Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 2

message: I've added some info about the releases in continental Europe being the Remastered versions of the show, rather than the original like the UK and Australia. I'm not sure if the US releases contain the remastered or original, so have that out at the moment. Can anyone confirm which version the US has?White43 11:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content on the US DVDs is, as far as I know - and with the odd minor exception - identical to the Region 2 ones. That is, original episodes, not rehamstered. Seb Patrick 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll add Region 1 to the list of places that don't have Remastered releases then. White43 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the rehamstered versions, especially the ones with Hammy Hampster in Tales From the Riverbank: The Next Generation.  (Okay, that's only a joke that a Red Dwarf fan can apprediate.)  But thanks for keeping up on the remastered editions. Val42 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a "hampster"?  A hamper for hamsters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in the US, but I have no idea where I can find a Red Dwarf DVD. If I can get a copy, then I'll tell you weather it's the remastered or original.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTyner (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Releases 

message: Was Red Dwarf not carried by PBS stations? I thought it was at one point. If so, it should be added to the PBS category (as is Monty Python, etc.); plus since PBS aired it, that would qualify the show for the 1980s TV shows in the United States and 1990s TV shows in the United States categories. Can anyone confirm the PBS connection? 23skidoo 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is shown on one of the local (Salt Lake City market) PBS stations, KUED, Saturdays at 10:30 p.m. Val42 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There were also several runs (the complete series, twice at least) on the PBS station in Phoenix during the late 90s/early 2000s.
The show appeared on many PBS stations...on the Series VIII DVD, there's clips of the cast performing promos for many of the PBS stations Red Dwarf appeared on. Bruiseviolet (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Are there any plans for including a section mentioning the characters appearances in other places aside from the Red Dwarf series? I ask because Dave Lister appears in the background of page three of The Savage Hulk comic as well as on page 42. EthanGilchrist 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally wasn't aware of any use of the characters outside of Red Dwarf (except for the potrayal of Dwane Dibbley on Can't Smeg, Won't Smeg). Has there been anymore instances? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.193.178 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters' Appearances Outside of the Series

message: The sentence "Felix Sapiens: a species of humanoids who evolved over three million years from common domestic cats. A main character of the show (The Cat) is one of these creatures, of which only two are ever seen on screen. " is incorrect. The Cat was evolved from the black cat List illegally brought on board not from humanoids as stated. -- RND  T  C  16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Humanoid" does not refer to our human species.  It means "human in approximate form", which the Cat essentially is, as an upright biped.  The sentence does not imply that the Cat evolved "from humanoids", as you state, but that he is one of the species of humanoids "who evolved over three million years from common domesticated cats". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also referred to as a 'humanoid' on screen at least twice ("Justice" and "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" spring to mind).  RobbieG 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just so you know, the second of the two Felix Sapiens seen in the episode is the priest cat, somewhat more enlightened than DJJ's character. I would have liked to see more cats over time, but hey! It's up to the writers, at the end of it all. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expletives 

