ofla.info/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/430

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'January 2005, then.' from Ganymede and Titan.

Ah, I think I'm OK now.
Excerpt: I'm in a much better mood today. I woke up to discover Villa have signed Martin Laursen for 3million. Isn't it lovely to sign players from AC Milan and not Sunderland? Now, we'll have a central midfielder, a right winger...
Weblog: It's Ian 'Ian' Symes!
Tracked: May 21, 2004 03:31 PM

Navigation

Quick Links

Latest Comments

Search

Google

G&T Web

News Archive

Syndication