red dwarf x

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Who's Wee Dug » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:02 pm

Just in time for Red Dwarf X1. :mrgreen:
He willnae tak' a drink! I think he's deid! , on the other hand though A Midgie in yir hand is worth twa up yir kilt.
User avatar
Who's Wee Dug
Member
 
Posts: 15227
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Stirlingshire, Scotland

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Quatermass » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:31 am

Rockershovel might be right. As good as some of this past series was, it might be time to let the series go. It's more the story quality than anything else. The ideas are good, but the gags are a little hit and miss.

If they do go onto Red Dwarf XI, then Doug Naylor should spend a little more time on the scripts. I heard that some were only being written as the first ones were being recorded. :? And while haste can produce some excellent results, it doesn't always happen.
All you need to understand
Is everything you know is wrong!


-Weird Al Yankovic
User avatar
Quatermass
Member
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:58 am

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Sister Jennifer » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:18 am

Quatermass wrote:One of my favourite bits from the first episode, Trojan. Not just the gag of 'a moose!', but also Rimmer having a resentment crash at the end. :lol:



I love Rimmer. Gotta be one of my all-time favourite fictional book/telly characters.

What I've seen of series X has been pretty good.
Undead yes -
Unperson no!
User avatar
Sister Jennifer
Member
 
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:08 am
Location: Australia

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Quatermass » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:24 am

The last episode, The Beginning, is on tonight. Watch it, Sister Jennifer. It's the best of the lot. In what other series can you combine school embarassments, seppuku, and some of the strangest pep-talks in the galaxy in one episode?
All you need to understand
Is everything you know is wrong!


-Weird Al Yankovic
User avatar
Quatermass
Member
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:58 am

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Sister Jennifer » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:29 am

Oh no! Gotta work. Will watch on iview. Thanks for the heads up.
Undead yes -
Unperson no!
User avatar
Sister Jennifer
Member
 
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:08 am
Location: Australia

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Jack Remillard » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:55 pm

Quatermass wrote:Rockershovel might be right. As good as some of this past series was, it might be time to let the series go. It's more the story quality than anything else. The ideas are good, but the gags are a little hit and miss.

If they do go onto Red Dwarf XI, then Doug Naylor should spend a little more time on the scripts. I heard that some were only being written as the first ones were being recorded. :? And while haste can produce some excellent results, it doesn't always happen.

It sounds like the whole production was really quite troubled. So many things went wrong! If I remember correctly, the reason for the rush was that they were given a really short amount of time between getting the final go ahead and the start of filming. I think I read that Doug Naylor has already started on the scripts even though it hasn't yet been re-commissioned to avoid a repeat of that.

There's a 'making of' documentary on the DVD which is supposed to be really good in a kind of 'warts and all' way. I've bought the DVD for my brother for Christmas, which I'll be borrowing as soon as possible. :lol:
User avatar
Jack Remillard
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Tonyblack » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:05 pm

I recently watched the special features of 'Back to Earth' and was delighted to see Terry Pratchett attending the premier of the mini series. He was interviewed and said he was a big fan of the show and thought the science was better than on Doctor Who. :)

I'd never seen Back to Earth before and hadn't heard great things about it - but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 29316
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Jack Remillard » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:00 pm

Tonyblack wrote:I recently watched the special features of 'Back to Earth' and was delighted to see Terry Pratchett attending the premier of the mini series. He was interviewed and said he was a big fan of the show and thought the science was better than on Doctor Who. :)

Well, that's kind of hard to deny. :D I really love Doctor Who, but real world scientific accuracy is an extremely low priority for the show. :D All that business about how impossible it is to orbit a black hole in The Impossible Planet comes to mind. :lol:

But I don't watch it for the scientific accuracy. :D
User avatar
Jack Remillard
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Quatermass » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:06 am

Jack Remillard wrote:
Tonyblack wrote:I recently watched the special features of 'Back to Earth' and was delighted to see Terry Pratchett attending the premier of the mini series. He was interviewed and said he was a big fan of the show and thought the science was better than on Doctor Who. :)

Well, that's kind of hard to deny. :D I really love Doctor Who, but real world scientific accuracy is an extremely low priority for the show. :D All that business about how impossible it is to orbit a black hole in The Impossible Planet comes to mind. :lol:

But I don't watch it for the scientific accuracy. :D


Actually, it would be if the black hole was increasing in mass all the time. Which, it is all but stated, it was (they mentioned star systems falling into it), so keeping a stable orbit around an increasingly massive black hole would be impossible, normally. Not to mention that, when black holes are created, it's usually in the aftermath of a supernova, an explosion so massive, I doubt that any planets in the solar system around the original star would survive.

