Ian's Newsround - 03/10/03
One month prior to the release of Series III on DVD, we recieve news of another excellent Collector's Booklet to accompany the release. The booklet will follow the same format as before - extras round-up, production overview, episode facts, Watch Out For... and Classic Dwarf, followed by chapter points on the back.
Although the pictures accompanying the news story are too small to read the text, they look absolutely lovely. The photographs look great - from what we can tell, the edges have been trimmed perfectly. It's also nice to see that the extras and chapters pages look much more full this time round, which is indicative of the vastly improved quality of the DVDs. And excellently, the booklet will be composed of trivia nuggets that aren't repeated in the All Change documentary, which means the probability of us hardcore fans learning loads of things that we didn't already know is greatly increased.
Also on the official site this week, news that the excellent Mike Tucker is to appear at the National Museum of Photography, Film & Television in Bradford. It's all to do with Co-operative Young Film-Makers 2003, a lovely event with more than 30 features on offer. Tickets are free, but you are advised to book in advance. See the website for details, as I'm not one to simply copy and paste other news stories.
And finally, The Three Bears, who provided claymation for Tongue Tied in their pre-pubescant days, are currently working on a project called The Godson, for which Robert Llewellyn does the voice of a character called Don Ravioli. That's sure to be good.
Comments
Why all the fuss over photo edge-trimming?
Posted by Joey at October 3, 2003 02:21 PM
All I said was it looked nice. It's not a major thing, but the whole thing just seems more professional if the photos are edited properly.
Posted by Ian Symes at October 3, 2003 02:24 PM
Was it Three Bears who did the claymation in that pointless money-wasting sequence in Red Dwarf VIII?
They're not very good, are they.
Posted by Darrell Jones at October 3, 2003 03:53 PM
I don't think so.
Posted by Joey at October 3, 2003 04:26 PM
No - Time Hole on the official site says that was done by "Mattes and Miniatures at Bray Studios".
I actually quite like that sequence, if only for the line: "How come he's only smart when he's made out of plasticene?" Hardly classic, but a fun idea.
Posted by John Hoare at October 3, 2003 05:13 PM
But it doesn't say who did the mattes and miniatures at Bray Studios. The style is very similar so I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Three Bears who did both.
Posted by Piano Stool at October 3, 2003 08:46 PM
I think the sequence *was* a nice idea - but I thought the models and animation were rather poor, which somewhat put me off.
The explanation for it was a bit contrived too - how many 'computer games' have you seen that are made from claymation?
Less pointless than the T-Rex or the fucking Blue Midget dance, of course, but still an unnecessary waste of cash. I can't sympathise with Doug Naylor's budgetry moans after the unimportant luxuries he blew what cash there was on.
Posted by Darrell Jones at October 3, 2003 09:05 PM
I agree it's rather poorly animated: the result of it being done in a rush and with a budget crunch. BITR Part 3 is where a promising opening story falls apart (the reasons for which are well documented elsewhere). But it's got one of my all-time favourite ever lines in it:
"I'm gonna cut off both his bwith a blunt knife."
Sorry, back on the point. As for it not being particuarly computerised, I've heard this complaint before. It's actually the screensaver they end up in - and, of course, by then computers will have ridiculous computing power. It's simply a screensaver that accurately replicates 20th century plasticine animation. A pure retro value screensaver.
I can't believe I've actually just given that explanation.
Posted by John Hoare at October 3, 2003 09:17 PM
Does anybody else get pissed off by that (already outdated at that time) Reservoir Dogs pastiche as well? The whole sequence with them becoming the Dibbley family seemed designed to have that pay-off as an aim, which was cringe-making in the extreme, and could serve only to further damage the (initially great) Dibbley character.
In fact, when I think about it, the claymation section, the dancing midgets, the CGI dinosaur, the starbug up the rat's arse, all the sequences like that seem to be set pieces, special bits that were supposed to stand out, with things gradually leading up to them. As if they were meant to be the big laugh, the moment everything else for ages had led up to. And it makes me feel that that's precisely what I don't like about Doug Naylor's writing and his ideas - what he finds funny, and thinks will stand out aren't what I find funny. Perhaps there's a core incompatibility between him and me there, I don't know. Perhaps those ideas were actually good in his head and just came out shit on screen, but come on, that Reservoir Dogs scene, could that have been better? I wonder whether he just has bad judgement.
Posted by Piano Stool at October 3, 2003 10:51 PM
The whole Dibbley stuff in VIII was just awful - with only one good joke ("Computer programmers!") Agreed that the Reservoir Dogs parody was just rubbish and pointless - and not funny.
As for the big set pieces argument - I agree that it's mostly those that fail (although I do quite like the rats arse stuff; I wouldn't argue it's the best thing about VIII like some people would, though...). If only the money hadn't been spent on all that, and instead spent on the big set piece where they destroy the future Earth civilisation in the final episode... now, that *does* sound funny.
I'd be slightly wary of seperating out Doug Naylor's writing as being a *specific* way, though, simply from viewing 16 eps of a sitcom that had a rather problematic production, with lots of changes to it. For example, with the novels, I'd argue that it's *Rob* who has the big set pieces, and Doug who was more subtle.
I do agree though, that it's difficult to see how the Reservoir Dogs stuff, or dancing Blue Midgets could be actually funny; but then, a lot of fans seem to think they are...
Having said all of that, I must say that I do like quite a few bits of VIII. Cassandra in particular - and that also happens to be Doug Naylor's favourite episode.
