Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 7 December 2007

Obsolete and nonsensical discussions have been moved here

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WPRed DwarfPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. BBC Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Template:British TV shows project Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Script

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)

Hang on - wasn't Red Dwarf a kid's show?

Why isn't this mentioned in the main article?

No. It wasn't. It was a post-watershed sitcom. Seb Patrick 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I always watched this when I was eleven/twelve though. Then, when I was thirteen, I grew out of it.

You seem to spend a lot of time on its Misplaced Pages entry for someone who "grew out of it". On the other hand, maybe you've only just turned thirteen. It would explain why you haven't grown out of posting immature nonsense on Misplaced Pages. Seb Patrick 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy...easy. There are civility procedures in place on these discussion pages. Let's just laugh this thread off shall we. Red Dwarf was a post-watershed sitcom, as Seb Patrick quite rightly states. Although much of the humour could quite easily appeal to kids, the majority is too sci-fi reference-laden, rude, and subtle for that age group. Barely worth any discussion, especially since the originator is obviously trying to wind "serious" Wikipedians up with comments from a tongue firmly wedged in-cheek. Kris 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we maybe put "Red Dwarf was a post-watershed adult's programme..." in the opening paragraph to divert the endless raising of this question? I think some people (not necessarily the people contributing to this particular discussion) are genuinely of the impression that Red Dwarf was a children's programme and it would be good for the wiki page to put their memories right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.203.59 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Sounds good, but maybe just modify the existing first line so it says: "Red Dwarf is a cult British adult sci-fi sitcom...". BTW this show is definitely NOT a children's show. It was clearly aimed at adults, considering the content and the time it was broadcast. The fact that kids might have watched it doesn't make it a children's show, clearly.Smoothy 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Called it "adult-orientated" since it could entertain kids who don't understand half of it. Kris 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should say adult-orientated in the first sentence. Firstly, the opening paragraph is not the right place to clarify an uncommon misconception. Secondly the term 'adult' is (unfortunately) often taken to mean 'porn'.Chardir 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask a stupid question - does it have to say either adult or kid? Andymarczak 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair question, but I think it clarifies the issue, since many people wrongly remember it being a kid's show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

"Many"? Citation, please. A couple of anonymous people on Misplaced Pages does not the population make. Yes, a lot of people watched the show in their early teens or younger - that does not mean it was a kids' show. It was always shown after the watershed in the country of its origin (what other countries may have decided to do with it is irrelevant if they edited it, because it was then no longer the original material). I've included the phrase "post-watershed" to describe the sitcom, thus removing "adult orientated" from the opening sentence (which seemed to give it undue prominence) - I think that should suffice. Seb Patrick 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to be aggressive; when I say "many" I'm referring to the comments I've seen here and the general mis-recollections I hear in everyday life. Sorry there's no official documentation that I can cite; nobody has published anything and I don't tend to tape-record conversations I overhear for ethical reasons. I agree with your post-watershed comment but enough people remember an odd occasion of it being on at 6pm on a Monday or whatever, having to argue with a brother who was wanting to watch Thunderbirds, that "post-watershed" might suggest an intended time rather than the rule. Someone below has already mentioned it appearing in edited form on BBC Kids, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.107.233 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not "comments you've seen here", though, is it? The IP address that you commented with earlier (I'm assuming these two are from the same person since you talk as if you were the earlier commenter even though you have a slightly different address) is the same IP address that STARTED this whole "Red Dwarf is a kid's show" thing in the first place : . You started this "debate", and you've got a history of dragging it back up again for purposes that don't seem to stretch beyond winding people up (since the same IP address has also made offensive comments on Ganymede & Titan). So you'll have to come up with a bit more than that, and I think I'm fully justified in being short with people who are trying to muck about with Misplaced Pages. Seb Patrick 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP address is shared by every computer at the QMUL learning resource centre - the entire university: undergrads, postgrads, PhD students, throughout the entire campus. I'm sure you'll find many instances where this IP address crops up - please don't target an individual based on IP address detective work. I know that if I were that bothered I would register for wikipedia, however I am not that bothered, which is why I just post anonymously here when I contribute at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.107.233 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I suggest using the words "mature themes" or something similar. I myself got into the show as a child of around 10-12, I think mostly just because of the humour in the first few series appealed to me. I have since got my brother *and* some of my friends into this show at an early age (10 and 12ish respectively). The show itself is not written for adults, and nor is it written for children...it has mature themes in it, but that is not all it has so it does appeal to children. SmUX 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've performed a bit of a cleanup on this article in an attempt to make it a bit more concise, orderly and useful.

I've trimmed down the "Scenario" section dramatically, removing all the lengthy character descriptions (as there are existing, lengthy and well-written articles about all the main characters) and replacing it with a brief synopsis of the series itself. I've also removed some redundant sections (like "Red Dwarf Ships", an unnecessary paragraph considering there's a whole article on it), shuffled the order of a few things around, and tidied up the whole thing with better headings and subheadings. I've also updated the DVD and Video section with info on every official release.

Finally, I've gone through the article and attempted to unify the convention for naming of series - that is, to use the word "series" for each individual series of episodes rather than "season" ("season" is an American term that has never been used to describe Dwarf in any official capacity - the DVD covers and official website always use the word "series"), and to use Roman rather than Arabic numerals to designate series number (again, see the DVD covers - this has always been the standard Dwarf convention). Hopefully these conventions can be stuck with by future editors from now on.

I agree, however the first two series of Red Dwarf were originally referred to as "seasons", I don't know why. Not worth explaining this in the article, however.

There's been some great content in this article for a while, and I'd love to see it end up as a featured article at some point - hopefully some of these changes might go a small way towards that. Seb Patrick 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What's a "featured" article?

An article that is featured on the main Misplaced Pages page for 24 hours. Would draw alot of attention to the article, and consiquently, the show. Frostyvegi 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

18/11/06 Restored and commented on some of the changed external links Polymorp 17:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuity

Care needs to be taken when listing the "continuity errors" that the show is famed for. It's one thing to list some of the obvious mistakes that were made by the writers (the appendix thing, for example), but I've just removed some "examples" that were, in fact, explained in the logical context of the programme. For example, there are numerous occasions where Lister mentions his "family" - his dad, his gran, his aunt - despite the fact that he was an abandoned orphan. It's made quite clear in the series and the novels, however, that in any such instance he's referring to the adoptive family that raised him. I also removed reference to Kochanski looking and acting differently to the woman that Lister fell in love with - for the quite simple (and better-explained than some other series' actor changes) reason that the later Kochanski is from a parallel universe (even when we see her in flashback, it's her own universe), and any number of things about her personality and appearance could have been rendered differently at some point in her life. Seb Patrick 09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of the most blantant 'errors' that can't possibly have been mistakes, such as how in the first episode the plan is to go into stasis and wake up on earth, and in the very next episode (and from then on) they're heading to earth OUT of stasis, heedless of the fact that it would take 3 million years.. or how they get a time drive that -doesn't- travel through space sandwiched between two episodes where they have a teleporter that travels through time and an episode in which the time drive now CAN travel through space and doesn't explain why. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comedies are given more leeway than other types of shows; look at The Simpsons. But let me take a swing at some of the Red Dwarf ones (from memory): They changed their mind on using stasis for the whole trip back, but they did use it from time to time, like to get the time drive. They got the matter paddle (the teleporter) from some research that was beind done on the Red Dwarf, but it didn't travel through time. They even mention that it would be useful if they could meld it with a time machine. ("Meltdown") Then they get the time drive and are so disgusted by them that they decide to not help them, and are then attacked and killed by their future selves. ("Out of Time") The beginning of the next seasons sees them with the matter paddle melded with the time drive so that they may travel through time and space. Lister uses one of Kryten's spare heads with no ethics chip so that they can travel back in time and get some curry. However, they ended up changing history so that Red Dwarf didn't exist. ("Tikka to Ride") <speculation>After that, they probably decided (again) to never use time travel.</speculation>

But there is also "Timeslides" where they had time travel, but only if they had a photo of the place. They ended up changing history again here, but they changed it back (almost) by the end. I suspect that if the series ever comes back, they'll use time travel again if they can think of a way to make it funny. — Val42 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected a small error. The article said that Rimmer had been on Red Dwarf for 12 years, but this is wrong. I suppose that the author deducted this from the S1 episode "Me2" - where Rimmer shows up in a white uniform that has four medals on it. Lister asks him about the medals, and Rimmer tells him that got the first one for "3 years of dutiful service", the next one for "6 years of dutiful service", bla bla bla, and the last one for "12 years of dutiful service". Thing is, though, that there's this one episode from season 1 (might have been Me2) where Rimmer tells Lister about that one time when he got invited to the Captain's table after 14 years on the ship. Go figure. -- Tchernobog 12:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely, then, he would not have got another medal until he had been on the ship for 15 years. So he could have been on the ship anywhere between 12 and 15 years - 14 could well be correct. -- Supermorff 16:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Who knows if there was even a medal for 15 years dutiful service. Plus, although I have lost my copy of it, the book was probably different (once again outlining the lack of cohesion between facts from medium to medium).Frostyvegi 02:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

i reckon he was on red dwarf for about 10 years.

For an August 2004 discussion on what this page should be named see: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Red Dwarf

Anyone able to import the illustration from the Swedish version? http://sv.wikipedia.org/Bild:Red_Dwarf.jpg

Able, yes. Willing, no - I'd want to know more about the source of the image first. —Paul A 00:56, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There's no picture there anyway.

It is also interesting to note that the multi-ethnic cast of the British original (John-Jules is black, Charles mixed-race, and Barrie and Llewelyn white) was replaced by an entirely caucasian one for the American pilot

It might be interesting if it were true. Hinton Battle (the Cat) wasn't caucasian last time I checked, though. —Paul A 00:56, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the second version of the pilot, the Cat (this time a female one) was played by Caucasian Terry Farrell. Ausir 18:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In addition ISTR reading somewhere that Chris Barrie was invited to reprise his role, but refused, which was part of what prompted John-Jules' comment. I can't find the reference, though.

It's in the documentry on the series 5 DVD. Apparently he was advised by his agent. Craig Charles also makes the White Dwarf comment in the documentry.

BTW, The show followed essentially the same story as the original UK pilot, substituting American actors for the British; the one exception being Robert Llewellyn, who reprised his role as Kryten isn't entirely accurate either: the US Holly was the decidedly British (despite her accent in Fraiser) Jane Leeves. Daibhid C 18:38, 11 Sept 2004 (UTC)

Why the hell isn't this at just Red Dwarf? The star type would never be capitalized. --mav

I agree - it should be moved back. --Mrwojo

Well, there is Red Dwarf (movie), due out next year. RickK 02:22, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There's also primary topic disambiguation. Even if Red Dwarf: The Movie proves to be worthy of a whole article to itself, which I doubt. —Paul A

Back to the original question: Cgs's explanation of his reasons for the current Red Dwarf disambiguation situation can be seen at User talk:Cgs. —Paul A

Weren't the books first, and the TV series based on the books? Dysprosia 16:14, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No. The books were spin-offs. But we should make this clear in the article. -- Tarquin 22:55, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lister almost from the start planned to find the computer disk containing the holographic backup of his ex-girlfriend Kristine Kochanski when lister asks Holly why he didn't bring back Kochanski, he's told that his total conversation with her was 173 words, which makes the claim of her being the ex-girlfriend pretty unlikely.

This is one of Red Dwarf's frequent and rather blatant retcons. Originally, Lister was supposed to have lusted after Kochanski without ever having acted on it (see also the comment in Balance of Power when Lister's chef's exam is interrupted by Rimmer-in-Kochanski's-body: she looks down the front of her top and comments "I've seen something you haven't, squire"), but then Rob and Doug decided that Lister's attitude was slightly immature and amended the story to suggest they had a brief affair. See also how Red Dwarf's crew increases from 169 (The End) to 1,169 (Justice) and then to ten or eleven thousand-odd (Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers). Hig Hertenfleurst 11:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Independent production

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)

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)

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)

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)

Parody Sources

I'd hoped to see some cross-references to the sci-fi film genres that were being parodied. Eg there is a very clear debt to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which apparently gets no mention.