But yes, the science in Doctor Who is pretty soft. But then again, calling the science of Red Dwarf much harder is a load of BS. As with Doctor Who, the story (and comedy, in the case of Red Dwarf) comes first. At least Doctor Who can fall back on Clarke's Law as an excuse. But Red Dwarf, with no actual aliens, can't fall back on it.
All you need to understand
Is everything you know is wrong!


-Weird Al Yankovic
User avatar
Quatermass
Member
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:58 am

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Jack Remillard » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:36 am

Quatermass wrote:
Jack Remillard wrote:
Tonyblack wrote:I recently watched the special features of 'Back to Earth' and was delighted to see Terry Pratchett attending the premier of the mini series. He was interviewed and said he was a big fan of the show and thought the science was better than on Doctor Who. :)

Well, that's kind of hard to deny. :D I really love Doctor Who, but real world scientific accuracy is an extremely low priority for the show. :D All that business about how impossible it is to orbit a black hole in The Impossible Planet comes to mind. :lol:

But I don't watch it for the scientific accuracy. :D


Actually, it would be if the black hole was increasing in mass all the time. Which, it is all but stated, it was (they mentioned star systems falling into it), so keeping a stable orbit around an increasingly massive black hole would be impossible, normally. Not to mention that, when black holes are created, it's usually in the aftermath of a supernova, an explosion so massive, I doubt that any planets in the solar system around the original star would survive.

Well, yes, but they seemed to be taking about orbiting around black holes in general. :) Unless I got the wrong end of the stick about what they were saying, which seems perfectly possible at this point.
User avatar
Jack Remillard
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Quatermass » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:57 pm

I think the dialogue wasn't specific, and probably for the reason that the writer didn't bother with the actual science.

But as for Red Dwarf, you have, as elements of soft science...

*Going faster than light

*A mutated form of pneumonia creating solid hallucinations

*A man falling pregnant...to his own female counterpart from a parallel universe

And that's only the first two series.

Red Dwarf and Doctor Who run on science that does as the story demands. Red Dwarf does it for the sake of comedy, and Doctor Who can, for the most part, use Clarke's Third Law as an excuse.

Of course, overanalysing the story [EFF!]s up the entertainment value. So the MST3K Mantra is in play at all times. :)
All you need to understand
Is everything you know is wrong!


-Weird Al Yankovic
User avatar
Quatermass
Member
 
Posts: 5683
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:58 am

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Tonyblack » Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:02 pm

A question for Red Dwarf fans.

Is there any significance to Holly's name in the series?

The reason I ask is there is a new group of foster kittens on Livestream - The AI Fosters, who are all males apart from mum. :) They are all named after artificial intelligence devices.

Mum is GlaDos = named from the Portal computer game. Then there's Eddie, from Hitchhiker's Guide, Jarvis from Iron Man, Hal from 2001 and Holly, from Red Dwarf.

The problem is, people who have never seen Red Dwarf cannot get their heads around the idea that someone called Holly could be male. There was speculation that it was short for Hollister, but I put them right on that matter. Hollister was the captain.

But even I'm not sure of the reason for Holly having a female name. I did think that maybe the diminutive version of the name "Hol" was rather like "Hal", but don't know if that's the reason.

HELP! :?
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 29316
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re: red dwarf x

Postby The Mad Collector » Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:00 pm

Holly is both male and female in Red Dwarf. In series 1, 2, 7 and 8 Holly is played by Norman Lovett and in 3 to 5 by Hattie Heyridge.

Image

Image

Both are an even more demented computer than HAL which is probably where the name came from. The reason for the actor change was simply that Lovett didn't want to be in or wasn't available for series 3 (depending on which version you read)
One of those? Oh I'm sure I have one somewhere..

http://www.bearsonthesquare.com
User avatar
The Mad Collector
Member
 
Posts: 10483
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:48 am
Location: Ironbridge UK

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Penfold » Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:49 pm

I think it may be a 'corrupted' abbreviation of Hologramatic Computer (Hol). :think:
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.


Len Brook Photography
User avatar
Penfold
Member
 
Posts: 7394
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:59 am
Location: Worthing

Re: red dwarf x

Postby Jack Remillard » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:07 pm

Maybe he was named after the male rabbit in Watership Down. ;)
User avatar
Jack Remillard
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to TV, film, theatre

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests