Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 1

message: he wrote his own book and should have done his own series he wuz the better writer 
:Yeah good question, well done.
::Rob Grant decided to leave the series, from my understanding, due to a desire to move on to work on newer projects. I feel alot of the creative ideas stemmed from both Rob and Doug, and the show may have taken a slight downturn because of it. But props to Doug for sticking with it, otherwise we'd be stuck with 7 series and definately no chance of a movie. Frostyvegi 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why di'n rob grant write his own series of red dwarf like he did with that book

message: well im gonna do compsarisons to prove doctor who is better - you will see city of death compared with pete part 2, talons of ting tang compared with parallel universe, and the first davros mask with michael wisher compared with the first kryten mask with david ross.  we will see which one wins and the NPOV conclusion will end up on wikipedia.  if you delete it i will keep putting it back.
:Sounds brilliant; looking forward to it.
:I question why would anyone assume Red Dwarf is in competition with Dr Who? Apart from the science fiction aspect, there is nothing to say that one is better than the other, as there is no other similarities. It's like comparing Dad's Army with Yes Minister, both are comedy, but are British made, but that's about all. Frostyvegi 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: im gonna do aomparison of red dwarf with doctor who with red dwarf on wikipedia

message: Hey brilliant I remember Red Dwarf from when I was about 12!  It was brilliant!  It had that one from Maid Marrion being some kind of dracula, I remember that.  Anyone else here remember Red Dwarf?
:I remember Red Dwarf it was kind of cool.  It was well up there with the Crystal Maze - and actually when they clashed it was pretty hard to choose which one to watch! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.231.128 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember Red Dwarf coming on straight after Neighbours on BBC2 on Mondays.  When it clashed with Challenge Anneka I wasn't allowed to watch it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey I remember Red Dwarf!!

message: I like to ask a drawn question about Putnik in Red Dwarf, please?
:Certainly; what is your question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Putnik

message: Fancruft is a real word!
:Yes.  It's also highly subjective.  RobbieG 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC
::It's not subjective at all: fancruft *is* a real word; I've checked in a dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.148 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's still subjective.  "Drivel" is a real word.  So are "garbage," "claptrap" and "bulls**t".  That doesn't make them unbiased.  RobbieG 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancruft refers to unnecessarily detailed and/or obscure information about a subject, usually unverified, in which the general lay-public should have no genuine interest should they wish to speculatively research that subject for some reason, and it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. It's certainly a real world, just unnecessary in the case of an article such as this. It should be noted that the originator of this thread is not actually arguing anything in particular, and our responses are probably enough gratification for him/her. Let's laugh it off and put it to bed shall we. Kris 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft 

message: Red Dwarf got all its best things off of that Hitchhiker's Guide.  Even the "parked Volkswagens" gag came from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then tell me where "You see, shoes have soles," appears in the Hitchhiker's Guide.  (Red Dwarf fan's will understand this punchline.)  Val42 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly easy.  The Secondary Phase has loads of stuff in it about shoe shops and shoes.  Anyway the person who started this thread said all of Red Dwarf's "best things", not rubbish jokes.  Next! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.87.76 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the statement "Even the "parked Volkswagens" gag came from there." refering to a joke, or 'gag' in this instance? The example used by Val42 is also a gag.Frostyvegi 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong, but I'm guessing the operative words are "best" and "rubbish" as opposed to "things" and "jokes"/"gags"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.219.32 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. I appologise for my defensive comments. I guess the thing to ask of user 194.66.226.95 is firstly, what they want included, and state references. Frostyvegi 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not entertain this one any more shall we... I refer you to an above discussion entitled Understanding that "series VIII" was a kind of spin-off.... Don't humour them. We all know Red Dwarf is genius. Kris 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... try not to post POV remarks like "Red Dwarf is genius", especially not "We all know that...".  While this is the discussion page, normal wikipedia rules still apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so is "Red Dwarf got all its best things off of that Hitchhiker's Guide.". Need more than one reference to use as proof.Frostyvegi 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Le Hitchhiking's Guide to Some Galaxies

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)
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)
thread_title: Red Dwarf DVDs

message: Does anyone have an electronic version of the script, or a list of quotes? They're very hard to find. --JRTyner 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Script

message: I could be wrong but wasn't Red Dwarf always an independant production from the very beggining?Saul Taylor
:No, it definitely started life as an internal Beeb effort (BBC NorthWest, I think).  As the article notes, it doesn't make much practical difference, it just means that various bits of money get transferred back and forth between different branches of the Beeb and the independent company to not much effect (except that the BBC has some sort of requirement these days to source a certain fraction of its material from independent producers, so it helps in that regard). Bth 18:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just watched the end credits for the first episode, and it doesn't have a PJP logo but the credits do say "developed for television by Paul Jackson Productions." Saul Taylor 00:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing in this regard is the copyright notice; if I'm right, in series 1/2 it would be (c) BBC, series 3 (c) PJP and series 4 onwards (c) Grant Naylor productions.  But my tapes are 200 miles away so I can't check immediately.  The "developed for TV" credit is about who was responsible for getting it into the state that the Beeb could start making, and thus slightly different. --Bth 11:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the BBC would own the copyright to a any television programme that the commision whether it was an independant production or not, although i've just watched the end of a series 3 episode and its a bit ambigious. It has a PJP logo and says "A PAUL JACKSON PRODUCTION FOR BBC NORTH WEST" and says "(c)MCMLXXXIX" underneath. I'm not copyright is the main factor anyway, I would've thought the important difference is that an independant production is where the BBC paid an outside company to make a programme for them.Saul Taylor 15:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent production 

message: Right now, this page is 37KB- soon to need some splitting. The most obvious split to me would be to move the episode guide to a separate page, say Red Dwarf episodes, but I'm not sure of the proper style/convention in this case.
Furthermore, per VfD, Blue Midget (a substub) is to merge into the main Red Dwarf- There's also a Starbug and a Red Dwarf (spaceship) and even a :Category:Red Dwarf ships. Seems to me like a case of several small articles that should go into a single Red Dwarf vehicles or Red Dwarf craft article to keep everything tidy.
Thoughts, opinions on these two points? --Rossumcapek 18:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me.  Hig Hertenfleurst 19:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know it's more than just me- I agree that the :Category:Red Dwarf ships is overkill. Unless there's any objections, in the next few days I'll move the (wonderfully complete) episodes to Red Dwarf episode guide. I'm also wondering the best way to collect the rest of the information. Should all of the universe details be on a single page? Perhaps three separate People, Places, and Things articles? I'm not exactly thrilled with that suggestion, though. Should check to see how Star Wars and Star Trek handle their fictions universes... --Rossumcapek 16:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page size and merges 

message: I just read a claim on the Esperanto article that Red Dwarf portrays a future in which Esperanto is widely used, and signs can be seen in both English and Esperanto.  I don't recall ever seeing any such signs.  Is this true, and my memory is failing, or have the Esperantist been getting a bit overexcited here?  PaulHammond 06:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true. The signs in the lifts are in English and Esperanto, and there is an episode (series 2 I think) where Rimmer is desperately trying to learn Esperanto and failing dismally. -- Tarquin 10:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The episode in question is "Kryten".  ("Please could you direct me to a four-star hotel?")  The ship's original interior design was far more obviously bilingual in series 1 and series 2: all the corridor signs read "LEVEL/NIVELO" in big letters.  The idea rather got lost when Mel Bibby came in for series 3.  Hig Hertenfleurst 17:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanto in Red Dwarf? 

message: ":Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category.  There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category.  Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time travel television series

message: I've now seen Pete so that's done.  However, I realise that's no reason to post here.  What I'm actually here about is a couple of minor irritations.  I'm sorry; I know I'm guilty of being protective - possibly a little bit overprotective - of my additions to the page, but I want to stress that what I'm about to say is not me being very cross - just almost annoyed.
:1.  OK, I can sympathise here with the capitalisation of 'Of The' in titles (it's a mistake I tend to make frequently), but it does scuff the links up, so please don't capitalise.
:2.  This is more difficult to say, as I feel I may be on shaky ground here, but why delete Epideme, The Inquisitor or Terrorform from the list?  They were valid.  Epideme was an obvious parody, the This Is Your Life reference was no less valid than the Star Trek one, that stuff about The Inquisitor is mentioned in the DVD collector's booklets and is no less valid than Polymorph being inspired by Alien, and as for Terrorform, what is the problem with it?  It seems very subjective to discriminate between which parts of the article may be removed in this manner (might I timidly use the term POV?).
There.  That's that off my chest.  I hope I've explained my reverts, and I now want to request that nobody changes them back again, unless they can give a satisfactory reason.  I'm always a bit nervous about reverting other people's changes in case they get offended and we end up edit-warring.  Please spare me that.  21:04  April 22 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, the reason that I cut them was that I'd seen complaints that segments of the entry were little more than lists; and also it seemed the article was getting too long. They were purely, therefore, length cuts, but if people don't feel that cutting them was necessary then I've no objection to seeing them reverted. Seb Patrick 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Pastiche & Parody 

message: Were the episodes actually 30 minutes long, or has someone included commercials in the running time?  Arctic Gnome 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Dwarf was first shown on the BBC, which has no adverts - so the episodes are pretty much the full 30 minutes long. I think when repeats are shown on UK Gold for instance, which has adverts, the slots are 40 minutes long. -- jeffthejiff 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They tend to be between 28:00 and 29:30 (not exact figures - that's just from me remembering the timer on the DVDs). Grant & Naylor actually kept trying to sell it to the Beeb specifically because they'd have around 5 minutes more running time per ep. - SoM 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No show is ever exactly 30 minutes as the BBC will require time to show idents, promos etc. between programmes. Alexj2002 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, until I can find exact figures, I'll use 28 min. for Lengths_of_science_fiction_movie_and_television_series.  --Arctic Gnome 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 min? 

message: From the latest edit :
(The name "Queeg" has sometimes been incorrectly assumed to be derived from Queequeg, a character from Moby Dick). 
Has it? I've never heard that assumption before - is there a citation or something for it? I always thought the Caine Mutiny reference was pretty clear, particularly given how strongly the episode also alludes to Mutiny on the Bounty. I'm not sure where this has come from, so I'd quite like to see some evidence of it, particularly as a Google search for queeg "red dwarf" queequeg only turns up ten results, including a few wordlists... Seb Patrick 08:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference isn't that clear.  I mean, when I saw the episode, I didn't get the reference.  On the other hand, I believe the assumption that it comes from "Queequeg" is unusual.  I've never met anyone who made that assumption.  Still, clearly someone, somewhere has, or the statement never would have been made.  Or am I assuming too much there?  (RobbieG 16:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, maybe the actual reference isn't the clearest, but like I say, it seems strange to make mention of such a rare misconception in the Wiki entry. Even if someone, somewhere made the assumption once, does that justify its inclusion? I'm not so sure, particularly without any kind of citation. Seb Patrick 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queeg

message: I would propose making the following guidelines about style and formatting consistent within this entry :
*The name of the series, and any other TV series/films, should be italicised, e.g. Red Dwarf.
*The name of the SHIP Red Dwarf, and any other ships, should NOT be italicised, in order to avoid confusion when referring to the ship rather than the series, e.g. Red Dwarf, Starbug.
*The titles of individual episodes of the series, and any songs from the series, should be un-italicised and in double quotation marks, e.g. "Out of Time", "Stasis Leak", "Tongue Tied".
:::If you ask my opinion, I'd suggest keeping the italics.  It is standard practice to put titles in italics.
*The word "Series" (capitalised) rather than "Season" should be used when referring to individual years of the show. This is the term used specifically by the show's creators, and is the term that has always appeared on DVD and video covers. In addition, series numbers should be displayed in Roman numerals (there is debate among some Red Dwarf fans about whether the Roman numerals are applicable for Series I-II, since they were technically only introduced for Series III, but for the sake of consistency in this particular instance I feel they should be used for all eight series), e.g. Series I, Series VI.
*Since Red Dwarf is a British series, Standard English (as opposed to American English) should be the dialect of the entry.
On a number of occasions when things have been added to the entry, there's been inconsistent formatting, and so I think it's worthwhile agreeing on a consistent set of guidelines. I hope people agree with them. Seb Patrick 10:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. Lots of sub-articles to trawl through too, eh? :) --Andymarczak 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seb, you're doing great work on this article. Crispinus211 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good idea; I'm glad someone finally standardised this! RobbieG 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style Guide

message: Within the context of British comedy in general, meanwhile, Red Dwarf occupies a curious position. While revered by many — and still a successful programme, as recent DVD sales have shown (Series IV and V were the third and fourth bestselling BBC DVDs respectively in 2005 [9]) — it is also often looked down upon by those in the comedy fraternity. This could be the result of any number of factors — its niche content, the fact that its writers largely worked alone and are noted for little else in the industry, or the 'unfashionable' status of some of its cast members.
I'm curious to know which cast members might be considered "unfashionable" and why, considering that this isn't elaborated on anywhere else in the article. 67.190.101.254 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say most of them, to be honest. I'm not talking about how they probably should be viewed, simply by how they are. Craig Charles, for example, is never at the top of anyone's lists of "favourite comedians" - certainly not rated by people in the business, anyway. Hardly any of the cast have really done significant work outside of Dwarf, Chris' Brittas and the Tomb Raider movies notwithstanding; arguably the closest to carving out a niche of his own has been Robert with his work on Scrapheap etc., but then he has the benefit of people not recognising him without the mask on (and being The Nicest Bloke In The Entire World). It is a contentious statement, I'll grant you - but it's always been my opinion that the various cast members of Dwarf have never really been held in the highest regard by the comedy fraternity, with the possible exception of Chris. Seb Patrick 07:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that both the statement that some cast members are unfashionable and that the series is looked down upon by others need citations, otherwise they are fairly POV. Chardir 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, shouldn't be too tricky, the DVD interviews are littered with references... Andymarczak 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, none of the core four members for the first series were actually actors: we had an impressionist, a poet, a dancer and a stand-up comedian.  Morwen - Talk 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfashionable cast members