80.177.213.144 18:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you're still interested, that's done now, but it's not complete - maybe you could add 2001 if you spotted the reference to it - I've never seen that movie, so I didn't put that. Likewise, if anyone else can add any of the others I missed, it'd be nice; for example, I think a couple of genres are parodied in Gunmen of the Apocalypse, but I couldn't name the films because I don't watch Westerns or hardboiled crime dramas. I've also heard a rumour that one episode of series 8 featured clear references to Alien and Jurassic Park, but not having seen series 8 I can't confirm either way. Oh, and there MUST be a Star Trek reference somewhere, but I haven't watched much Star Trek so I've no idea where that is.

Edit - Thanks to family members with better movie knowlege than me, I can comment on 2001 and Star Trek after all. 9.25 March 5th 2006

Page size and merges

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)

I'd suggest a maiximum of 3 pages, one for the main article, one for the episedes and maybe a third with characters, ships etc.? The category seems redundant for such a small number of ships. DamienG 18:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Hig Hertenfleurst 19:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

Star Wars has a List_of_vehicles_in_Star_Wars and List_of_Star_Wars_places. Star Trek has a List_of_Star_Trek_characters. --Rossumcapek 15:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Esperanto in Red Dwarf?

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)

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)

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)

Nova 5

Wasn't the "Coke is Life" a gag from one of the novels? I don't recall this ever being shown. --Sdfisher 19:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't either. It should probably be removed. --brian0918&#153; 19:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Coke adds life" was the advertising message the crew of the Nova 5 were attempting to write in supernovas in the first book.--128.243.220.21 15:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what about the soapy water thing? Wasn't that from the novel too? --Sdfisher 18:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the only thing that was mentioned on TV was that the ship crashed. Hig Hertenfleurst 21:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::It was mentioned that Kryten killed the crew, though I'm not sure if they ever mentioned how. --brian0918&#153; 21:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Time to do some "original research." /me grabs DVD :) --Steven Fisher 05:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the script can be found here: http://www.reddwarf.nildram.co.uk/txt/kryten.txt There's no mention of soapy water or Kryten killing the crew. So can we please pull that section? --Steven Fisher 05:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's discussed in Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, the first book; Kryten shorted out all the computer systems with his obsessive cleaning. Kinitawowi 09:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not from the TV series, which is clearly the main focus of the article. If anything, the "Kryten cleaned the computer" angle should only be mentioned as an element of continuity the books chose to expand on or change outright. If the books ever get their own article(s), that would be the place for it (or it could even be mentioned in the spin-offs section as an example of one of the continuity elements that were revised or expanded on). Hig Hertenfleurst 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the TV series, either 7th or 8th series, Lister says that Kryten killed his whole crew. -- BRIAN0918  15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 KRYTEN
 Yes you are!  I'm gong to end up on my own again, just like I did on the Nova 5!
 LISTER
 You killed the crew, Kryten!  No wonder you ended up on your own!  All
 right, it was an accident, but nevertheless...

(from 7.3: Ouroboros) - Kinitawowi 14:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so we mention that Kryten caused the accident. It's still never been stated on TV that Kryten cleaned the computer, and therefore the reference to cleaning the computer has no place in the article. Hig Hertenfleurst 18:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I prefer your previous suggestion (mentioning it as something expanded on in the books); like it or not, Red Dwarf is a series of books as well as a TV show, and while there are whole websites dedicated to the inconsistencies between them, I'd suggest that it's negligent to disregard the books in this article. Kinitawowi 15:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, usually I'd say stick with the series. But since part of the info is in the series and part in the books, I'm making this change as you suggest. --Steven Fisher 18:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Red Dwarf

I notice that the picture used for the Red Dwarf is of the Mark 2 (or nanobot built if you prefer) version. Is it possible to post a picture of the original version of the ship or should it be noted that this is version 2? I thought that I would let more veteran wikipedia-Red Dwarf fans decide about this because I know that this is a nitpicker kind of thing and, being new to wikipedia, I didn't want to mess with an otherwise very well done article about this fun show.MarnetteD | Talk 20:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a very good point. I've added a note to the image to clarify that it's the CGI ship rather than the physical model. Hig Hertenfleurst 22:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about CGI pictures of the other ships? It'd be nice to see how Blue Midget changed, for example. 20:08, 4 February 2006

Series 7 criticism

I removed the following from the Scenario section:

It is to note also, that series 7, was very poor, especially after the loss of Rimmer, the charcter who induced the single most amount of humour, due to his inability to get on with the rest of the crew, and another reason for the downturn could be the fact that one of the co-creators, Rob Grant, left, leaving only Doug Naylor behind, and as a mix of these 2 things, series 7 was, appauling, and series 8 was okay, but certainly not as good as the frist 6

Aside from being a single run-on sentence (which is fixable), it's clearly not NPOV. It seems like there are some useful ideas about why series 7 was allegedly worse than the others (personally, I recall liking series 7), but they could be presented more objectively. Is it a generally-held sentiment among Red Dwarf fans that series 7 was a disappointment? I'm not really in a position to judge the accuracy or popularity of the underlying criticism, so I don't know how to go about correcting this. --Damien Prystay 22:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I liked series 7 a lot (and even series 8, how can you not like the specially-long salute for extra-special occasions?), but I do get the impression that the various points at which people started to dislike the show are end of 1, end of 2, end of 4, and mainly end of 6, and the general perception I've got from other Red Dwarf fans is that the show instantly turned to shit when Rimmer went off to be Ace. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't as good, but there was still some really good stuff in there.

Nah, series 8 was way worse than 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.13.29 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

The reasons that should be mentioned if this goes back into the article: departure of Chris Barrie, but more important (because Barrie soon came back) would be Rob Grant leaving, never to return: 7 and 8 were written by Doug Naylor with Paul Alexander and a few other writers, including Robert Llewellyn on one occasion.

Exactly - Rob Grant was the better writer. Series 7 is a bit shit but better than 8 which isn't even watchable; this proves that on his own and with Paul Alexander Doug Naylor is awful, really really bad. With Rob Grant Doug maybe filled in the odd crap gag here and there, he would have provided the stuff in series 1-6 that we know to be less good than the other stuff. The stuff in series 7 that we consider to be clever or funny was obviously written by the other writers. A shame that they split up, in a way.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.13.29 (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Fwiw (not much), I think series 7 was the most up and down of any. Kryten blowing up the Bennett family is one of the funniest ever red dwarf moments, and the Nazi officer wrestling with a crocodile mid-air was pretty funny too. By contrast, series 8 was just a flat sort of mediocre, with occasional cringe moments (the dinosaur diarrhoea or the viagra basketball match anyone?). At least I don't think RD ever jumped the shark. Stevage 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion is certainly far more divided about the "quality" of Series 7. The style of filming was the main source of criticism. It is arguable that the change in writers was more to blame. Andymarczak 10:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly clear that opinion is divided about the quality of Series VII, but as to the scripts, I don't think it's fair to claim that all fans in general hated the changes. If you think about it, Series VI arguably had more to do with series VII than VI had to do with series V, or for that matter, than series II had to do with series III. I remember the initial anger I felt when I saw the Series VI episodes Polymorph 2, Rimmerworld and Out of Time, and thought that the show had jumped the shark then (all the series up until that point included a lot of time spent on Red Dwarf) because they were in Starbug. I remember thinking that the quality of the jokes had declined slightly when I saw Rimmerworld, and that Polymorph 2 merely reused old gags. Then I saw the rest of the series on DVD, and saw Gunmen of the Apocalypse, which immediately became, and remains, my all-time favourite episode. The point I'm trying to make is that the show was very varied, and one can't judge an entire series by one episode. In series VII, Tikka to Ride felt just like season VI - the boyz, Rimmer incl., having yet another madcap adventure on Starbug. Then Stoke Me a Clipper and Ourobouros felt totally new, but I still enjoyed them. Then came Duct Soup, which was in the same mould as season III's Marooned, and Blue, which echoed the original series. The other three also each had their own style. I suppose it had something to do with different writers contributing. Whatever the case, I didn't notice any decline in quality. As for the filming, I thought VII looked pretty cool filmized - it looked like Red Dwarf: the movie, or something! I know this is all POV, but what I'm trying to say is that I had no especially big problem with series 7, people clearly have differing views, and there doesn't seem any point in picking at supposed faults when nobody is going to agree on them.

the first book

If i recall correctly, it was not meant to be called "Infinity Welcome Careful Drivers" - for example, it is not written on the spine or title page. The book is just titled "Red Dwarf" there. However, it is on the cover, and the book is popularly known by this name. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's on the inside cover though, under "Red Dwarf", so it is at least a subtitle.

It is written on both the spine and title page of my (American) copy of the book (ISBN 0451452011, published by ROC).

This is fine. It's just the same as The Beatles' White Album; don't worry.

Smeg

Was "smeg-for-brains"ever used in the series? It seems unlikely as the for in X for brains is an American English construction whereas the British English version would be "Smeg brain". I am aware that Cat uses American English so it may have been one of his, but I can't recall it. DavidFarmbrough 13:00 (BST) 5 September 2005

-- Edit: It was used in 201: Kryten. 82.42.171.194 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 82.42.227.146 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Rehm

You're right it is a primarily American English construction, but it was said by Kryten (as noted above in his first appearance) when he was emulating Marlon Brando in the US film The Wild One.--Cziltang Brone 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It was also used by Lister in "Balence of Power", but he was just being his English self. RobbieG 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Under invented expletives could we add "Gimboid"? rimmer states "I don't speak alien, you gimboid" also used several times within other episodes if memory serves me correct. Also in the same episode (Waiting for God) Rimmer says to Cat "It's a yo-yo, you modo". Modo, a reference to other slang or invented dwarf word?

"Smeg for Brains" was used as an insult in the episode Kryten. It means "retard".

In one of the first four episodes Rimmer calls the computer something, and it doesn't understand. Can someone quote this scene?

Groovy Channel 27

Someone should edit that on the main page. It IS called groovy channel 27, as can be seen at the end of the credits list for the show Kryten is watching at the start of Kryten. 82.42.227.146 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Rehm

It is also seen in Better than Life, when Rimmer is watching a recording of a news broadcast.

I think the word "groovy" was just coming out of it like (for example) the word "stench" accompanied by wavy lines around dog poo in comics. It's a description rather than a title.

Theme lyrics copyright?

The lyrics of the main theme were just added to the page, but does anyone know whether we can do that copyright-technically? --IByte 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we can't. In any case, there's a policy against it even for public domain works. WP:NOT a collection of song lyrics - I'm sure it's in there somewhere :) Someone want to get rid of them so I don't have to be the bad guy? :) By all means replace them with a link to a fan site that has them or something...Stevage 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that song lyrics ARE covered by the What Misplaced Pages Is Not guidelines, but that's by-the-by if it's illegal anyway. 20:33 24 February 2006

Besides all this someone kept changing the lyrics to "Tongue Tied" to those for "New York New York" and so on. Reverting vandalism is tiresome, and removing all the lyrics seemed the easier way to stop this.

Time travel television series

"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)

Chinface

Does anyone know which episode the crew lie upsidedown with faces on their chins to convince aliens there are no humans on board? This is for the chinface article. Kernow 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you mean the series 6 episode Gunmen of the Apocalypse. Val42 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, they were actually trying to convince Simulants - killer androids - that there were no humans on board. (Red Dwarf makes a point of being an alien-free universe) 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

if red dwarf is alien free explain the gelfs.

GELF stands for Genetically Engineered Life Form. In other words, they were created by humans. Andymarczak 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. However if you watch the documentary on the series VI DVD you'll learn that the colourful explosion of the GELF ship encountered in both Gunmen of the Apocalypse and Rimmerworld is due to the special effects department not being aware of this "no aliens" policy. The same bloke goes on in the series VII documentary about a previous version of the script for Stoke me a Clipper featuring Ace Rimmer "body-popping on the back of an alien"... this was obviously later re-written to be a crocodile but it's interesting to consider how either the writers were forgetting at times, or just that bloke responsible for the special effects didn't know or wasn't paying attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.12.142 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

YARSS!!!! I saw this documentary! I am a Red Dward fan!!!!!!!

Editing Pastiche & Parody

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)

Someone re-capitalised all the links. I've reverted them again. 16:23 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, first time was understandable, second time was slightly surprising, third time is annoying. The person who keeps capitalising connectives and prepositions in titles seems to be making otherwise helpful edits, so I cannot understand his/her insistance on this (obviously incorrect) point. I mean, Mutiny on the Bounty is an article, and Mutiny On The Bounty plainly isn't. Surely it's perverse to keep changing the links so that they lead nowhere? In primary school, the rules of capitalisation are explained, and children are told that 'major' words should be capitalised, not little words like 'and','on' or 'of'. Besides, a text's title is whatever the writer calls it. The invisible poet is not The Invisible Poet. txt tlk is not Text Talk. Hymns & Psalms is not Hymns and Psalms, Blackberry-Picking, by Seamus Heaney, is not Blackberry Picking, and Mutiny on the Bounty is not Mutiny On The Bounty, no matter what other people percieve to be correct. Just thought I'd clear that point up. I have some sympathy, because altering titles like that is a mistake I used to make a lot, but if the links are blue and changing them turns them red, you must realise there's a reason for that. Sorry for ranting, I'm done now. 22:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If your adding in all the parodies, your gonna be here a long time. One more alien related worth mentioning maybe - "We don't know if it's safe! It's quarantined! You might get some squiggly, slimy thing stuck to your face!" - Clearly a reference to Alien(s) Another in the same Episode (waiting for God) the following dialect is used showing how their knowledge of history had been confused and mistaken with an old TV series RIMMER: They laughed at Edison. They laughed at Columbo. LISTER: Who's Columbo? RIMMER: The man with the dirty mac who discovered America. Desc 30/08/06 16:44

Under the bullet point for "DNA", reference is made to "Man Plus" being an amalgamation of Lister and Robocop. "Man Plus" is also the name of a 1976 science fiction novel by Frederik Pohl - making the Red Dwarf character another pastiche reference. There is a wikipedia article for Man Plus. I propose updating this paragraph to include "Man Plus" as a pastiche.74.195.23.5 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

30 min?

Were the episodes actually 30 minutes long, or has someone included commercials in the running time? Arctic Gnome 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Continuity "errors"

Someone please remove geeks from art critisism. Starting from Star Trek it is now an internet phenomenon to see people jumping to talk about "errors" in "continuity" or "science". Have they ever thought this is not science but fiction, this is not science but art? That there are forms of art that are called surrealism, realism, satire etc.? This whole obsession with "errors" has become a poisonous pseudoscience by itself.

Except that if you knew anything about Red Dwarf, you would know that the constant changes and mistakes in continuity are a particularly noted feature of the show, and often treated in a very tongue in cheek way by both fans and creators; to the extent that the writers themselves compiled a list of the top ten mistakes for the Smeg Ups video (as mentioned in the article).

Since it is one of the things that the series is best-known for, I certainly feel it is worthy of mention on its WP entry, complete with representative examples. Seb Patrick 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that opinion - if there's any subject where continuity has relevance, it's Red Dwarf fandom. 20:18 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Queeg

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)

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))

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)

Of course not! Queeg is supposed to evoke the word "queef" - this is the whole point of the joke! It wears a thin quickly but then so does "Rimmer" amd tjeyu sustaion that over eight series! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.204.125 (talk) 18:16, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Style Guide

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)

Seems reasonable to me. Lots of sub-articles to trawl through too, eh? :) --Andymarczak 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seb, you're doing great work on this article. Crispinus211 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is good idea; I'm glad someone finally standardised this! RobbieG 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Barrie & Charles

If saw one of those "Comedy Connoections" Shows on Red Dwarf the other day which said Craig Charles and Chris Barrie did not get on (despite having first names that start with the same letter). If fact, I seem to remember Charles claiming "I hated him for years" --Crestville 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember him saying something similar on one of the DVD documentaries (might have been IV - Built to Last). I can't remember the details, but I think he said they grew to like each other. RobbieG 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No secret was made of the fact that in the early days they really didn't get on at all; but apparently, tensions really did escalate around the middle era of the show. It's the predominant reason why, around series III and IV, the number of bunkroom scenes was cut down significantly, and almost altogether eradicated by V and VI. By all accounts, though, they had started to get on by the time Chris returned to do series VIII, and there was a much greater sense of camaraderie around both then and now. Seb Patrick 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On the commentary for one of the series VIII episodes, Barrie remarks that the chief difference between the series VIII bunk scenes and the earlier ones is that the former were "funny". Idiot.

Unfashionable cast members

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 ) — 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)

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)

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)

Agreed, shouldn't be too tricky, the DVD interviews are littered with references... Andymarczak 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Internet parody/fan fiction

• I'm curious, but would anyone think it appropriate to mention such internet spin-off's and such, for example the long running Blue Dwarf ? MadMax 07:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether any Dwarf fan fiction could be considered notable enough for Misplaced Pages - there were the fan films that made it on to the Series VII DVD as competition winners, but I can't really be neutral over those as I wrote/starred in one of them! If any fan fic/fan films were going to be notable enough, it would probably be those two (since they were recognised by GNP, and are on DVDs that sell in the hundreds of thousands), but I'm not even sure they are... Seb Patrick 09:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Co-wrote, you mean. --IanIanSymes 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they probably are notable, although I think if you wrote about them yourself it would probably be in conflict with policy. Oh, and congratulations, both those fan films were excellent. 88.105.146.219 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw them too and I have to admit, I didn't get any of my stuff put on DVD when I was at sixth form. So congratulations chaps!

-

Is it worth mentioning insults like "Hadron head" and "Molecule mind"? There's an obvious pattern there. RobbieG 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How will it help?

It's "molecule head". Kryten uses this as an insult when he's parodying Casablanca in Camille.

No, it's "molecule mind", in "Kryten", and the film he's imitating is The Wild One. RobbieG 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD Releases

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)

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)

I'll add Region 1 to the list of places that don't have Remastered releases then. White43 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

Categories

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)

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)

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)

Characters' Appearances Outside of the Series

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)EthanGilchrist

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).

What is the accepted reason for Rimmer's death?

What is the accepted reason for Rimmer's death? Because the episode Timeslides appears to "correct" the previous continuity, or at least give a new reason for him dying - something which itself is not contradicted later in Dwarf history. My question, more completely, then, is "Did Rimmer die along with the rest of the Red Dwarf crew after failing to repair the drive plate correctly, or by touching an exploding box?"

Before Timeslides, Rimmer had died because he had failed to secure the drive plates correctly. In an episode that I don't remember now, we actually saw the video of the bridge crew dying from the accident. (Was it the gespatcho soup episode?) It was never explained in Timeslides or afterwards why Rimmer had survived until then. Nor was his death in Timeslides ever brought up again. Val42 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

His death as established in series 1 and 2 was likewise never brought up again. The episode you're referring to is Me2, the final episode of series 1. The events in Timeslides rewrite the earlier version of events, and we can assume that when the Justice Computer finds Rimmer guilty of murder in the fourth series, he is doing so because Rimmer himself escaped death. The normal way of speaking about how Rimmer died is that he touched an exploding box in the episode Timeslides. The stuff about the drive plate and him being a hologram in series 1 and 2 is elaboration, in the sense that it's only what you tell people who want much more information than the casual observer would require.

I'm pretty sure that the accepted reason for Rimmer's death is that he touched an exploding box. The events shown in Me2 were "corrected" by time-travel. Presumably Rimmer's visit to his younger self, and the information being overheard by Thicky Holden, caused a second stasis booth to be created for Red Dwarf somehow.

We found out in Stasis Leak that there is already a second stasis booth. Maybe Rimmer ended up using it anyway, but not because of the events in Stasis Leak. Val42 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rimmer died because he touched a box. I thought everyone knew this?

I think this discussion has established that this is the generally accepted reason, yes. However I'm sure that there are those who disagree, as with anything.

I guess the answer to the question depends from which series you are refering to (or have watched). Anyone who had only seen up to episode 4 of the series III would say he died by the radiation leak. From episode 5 until the start of series VIII, it was because of hitting a box of explosives in glee. Through series VIII however, it would now seem that Rimmer is not actually dead any longer, after being resurected with the rest of the crew by the nanobots. It's all a question of perspective. Frostyvegi 04:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Is" or "was"?

Can we please agree whether to perceive Red Dwarf in the past or present tense for this article? I've recently made a change to the opening paragraph to render it past-tense (in direct contradiction to the edit before me), but have skim-read the entire page only to find no objective view on this; it seems to skip between the past and present tenses throughout. On the whole, the article appears to mainly frame Red Dwarf in the past tense, as per Blackadder and The Brittas Empire, for example, but there are the occasional lapses. My opinion is that we should follow the past tense in general, except when we are speaking about the present moment of watching Red Dwarf, as found in (eg) "scenario": "The main dramatic thrust of the series is Lister's attempt to get back to Earth". We use the present-tense here because when we watch the series, this is what we find. However, I would argue that Red Dwarf as a programme is a completed body of work (despite the cliffhanger ending of series VIII which is the single detail causing ambiguity on this issue), and until either a film, a special or a new series has been released, we should treat Red Dwarf historically.

Agree: Although Red Dwarf conventions and events are still organized and the fan base is still clearly very active, I think we should be talking about the show in the past-tense now. The longer the whole film fiasco gets drawn out the less likely it is we'll ever be blessed with it, I personally think we've seen the last material made now. There's no harm in changing it to the past tense to reflect the current likelihood of this, then if we were to see anything new made the tense can be changed accordingly with one quick edit. Kris 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(I've moved these comments to the bottom of the page, as per WP:TALK convention)

Anyway... I don't particularly agree with this assessment. The show was never officially cancelled, and as soon as Doug Naylor and GNP turn around and say they want to make more, the BBC would be almost certain to commission it - it's still (I think, or at least it certainly was before The Office) BBC2's highest rated sitcom, and the DVD sales are excellent. It's on a clear hiatus while attempts are made to make the movie, but the TV series has not actually finished. That said, I don't particularly want to get drawn into an edit war on this, and it's true that it's less problematic within the context of an article lead to say "was" (because it saves faffing around saying "It is a sitcom that ran for a while, but is currently off the air, but isn't actually finished", or something). So, while I think clear mention needs to be made in the article of its unclear status, I'm happy to leave it as it's been edited to at the moment. Seb Patrick 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That puts a clearer stance on my original sentiments – I'd love to see more Red Dwarf, and still hope they can get their acts together, but have my doubts. From the perspective of the here and now it would make for a more coherent article if we consistently referred to the show in the past tense, as grudging as it may be. It's a necessary assumption given the context of an encyclopaedic description and, as I say, can easily be changed again upon any developments. I'll go through it and change to the past tense if we have official consensus on this. Kris 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Creative works "are" not "were" unless lost or destroyed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "was" explains that no new episodes of Red Dwarf are currently in production or being shown on television. As stated in the paragraph that opened this very reasonable debate, Blackadder, The Brittas Empire and many other comedy series contemporary with Red Dwarf have wiki pages that begin with "was". I suggest we follow the convention, and the majority of views contributing to this discussion appear to be happy with this decision. Please do not turn this into an edit war, and allow a consensus to be reached here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

"was" does not explain anything of the sort, at least 98% of finished TV shows on Misplaced Pages use the correct tense "is", a creative works exists. "Red Dwarf was an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom" not correct, "Red Dwarf is an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom", correct, because it still is an adult- sitcom. Your edits could be construed as malicious vandalism as per WP:SOURCE you've failed to source the show no longer exists, when it is established to the contrary in the article that it does exist. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Red Dwarf was an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom that achieved a global cult following" is correct both grammatically and factually. It achieved a global cult following - past tense. It is no longer achieving a cult status because it is no longer being produced. My editing in the best interests of what was then perceived to be the majority view of this discussion can hardly be called vandalism; stubbornly reverting such changes without settling the matter in this debate could be. This is what the previous "vandalism" charge was referring to; no need to try and level the same position against me. Also, to insist that somebody must prove something no longer exists isn't fair - try and prove that *anything* doesn't exist and you'll see it's impossible. Hardly fair to put "" after "was" and insist it be fulfilled or default to "is". As far as I'm concerned this discussion is still open, and I'd like to see other people's views rather than accept your weight being thrown around, but like Seb above I shan't be making more changes on this matter as I'm not interested in being involved in an edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.212.106 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Clearly this should be past tense. Look at the opening paragraph. It's not saying the show is or isn't still available on DVD or as a work of art in some other form. It's saying it ran (past tense) between 1988 and 1999. Read it: "Red Dwarf was a sitcom, running between 1988 and 1999..." It isn't *still* running between 1988 and 1999, is it? What people are doing is changing this paragraph into nonsense by insisting it means something it does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.206.108 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I think we can be happy with the opening paragraph beginning as follows: "Red Dwarf is an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom, that ran for eight television series on BBC2 between 1988 and 1999, and achieved a global cult following." Beyond this I think we should go with the position established above that we should speak about the show in past-tense, until we learn that a new series, special or a film are in production. In the meantime, I'll put the "resolved" tag on this topic.

I've reverted the "Resolved" tag, and no disrespect because I agree with the previous sentiment, but I don't think this discussion is actually resolved so go figure. The point Fenton, Matthew makes is an interesting one, of course Red Dwarf will always be what it is, but as 82.152.212.106 says, it's unreasonable to expect citations for axiomic statements. Check out obliteration by incorporation. The thing is, everyone talks about Red Dwarf in the past tense in a reminiscent way, and there's no guarantee there'll be more produced. Would you talk about a classic film in the present tense because there's a chance a sequel might be made? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned this is the bottom line: an encyclopaedic article needs to be consistent. As dynamic as Misplaced Pages is, for true consistency the only tense that will supply it in this context is past tense. I will say again, this could be changed for the brief interim that would exist if a new series were to break out, but otherwise there's little justification for referring to something in the present tense when there's no genuine evidence for its continuation. Kris 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if another series is possible, in fact it's wholly irrelevant. We are an encyclopaedia, we write in the English language, a creative work is because it exists, if the classical film still exists then yes, it still "is". Fiction becomes "was" when it no longer exists. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So you keep saying, and your point has been taken on board. Do you have anything more to add?

I'd say "was" in principle, just for whatever my contribution's worth... though the opening paragraph has changed and if it's talking about Red Dwarf as a "franchise" then "is" is better, until it's then specifically speaking about the TV programme. Elsewhere I agree with everyone that past-tense should be the norm for this article. I don't like the word "franchise" though - it sounds far too corporate. Can we think of a better one?

Mixed Reactions?

This section contains the statement "On the other hand, there are many 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,"

The statement is pretty weasel-worded with the "either individually or as a whole" qualification, and the "if not superior to" clause, as well as the vague "many Red Dwarf fans". But the clear implication is that there are plenty of fans who think that VII and VIII are as good as earlier series, and a significant number who think they are better. And I just don't think this is true...

From what I have heard, the general consensus is VII and VIII (as a whole) are worse than the earlier series; and that VIII (individually) is particularly bad. My guess (not based on any statistical evidence, I admit) is that the proportion of RD fans who think that VII and VIII are as good as earlier series is pretty small, and the number who think they are better is tiny.

TomH 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a site editor of the most active RD fansite on the net, I can tell you that the series VII/VIII debate is very much an ongoing thing, and there are indeed plenty of people who like those two series as much as, if not more than, some of the other series (it's usually I, II or VI that come in for the most criticism from these people). You have to remember that there are many fans who came onboard in 1997 or '99, and that those two series did garner by far the show's highest ratings. I don't agree with those who like VII and VIII, but there are many of them out there - including Grant Naylor Productions' own DVD coordinator, webmaster, and long-serving fan figure Andrew Ellard. The statement could perhaps be better worded, but I have at least tried to back it up by linking to fan-written articles that defend the later series. But while I think that those fans are wrong, I think it's unfairly unrepresentative of Dwarf fandom to just dismissively state that EVERYONE hates VII and VIII. Seb Patrick 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Seb, I think you can equate it (on a smaller scale) to the two Star Wars Trilogies. If we've got documentary evidence that opinion is divided, I'd expect that to be sufficient for an encyclopaedia. I don't think any of them are rubbish, but I wouldn't call them my favourites. That's just me being subjective. Misplaced Pages can't be. Andymarczak 11:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most active RD fansite...sounds like a Rimmer qualification to me, not something to be used to show authority...and BTW reddwarf.co.uk was more popular than your site, and actually HAS an alexa rating unlike yours. Speaking as a *FAN* of the show who has actively participated in *THE* most active chat community for Red Dwarf (alt.tv.red-dwarf in usenet) S1-6 were good, 7 was dismal and 8 was better than 7 but was no S1-6 and most people in ATVRD had the same feelings although some hated S8 as much as S7. There were a few who liked S7 and 8, but only a few (BTW, I am currently not active in ATVRD but I was when both S7 and S8 originally came out). It's wrong to say that everyone hated S7/8, but it's also wrong to say that there are plenty of people who liked them. SmUX 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... rd.co.uk isn't a fansite. It's the official GNP site. And a Usenet group isn't the same thing as a fansite, either - and even then, ATVRD has pretty much died a death in recent years. It's not the only Dwarf community on the net, and nor are the opinions of people back when the series aired the ONLY opinions that exist or are valid. Otherwise (to extend Andymarczak's Star Wars analogy) you might as well say that only people who saw Star Wars in 1977 are allowed to comment on it, and only with the opinions they had then (because, after all, opinions can change). Anyway, I don't want to get into a "my site's better than yours" debate on here - suffice to say, a lot of discussion about the series still takes place on G&T, more than in most places, and it's clear that there are some people (myself not among them, I hasten to add) who like those later series. Particularly younger fans, who discovered the series from '97 onwards. Seb Patrick 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, you have about 15 people max using your fansite so I'd be surprised if it was the "most active" as you say. And of all these people, only one has admitted that he likes Red Dwarf VIII! I don't need to mention his name, but he tries to explain his view on the Krytie TV commentary you've made, and nobody else agrees with him. It would be pretty objective to say "the majority of Red Dwarf fans find series VIII to be a severe drop in quality from 1-VI, with a shift in its emphasis from integrating intelligent sci-fi concepts and intricate character scenes into episodes to mostly featuring characters rushing around and gurning at the most sudden and contrived impulses."

Good to know you're a fan, but G&T in fact has something in the region of 120 registered users. Obviously, not all of those comment, but there's a thriving community of regular visitors and commenters. And to be quite frank, even if there were only "15 people max" using the site, that would still make it the most active fansite in terms of discussion and debate - unless you can show me another RD site that is (a) unofficial, (b) not just a message board, and (c) actually updated more than once every couple of years? Seb Patrick 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Expletives

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)

"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).

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)

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).

Lists

For about half to two-thirds of its length, and a few terminology disputes aside, the article's finally starting to look in good shape. However, I think those pesky lists at the end are problematic - I'm referring to the "Continuity", "Pastiche and Parody" and "Invented words" sections, here. Not only do the lists make the article inordinately long, they also come across as quite fancrufty, and it's a generally accepted fact that an article will never get Featured Status when it contains a number trivia-esque lists such as these. In addition, they seem to offer carte blanche for people dropping in and adding loads more to them, making them needlessly lengthy and exhaustive.

I'd propose, therefore, cutting all of the lists, and instead turning each of them into a paragraph or so explaining the more relevant examples. As an encyclopaedia article, this doesn't need to list every single continuity error or pastiche - one or two would be good as representative of the series, but Misplaced Pages is not a nitpicky fansite. Take a look at the Spaced article - Spaced contains far, far more movie/TV/sci-fi/etc. references than Dwarf does, yet that article doesn't contain a lengthy list at all.

I'd start work on chopping up the lists myself straight away, but I fear that people will just take it as vandalism and start revert wars. So I thought it best to outline my thinking here first, in the hope that some form agreement and consensus can be come to with the regular editors of the article, and so we can try and get this thing under control. Chop the lists, and I think we could look at putting the article into Peer Review before another assault on Good and/or Featured status... Seb Patrick 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seb, have given this a go - User:Andymarczak/sandbox - Andymarczak 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite like that it's a good effort – of course Lister didn't have his appendix out twice, that was just a joke in Thanks For The Memory, but I'm splitting hairs! Stick it up as far as I'm concerned. Kris 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I always took that as a continuity error - "That's why I was orphan, even though my parents were alive, that's why I had my appendix out - twice." Anyway - it's no biggie. Any other feedback? --Andymarczak 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's when Lister gives Rimmer about a year of his memory as a deathday present so that he can experience having had a proper girlfriend, during which time Lister must have had his appendix out, and Rimmer had had his appendix out another time so he recalls having his appendix out twice... Never mind I'm confusing myself, I see what you mean, it's a continuity error in Rimmer's memory, but not in the context we're talking about. Moot point, sorry, I'll shut up now – I like the rewrite style that's the bottom line. Kris 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a continuity error - from Rimmer's remembering Lister having had it done, it means that when Legion removes it in Legion, it's the second time. It's been "explained away" in joking fashion numerous times - but it's easily the show's most famed error. Seb Patrick 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about that... cool, never noticed it before! I just watch the episodes, don't usually delve into the trivia with other fans, so it's apparent fame would be lost on me. I obviously have much geeking and much to learn ahead of me, when just watching it becomes not enough. Kris 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Has this issue been resolved? Someone changing the article has decided so.

Evidently. Onwards to featured status! RobbieG 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's resolved, as I'm only involved due to having this watchlisted due to a long term vandal on numerous RD related articles. From what I've seen discussion was in favour of trimming down some of the fancruft, and a proposed version was met with approval by at least one editor and nobody really seemed to object. The initial trimming down was done with an edit summary of "removed lists and replaced with summary. If others take issue with this, please make your thoughts known on the talk page", so under the circumstances I think it's better to at least discuss any issues with the new version instead of blanket reverting. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. If people wish to disagree, that is their right. I think this article still needs a bit of trimming. My instinct is there is too much on the DVD, VHS releases, specials, and other sub headings around that. Will tackle that next. They are worthy of mention, but IMHO are mentioned in too much detail. Andymarczak 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on... I'm fine with the deletion of a few ugly lists, but I strongly object to the deletion of relevant information from Misplaced Pages. Are quality articles really expected to sacrifice detail for the sake of brevity? RobbieG 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly. This is why it's annoying that it's been changed and somehow the case needs to be put here for it to be reverted. It's one thing to remove/abridge a few lists, but some really good sections are threatened with being cut right down, and are constantly being reverted on the grounds that the case needs to be made to preserve them. Since when was that ever the way around things worked?

Misplaced Pages "prefers" prose to lists, it's more encyclopaedic. Matthew 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nothing against the lists being removed. I object to the references to "fancruft" and the idea that the release information is somehow too detailed. I also object to the deletion of prose just for the sake of "trimming down". RobbieG 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This section is titled "lists" which gives the impression that we are agreeing to reduce the lists that are currently too long, for the sake of brevity. Not to removal of relevant prose. If someone wants to do this, please start a new discussion topic.

Kid's show revisited

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

You're kidding, right? RobbieG 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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).

If Red Dwarf wasn't in part intended for children then please explain the toys. 86.138.62.51 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an utterly pointless debate. What a foreign broadcaster does with the show is irrelevant. Red Dwarf aired after 9pm and contained frequent sexual references, bad language and some pretty scary scenes (the bit in Demons and Angels where the 'low' Rimmer threatens to rape Lister is not suitable for children at all; Psirens had some pretty strong stuff in it, along with a few other episodes). Sure, some teenagers and kids were allowed to watch it by their parents, but by that logic Aliens is a kid's film. The DVDs are also all rated '12' and some of the VHS releases were rated '15' on release, IIRC.--Werthead 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template

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)

When was Red Dwarf axed?

I can't find on the wiki page when Red Dwarf was axed. Was it between six and seven, before being brought back again after a long "suspension" (like happened during Colin Baker's Doctor Who era), or after series eight? If it's the latter, does anyone know whether the BBC are in talks yet about resurrecting it? Thanks.

It's never been "axed". It was on hiatus between series six and seven, partly because after the writers' split it took Doug a while to get going on creating new Dwarf by himself, and partly because Craig Charles was imprisoned on remand for part of that time. Since series eight, meanwhile, Doug's efforts have been focused on making the movie. If GNP go to the BBC and say "We want to make another series", in all likelihood the BBC would agree to it, given that VIII garnered the show's highest ratings, and the DVDs are among their very bestselling comedy ones. However, at the moment, GNP don't want to make another TV series - they want to make a movie.

So, it's never been officially cancelled by the BBC - in both instances so far, the decision to put it on hiatus has come from the makers. Seb Patrick 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all true. However if GNP were to go to the BBC and ask for a reasonable budget for a new series they will likely run into the same old problems. Red Dwarf has always had to prove itself, again and again, as if every series was the first one. The cliffhanger ending was put onto series VIII as a last-minute decision in order to pursuade the BBC to fund a ninth series - Doug Naylor was worried that wrapping everything up nicely would inadvertantly "end" the series for good, from the BBC's point of view.

If a ninth series is made, or a movie, I pray for it to really push forward the boundaries set by series VIII, and feature fart gags and all that kind of thing. My favourite moments in Red Dwarf prior to series VIII appear in series III, when the replacement to Kryten hilariously uses his genitals to cut a brick in half, and then in series IV, when all the characters hilariously run away from the curry monster! More moments like this please!!! And fart gags, people slipping on sick, and constantly "accidentally" dressing up as the wrong person!!!

I don't really care for them making a second series of Red Dwarf VIII. I think they could have a lot of fun making a movie but I doubt it'll be a big hit.81.157.212.236 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, and as a reply to Seb Patrick's stupid smug remark above... Fans of Red Dwarf - Enjoy this for yourselves as I do!! From the ganymede.tv webite: "GNP have actually decided to try and set the wheels in motion on creating some new television (series or specials, we don’t know). The BBC’s reply? They don’t want it. And why? Well, according to a direct quote reported by Doug (sadly, we don’t know the specific source) : “They’re no longer interested in the sort of audience the show used to attract”." FUCKING BRILLIANT, SIRS! I rejoice! 81.157.212.138 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a couple of stupid responses to the issue on that website, arf! Check this one out: "the dvd sales have shown that the series still has wings though. take it to sky, or c4. fuck, hbo would probably love it." Love it! As though the DVD sales didn't represent interest in old series, but new ones! Hilarious!! Next, from another stupid ganymede & titan member: "I guess they’re only interested in attracting the sort of audience who watch “Big Brother.”" Yep! Because the BBC make Big Brother don't they! Another: "the BBC don’t want a good sitcom audience…" As if series VIII was a good sitcom! Clearly this just proves the point about what the later series has done to the Red Dwarf legacy. Oh man this has totally made my day, as you can probably tell. Let GNP focus on Red Dwarf stage shows in Chippenham and leave TV to programmes that know what clever plot structure and good humour is. "They would be scared of placing Dwarf, or anything remotely ‘geeky’, in a prime comedy slot." Like the BBC are scared of doing it! They just don't want it because any new Dwarf would be tat! "The bottom line is - RED DWARF IX COULD BE FUCKING FANTASTIC." Yes, or: Red Dwarf VIII shouldn't have ended on a cliffhanger, so that Red Dwarf IX wouldn't have to tie up any loose ends ten-plus years earlier. The bottom line is - the cast are too old, the writers aren't capable of doing clever or funny stuff anymore, and nobody is interested in a new series apart from the people obsessed with it who don't have any other interests anyway. Doug Naylor's statement has proved what the rest of us knew all along: Red Dwarf has had its day. Get over it. This is great. I feel so serene right now. 81.157.212.138 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can people cut down on the insults, the POV-pushing and the cussing, please? I'm sure you wouldn't like to offend anyone, and there is a reminder at the top of the page to keep things civil. RobbieG 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the personal attacks, there, based on a comment made months ago when information that has since become available wasn't widely known. Shock horror. Anyway, keep it up and I'll bring in an RfA. Also, I applaud your remarkable cowardice in hiding behind anonymity to insult me, just because I've bothered to actually register and admit to my identity. Seb Patrick 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Basis in Scientific Theory section

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 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To add a bit more, the section didn't cite sources, and quite simply seemed wrong to me. It would be absurd to say that the series has a basis in science. --Philosophus 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion, but used a more accurate title. What additional sourcing are you demanding? --Orange Mike 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

article title

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).

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).

Thing About the Theme Tune

When Howard Goodall wrote the theme tune for Red Dwarf, he initially wanted it to overlay perfectly with the original Derbyshire arrangement of the Doctor Who theme because he was inspired by the Wizard of Oz / Dark Side of the Moon myth. Somebody with authority please add this to the main article, thanks.

Interesting information. Where was this written?Frostyvegi 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard this too; anyone know where the interview was published? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.90 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Pretty sure it was in a Saturday or Sunday newspaper supplement like the Guardian Guide or Telegraph Guide or whatever they call those things. It'll probably be hard to track down, but I remember I was around 14 or 15 which would place it somewhere in the mid-nineties. Good luck finding it - if you do please say so here and perhaps put a bit of information in the main article since it's very interesting and isn't touched on anywhere else that I can find.

I don't remember this. Please provide more details or a link if you can, as this is fascinating information.

This was in a BBC documentary in the early 90s about theme music for comedies. It looked at the music for Blackadder and Red Dwarf and a couple of others, and the thing about Doctor Who is true - Goodall was inspired by the Wizard of Oz / Dark Side of the Moon myth and BEGAN the process of the Dwarf theme tune by trying to make something that would layer over the Derbyshire arrangement. However a short time into the process the tune had its own structure, and he didn't pursue that idea anymore. The themes don't line up but you can still hear some harmonic similarities in places.81.157.212.236 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the text tracks on the Remastered episodes makes a sly reference to Goodall's experiments here if you check them out. It (as a joke) suggests watching the remastered opening credits whilst listening to Dark Side of the Moon and seeing if they match up. Not the Doctor Who theme (which wouldn't work either) but interesting anyway! 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Does anyone know how to access the easter egg on the Bodysnatcher disc (disc one)? Thanks. 86.133.167.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to the subtitle page and turns subtitles "on". Now select "off" and press "up". You'll highlight the two stars on the JMC logo. Press enter and you'll access an audio-only ten minute clip of Doug and Rob discussing their involvement in Spitting Image. 86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When did Robert Klewellyns have toothache?

When did Robert Klewellyns have toothache? I know he mentions it in one of the Red Dwarf DVD commentaries but I can't find it now.

He had toothache throughout Spring 1991. He mentions it in one of the commentaries for either series 3 or 4; sorry to not be more specific but it'll be a bit of a trawl to search for you.

The Justice Birds

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)

Red Dwarf Song Lyrics

Anyone object to the lyrics of all the Red Dwarf songs being put in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.183.232 (talk • contribs)

Yes; they've been in the article in the past, and they've been removed. Misplaced Pages doesn't allow reproduction of song lyrics as it's an infringement of copyright. Seb Patrick 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's okay we could post them but change them slightly so they don't infringe copyright anymore. But then put a little note saying "these lyrics have been changed, the code to get the correct lyrics is as follows: convert 'angel delight' to 'cold outside'", or whatever. I bet loads of people come here trying to find the lyrics and it's a shame they can't get them.

But we'd still be reproducing a large portion of the lyrics, and anyway, the code would be made to be broken, so it'd still be infringement. Besides, that would look really daft ("It's angel delight, there's no kind of atmosphere..."!?), hardly suitable material for an encyclopaedia. People looking for song lyrics should go to a song lyrics database. There are probably even song lyrics wikis out there that you might like to visit, try Googling for them. This, however, is an encyclopaedia. RobbieG 11:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a majority of people wanting to put lyrics up or what the overall consensus should be, so I'm only contributing this because I thought of it and don't really have a view either way... maybe people could use asterisks to make the lyrics less clear, if this would get around the copyright issue? For example: "It's c*** outside, no kind of a****h****, I'm all alone, more or less; want to f**, far away from here, f** f** f**, in the sun sun sun..." etc. Does this present itself as a reasonable solution?

Can we stop this lunacy now please? You can't put the lyrics up in any form unless you get permission from the person who wrote them. So how about pestering Howard Goodall instead? Andymarczak 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so aggressive. Nobody's "pestering" you. If people want lyrics here then yes they should ask Howard Goodall - thanks for bringing that up. But don't be mean towards people who are clearly trying to help.

In any case, it appears that use of the Red Dwarf logo and other images is causing just as much fuss. If these images are used without sorting out the "fair use" issue then I say we should just put the lyrics up anyway. We'll know it's okay if we ignore the warning on the images and nothing happens.

The logo can reasonably be said to be a necessary illustration of the subject matter, and there's still a high chance it'll get deleted by the looks of things, so that's surely all the more reason not to put anything else that infringes copyright up here. RobbieG 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or: Keep the logo (and images of the cast and the front cover of the first Red Dwarf book) in the article until it's deleted, and ALSO add the lyrics until the date that the pending "fair use" issue is resolved. Presto, everyone's happy.

Answer me this : in what sense do wasting a big chunk of space with the lyrics to the theme tune heighten the understanding of the subject matter for readers of the article?

I'd hazard : none whatsoever. They're just material from the programme, just like script extracts would be. There's no need for them. At all. Seb Patrick 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting to keep the lyrics in this case. There's no "wasting a big chunk of space" in wikipedia as the article length isn't limited. I see no reason to get rid of the lyrics - it's just a matter of opinion as to whether they're of value or not.

So we've gone from it being a copyright issue to being one of your own personal opinion as to whether lyrics are of interest or not to readers of the article. Thanks for making your motivations plainly obvious. I've added a lyrics section, and will continue to restore them as long as you insist on keeping the aforementioned photos without "fair use" rationale.

If I appear aggressive, I apologise, but it is only because this talk page is being littered with juvenile rubbish that detracts from the serious discussion. Also anonymous posting does not give your posts credibility. In terms of the logos, it is true that they might contravene copyright, so this article might be left with no pictures or lyrics. The general rule of thumb I've found is that song lyrics are not reproduced verbatim on any song page, so this should be the same. It doesn't add any weight to an already lengthy article. Andymarczak 09:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, the image is arguably fair use because it provides a necessary illustration for an encyclopaedia article. The lyrics are plainly not, because (a) encyclopaedias don't list song lyrics, song books do that (b) other Misplaced Pages articles on TV shows seem to manage fine without lyrics, (c) the lyrics contain too much copyright information to be legally allowed and (d) we don't print actual phrases from the programme here anyway, Wikiquote is the place for them (although Wikiquote doesn't print full song lyrics either). Articles are advised to be kept concise, and this article has already been criticised for being too long. This is not a personal "I don't think they're interesting" issue, this is a "encyclopaedias don't print them, so Misplaced Pages is not the place for them" issue. Don't you see? This page has to abide by Misplaced Pages policy, and copyrighted song lyrics contravene that. RobbieG 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, "Don't you see?" is a quote of Rimmer from one of the episodes. It's very clever to quote Red Dwarf wherever possible. I love it.

The lyrics have reappeared, without really any explanation. So I've deleted them. The debate seems to have died down here, but the lyrics are fundamentally against Misplaced Pages policy, so I think they should go. Any comments?Wikifuzzygum 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very frustrating, the lyrics have now come back - with the message "Once again - if you're going to remove the lyrics please also remove the images. If not, just leave these where they are, thanks." Again, this is user 212.219.208.10 However, I think it has been succesfully argues that the images fall under fair use - they are, after all, illustrating an encyclopaedic article. However, if the user refuses to debate the issue, we will just be reverting and deleting for ever. Very dreary. I think that the images should stay for now, and the lyrics should go. Can we have some decent discussion 212.219.208.10? Wikifuzzygum 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no discussion to be had. A single anonymous user, using different IP addresses, is deliberately causing trouble because he/she knows it winds up established editors. This is clear vandalism of Misplaced Pages in order to make a point by someone too cowardly to actually register an account and identify themselves, and it shouldn't be tolerated. The worst part is that if someone's IP address is constantly changing, they can't be held to task under the 3RR rule, because they can claim that they were different people. Editors with an account, meanwhile, can potentially be punished for trying to keep the article in a decent state. Hopefully, however, there are enough people reverting this anonymous troublemaker's edits at any one time that it won't fall to a single person to keep doing it. It's beginning to get out of hand, though, and if it continues for any longer than a few more days, I'd suggest getting the article locked to unregistered editors. Seb Patrick 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww, I always hate it when an article gets locked to unregistered users, because Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If we are dealing with a persistent vandal with multiple IP addresses, can't we just block all those addresses from editing? This may all just be a misunderstanding, since the person seems to be confused over Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines in places, but I find it difficult to take anyone seriously if they want to print "It's c*** outside, there's no kind of a****h***"... RobbieG 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great news for people who either wanted the lyrics to stay or the images to be removed! Thanks to everyone who helped in this campaign! I'm happy to leave the lyrics off now the pictures are gone. Keep up the good work everyone and remember to post here if you get any more ideas for the article!

Fair use rationale for Image:RedDwarfCast.jpg

Image:RedDwarfCast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is going on about.

Is anybody able to translate this Betacommandbot message into something we can all understand so that we know what we're being told to do? Thanks.

Anybody attending to this? How long do we have before we have to remove them or they are deleted automatically?

Fair use rationale for Image:Red dwarf logo.png

Image:Red dwarf logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should attend to this or we might just have to remove the Red Dwarf logo.

Fair use rationale for Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg

Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How long before all these images are removed by the BetacommandBot thing? I'm getting impatient.

No Aliens

I'm putting this on the talk page, so that when reverting vandalism by the anonymous user (clearly the same person with different IP addresses), it can be referred to as clear discussion : The fact that there are no aliens in Red Dwarf is a significant and often-discussed tenet of the series. There is a fan made document online that outlines the various species of creature in Dwarf, with reference to Rob Grant and Doug Naylor's assertion that the show (and the books) are set in a universe with no aliens in. This is a completely different issue to the fact that "contentious words like 'retard'" are never used in the series. That fact is irrelevant to the context of the series as a whole. The person constantly reverting others' constructive edits is clearly doing so in order to make a point (just as they are by constantly adding the theme tune lyrics to the article), and it needs to stop. If it doesn't stop, I'm going to request that the article be locked temporarily to new or unregistered editors, as it amounts to little more than a sustained campaign of vandalism by somebody with an axe to grind. Incidentally, I'm seeking permission from Grant Naylor Productions for the use of copyrighted images for illustrative purposes, so the fact that there are fair use images in the article will hopefully shortly no longer be a valid defence against constantly inserting the lyrics (not that it ever was, if you actually read Misplaced Pages policy). Seb Patrick 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes great and please seek permission to post the lyrics here too.

There seem to be a lot of web sites that mention the "no alien" policy of Red Dwarf, but it is proving hard to find what could be termed an "authoratitive source". There is one entry here http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44155.asp that we might be able to use a reference, but I'll keep looking for something better.fg 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that there are no life-forms depicted on screen that aren't of Earth origin, so no aliens do appear in the programme. It's notable because it sets the show apart from most other science-fiction shows. RobbieG 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It has to be specifically defined as a "policy" or something similar to differentiate it from all other things that just don't happen to occur in the programme, though.

if there are no aliens in red dwarf then explain the character with the fangs

He's a cat, evolved from a domestic cat, and ultimately of Earth origin. RobbieG 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish that they'd had the budget in series VII to go with the "Rimmer riding on the back of an alien" idea planned for the beginning of Stoke me a Clipper. Then all this bollocks about there being some specific decision NEVER to feature aliens would have been blown right out of the water. I love when people speculate and create little nonsense stories to explain everything that just hasn't had a chance to happen.

Well, they seem to have deliberately scrapped that idea, and I'm sure one of the DVDs said something about the no-aliens policy. Besides, that was series VII, wasn't it. Multiple writers and no Rob Grant. RobbieG 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what you're misremembering - it wasn't a no-aliens policy - it was robots they've stated that they didn't want to include, and they changed their mind for season III after realising that Kryten worked in season II. It's quite possible that Rob Grant was against featuring aliens, and they just didn't do them because of this, but I wouldn't call this a "policy" if there was a potential for aliens to be present once he left, or if they might change their minds after the show has been running a few years. No aliens on screen doesn't mean a no-aliens policy - I think this is quite important. They obviously left it open so they could do them later if they wanted.

OK - why don't we use this as a reference until we find something better? It seems pretty comprehensive, although it is a rather fannish looking site. http://members.aol.com/holly5120/aliens.html If there are no reasonable arguments against this, I'll add it in a couple of days. fg 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not acceptable as evidence. I could easily make some home site that says "Red Dwarf is a catchphrase-oriented comedy and the repeated use of the word 'smeg' proves this". It means nothing.

The show DOES have a no aliens policy. Rob and Doug repeatedly stated this in interviews, and it's stated definitively, and in significant detail, in the first novel - which, although located in a parallel fictional universe, do stick to the same basic mechanics as the TV show. It explains at length how a lack of aliens was 'proved'. This is backed up in the TV universe by Lister's comments in the first series.

A quick Google reveals this from Doug Naylor: http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/interviews/doug-naylor.html "we don't want any aliens in our science-fiction series" seems clear enough. OR http://www.ganymede.tv/indepth/the-rob-grant-interview "we decided not to have any aliens in it". If this isn't enough, it's a simple matter to check the BTL and Smegazine interviews for more. Alternatively, Doug Naylor DOES mention the 'no aliens rule' again in the documentaries coming in October on the Bodysnatcher DVD.

It was a specific decision by the makers, and in this case the reason no aliens appear is because of the writers' original policy. A policy that continued after Rob left the franchise. (Quickie gag monsters, like the Vidal beast, are never given an origin story, but there's no reason to think they break the rule given the plethora of weird life out there, all of Earth origin.) The show has never and would never include life-forms not originating from Earth. A few vague interview references to 'aliens' are simple shorthand, the early Stoke draft did NOT feature an alien, but another GELF-like beast; I've read it. Red Dwarf features strange life-forms all the time; you need only look at the number of times the cast call GELFs 'aliens' to appreciate this.

Hopefully that's answered that one.

Surely the TARDIS on Red Dwarf proves the presence of alien life? Or at least hint that they're open to it? 81.157.212.77 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be facetious, but there's no proof that wasn't a regular police phone box. Besides, it's been pretty demonstrably proven (by the links that the above anonymous provdided) that there is no alien life and this was a definite decision. The TARDIS was a cameo, an easter egg for the super observant. I seriously doubt that they would have based an episode around it. RobbieG 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are space weevils of earth/human origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.107.232 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has never been stated. — Val42 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the logical answer is that some GELFs manufactured the space weevil maggot things and blasted them into space so that they can wreak havok on corn supplies of any ship they randomly bump into. "Space weevils" doesn't mean they originated in space as an alien life form, it means they float around in space. 86.134.124.67 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Expletives section

Could somebody please explain the rationale for retaining the "expletives" section as it now stands? You've drawn my attention to it by deleting the one part that gave it some value - namely its ending, where the definition of "smeg-head" and "smeg-for-brains" was presented in quite an intelligent and eloquent manner. As it is now, the expletives section appears as a careful list of swear-words that have appeared in the programme. Why has this happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.252 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The section was originally part of the invented words section, listing the invented insults and curse words in the series. Now it seems to have grown into a "list of naughty words used once in the course of the entire series", which does strike me as rather pointless and excessive. Unfortunately, whenever I try to trim it down, my edit is reverted by an anonymous user with multiple IP addresses, on the grounds that "the structure and meaning are both fine. There's nothing wrong with it." It's true - I don't see anything wrong from a grammatical perspective, and it is perfectly clear. I'm just not sure that all of it merits inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Thoughts? RobbieG 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, Robbie. It's not necessary to describe the use of every word. Though there is an interesting crossover argument with the "is it/was it for kids?" thread that is neverending. If a show contains swear words (as Red Dwarf does, even as early as "Waiting For God"), then that nails the argument that it was not written for kids. Andymarczak 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't "nail the argument" at all though. I don't think the issues are related, Red Dwarf has been established as "not a kids' show" but loads of kids' programmes feature swearing in abundance. Some of the lewdest work ever has been exclusively for children, and was shown during the teatime slot on BBC1. I grew up effing and blinding because of this, and a good thing too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.212.115 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend in the UK sent me over some tapes of Byker Grove recently. I can't believe how much swearing you're allowed in kids' programs over there. We'd never get away with that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.164.220 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, the whole article needs to be cut down massively, but people are so sodding well precious about the sentences they added two years ago that the chances of it being shortened to something that anybody with only a passing interest in Red Dwarf will attempt to read is practically nil. Check out all other wiki pages for contemporary sitcoms and you'll see that a summary of the series and a bit about how the characters interact is all you really need. I mean for god's sake there's a section on VHS releases which isn't relevant anymore, but what'll happen when somebody attempts to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.32.178 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at removing the VHS section and my edit was reverted because apparently the old information remains useful for historical reasons. This article is 23 pages of A4 when printed out - it's really formidable to anyone who just wants a few nuggets of essential information. Maybe we could have a separate page for "old but historically interesting information" that we link to from the main article, and just keep Red Dwarf wiki relevant to now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.167.245 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point of Misplaced Pages entirely - it's supposed to be detailed! An article is supposed to fully cover its subject, past, present and future. Now, in the case of the expletives, I agree - should only contain those made up for the show, but in the case of, say, the VHS section, that's relevant to the show, whether the DVDs have replaced them or not. Bear in mind that this article is supposed to contain detailed information about Red Dwarf, not a fleeting summary as some of you seem to want. _TheIslander 09:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe the structure needs to be worked out then so that people can get to what they want straight away. At the moment it all feels a bit random, but it seems you're suggesting a "past, present, future" structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.167.245 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People, please always remember to sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~, which Misplaced Pages automatically translates into a signature and timestamp. It's really not hard. Back to the topic in hand, I disagree; I think the structure as it is right now is fine. I'm not saying that a little tweak here and there wouldn't help, but I certainly don't think rearranging it into a past/present/future format would be at all beneficial. _TheIslander 11:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the expletives passage has any merit in an encylopedia...swear words are used all the time in programmes, as pointed out by someone above. We don't have to write about it here.

Seraphim 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seb Patrick has now remodelled this section and I approve of his changes. Subject closed for me. 81.157.212.8 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Same here - good job Seb Patrick ;) _TheIslander 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto.

Seraphim 16:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Grant AND Naylor?

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)

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)

Likewise "GNP" should also be "G&P" 81.157.212.77 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Alright. Thanks for clearing this up. 81.157.212.219 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this now "Red Dwarf (TV Series)"? Since the "see also" section doesn't mention any other articles with the name "Red Dwarf", why can't this be called just "Red Dwarf"? The star type is not capitalised, so there's unlikely to be much confusion there, especially since the top of the page says "For the type of star, see Red dwarf". Quite apart from that, the opening sentence is "Red Dwarf is a British science fiction comedy franchise..." Franchise, not TV series. This covers books, websites, "the movie" (if there really will be such a thing), figurines, Mr. Flibble glove puppets, the lot. It's not an article on the TV series. Besides all this, wouldn't the correct capitalisation be "Red Dwarf (TV series)" anyway? RobbieG 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It appears to have been changed on the whim of one person (not blaming the admin who moved it - they appear to have done so in good faith after someone attempted to do a cut-and-paste edit), with no discussion taking place or consensus reached whatsoever. I'd be in full support of moving it back to its rightful place, for the reasons you outline above (i.e. that the article doesn't refer solely to the TV series). Seb Patrick 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. RobbieG 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

God, that's confusing. How about "Red Dwarf (Franchise)" as someone suggested above? 86.142.211.237 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be far more confusing. Why don't we just use the name "Red Dwarf", which is what it's called and what anyone interested in the show is likely to search for? Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to use the simplest titles available. RobbieG 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the name "Red Dwarf" is shared by that other thing called a red dwarf, and which uses the wiki title "Red Dwarf". I know the wiki title for it is actually "Red dwarf" but if you look closely you can see that these are actually exactly the same ("d" and "D" are the same letter). You were even the one who emphasised the "franchise" element above "TV Series" earlier; what made you change your mind? 86.142.40.98 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But by the same rationale, why not rename red dwarf as "Red dwarf (star)"? Seb Patrick 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seb. Rename this one "Red Dwarf (Comedy Franchise)" and the other one "Red Dwarf (Star)" to remove all ambiguity. I think it's silly the only difference is in the capitalisation since a dictionary wouldn't differentiate them in this way. 194.66.226.95 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I was actually disagreeing with the calls to add a qualifier to this article's name, so I'm not sure you do agree with me ;-) However, if it's to happen, then I'm not hugely keen on the use of the word "franchise", it has to be said. How about simply "Red Dwarf (comedy)" or "Red Dwarf (comedy series)"? Seb Patrick 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to qualify to 86.142.40.98 that I did not "change my mind", and that, as I stated above, I have never seen any good reason why this page could not be called just "Red Dwarf", and that, in any case, since the article refers to the franchise as a whole, not just the TV series, "Red Dwarf (TV Series)" was misleading. This article existed for a very long time as just "Red Dwarf", without complaints, which would suggest that most people don't have any difficulty in pressing the shift key. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think some people are confused about Misplaced Pages naming conventions; "Red Dwarf (Comedy Franchise)" would not be an acceptable title under any circumstances because the capitalisation does make a difference. Dictionaries do differentiate based on capitalisation, and so does Misplaced Pages.

"Red Dwarf (comedy)" (which I think is the least bad alternative) still strikes me as completely redundant, since there is no article entitled "Red Dwarf" which is not about a comedy. As to changing "Red dwarf" to "Red Dwarf (Star)", well, the capitals are wrong anyway, but it's only a small step between doing that and deciding to rename every article, so that we end up with "Byronic hero (character type)", "Basque language (language)" and "European Union (supranational union)", which would eliminate all confusion as to what the articles were about, but would look silly and no-one would ever be able find the page they were looking for. RobbieG 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robbie. The whole point of qualifiers in brackets after a name is to differentiate between articles that would otherwise have identical names. Under Misplaced Pages naming conventions, however, these two names are not identical (you only have to bother to read site policy to discover that - see WP:CAPS for more). Furthermore, even if the odd person might accidentally hit the TV series article when looking for the star, or vice versa, there are disambiguation links at the top of the articles for that precise reason. Seb Patrick 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How are "Red dwarf" and "Red Dwarf" not identical? They are identical in all but the capitalisation of the "D" in "Dwarf". I agree that the disambiguation allows people to swap to the one they *meant* to go to, but in itself there's nothing to make anyone assume the comedy franchise will have a capital letter. People putting "doctor who" into a search engine will also get Doctor Who, Doctor who and doctor Who. If you put "Doctor who" into wikipedia, it takes you to "Doctor Who" because they both mean THE SAME THING. So yes people can use the disambiguation, and it should stay because I can't be bothered to continue this argument, but you should at least accept that a capital letter makes no difference to meaning and shouldn't be used to differentiate two things that share what is otherwise an identical name. 81.157.213.45 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've just answered your own question - they're not identical because of the capitalisation. Again, I repeat - look at WP:CAPS and you'll see that current Misplaced Pages naming convention dictates that its acceptable to have two pages with the same lettering but different capitalisation. Now, there are those who believe that such pages are problematic, and are pushing to have it changed - see this list - but the fact of the matter is, they're currently accepted. And capitalisation does exist for a reason - if a capital letter made no difference to meaning, as you suggest, then we simply wouldn't have it. Bear in mind that, for example, the words "Conservative" and "conservative" mean two very different things. Seb Patrick 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for showing me that list. Yes I understand that there's a difference between "liberal" and "Liberal" - the issue isn't that I'm stupid, it's that the differentiation of wiki titles by capitalisation alone is more confusing than the slight clarification we could offer. If you put "conservative" into the wiki search engine, it redirects you to "Conservatism", and says you were redirected from "Conservative" even though you didn't put a capital "C". So I disagree that I answered my own question: capitalisation does *not* stop two titles from being identical, especially when we're dealing with "Dwarf/dwarf" rather than "Conservative/conservative". However I've already said that this is not a subject that I wish to fight about. The disambiguation link is enough to help sort people out. 81.157.213.45 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can an Emohawk change a character's teeth?

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)

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)

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)

Two quick questions about the Bodysnatcher DVD

Two quick questions about the Bodysnatcher DVD: 1) When The End Remastered was first aired, it was actually a different version to what later was shown as the first of the Remastered series - a work-in-progress I suppose it was, with things like Norm's close-ups not yet being fully "treated" in terms of colouring etc, and him saying "Bing Bong" instead of the electronic sound. For historical reasons this is interesting, and as "historical interest" is largely the focus of this release, I was wondering whether extracts of this version will be making their way onto the DVD. 2) I'd really love to find Rob Grant's view of the Remastereds, given that neither he nor Doug Naylor were fond of the production on series one and two. I'd like to know whether he considers the Remastereds to be close to his original vision of the series, or whether their "series eight-style" additions detract from this. Will he be on the Remastered documentary, or maybe recording one or two commentaries with Doug for the Remastereds? This would be so great. Thanks to anyone who can let me have answers to these! 81.157.212.157 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, this page is for discussion of the Red Dwarf article, not the show itself. However, you can find everything you could possibly want to know about Bodysnatcher - or, at least, everything that is currently known - at The Official Site. If you've heard anything about the DVD that isn't on that site, it'll be a lie or guesswork.

But yes, Rob Grant is on the DVD, in both documentary and commentary form. Seb Patrick 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not offering a view on the Remastereds though, it seems. Blast. 81.157.212.157 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's been confirmed Rob Grant won't be offering a view on the Remastereds as he didn't think it was appropriate to do so. Annoying this, since he and Doug both were unhappy with the production of series 1 and 2, and it would have been interesting to know whether he thought the Remastereds were closer to what he wanted. I'll still consider getting the set though, providing it falls into the £20 mark or thereabouts. 86.144.204.242 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this truly NPOV?

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."

If you click on 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)

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)

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)

Series seven and eight are rubbish anyway. 86.144.204.242 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not NPOV. RobbieG 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The BBC know that Red Dwarf killed itself with series VIII, and now won't commission another series, so whatever your opinion, the facts are there. No more new Dwarf unless GNP take it elsewhere. There's an arrogance to Doug Naylor saying that a new series should be commissioned on the basis of its strength when the most recent series was 10 years ago. If GNP were going around with a script for series IX (or at least its first episode) worth producing, as they had to before series 1 was given the green-light, then they might have been reporting a different story. 81.157.212.244 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf DVDs

Red Dwarf DVDs are currently £10 each at both WHSmith and Virgin stores. 81.157.213.100 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fan stuff

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)

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)

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)

Hi, Garda40, I edit quite a lot of articles but I'm not aware of addressing this issue before. Did the writers address continuity issues? If so, where? --Tony Sidaway 03

54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeah but might as well just delete it all anyway huh? 86.138.62.32 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? RobbieG 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not always post-watershed

A quick search of the BBC Programme Catalogue reveals that the August/September 1989 repeat of series 2 was shown at 8.30; that the October/November 1990 showing of Red Dwarf III was at 8:00 on BBC2; and that the May/June 1992 showing of series IV was at about 8.30-8.35. So "post-watershed" it may have been for the most part, but it wasn't so on every single occasion. 86.132.138.205 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some evidence that it was ever considered a post-watershed program by the BBC. Looking at the guide only confirms my personal memory. For instance, every single one of the six episodes of Red Dwarf III was broadcast in 1990 at 2000 . The same can be said of Red Dwarf IV . Other episodes in earlier series were sometimes broadcast as early as 1830 . The fact that Red Dwarf was usually shown at later times seems to reflect scheduling decisions rather than any perception that the content was unsuitable for children. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! Finally somebody talking sense on this. 86.134.122.253 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you were working at the BBC, would you pass, say, "Holoship" or "Pete" as suitable for children? It would be inconsistant with their usual policy (the BBC has some quite strict guidelines about children's television, if my memory serves me correctly). The warning at the start of "Polymorph" about it being unsuitable for younger viewers (and "people of a nervous disposition") does seem to suggest that the show was normally regarded as family viewing, but it was quite clearly never meant as a children's show. RobbieG 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in particular, you select "Holoship" and "Pete" as unsuitable for children? As a very young child I'd hardly find "Holoship" as accessible as something like the film ET for example, sure, but unsuitable? And "Pete"?! It's the single most obvious example of the show specifically PANDERING to the child market, for heaven's sake. There's no story there, just a load of flopping about like the Tellytubbies and getting into trouble. No adult I know can endure the nonsense of "Pete". Next question? 86.138.62.32 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, those were random examples, chosen purely because, off the top of my head, those were episodes that contained adult themes as plot elements. I know Pete was rubbish, but scenes like the "Boing" scene are clearly not aimed at kids. I'm not saying that watching Red Dwarf could give a kid mental scarring or anything like that, or that the BBC necessarily considered it post-watershed. I'm just emphasising that it was plainly never intended for children. RobbieG 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to you, nobody can *know* Pete is rubbish. It's a matter of opinion, and yours is one I bet loads of eight year olds would disagree with. The "Boing" scene, by the way, is just one of those things that is intended to make accompanying adult(s) laugh. It isn't unsuitable for children - the scene would just go over a child's head. Rather like various gags in the PG film Mrs Doubtfire. I hope I've successfully laid this topic to rest. 81.157.212.118 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you haven't, really. Especially given that the only factual evidence of the suitability of the series is its BBFC classification. Lo and behold, a quick scan of the DVDs reveals that not a single series was classed as less than a 12. As conclusive proof as can be found, I feel, that the programme simply was not written, made or broadcast specifically for children - irrespective of the fact that children may have watched it. Seb Patrick 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples of sitcoms written for children include Press Gang, My Parents are Aliens and Rentaghost. The schedule for these shows is a giveaway - placed in the children's TV slots on their respective channels. Not a slot Red Dwarf has ever been given, or requested. Rob and Doug have repeatedly cited shows like Porridge, MASH and Steptoe and Son as influences. Now, these may be pre-watershed programmes, and they can certainly be watched and understood by children, but they aren't designed for that audience. Ditto more recent primetime sitcoms like 2 Point 4 Children, My Family or My Hero. Similarly, PG films like the pre-89 James Bond series or Liar Liar can certainly be seen and enjoyed by children, but that doesn't make them the primary target. There is a difference between 'suitable for a young audience' and 'aimed at a young audience'.

(As a side note, more episodes of Series VII and VIII recieved individual 12 certificates than in Series I to VI combined. Artistic dicussion, inappropriate here, makes no difference - the fact is the content was deemed LESS suitable to a young audience than ever before.)

It's also important to remember that the nature of the watershed has changed a lot since 1988; the specifics of what could be shown before and after have become a lot more locked down. Content considered unsuitable before 9pm now was available at 8pm then, because the slots were less prescriptive; there was a gradual shifting of tone from 7pm to 11pm. The F word would still have been very, very rare even after 9pm. We can't hold the schedule of the time to present-day standards.193.203.75.243 11:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nub of the matter with the use of the phrase "prime time". This whole "post watershed" discussion only came about because an anonymous user with - I believe - less than noble intent insisted on repeatedly describing the show as a children's programme. This meant that the lead was eventually somewhat compromised by having "post-watershed" put in there as a way of distinguishing it - as can be seen, though, it's by no means an appropriate phrase to describe the series. I think that calling it a "prime-time sitcom", however, would aptly sum up the audience it was pitched at - not specifically late-night, but by no means "for children", either. Seb Patrick 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at when you say "we can't hold the schedule of the time to present-day standards". You mean that if Red Dwarf VIII were being examined for commissioning today (never minding that the BBC have taken a stance against the quality of the latter series and thereby potential future ones), then they probably wouldn't put it in an adult slot because they'd perceive the tone as, in general, aimed directly at children. Thanks for clearing this up - I consider my previous position verified. 81.157.212.188 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "previous position"? That's strange, because the above comment is your first ever contribution to Misplaced Pages. It's rather difficult to sustain an argument, you know, if you're constantly posting under different anonymous IP addresses. Is that because you know that if you actually register an account, instead of hiding behind anonymity, you'll get banned? Also, isn't it strange that this IP address is the same as one that has just done searches for "kirk" and "mr flibble" on G&T? What's going on there? Seb Patrick 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much time on your hands mate. 86.142.44.73 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably, yeah. But you're hardly coming from a privileged position yourself, considering the amount of time you seem to reckon is worthwhile vandalising Misplaced Pages. Seb Patrick 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Only the Red Dwarf article, and I'd stop if you didn't keep reverting my vandalism. Ultimately you need me to do this so that you can do what you love doing, much as virus prevention software companies depend on the continued proliferation of computer viruses. 81.157.213.30 13:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody can seriously argue that the watersheds nowadays are tighter than they were in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Shows like EastEnders (BBC1, prime time slots, sometimes as early as 1600) are considered family viewing despite constantly dealing with adult themes and often showing violent behavior (it has been criticised for showing gangland violence). Here's a typical episode synopsis , that show was broadcast at 2000. Compared to this kind of thing, the knockabout, scatalogical humor of Red Dwarf is very child-friendly. Discussing sex is definitely not a post-watershed matter in the UK, although it may be taboo in some other countries. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have been unclear (now posting from home, BTW). By tighter, I mean that it's more strictly adhered to; it's considered a serious guardrail, particularly to specific language use. This simply wasn't the case in, say, 1990, where the move into swearing, sex and violence was more gradual across the evening, and many things were still held back to 10 or 11pm. The line was drawn wide, shall we say. The watershed has since become more definite, more useful as a clear and definitive marker. This is a different issue from whether TV, as a whole, has become 'more permissive', and able to tackle more overall mature content in an earlier slot - which I concur is happening. But it's really a separate point to the one I was trying to make - which is the way the line has become, out of necessity, more firm. Which is a good thing - it's made it much easier for uncut movies, for example, to get a proper airing. Because a channel can state that it was post-watershed. 20 years ago that wouldn't automatically justify use of the F-word.