message: The above discussion has a 'resolved' tag and doesn't seem to have been taken seriously, but here's a quote from TV Tropes' page on Bowdlerisation:
"BBC Kids (at least in Canada) has shown episodes of Red Dwarf with heavy edits. One particular episode had virtually the entire middle of the episode removed, as the episode dealt largely with a main character's romancing a fellow hologram, making the resulting plot unintelligible."
So perhaps it is worth mentioning that some regard this as a kid's show after all?
BTW, I'm guessing the episode in question was "Holoship."  RobbieG 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but I disagree. This show was never a "kid's show". In fact BBC Kids is not a kids-only channel. It's a 24/7 channel, currently showing (as it happens,) Rob Grant's The Strangerers! After watershed, of course! -- Andymarczak 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Why's it called BBC Kids then?  Sounds awfully strange to me.  Regardless of that though, surely the fact that it was Bowdlerised implies that the BBC Kids version was intended for a younger audience than was originally intended.  RobbieG 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he he - I'll rephrase that. It's a 24/7 channel, showing kids stuff during the day, and grown up stuff at night. Knowing nothing about Canadian broadcast rules I can't speculate why they cut it, but unless anyone from Canada knows about this, I don't think a single reference in another wiki is enough corroborating evidence to suggest it was actually aimed at kids. --Andymarczak 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly Kryten's head was designed specifically to appeal to children.  He's the "cute" one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding, right?  RobbieG 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so! Anyway, the main issue here is the classification of the TV show. From memory, and this is only in terms of Australian Broadcasting Classification, most, if not all, Red Dwarf episodes were given the PG (Parental Guideance Recommended) classification, which advises that the content is mild. Shows intended for young (children) audiences are rated to a G (General or very mild) rating. The show was never intended for young audiences, as shown with the use of swear words, and as RobbieG said, severe editing of the show to allow it to be broadcast to younger audiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frostyvegi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I regard the "threatening to rape Lister" moment as one akin to scenes in Mrs Doubtfire (sticking up her middle finger, using the f word and so on) rather than ones in Aliens.  There is no blood and gore in Red Dwarf at all.  It's just things that will go over the heads of children/young teenagers and be appreciated by adults, rather than potentially damage them psychologically.  And there are no toys of the Alien ships or facehuggers for children to buy either.  You may consider it a pointless debate but other people obviously disagree!  194.66.226.95 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the concept of rape can have a very traumatic effect on children.  Anyway, there was some gore in Red Dwarf ("Psirens", for example).  There was never very much gore, but then, how much gore is there in other comedies aimed at adults, such as Fawlty Towers, Extras or Men Behaving Badly?  Gore is more a staple of horror television.  Oh, and by the way, there were children's toys made for Alien.  RobbieG 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  I'm sure that when children hear the phrase "and then I'm going to have you" they understand fully and think immediately of the horror of rape.  One for the adults that will go over the kids' heads by any chance?  Since swearing is bleeped on the DVD outtakes and mouths are even blurred to make the words impossible to make out, I think we can rest on this subject that this programme isn't "unsuitable for kids".  I for one remember enjoying it around 7pm in the late 80s which is certainly isn't a child unfriendly time.  78.86.120.49 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Dwarf although aimed at the adult market, can be viewed by children on certain episodes. All shows were originally broadcast at  9:00pm post-watershed slot on BBC2. The DVD certificate ratings vary from 12 rating to 15 rating for the Smeg Ups, so this clearly indicates that the show was aimed at adults. The novels also contain adult material, so please, let's put this matter to rest: Red Dwarf, although aimed at the adult market, can be viewed by teenagers.  --Nreive 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kid's show revisited 

message: Hope you like the template I've made.  Feel free to make any improvements/reworkings.  Now I can't sit about here all day, I'm off to take the penguin for a walk. Lugnuts 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I've just removed this section for a variety of reasons. It conflicted somewhat with the introduction, seemed quite out of place, was not physically sound, and had a considerable amount of rather irrelevant material. --Philosophus T 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section is a dubious one, but normally we'd discuss any such removal on this page, arrive at a consensus and then sort it out, so I'm just going to put it back in for now, although I vote for removal. The essence of the paragraph could be fitted into one succinct sentence and incorporated elsewhere in the text if needs be. Kris 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't all that bloated. I trimmed it a little; removed an irrelevancy and added a "cite needed" tag to the Hawking assertion. --Orange Mike 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is unsourced, and just doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective. Please don't add it again unless it can be supported with reliable sources. --Philosophus T 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your deletion, but used a more accurate title. What additional sourcing are you demanding? --Orange Mike 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... it might help to know what the source given actually contains. It was my interpretation that it only contained the Hawking mention. Nevertheless, the section makes very bold claims and thus needs strong sourcing; in my opinion it is essentially linking technobabble with current scientific theory. Tachyons, for example, are more popular in science fiction than in actual high energy theory (where they are only considered in certain areas, and aren't  contained in any globally accepted theories like the SM), and references to them usually don't have anything to do with actual theories (see Tachyons in fiction). No source is given to assert that mentions of tachyons in Red Dwarf are grounded in even very speculative theories. While the section claims that the stasis booth is grounded in science, no source is given to support this, and Stasis (fiction) disagrees. In addition to problems with the points that it mentions, the section also gives an absurd level of undue weight to a particular view, since the vast majority of show has no scientific basis and is in fact completely unscientific (even the beginning of the article itself notes that science fiction is not the show's primary focus). And, to address the last sentence, I'm not sure why Hawking being a fan is relevant to the section; while it would be relevant elsewhere, having a fan who is also a well known physicist doesn't give any scientific basis to the show. I know many scientists who are fans of the show, many of whom are physicists, but I fail to see how that pertains to this issue. --Philosophus T 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle to deletion of selection. It's probably more appropriate in Doug's (and also, I suppose Grant's) own wikipage. I will watch the sourced material tonight to look at the evidence and try and find more references as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frostyvegi (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis in Scientific Theory section 

message: I believe the title of this article should be changed to "Red Dwarf (TV Show)" For clearer disambiguation, and to eliminate the (imo) pointless capitalization issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kouban (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking something similar, but thought we could maybe call the article "Lipton's Kryten Factor, Sponsored by Lipton".  And have it so that people aren't redirected here when they search for "Red Dwarf" - they just have to know it's "Lipton's Kryten Factor, Sponsored by Lipton" and type that in perfectly without any mistakes.  Agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title 

message: What were the Justice Birds called in the episode Justice?  Were they given a name?  Since they were edited out of the episode and only appear in the deleted scenes, do they get named in one of the novels?  My brother suggested that I call them "Shit Birds" but I'll only do this if I don't get the official name for them.  Thanks in advance!
:The official name for them is "Litter Birds", as seen on a sign on a bin in the scene in question, and also stated in the Series IV DVD collector's booklet.  IMO your brother's name for them is funnier, however.  :-)  RobbieG 11:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Justice Birds

message: Not a major thing, but worth mentioning. The opening of the article refers to 'Grant Naylor' as the creator(s) of the show. But they never wrote the show under this name. At its inception they were 'Rob Grant and Doug Naylor' - both within the industry and as credited - and only took the gestalt title to write and publicise the novels. 'Grant Naylor' only ever worked on the show as a director during Series V.
Of course this is also an issue with the Grant Naylor page...but I figured it was worth mentioning.193.203.75.243 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  "Grant Naylor" refers to them as a gestalt entity and is the name of the production company.  When referring to them as people, however, (eg as writers of the series) they should be "Grant and Naylor", as one might speak of "Lovett and Llewellyn".81.157.212.236 17:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise "GNP" should also be "G&P" 81.157.212.77 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no it shouldn't. GNP stands for Grant Naylor Productions - which, irrespective of Rob Grant's involvement, is the name of the production company that controls the franchise. Seb Patrick 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright.  Thanks for clearing this up.  81.157.212.219 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant AND Naylor? 

message: Why can an Emohawk change a character's teeth?  The polymorph was established as an emotion-leech, not one that can also change a character's teeth and hair.  Was there some established reason for this that I missed - maybe given in one of the books? 81.157.213.45 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, but Duane Dibbley always looked like that.  For that matter, bitterness and cool aren't really emotions, and cool isn't a negative emotion, so several established polymorph characteristics were disregarded.  I didn't really like "Polymorph II: Emohawk" anyway, it was just an excuse to reuse some old gags.  Please note, however, that this page should really be for discussing improvements to the article, not the article's subject.  RobbieG 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Emohawk changed the Cat's fangs and hair into Dibbley's overbite and pudding basin, and the colour of Rimmer's hair to that of Ace's, which is a bit different from just taking away personality characteristics that aren't negative or exclusively emotions.  However while the books do for example make the original series III Polymorph visit the hologram suite rather than attach physically to Rimmer's body as per the series, I'm not sure what they do with regards the Emohawk.  It's very possible the re-appearance of Dibbley and Ace was exclusive to the TV series, as RobbieG says it was primarily an attempt to please the fans.  It's unlikely the books would have a reason to translate "OMG!!! Dibbley is back!!! Audience going beserk at this and look he can't even open the cupboard without spilling stuff LOL!!!" from the screen to the page. 81.157.202.46 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can an Emohawk change a character's teeth?

message: In the "mixed reactions" section of the article, we get this:
"On the other hand, there are other Red Dwarf fans who feel that Series VII and VIII, either individually or as a whole, are the equal of — if not superior to — the earlier series, and the topic is therefore the subject of constant fervent debate among the show's fanbase.[12]"
If you click on [12] you get a link to an article by one fan of series VII.  I really don't know why one person liking this series merits mention, as it's hardly proof that there are many people out there who like series VII or VIII.  Nor can I happily accept that the wording "the equal of - if not superior to -" is not an unbiased statement.  Couldn't we at least change it so it says "...there are other Red Dwarf fans who feel that Series VII and VIII are no weaker than the earlier series..."?  In any case, more substantial evidence is required that there are people out there who have this view.  Official viewing figures and review sites? 81.157.201.71 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think they are - at times - the equal to, although rarely - if ever - superior to the other series (although I'd say things went downhill as early as series VI).  Of course, that is original research and POV on my part.  I suggest altering the statement to one you prefer, but bear in mind fansites indicate that there are at least some fans who like the last 2 series, as the link would seem to indicate.  The DVDs seem to be selling well enough.  RobbieG 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current wording is too heavy and suggests one person emphasising their opinion.  I'll change it to the suggested "no weaker than" alternative and see how people respond.  86.145.169.84 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Series seven and eight are rubbish anyway. 86.144.204.242 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's not NPOV.  RobbieG 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only people with a primitive sense of humour, logic and science have an affinity for series VIII and most of series VII. This is obvious even if it can't be stated as true fact in the main article.  But we all *know*.  86.144.32.28 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's your opinion.  I personally disagree - I thought Series I-V were consistently good, whereas Series VI-VIII were not so strong, but there were good scenes in all of them.  I don't watch a comedy show like Red Dwarf for the science (and if I did, Series I had hardly any true science fiction in it anyway) and I don't see what's so illogical about the last two series.  Well, except the whole mirror universe nonsense in the last episode, but that was definitely not one of the better episodes.  Anyway, the point is, I don't know anything of the sort, and neither do you.  We can all have our opinions, but that does not make them factual or verifiable.  RobbieG 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you've said you don't see what's so illogical about the last two series kind of proves the point against you, I'm afraid.  You're the sort of person who settles for less, is the nice way of saying it.  81.157.212.147 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't see what's so illogical about series VIII?  How about this comparison:  The Cat having six nipples and a strong sense of smell = logical, because he evolved from a domestic cat.  The revelation in Back in the Red that he has colour co-ordinated internal organs, a decorated stomach wall, as well as a "cool" sounding heart beat and pulse = illogical.  There's no reason why this would happen, other than the writers wanted to have a hilarious moment which featured Hollister dancing to the latter.  And this is hardly a one-off instance of breaking logic to shoe-horn in some special moment of gurning or slapstick, as it happens repeatedly in the series.  I hope this has helped.  86.138.62.32 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this truly NPOV?

message: Red Dwarf DVDs are currently £10 each at both WHSmith and Virgin stores. 81.157.213.100 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw series 1, 2 and 4 for £9 each today in the Woolworths in Tooting Broadway. So it's bargain time for all the little worms! 86.144.206.29 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Dwarf DVDs

message: I've removed a number of sections that seemed to be essentially discussions about cult status, continuity, etc, imported from fan sites.  Please let's respect verifiability, use only reliable sources, and avoid original research.  It just isn't on to put a statement into the article because it's your own opinion or because you read about it on a forum. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as been pointed out to you before at the very least continuity has been dealt with by the writers so it's not a "fan issue" .Garda40 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would tentatively agree that the "mixed reactions" section could be deemed as OR, and more suited to discussion on forums. But the continuity issue is very firmly a core part of the series' history, and for that reason, I believe the section should stay. The sections on fandom and pastiche are also rooted in fact. Seb Patrick 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was addressed directly in the Smeg Ups video, for starters.  Continuity issues have also been alluded to in various interviews with the writers and cast.  RobbieG 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but might as well just delete it all anyway huh?  86.138.62.32 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  RobbieG 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan stuff

message: ----
I was suprised to see , that David Ross's character Bio , had no mention of him presenting "scrap heap challange"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textkingjoe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not, mainly because he didn't. You're muddling him up with Robert Llewellyn, who played Kryten except for his first appearanceGed UK (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to know why Craig Charles' Bio has no mention of him turning down the part of Joey in Friends to play the part of Lister.  Surely this is regarded a moderately significant career-move?  194.66.226.95 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a have a source, it can go in, otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated rumour. Ged UK (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be found on the Dwarfing USA documentary on the series V set.  "BUY IT NOW" as Lardy Andrew would say.  86.141.194.122 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha, ha. That's very funny. Yes, I salute you. I know Lister has been known to do a bit of time travel, but really; Red Dwarf - 1987, Friends - 1993. --Nreive (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're making a "joke" about Craig Bierko, who was Lister in the US pilot, and who did indeed turn down the role of Joey. Hilarious. Seb Patrick (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None other than John Lennon himself appeared in the curry monster outfit.  86.141.193.252 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive considering he was dead by then Ged UK (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Paul McCartney in the Curry Monster outfit (see Beat the Geek for this info), while Lennon just provided a few voices for vending machines and the like in the first couple of series.  Again this is well known information, ask anyone like Seb Patrick or Andrew Ellard or John Hoare or Jonathan Capps.  86.141.193.252 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've always been confused by that "bidoo pidoo" creature to be honest.  Is that supposed to be what Marilyn Monroe normally says (ie "boopoopeedoo") or is she just meant to be like a weird alien imitation version that can't get it right, or something?  81.157.200.193 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Ross