Posted by John Hoare at October 3, 2003 11:01 PM
Yeah, 'Cassandra' is easily the standout (i) of series VIII, if a rather obvious retread of Future Echoes. It'd go on Eight of the Best along with 'Stoke Me A Clipper' (if BBCWW were to get that desperate after releasing 'Red Dwarf Remastered: Remastered' in 2008). I quite like the rat's arse scene too, and to be honest there are plenty of good bits throughout the eighth series (the pipe-tapping thing is rather funny, if a touch predictable) - it's just that there's an uneasy randomness to the writing which is difficult to nail down.
Also, I can't believe Doug broke with tradition and included references to 20th century pop culture which seemed out-of-place compared to the rest of the series' Zero Gee Football et al (if you catch my drift). One of the Pete episodes (both if I remember correctly, actually) has a reference to Barney the Dinosaur which jars horribly with the whole context of the programme, not to mention the previous 7 series (which derived their 'reference humour' from fictitious reference points which were funny in themselves).
I think I've made some sort of point there...
Posted by Darrell Jones at October 4, 2003 12:23 AM
I absolutely hated the Dibbley material in VIII. It was a mockery of a once great character.
The constant cheesy references to older series and episodes just made me think they were trying too hard to please everyone (like the Dibbley sequences). Although it was nice they had't forgotten anything older, it just seemed too much for me. It was much like a private joke only us older fans could get, an opportunity for us to turn to our young brother or sister and smirk because we knew what they were talking about.
I'm finding it hard to make a point here today.
Posted by Joey at October 4, 2003 12:13 PM
Interesting point about the contemporary references. Nobody complained about The Flinstones or Marilyn Monroe being referred to. In fact, Rob and Doug wanted to move *towards* contemporary references, because despite them being unrealistic things for the characters to discuss, they're funnier for the audience.
Posted by Ian Symes at October 4, 2003 12:39 PM
Series VIII would have been far better without the budget problems; the VIII scriptbook is extremely illuminating about this. If Back In The Red had been one hour long as originally shot, Pete had been a one-parter, and they'd managed to finish the story with the final part 'Earth', you'd have a great series. Most of the unevenness of the writing comes from all these problems (though not all, I hasten to point out - the jewel-in-the-crown of VIII, Cassandra, has a rather weak opening in my opinion).
Not that that's an excuse for all of VIII's problems; the blame obviously has to lie at the people in charge. But it does seem a shame that (as is now well documented) the budget for Red Dwarf VIII wasn't much higher than that for dinnerladies - it's one of BBC2's top rated shows, and by it's nature is a fairly expensive show to make compared to most sitcoms. It should have had a lot more money given to its production.
Posted by John Hoare at October 4, 2003 01:34 PM
Hi, lurked for a while but never posted before. :)
Cassandra was definitely the standout episode of season eight. We moved to Australia about eight years ago and so got seasons 7 and 8 posted to us before they aired here. I sat down and watched each season in one hit and after watching the first three parts of Back in the Red I was ready to throw the tape across the room.
Cassandra was a very nice shock after those three episodes though, it was just a shame the rest of the season didn't keep that feel.
I would disagree with calling the Flintstones and Marilyn Monroe contempory references...the Flintstones is going on forty years old and Marilyn Monroe has been famous for the same amount of time so it is believable they would still be known in the future. Even if that wasn't the case though, the Flintstones reference is a classic dwarf moment, and that scene wouldn't have worked with a ficitional future reference.
The Barney comment on the other hand was a quick remark which could have been left out without casuing any disruption.
Posted by Adam Bailey at October 4, 2003 09:25 PM
I agree with Adam re The Flintstones and Marilyn Monroe. There are several 20th century icons that Red Dwarf could get away with making references to, because of a guaranteed longevity to their status. The crew also refer to Einstein on several occasions, and nobody should bat an eyelid. Similarly we needn't mind any reference to the Beatles or Stones should it happen, as we might assume in the Red Dwarf universe they are as recognised as Mozart and Shakespeare today.
Reservoir Dogs and Barney the Dinosaur though? No. Darrel says that his gut reaction is that these parts jar horribly, and I would agree. These parts stand out as not working, and it's because they are fixed in the context of the time the episodes were originally aired - actually the Reservoir Dogs bit already felt out of date from the start. What's the bet that these moments age less well than the Flintstones and Monroe references, not just because they are less funny?
Posted by Piano Stool at October 4, 2003 10:15 PM
"In fact, Rob and Doug wanted to move *towards* contemporary references, because despite them being unrealistic things for the characters to discuss, they're funnier for the audience."
I want to mention this as well. When the characters of Red Dwarf discuss fictional events or people, they are referring to events or people in their past that we don't know about. It's really no different to somebody speaking about something that has happened in *our* past that we don't know about - the joke, or reference or whatever it is just goes over our heads. Depending on the material that surrounds it, a reference we don't understand will either carry humour or not, but the humour will come from something other than the reference itself.
In this sense, I would argue that contemporary references have more in common with fictional ones than they do to, say, those regarding the Flintstones or Monroe. Contemporary references assume the audience falls into a certain demographic - some people just won't know who the fuck Barney the Dinosaur is. So I would say no, contemporary references *aren't* funnier for an audience. "Classic" references (is that what we should call references to a more familiar, wider history?) are funnier because the audience will have had more time to absorb them and recognise them when they come up.
Posted by Piano Stool at October 4, 2003 10:44 PM
Post a comment
<trackback>
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://admin.ofla.info/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/26
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Ian's Newsround - 03/10/03' from Ganymede and Titan.