None of which relates to Red Dwarf, though. Which I would call 'mostly inoffensive' rather than 'child-friendly'. Nor did I suggest that sexual discussion is de factor a post-watershed issue. 91.104.78.61 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take your hint that we're drifting off the subject. I think that it's best if I go back to the initial discussion, which seemed to relate to somebody's perception that Red Dwarf is a children's show. While it obviously isn't, and many of the broadcasts were post-watershed, I would say that it's widely perceived as a family show which children particularly enjoy. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Family show, maybe, but I don't think we can make even that claim without first providing evidence. I know plenty of people who enjoy Red Dwarf, but none of them is under the age of 15, and some of them are in their 40s. I've yet to meet anyone (outside this webpage) who believes that Red Dwarf is particularly enjoyed by children. RobbieG 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... this is probably more due to the age of Red Dwarf, and the fact it is rarely in the thoughts of today's television viewing audience (outside of specific fan sites of course), let alone the consciousness of today's trendy children. To most people, Red Dwarf remains an obscure programme cemented in the mindset of late eighties and early nineties, for which a hint of nostalgia is experienced whenever it's mentioned in more mainstream settings. I'd say this is the reason that kids aren't into it now, but they also aren't really into the other kids programmes mentioned above like Press Gang and Rentaghost. Something like Rentaghost is available on DVD for people who are now in their 20s-30s, even 40s, not people who are currently under 15. 86.142.44.73 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it's strictly unverifiable, but my kids certainly loved Red Dwarf as very young children. On the question of whether the BBC considered it to be family programming, this has already been established by the fact that it was occasionally broadcast during family viewing slots. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That still confuses 'suitable for' with 'intended for'. Monty Python was something I adored at the age of 12, and it was often shown in a slot I was around for. Doesn't make it a 'family show' - a title which assumes an intention. New Who is a family show, it cultivates that title carefully and knowingly. We have no reason to suppose that Dwarf was made with any such intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.78.61 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't argue that Red Dwarf was ever "intended" for children, or even specifically for family viewing. Perhaps my loose use of "family programming" is at fault. I mean simply "not strictly for post-watershed broadcast." --Tony Sidaway 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all academic. There are people pulling in different directions on this and the views are all equally valid. Until Grant and/or Naylor are interviewed as to their intentions nobody will be able to state either way for sure. 86.142.44.73 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the question at hand is not the wider issue (which we seem to have gravitated towards) but solely, in my view, whether the phrase "post-watershed", which was in the lead section for a while, was justified. On examination of the broadcasting schedule history, I removed that phrase a week or so ago.

As to the history of the phrase "post-watershed", it seems that it was added on 13 March as a compromise after someone inserted into the lead a description of the show as "adult-orientated" (8 February) following this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Product-placement in Red Dwarf?

There's nothing in the article about the placement of products like Pot Noodle in Red Dwarf. Shouldn't this be included? - maybe we could have a section on the budget of the series, and include a sub-section on how they supplemented their BBC allowance with product-placement? Just a thought, mainly because I can't find anything about this elsewhere on the web and it might be useful within the wiki article. 81.151.172.154 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Given how the Pot Noodle was the butt of jokes whenever it appeared on the show (Lister choosing dog food over pot noodle in "Marooned" and expressing amazement at finding an edible pot noodle in "Demons and Angels", for example) I don't think it constitutes product placement. Infringement, maybe. RobbieG 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I always saw its being "the butt of jokes" as product placement of a negative kind, following the logic of the "I Hate Marmite" campaign. -- 86.132.200.17 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Any product references have to be cleared, but the BBC remit doesn't allow for advertising or product placement. If a brand is named, it's for a joke or a reference, never promotion. The line came first, then the clearance - products were never introduced for financial gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.99.38 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So essentially GNP had to clear use of Pot Noodle for episodes of Dwarf, but they wouldn't receive money for putting the product or logo on screen. Thanks for clearing this up. -- 86.132.200.17 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The meteorites embedded in the ship

According to the Re-Dwarf documentary on the Bodysnatcher set, the meteorite didn't just smack into the ship - it is built into it so that the crew can mine it for energy to power the ship. This is why the remastered / series VIII version of the ship is so symmetrical with two of them. You did not know this fact so I win, thankyou! 86.141.194.49 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I always thought that since it was a "Mining" ship that it was carrying it back to earth.. I dont see why it would be needed to power the ship as it has a ram scoop at the front to do this... Not saying your wrong i'm just confused by it. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Re-Dwarf documentary on the Bodysnatcher disc. Up until recently I reasoned that the meteorite had collided with the ship at some point, as the non-remastered version of the ship doesn't make it look as though it's supposed to be there. However the remastered version of the ship has two of them, very symmetrically built into the ship. I always hated this, presuming that they'd still collided with the ship but that the design depicted it really badly. The Re-Dwarf documentary explains that the Red Dwarf crew are mining the meteorites for energy, but it (the documentary) doesn't go into depth. 86.143.182.72 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the 'mining rock' idea was on Ed and Doug's mind for the remastered ship, and the two bays are deliberate and reflect this (Is this news? I thought it was a long-known idea). But, for the original version, it's not a completely locked-down fact for one simple reason - Rob and Doug's first novel, very specifically, discusses the rock attached to the 'old style' Dwarf: " small moon, torn out of orbit, hand flung itself into the ship's solar plexus and was now embedded in the hull". It goes on to discuss the ship's only named surce of fuel - as collected by the Scoop. In interviews in the past, some have also mentioned that the ship was possibly BUILT around the moon, using the solid surface as a starting point for the massive vessel. So everybody's right. 193.203.75.225 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf USA Info

Could anything be added to the Red Dwarf USA section about Robert not telling the other cast members about going over to do the American pilot and Craig being told off the Make-up lady as stated in the Dwarfing USA? I think it caused a bit of a rift with the English actors. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the below topic, can you see why adding this information would be superfluous to the article as a whole? Because this is the kind of extraneous detail that I think should be cut out, not added. 86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we cut the article down a bit?

I know it's not what the contributors want as they're pretty hardcore fans who want every little detail in but this article is ridiculously large and ponderous for people who just want to glean some basic information. Can't it be cut down a bit... or even more substantially than that? 86.143.182.72 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's so ridiculous. Maybe a little trimming wouldn't hurt it, but if you just want some basic information, all you need to read is the intro. Nothing's forcing you to read the rest, since Misplaced Pages is not compulsary reading. Also, if people wanted to include "every little detail", I think they would include literally every single detail. This is a science fiction we're talking about - some fans are just plain obsessive. Just look at the Star Trek and Doctor Who articles: they have whole pages devoted to each story. At least we don't see that for Red Dwarf. RobbieG (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RobbieG. Apart from some trimming up it seems to have come along great. and like Robbie said there are plenty more wiki pages out there that have ridiculous ammount of info in it... after reading the Tardis page I think I could pilot it now --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well personally I think that when people start going in with the "trimming up" scissors they'll start to realise a lot more isn't needed and the article will have the potential to be cut down to a more reasonable length. Probably everyone won't agree what should stay though. I predict a lot of people will just want to keep certain sections because they were themselves responsible for writing them. This is one of the main problems, I think. People aren't being objective. 86.133.167.86 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I can say as only coming to this wiki page now for only a few weeks and not having anything to do with the adding of information only editing is that everything seems to be well balanced out for a show that is full of information. Maybe if enough people start saying the same thing then yes it would be time to go "trimming up" but for now the majority seems to like it. --MattyC3350 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if we can be certain that "the majority" like it the way it is, as RobbieG says he's in support of trimming it, as did you in your post immediately prior to the one above, and you're the only two named people contributing to this thread. How many people would you like to "start saying the same thing" when you're not consistent across your own posts? Majorities are usually "silent" anyway, and whenever anybody tries to trim out bits of the article those edits are reverted as vandalism. It's only for the good of the article that the edits are made but people are so precious about what they've written that nothing objective can be done, in the end the hardcore fans win because they're here every day and get their way. 86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'd rather this article was left alone than have anything major removed. I just don't think it would be a problem if someone wanted to trim it a little, that's all. RobbieG (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Llewellyn's Kryten used to have an English accent!

Haha check out the deleted scenes on the Bodysnatcher set! Llewellyn's Kryten used to have an English accent and make weird Popeye the Sailorman noises with his mouth! Someone please add this fact to the article. 194.66.226.95 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's true that's so random. "I'm programmed not to lie! PHEEEEP!!" 86.135.215.120 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This must be why in DNA they say Kryten is more like Popeye than Deleuze when he says "I am what I am". 86.141.192.151 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Descartes not Deleuze, but yes you're probably right there. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup for peer review nomination

This article is very in depth, sometimes too much. Some sections need to be cleaned up or removed to conform to Misplaced Pages standards.

• Recurring guest characters and Guest actors

Is this needed in the article? After all this info can be found on the List of Red Dwarf episodes.

• Casting

Can someone place appropriate citations here. David Baddiel and Ronnie Barker??

• Hiatus, changes, and disputes

Again a lot of uncited facts. While I know these to be true they still need to be backed up with appropriate citations. If no citations can be found the section may need re-worked.

• Books

Once again citations people.

• Mixed reactions

Guess... Yup, citations.

-- Nreive 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak my language my man! My vote is for complete article deletion. 86.133.10.226 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the article needs improving from its current state, which, although flawed, is still worthy of being here. The whole point of my statement, by pointing out what these minor flaws, is to get editors to improve this article. -- Nreive 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a deadline for this process, and if it isn't met, the article should revert to a much earlier version (ie before all the superfluous details were added). 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a deadline, of what would have to be agreed on, but if the article is reverted to an earlier state then most of the recent citations added would be lost. I suggest that the article is overhauled and cleaned up. I could do this myself, but I would prefer to give the relevant contributing editors a chance to clean up or reference their own work. -- Nreive 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The more recent citations might be lost but then so would the superfluous uncited details themselves. We need to be sure what we want; at the moment the article is bloated and full of details that aren't needed at all, put there by fans whose efforts would be better spent setting up a fan-site for these things. Earlier versions of this article don't have nearly as much peripheral content, and therefore won't require as many citations. I suggest we revert to an earlier version to make the process of adding necessary citations less daunting. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I make a start on this then? Does anyone object if I revert the article to, say, a version from 2005? 86.141.192.164 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. --Lu Ta 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to the suggested restoration date, or to the whole concept of the restoration? I actually quite like this article as and of itself, but it isn't really up to wiki standards as it is, and i for one have nothing like the time to go through it and find (if possible) the relevant citations. It would certainly seem a more sensible approach to go back to a simpler version and then update as appropriate. Ged UK (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class BBC articles
• Mid-importance BBC articles
• WikiProject BBC articles
• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles