New Red Dwarf Series Threatened By the Twitter Era

This is why by QuantumBeep · 2011-01-20 19:12 · Score: 4, Funny

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 19:16 · Score: 0

Nice things? Red Dwarf jumped the shark awhile ago.
Re:This is why by Nursie · 2011-01-20 19:17 · Score: 1

Oh yes. The last series was pretty bad, then the two 'special' episodes were just dreadful.
Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 19:42 · Score: 0

Fine don't watch it, what's it to you
Re:This is why by ratinox · 2011-01-20 20:01 · Score: 3, Informative

If it's not written by the Grant Naylor gestalt entity, then it's not Red Dwarf. That's pretty much why they were so awful...
Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 20:44 · Score: 1

You are absolutely correct and you know what? I don't give a shit. If it's Red Dwarf, I'll watch it.
Re:This is why by Canazza · 2011-01-20 20:48 · Score: 4, Informative

The jump to the Starbug-only stories in Series 6 is where it started to fumble, but the writing was still high quality and they made a none-the-less fun show out of it. Series 7 is where the writing team split, and you can tell. There's less jokes and more sci-fi. It's also evident by the tie-in novels. Rob Grant (the funny one) wrote Backwards, which is by far and away the better one, focusing less on the sci-fi elements and more on the characters. Doug Naylors "Last Human" was very sci-fi heavy (soft sci-fi, but still sci-fi), very dramatic, quite dark and in some parts, it didn't "Feel" like Red Dwarf, atleast until Series 7 came along, then it did feel like it.
Despite the 2 multi-parters knocking a series 8 from 8 episodes down to 5 from the usual 6, I still liked it. They backtracked slightly towards the feel of series 1, with more prison gags, while keeping the action-oriented storylines. It was a nice balance. Then they threw it out the window for Back To Earth which, to me, was Red Dwarfs "Star Trek V" moment. I hope the next series will be our Star Trek VI moment, and that we won't end up with a Generations moment when they kill the cast off.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:This is why by TheoGB · 2011-01-20 20:56 · Score: 1

I'm a big fan of the 6th series, mainly because they introduced some more sci-elements to their stories. It really felt like the 7th series would have been quite amazing had it come out with the usual writers.
Re:This is why by Nursie · 2011-01-20 21:18 · Score: 2

Well yeah, me too. I mean, there's always hope, right?
And even if it's rubbish, there are going to be a few decent moments. maybe, hopefully, possibly?
Re:This is why by FTWinston · 2011-01-20 22:39 · Score: 1

FYI, Star Trek 5 >> Back To Earth. In every way, including comedy value.
Re:This is why by abigsmurf · 2011-01-20 22:39 · Score: 1

I intensely disliked Last Human. The Red Dwarf characters felt shoehorned in (Cat is the prime example, he disappears for large sections of the book and isn't involved in any part of the story) and was just a bland scifi story. Don't quite understand Naylor's need to put Kochanski in everything.

Infinity welcomes careful drivers, Better than life and Backwards are all great books though, well worth reading. I'd rank them close to H2G2, a bit more lowbrow but still funny.
Re:This is why by Canazza · 2011-01-20 23:08 · Score: 1

You read Colony? Rob Grants solo book? Suitably dark AND funny. It's still a group of idiot misfits suck in deep space, but it's a decent read.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:This is why by AmiMoJo · 2011-01-20 23:11 · Score: 2

What made Red Dwarf good was the 80s British humour, the fact that nothing had really changed much in the future and so the jokes revolved around modern life situations.
For anyone who doesn't know before the 80s a lot of British humour was basically racist, sexist or based on some other kind of prejudice/stereotype. Then a new generation of comedians came along who did observational jokes. Ben Elton is one of the most well known. Red Dwarf was a refinement of earlier concepts like The Young Ones, Lister basically being an older version of the unwashed student who lives off beer and curry and Rimmer being the up tight one who takes it too seriously. I was surprised at how popular the show became in the US since many of the jokes were based on British culture and society.
The sci-fi stuff did work, but only because it was still basically bachelors in space. It was character driven rather than plot driven.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 23:24 · Score: 0

Smeg!
Re:This is why by Apatharch · 2011-01-20 23:48 · Score: 1

The trouble is it hasn't been Red Dwarf since series 6.
Re:This is why by Canazza · 2011-01-21 00:21 · Score: 1

We actually had a "Welcome Back Red Dwarf" party when Back To Earth was shown. We had about 10 people round to watch the first episode. No-one turned up for episode two.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:This is why by stevey · 2011-01-21 00:22 · Score: 1

There were three special episodes - I know because I watched the first two and skipped the last (exactly as I did with the Star Wars prequels!)
Although I love the early series 1-4, 5 at a push, it had changed a lot since the writer split and I just lost interest.
Re:This is why by dwarfsoft · 2011-01-21 00:43 · Score: 1

No, there were NO Special episodes... I refuse to believe that what I watched was in any way associated with Red Dwarf. Now let us all forget that this ever happened.

--
Cheers, Chris
Re:This is why by Dogtanian · 2011-01-21 01:04 · Score: 1

Nicely said. The early Red Dwarfs were primarily comedies that used "sci fi" (which often didn't bear scrutiny, but who cared) to drive the comic situations.

It suffered later on, when they started to lose sight of this and you get the impression that they were writing a humorous sci-fi show (note the change of focus) that didn't bear scrutiny, and wasn't as funny as it used to be.

I suspect the most geeky, obsessive hardcore fans liked the sci-fi aspects (whereas those who enjoyed it for the comedy were likely to be less obsessive) so "pushed" the writers into moving it in that direction too, both parties kind of missing the point.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:This is why by TheoGB · 2011-01-21 01:06 · Score: 1

I think that's mainly true of the first two series, isn't it? Series 3-6 don't really rely nearly as much on the sort of comedy you're talking about and in fact I seem to remember the BBC barely acknowledged 1 and 2 existed when it came to repeats for years.
Re:This is why by TheoGB · 2011-01-21 01:07 · Score: 1

Revenge of the Sith is the only half-decent Star Wars prequel in my view.
Re:This is why by SteveFoerster · 2011-01-21 01:38 · Score: 1

People always shit all over Star Trek V, but I really liked it. Many of the episodes of the old show had quirky stories that weren't afraid to achieve that interestingness through a callous disregard for making sense, and so did Star Trek V.
Rereading that, it doesn't sound like praise, but it is.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Re:This is why by KevinColyer · 2011-01-21 01:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I always thought viral marketing was a good thing?
Re:This is why by TheLink · 2011-01-21 03:01 · Score: 1

I haven't really been watching Red Dwarf since more than 15 years ago.
But I found this more recent bit funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU
Is that from Back to Earth?
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:This is why by Locke2005 · 2011-01-21 06:09 · Score: 1

Then they threw it out the window for Back To Earth which, to me, was Red Dwarfs "Star Trek V" moment. I hope the next series will be our Star Trek VI moment, and that we won't end up with a Generations moment when they kill the cast off.
Yeah, they should get Leonard Nimoy to direct it...

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:This is why by hedwards · 2011-01-21 06:49 · Score: 1

Only when necessary. Early on this would've been well appreciated, but at this point, they don't need it. I think the bigger concern is people posting spoilers. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the fact that the local PBS station brought Red Dwarf to Seattle was more or less what it took to convince the BBC to continue after series 2.

But, that was a different era, they were being ignored by the media pretty much locally and the sense that anybody would compare it at all with Monty Python really wasn't there at the time.
Re:This is why by hedwards · 2011-01-21 06:56 · Score: 1

I'm not. That show basically came to KCTS 9 in Seattle first where there was a fair amount of British comedy being shown. I remember when I was a kid seeing Benny Hill and Monty Python. At that point in time, Seattle was starting to heat up as a cultural center in the US, within a year or two grunge really kicked off and that's that.

I remember watching it in either '89 or '90 and thinking that the whole thing was brilliant. At that point that was either the first or second year that they were airing episodes. I'm guessing that the pledges during that drive really came in because it resulted in one of the station representatives placing a call over to the producer asking for more. (Reading between the lines a bit there, not sure what station that call was placed by, but that seems most likely)
Re:This is why by hedwards · 2011-01-21 07:01 · Score: 1

Personally, I watched it the first or second time it was shown in the US, and I'll watch pretty much whatever crap they choose to cram in there. I didn't particularly care for seasons 8 and 9 or the most recent venture, but I watched anyways. It's just something that I'm way too attached to to give up, and even those episodes weren't bad, they just didn't really keep with the rest of the feel of the show.
Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 07:27 · Score: 1

I was there for the live studio recording of Polymorph 2 - a great 3 hours watching Dwayne Dibley and Ace Rimmer with Chris Barrie occasionally lapsing into Gordon Brittas too.
Re:This is why by david.a.judge · 2011-01-21 09:39 · Score: 1

"I hope the police don't catch us. They don't like it when you're rat arsed"
Re:This is why by Dogtanian · 2011-01-21 10:31 · Score: 1

I seem to remember the BBC barely acknowledged 1 and 2 existed when it came to repeats for years.
No, series 2 was definitely repeated early on- I started watching halfway through series 2, then saw what I thought was a new series... then they got to the episodes I'd already seen and I realised it was a repeat.

AFAIK, series 1 on the other hand definitely wasn't repeated for quite a number of years, but that was at the creators' request. "At the insistence of the creators, Red Dwarf II broke with BBC tradition and was shown without a repeat of Series I. Feeling let down by so much of the first series, Grant and Naylor shot straight in with the brand new season". I personally didn't see it until (IIRC) they repeated it in 1994.

I assume that by that point it was safe to repeat it, as the show's identity had been established and a fanbase built up.

Series 1 does feel a bit different. I don't know if that's because I didn't see it when it first went out. (*) But the "last man alive" sense of isolation- probably combined with the horrible grey set- gives it a more claustrophobic and downbeat feel. Some aspects which appear in it are less prominent or absent altogether in subsequent series (and some later features aren't included here). I'd also say that while the later series don't seem as old as they are, the first one *does* feel like a show that's well over 20 years old- slightly older if anything, reminiscent of late-70s/early-80s BBC sci-fi production values. Not awful, just more dated. (**)

Anyway, IMHO series 2 is still where it came together properly, and much closer to subsequent series than it is to the first.

(*) IMHO, if you first see something when it first went out, you remember and judge it that way, when it was fresh, and that stays in your memory when you re-watch it. If you see something a few years later, out of context, it's possible that it doesn't get the same "free pass". It's notable that I saw series 2 to 6 all in order when they went out, and series 1 *after* that, not when it- and the show- was new.
(**) Again, this could be bias on my part, not having seen it when it first went out.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:This is why by Dogtanian · 2011-01-21 10:41 · Score: 1

The trouble is it hasn't been Red Dwarf since series 6.
Well, of course it hasn't. They haven't made any new episodes since then.

I keep hearing all those odd stories about a series 7 or 8, but they're obviously false because there was no series 7 or 8.

I mean, that's a mixed blessing. If there had been a series 7 or 8 and they'd been good, that'd have been great. But if they'd sucked, I'd have had to brainwash myself into thinking that they'd never existed, and that would be terrible, so it's a good job that they never existed!

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:59 · Score: 0

They could film all but the last important bit in front of a live audience. I despise canned laughter and live audiences if I want to listen to the laughter of an audience I'll bludgeon drunks in front of the police station down the block, cops love it.
Re:This is why by Hognoxious · 2011-01-21 21:30 · Score: 1

Lister basically being an older version of the unwashed student who lives off beer and curry and Rimmer being the up tight one who takes it too seriously.
Yeah, that'd never work in the US. If only Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau were still alive...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Spoiler Alert by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 19:16 · Score: 1

Those that want the show spoiled will have the show spoiled, those that don't (which you can be assured is the majority of viewers) won't view any spoilers.

Why are you even concerned?

captcha: sequel

Re:Spoiler Alert by Hognoxious · 2011-01-20 20:33 · Score: 1

Spoiler alerts violate the first amendment, Jimmy Wales says so!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Spoiler Alert by Opportunist · 2011-01-21 00:37 · Score: 2

That was pretty much my first thought, too. Why should I want to read spoilers if I follow a show? Sure, I want to know how it continues, how that cliffhanger resolves, but I want to see it unfold.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Spoiler Alert by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 01:27 · Score: 0

There even used to be a little script you could install that automatically hid marked spoilers. Now it's simply impossible to look up anything related to a new show on Wikipedia.
Re:Spoiler Alert by Hognoxious · 2011-01-21 21:17 · Score: 1

Of course that would rely on posters marking them as such in the first place.
But no, that's CENZ0ARSH1P like Hitler used to do!!ONEeleventyoneomg!!!!!, or so they say.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

duh by psavo · 2011-01-20 19:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

How far into retardoland can these fucks get? It's like "oh no, artists can't do tours anymore since anyone can post their performance online".

--
fucktard is a tenderhearted description

Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 20:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pretty sure they're more worried about spoilers.
Re:duh by cgenman · 2011-01-20 20:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anyone who watches Red Dwarf for the plot is missing the point. It's like watching Twilight for the sex. All that can really get out of a pre-screener like this are a few good jokes, which should hopefully convince the potential viewer to tune in anyway.
Movies have dealt with this for years. It's called Some-Of-Your-Audience-Sees-It-Before-The-Rest. Movies are still good movies. Red Dwarf will survive.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:duh by JunkmanUK · 2011-01-20 21:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Some-Of-Your-Audience-Sees-It-Before-The-Rest"
The point they're making is that there is a vast difference between 'Some" and "Most". It is possible to send footage, commentary almost instantly to hundreds of thousands of people in this modern world. This wasn't the case 10-15 years ago.
Maybe this is the reason modern TV series filmed in front of audiences are so bland, is because if there were any twists some dickhead will always feel the need to shout it to the world through the many social media options available to them.
Personally I've never understood (and never cared enough, really) why TV magazines insist on telling the reader what is due to take place in their soap of choice over the coming week.
Are people really unable to WAIT for anything any more? What is the achievement to be made from demonstrating that you know what happens in a TV programme, film or game?
Re:duh by bloodhawk · 2011-01-20 21:52 · Score: 4, Funny

You WATCHED twilight? seriously?
Re:duh by HungryHobo · 2011-01-20 21:58 · Score: 1

It really isn't that big a deal though.
I went to see "Avenue Q" a while back having no idea what it was.
I did recognise one of the songs "the internet is for porn" though which had become a bit of a meme.
when I got home I looked it up and found a whole pile of shaky phone camera videos of the show which were years old.
yet they in no way detracted from my enjoyment of the show when I first saw it.
Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 22:19 · Score: 0

Yeah, me and my band "El blizzardo" stopped touring for exactly this reason. We are now going to sue Twitter for a huge sum of money since we were forced to stop touring before we even had a chance to get famous.
Re:duh by JohnG · 2011-01-21 00:46 · Score: 1

I think the point he was trying to make is that there is no difference between a studio audience of hundreds watching a show live then tweeting spoilers and thousands of people going to the first screening of a movie and doing the same. I don't think your some instead of most logic takes this into account. Unless you are suggesting that most people who see a move go to the very first showing. Or that the amount at that first showing all across the nation is miniscule compared to the amount of people in a studio audience.
Re:duh by smooth+wombat · 2011-01-21 01:19 · Score: 1

Are people really unable to WAIT for anything any more?

Judging by the number of people on here who make it a point to whine about how they have to wait X days, weeks or months to see a tv show or movie which is shown in one part of the world but not another, and who go out of their way to find a torrent or some other pirated means to watch said show before it is available in their area, I'd say the answer is no.

When combined with the number of people who use texting or IM almost exclusively to communicate rather than e-mail or phone because the latter two are more immediate, that pretty much closes the subject.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 02:12 · Score: 0

On fast forward, apparently
Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 02:23 · Score: 0

I heard there are still sects of self-flagellating people here and there around the world, and Twilight makes that more believable.
Re:duh by gl4ss · 2011-01-21 02:24 · Score: 1

yeah but I wouldn't even know that they were going to film it if they hadn't used the magic of mentioning twitter to promote their show.
seriously though, who cares? don't they have any confidence in what they're producing?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:duh by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:10 · Score: 1

I'd watch it with Rifftrax.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:duh by cavebison · 2011-01-22 17:54 · Score: 1

Personally I've never understood (and never cared enough, really) why TV magazines insist on telling the reader what is due to take place in their soap of choice over the coming week.
Particularly that practice, like in Battlestar Galactica, where "next week in Battlestar Galactica" was such a mash up of disparate scenes that watching it really gave you no idea what was going to happen anyway. Very weird.
Re:duh by dannys42 · 2011-01-24 05:57 · Score: 1

I don't get what the problem is. Yeah, you might have a few die hards that skip ahead, but I think most people actually want to take the full journey of the show from the comfort of their living room, not youtube shakey cam.
As for spoilers, I don't see that as a problem either. I know plenty of die hard Lost fans that would DVR the show and watch "as soon as they could." But sometimes that could be a few days after it aired, after everyone else in the world has seen it and is talking about it. But they'd still go about, trying to avoid the spoilers until they could watch the show themselves.
The worst thing that'll happen is you generate buzz... lots of people talking about "I can't believe they did that!" or whatever... If the worst thing that happens is you become hugely popular like this... well I'd gladly take that problem off your hands.

In other news... by Gadget_Guy · 2011-01-20 19:19 · Score: 1, Funny

Even more shocking is that the new series might be doomed because of a sensationalist headline on slashdot!

The fact that they are doing the new series is worthy enough news, you don't need to build up a non-existing story to promote it. Even the summary shows what a crock the headline is when it says that one of the show's actors was "wary of the practicality of it". If it was such a concern, then they could just not film it in front of an audience.

Re:In other news... by JunkmanUK · 2011-01-20 21:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except that the perceived downfall of Red Dwarf ties in with the omission of the studio audience.
It has long been touted by comedy writers such as Richard Curtis (Blackadder) that a studio audience gives them a very solid gauge of what is working and gives them feedback on how things could be done better.
Plus, news that "there will be a new series of Red Dwarf" is one for the TV websites. A story on a technology site about concerns about social media accessibility and it's effect on TV series production is totally appropriate in my view.
Re:In other news... by abigsmurf · 2011-01-20 22:42 · Score: 1

Studio audiences get a lot of stick but Red Dwarf is proof that it can improve series. The mini series just felt a bit soul-less without the studio and the interplay between characters didn't work. Of course the fact it was an overly mawkish not-as-funny-as-it-should be Blade Runner parody didn't help either.
Re:In other news... by Gadget_Guy · 2011-01-21 00:35 · Score: 1

I suspect that they did actually have a studio audience, but they gave the show as much laughter as it deserved. As soon as you go so self-referential as the mini series did, then it becomes more cringeworthy than funny. It just looks line a fanfic film.
I think that if you get to the stage of hearing the audience response before finding out if something is funny, then you aren't making a masterpiece. But what would I know? My favourite seasons were 1 and 2, which most people think were the worst. It was before they got the fancy special effects and had to make stories with a heart rather than moster-of-the-week material.
Re:In other news... by dbIII · 2011-01-21 00:58 · Score: 1

The mini series just felt a bit soul-less
I'm reliably informed that there's never been a Corination Street crossover (which is what it was) that was worth watching. Even a Dr Who one with Leela in it fell flat.
The final series with the prison jokes wasn't their best but was certainly picking up towards the end.
Re:In other news... by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:19 · Score: 1

My favourite seasons were 1 and 2, which most people think were the worst.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to the first 2 series as anything but the best, so I'm sure you're in the majority there.
I agree that the early series were better, but I've liked them all. My 14-year-old son is rabid Red Dwarf fan, and my other kids like it too, which makes watching it lot more fun. There were definitely things about Seasons 7 and 8 that made them not as good (e.g., no audience), but there was still a lot of great stuff about them. And I don't care what anyone says, "Stoke Me A Clipper" was one of the best episodes of the show.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Faraday Cage? by RyanFenton · 2011-01-20 19:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would it be plausible to record in a Faraday Cage or equivalent, negating both cell phone and internet device access for the duration of the recording?

I can understand the appeal of actors being able to react subtly to the audience - but I always found the blurts of audience sounds annoying - ESPECIALLY in shows with canned laughter or artificially "enhanced" audience reactions.

Red Dwarf seems like it would be better with a smaller audience of insiders anyway - comedians playing to other comedians are always filthier, funnier, and less self-censoring, and I think that would be a better result.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Faraday Cage? by Cwix · 2011-01-20 19:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

A faraday cage isn't going to stop them from actually recording it on their phone and uploading it later.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Faraday Cage? by Aranykai · 2011-01-20 19:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Supposing we built a large wooden badger...

--
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Re:Faraday Cage? by TheSpoom · 2011-01-20 19:48 · Score: 1

I foresee an EMP device entering into the picture at some point.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Faraday Cage? by reezle · 2011-01-20 20:26 · Score: 2

No, since they would record and post later, the only sensible solution is metal detectors at the gate.
Perhaps the TSA could join the production?
Re:Faraday Cage? by mug+funky · 2011-01-20 20:38 · Score: 1

this.
it might be tricky with things like radio mics and such, but i can imagine they can hide the gear in a quiet corner inside the cage. i'm surprised the faraday cage thing hasn't been done at many other venues where mobile phones are an annoyance.
of course they could post the scripts online before taping, or release artwork, modes, stills or synopses before the fact where, while not giving anything away, provide a value-add and enough of an appetizer to prevent people spoiling it.
i think the main fandom will not particularly want to watch the show as taped on an iPhone by an amateur without the context of the final cut-together show with VFX and enough editing to hide the goofs.
producers (rather, those working under them) need to start promoting creative ways around a technological problem. then they might create new revenue streams rather than "losing" money and control to a studio audience.
also... if the show manages to screen, the tweets will be coming at the same time as the show is. who's gonna watch twitter rather than the show?
Re:Faraday Cage? by Canazza · 2011-01-20 20:50 · Score: 1

Also, health and safety wouldn't allow it nowadays. You have to be able to call emergency services and a faraday cage would block that. Same goes for cinemas.

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:Faraday Cage? by TheoGB · 2011-01-20 20:59 · Score: 1

Unless they also have some sort of brain-wiping techniques it's still not going to stop someone Tweeting about it later.
Re:Faraday Cage? by Captain+Hook · 2011-01-20 21:24 · Score: 1

Even then, it doesn't stop the audience just remembering what they saw and typing it up later. If they feel the storyline needs to be a surprise at the time of broadcast, then they need to make everyone in the audience sign an NDA (easy) and have a reasonable expection that no one will break the NDA (nowhere near as easy)

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Faraday Cage? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 21:25 · Score: 0

Yes, and the people who see the show being filmed should be required to walk around inside their personal soundproofed Faraday cage until the episode airs.....
Re:Faraday Cage? by Wagoo · 2011-01-21 01:31 · Score: 1

No problem! EMP induced forced epileptic fits as they pass through the exit gate, to wipe their short term memories!
In all seriousness: you got a real sense of the fun that was had on set by watching the Smeg Ups/Smeg Outs out-take videos. I'm sure studio audiences had things like mailing lists and cameras back in the 90s, but they also had respect enough not to spoil their fellow dwarfers constantly.
PS: Rimmer is Lister's father!!!!!11
Re:Faraday Cage? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 03:40 · Score: 0

Yes, that's definitely the most controversial part of the tapings. You'll find out more when they release next year's making-of documentary, "Red Dwarf: A One-Way Trip".
Re:Faraday Cage? by ErikZ · 2011-01-21 04:49 · Score: 1

This Faraday cage is also equipped with chainsaws, which activate after all the laughter is extracted from the audience.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:Faraday Cage? by hedwards · 2011-01-21 07:04 · Score: 1

Just hire the TSA to do security. Sure most people won't go in, but you'll be damned sure that they aren't smuggling in a recording device in their colon.
Re:Faraday Cage? by Scrameustache · 2011-01-21 07:30 · Score: 1

No, since they would record and post later, the only sensible solution is metal detectors
I don't know about 'sensible', but I like the sound of "Filmed before a nude studio audience" ;-)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Faraday Cage? by noidentity · 2011-01-21 09:18 · Score: 1

Fine, a Faraday cage and an EMP before they leave.
Re:Faraday Cage? by david.a.judge · 2011-01-21 09:44 · Score: 1

Possibly inside a large microwave oven?
Re:Faraday Cage? by Cwix · 2011-01-21 09:57 · Score: 1

The faraday cage might protect them from the emp though.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Faraday Cage? by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:21 · Score: 1

Burns: Smithers I've said too much, get out the mind eraser device.
Smithers: You mean the revolver, sir?
Burns: Precisely, and when you're through, make sure you erase your memory, too.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Oh no free advertising! by Graymalkin · 2011-01-20 19:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

All Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube posts will do is generate extra hype for the show at no extra cost to the producers. No one is going to watch a shitty YouTube cell phone capture instead of the actual show. Free advertising is always good and word of mouth is extremely valuable. If someone sees a commercial for a TV show they just file that away with all the other advertising they ignore. If they get the pitch from someone they know or better someone with similar interests they're way more likely to pay attention. If I was making a TV show I'd beg my audience to talk about it on every channel they had available.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:Oh no free advertising! by Aranykai · 2011-01-20 19:37 · Score: 2

Absolutely. Leaked punch lines and secrets are only going to server to generate publicity. If anything, I would chose to film the first ones live, even if the rest of the series wouldn't be.

--
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Re:Oh no free advertising! by TheoGB · 2011-01-20 21:00 · Score: 1

The trailers will spoil more jokes than a dozen Twitter/Facebook feeds ever could.
Re:Oh no free advertising! by Tim+C · 2011-01-20 21:41 · Score: 1

They're not worried about piracy, they're worried about spoilers.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Oh no free advertising! by Threni · 2011-01-20 21:54 · Score: 1

They're probably afraid that people will report that this series will suck even more than the last few. I remember reading the first book over 20 years ago. It was pretty good, but I think we've all had our fill of both Alien and the time travel storylines by now, haven't we?
Re:Oh no free advertising! by TapeCutter · 2011-01-20 23:01 · Score: 1

"If I was making a TV show I'd beg my audience to talk about it on every channel they had available."

Seems to me that's exactly what they are doing, it also seems to be working.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Oh no free advertising! by halcyon1234 · 2011-01-21 02:22 · Score: 1

I think they should take the "ice cream shop employee" approach. Give them as much filming and twittering as they want until they're sick of it.

The first scene they film should be the one they'd release as a trailer anyways. Address the audience with "I know you all want to film and share this, and we wouldn't want you to have to spend the whole show fumbling with a cell instead of watching. So how's this sound? Anyone here want to do a bit of recording? Alright, for this scene we've blocked it so you all can stand here, here, here or here. Who wants to? Hands up, alright, come on down. Don't worry, we'll save your seats for you. Everyone in place? Action."

Instead of forcing people to try to sneak a film, bring them right out into the open and let them get their fill. Make the scene one that's good for a trailer-- funny, no spoilers, etc. Then once that's over, everyone can go back to their seats and almost all of them will be happy to have a) been involved and b) gotten a chance to grab a memoir/exclusive vid/whatever.

Yes, some people will still film after that, but there'll be far fewer. You can easily ignore them, or politely ask them not to. Yes, people will still talk about the taping afterwards. But you won't ever stop that. People who shout spoilers will be listened to by people who want to hear them, and shunned by those who don't. It's self-regulating.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again

Geez it's like there was by BlackBloq · 2011-01-20 19:36 · Score: 1

five extras in Spiderman.. so no worries there.

I am VERY cross... by Mr.+Flibble · 2011-01-20 19:38 · Score: 4, Funny

I am very cross. You shouldn't have run away from me. What are we going to do with those twitter posters?

I have an idea, but who would clean up the mess?

--
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!

Re:I am VERY cross... by Damek · 2011-01-21 03:30 · Score: 1

I bow to your low Slashdot ID. You've waited a long time to make this joke, haven't you?

So what? Take advantage of this... by Vegan+Cyclist · 2011-01-20 19:42 · Score: 0

Maybe this could be a neat twist..several advantages can come from this, not to mention free advertising.

Writers could get creative, and write a few extra scenes, some make it in the show, some don't, etc.. So what people Tweet or share may never even appear, etc..

I dunno, it's 2011, stop making it all doom and gloom about technology. I thought Red Dwarf was a sci fi comedy...?

Good by Turn-X+Alphonse · 2011-01-20 19:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Red Dwarf is a classic Sci Fi series and something I grew up on and still enjoy today, but it is clearly a series that doesn't work any more. They tried to revive it before when they did a mini series and it was by far the worst episode(s) of the entire thing.

People always cry for remakes and updated versions of older TV series, but some things just don't work in the current climate. Doctor Who is a prime example of a TV series that doesn't work in the modern climate, so when it was brought back it was massively retoned to suit modern TV. But Red Dwarf can't be retoned, when they tried it, it just didn't work. Some times you just need a budget of £10 an episode and a dude wearing a spandex suit rather than massive CGI scenes and unlimited funds.

Red Dwarf is an all time classic and something I hope anything I spawn will get to watch and enjoy as I did, but it feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago.

--
I like muppets.

Re:Good by zmollusc · 2011-01-20 19:54 · Score: 1

I seriously don't understand what you mean by 'doesn't work any more'.
If they have actually got some funny scripts then hurrah. I think it was the material, not the format, which spoiled the specials.

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Re:Good by VVrath · 2011-01-20 20:23 · Score: 4, Informative

[I]t feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago.
Craig Charles has been on the UK soap Coronation Street since 2005. Given it's one of the most popular shows on UK TV, I'd say his career has significantly improved since the days of Red Dwarf.
Re:Good by muridae · 2011-01-20 20:25 · Score: 1

I don't understand the desire to leave shows like this untouched. It is like some collecting impulse where a fan can not bear the actors coming back for another season because it might ruin the value of what they have already. The actors get paid, we get a new season of a show we like/love/hate. Everybody wins in this regard. Except the smeg heads who hate Red Dwarf.
Re:Good by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-01-20 20:51 · Score: 1

In the land where soap operas receive more respect than science comedies, perhaps. That's a pretty fucked-up place, in my opinion.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Good by Mendy · 2011-01-20 21:07 · Score: 2

I seriously don't understand what you mean by 'doesn't work any more'.
Since Rob Grant ceased to be involved with the writing (after series 6) the quality of the episodes has been generally poor. As it's now been over 10 years since the series was on (Dave specials excluded) they would likely have to assume viewers weren't familiar with the characters and do a lot of work setting up their personas which might bore fans of the existing episodes. The writers may also struggle to come up with anything new to write about after 8 series as they can't cover "relationship humour" without adding a woman and breaking the "blokes in spaaaaaaaace" thing.
I also think they'd need a new Cat, unfortunately Danny John-Jules is getting a bit too old now to be convincing in the "Cool" role.
Re:Good by geordieboozer · 2011-01-20 21:09 · Score: 0

plus he hosts his own radio 6 show The Craig Charles Funk Show
Re:Good by 6031769 · 2011-01-20 21:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with ratings. Welcome to TVland.

--
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Re:Good by jimicus · 2011-01-20 21:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Probably because the last time they touched it since the end of series 6, they messed it up horrifically.
Series 1 was not fantastic, but then both the writers and the actors were still finding their feet. Series 2 was OK, but it definitely needed the refreshment that took place at the beginning of series 3.
4 and 5 were also great series. By series 6, however, it was pretty obvious they were running out of gags. 7 and 8... ugh.
Then they remastered series 1 and 2. The net result was:
Scene 1 - characters sat around wearing grey boiler suits on a grey set which was obviously cobbled together some time in the 1980's from a bit of scrap wood and a special deal on grey paint.
Scene 2 - characters wandering around a fantastically cheap grey set.
Cut to swishy modern CGI spaceship animation with lots of colour and pretty FX. Maybe a starfield in the background and a few bright colourful planets.
Scene 3 - character walks in on a cheap & nasty grey set.
The mental jarring was painful.
Then they did "Back to Earth". I couldn't watch that through, it was so bad, and I don't think I'm alone.
Re:Good by bloodhawk · 2011-01-20 21:57 · Score: 1

but it is clearly a series that doesn't work any more.
The show, the comedy, the characters all work fine, all the 3 episode special proved is that if you use a shitty script it will still stink regardless of the quality of the cast and how much the series is loved. The original series still works today extremely well, it is one of the few comedy series I can watch over and still enjoy the humor.
Re:Good by Xest · 2011-01-20 22:51 · Score: 2

That land being the whole world you mean?
Shit like Coronation Street, Friends, Sex and the City has always rated better than science comedies simply because there are more brainless drones in the world than there are people who appreciate science enough to get the jokes in science comedies.
It doesn't matter where you are, mass market stuff that anyone can get into is always going to do better than more targetted sciency stuff.
Re:Good by TheRaven64 · 2011-01-20 23:01 · Score: 1

I don't think anyone minds them bringing it back, in theory. It's just that they've already tried it twice and it sucked both times. Now it's pretty clear that they're doing it for one more chance to milk an existing franchise because they've run out of original ideas. If I thought that they were bringing it back to produce something good, I'd be excited. I disregarded the reviews of the last one and watched it anyway, and didn't laugh once for the entire two hours of 'comedy'. Rewatching some of the old episodes, I still laugh even though a lot of the jokes are really dated now. Given the choice, I'd rather see something new and original than a crappy attempt to extend a series that's dead.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Good by funkatron · 2011-01-20 23:02 · Score: 2

Soaps are the closest an actor can get to a steady salaried job. Career wise, that's a lot better than doing odd comedy shows here and there and always having to look for the next role for when your current season finishes. Granted, most comedy is far more watchable than corrie but settling into a soap is probably a good way for an actor to go.

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:Good by Xest · 2011-01-20 23:26 · Score: 1

"but it feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago."
To be fair on the guy, back in the 90s during Red Dwarf's peak he was victim of a false rape allegation which delayed the later series and harmed the ratings somewhat as a result. After that he seemed to dissapear from public view somewhat.
Still, since 2005 he's been on the UK's longest runnning, most popular, and regular award winning prime time soap which, unlike American ongoing soaps are held in much higher regard here, and have much higher audiences proportional to population differences. This largely came about with the British terrestrial TV system which for years meant there was only 5 main channels and cable/sky TV with hundreds of channels was much less common. Whilst we have more channels today via Freeview the original channels have kept their status as being generally seen as the better quality channels, so getting a role on a soap on one of these channels is really a sign of success- to give an example, Ian McKellen that played Gandelf in Lord of the Rings took up a short storyline in the same soap that Craig Charles is in just a few years ago only shortly after the success of the LotR movies.
Craig Charles also has a radio DJ show on a popular radio channel in the UK.
So he may not have moved on to say, Hollywood movies, and given the setbacks he's seen in terms of the false rape allegation over the years he's done pretty well for himself, certainly you can guarantee he's far more widely known now for his Coronation Street role, and far better paid than he will have been for Red Dwarf, as good as it was.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 00:07 · Score: 1

I also think they'd need a new Cat, unfortunately Danny John-Jules is getting a bit too old now to be convincing in the "Cool" role.
Oh hell no, Danny is perfectly fine in it. He was as brilliant as always in the 3 parter special.
It just seemed off because there was no laugh score.
The whole cast seemed lesser without the laugh score as well because it was in the whole series besides those 3 episodes.
Re:Good by delinear · 2011-01-21 00:29 · Score: 2

The sets were meant to be cheap and nasty and grey. The whole premise was that these guys were living what would seem to be the dream life to many, visiting faraway planets on a mining ship the size of a city with advanced AI, yet to them it was just a tedious day job. The original plan was to tone it down even more - you wouldn't even know they were on a spaceship, it was meant to just look like any corridor in any office in the country. The mental jarring between the boring scenery inside and the stunning space scenes outside was always intentional and the juxtaposition of "these guys could be having this exact conversation in the coffee room where I work... and now suddenly they're being chased by a murderous polymorph" was the source of at least some of the humour.
Totally agree on Back to Earth - it just didn't feel Red Dwarf, although I can understand what they were trying to do (apparently an homage to Blade Runner as it was one of the key inspirations to the series). I have a muted sense of apprehension about any future series being closer to Back to Earth than the early-to-mid series.
Re:Good by FlopEJoe · 2011-01-21 00:34 · Score: 1

Re-imagine it! Lister... now a gritty, edgy, cigar smoking, tattoo armed, blond babe. The cat can be a gruff, bald, alcoholic, XO who re-finds his wife. Cryton will still be a robot but, get this, look like a human. It can work, man!
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 01:01 · Score: 0

... I hope anything I spawn will get to watch...
Oh no, you're iSpawn kids will be too cool to watch red dwarf
Re:Good by TheoGB · 2011-01-21 01:16 · Score: 1

He was specifically talking about the 'remaster' when he said about the 'jarring'. If you're actually defending those then you've gone beyond the Lucas defence field and there may be no helping you!
Re:Good by Xest · 2011-01-21 01:28 · Score: 2

Particularly in the UK where soaps are much higher quality productions and are held to a much higher standard than in North America, and particularly as UK series tend to be short (maybe only 7/8 episodes rather than the US' usual ~22 - 24 episodes).
Working in a soap, particularly one like Coronation Street which is about the longest running soap going and regularly wins awards is good work in the UK, not only is the salary regular but it's high too.
As I pointed out elsewhere, you can be sure that Craig Charles is earning far more and is far better known now, than he will have been when he did Red Dwarf.
Re:Good by Belial6 · 2011-01-21 05:32 · Score: 1

Ohhhhh....Ohhhhh!!!!! And don't forget to have the tall hot chick '7' from voyager, but since we don't want it to look like a rip off of another horrible show, we will disguise that it is the same character by changing her name to another number. How about '12'? Yeah, if we changer her name to 12, no one will notice!
Re:Good by hedwards · 2011-01-21 07:13 · Score: 1

No, they weren't. In the commentary it was made quite clear that the writers were not happy with the greyness of the space craft in series 1. I can't recall which of the writers it was that was stating that, but I think it was.

It wasn't until a bit later with a better person in charge of the sets that the effects in that respect got a lot better. The actual cost didn't really increase that much over the course of the series, it's just that there was more creativity in later series.
Re:Good by Blakey+Rat · 2011-01-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Plus the greyness was something of a running joke in a few early episodes. Was this corridor Ocean Grey or Military Grey?

--
Comment of the year
Re:Good by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:29 · Score: 1

Well, you're closer than you think. The American pilot (which mercifully never aired) had Terry Farrell playing Cat (i.e., tall hot chick from another Start Trek show). The other cast members were totally forgettable except for Robert Llewelyn. Hey, Dude needs to eat... at least the show would have had a good Kryten.
Although I must say, Jane Leeves playing Holly worked for me. I know that's blasphemy to some...

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:31 · Score: 1

A "land where soap operas receive more respect than science comedies" sounds a lot better than the U.S.A., where mouth-drooling "reality" shows trump both.
There's always been crappy TV, but there are actually more good shows the last few years then there have been for a while, IMO. You just need to ignore most of what's popular and find them.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:32 · Score: 1

You're right, but I still think the popularity "Two and A Half Men" must involve some kind of secret mind-control ray.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:33 · Score: 1

Cool! Does he play any Rastabilly Skank?

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:36 · Score: 1

I haven't watched them all the way through but from what I've seen some of the things they did in the "remastering" makes Lucas' stuff look reserved.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Good by Belial6 · 2011-01-21 17:52 · Score: 1

My point was that Voyager had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 7. Tripping the Riff had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6. They clearly intended it to be parody, since that was the point of the show. BSG had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6, and they tried to play it totally serious.
Re:Good by Xest · 2011-01-21 22:19 · Score: 1

Can't say I've ever watched it but thanks for the warning, I'll make sure I put on my tinfoil hat before I surf past any channel it's on :)

So what? by TheSpoom · 2011-01-20 19:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The WWF (now WWE) has had to deal with this for ages, as their shows are often broadcast days after they're actually performed.

Their solution? Do jack shit.

The fans who don't want to be spoiled, don't look up the spoilers.

The fans who do, do.

Nobody really loses out unless someone on the cast has an unexplained need for secrecy. This isn't Survivor.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Re:So what? by Seumas · 2011-01-20 20:06 · Score: 2

Plus, people who like the WWF usually can't afford computers, anyway, so there's no chance of them finding out until it's aired.
Re:So what? by TheSpoom · 2011-01-20 20:12 · Score: 0

You'd be surprised.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:So what? by 91degrees · 2011-01-20 21:02 · Score: 1

WWF has quite a wide demographic. Once you realise it's improvisational theatre and not sport, it suddenly becomes a lot more entertaining.
Re:So what? by PhrstBrn · 2011-01-20 21:33 · Score: 1

Agreed. I wouldn't consider myself a wrestling fan (the only wrestlers I can name are The Rock and Hulk Hogan), as I've only been to a few wrestling events, but they are quite enjoyable. I saw midget wrestling once and that was more entertaining than it should have been.
Re:So what? by Pastis · 2011-01-20 22:22 · Score: 1

Exactly. How often can you solve problems by just getting rid of the fear ?
People are afraid all the time.

--
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Re:So what? by houghi · 2011-01-21 00:38 · Score: 1

Spoilers? There was a film about some hobbits and a ring and many people knew what the story was and how it ended, yet still many people came to watch it.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:So what? by aamcf · 2011-01-21 00:47 · Score: 4, Funny

It always used to amuse me that my homophobic brother watched WWE while disapproving of me watching Queer as Folk.
Re:So what? by Ponyegg · 2011-01-21 00:48 · Score: 1

What tree-hugging, whale loving, panda protecting hippies can't afford computers?... wait, you don't mean the World Wildlife Fund?
Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 02:41 · Score: 0

Ignorance at "it is" finest. IT'S MEANS IT IS, DUMBFUCK!!!!!!!!!!!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many apostrophes. It's like BEING STUPID.
Re:So what? by Anaerin · 2011-01-21 06:21 · Score: 1

Which, ironically, has been called the "World-Wide Fund for Nature" for quite some time now: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 11:18 · Score: 0

Plus, people who like the WWF usually can't afford computers
Assuming the *stereotypical* typical WWFer is a non-geek, low-income loser... this joke still doesn't work any more.
Might have back in the 1990s, but computers are dirt cheap nowadays, and every man and has dog has one, or at least some way of accessing the Internet.
Re:So what? by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:39 · Score: 1

Filter error: Don't use so many apostrophes. It's like BEING STUPID.
Ditto with exclamation points and pointless profanity. Just sayin'.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Exactly by matunos · 2011-01-20 19:52 · Score: 1

This is how I get to see the Daily Show five hours early each day: all those audience- created YouTube uploads.

What if they do? by 91degrees · 2011-01-20 19:52 · Score: 1

Not everyone reads every twitter or is friends with the guy on facebook. Not everyone will see the youTube clip (which can be taken down quickly anyway). Even if they do it's not going to stop them from watching the show.

Once you show a show to 400 people, the cat's out of the bag. Any one of them might know or even be a TV journalist.

Ahh Slashdot by bennet42 · 2011-01-20 19:53 · Score: 1

You've been Krytered. I suggest two hours W.O.O.

Re:Ahh Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 22:16 · Score: 0

Great, now I need to jump on my magic carpet to see the king of the potato people and plead for my freedom.

New Media New Model by think_nix · 2011-01-20 19:54 · Score: 1

'The fear among the producers now is that it's impossible to imagine an audience of around 400 people at the recording of a TV show like Red Dwarf, where nobody does a bit of a hint on Twitter, or sneaks a picture on Facebook or posts a bit of badly shot video on YouTube.'

Wow just wow . How about adapting and embracing new technology instead of moving a step backwards ? This confirms still, how old fashioned some in the entertainment industry think. E.g. why not offer a 'live' showing per stream in HD ? If it is a good show and not some _crap_ then why are they so afraid of twitter, youtube, etc etc. Actually if enough people talk positive about it isn't that a bonus for the show? There are many possibilities how to adapt to new models but instead of thinking about the positives of using new models, these types concentrate on the new negatives.

So now live viewers will most likely have tight security before entering the viewing. Leave all electronic devices with security pick up after show etc (same old story). Because some decision makers can't think outside the box.

Re:New Media New Model by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 20:25 · Score: 0

Learn what spoilers are, you fucktard.
And maybe learn to punctuate properly while you're at it.
Re:New Media New Model by dangitman · 2011-01-20 23:18 · Score: 1

Wow just wow . How about adapting and embracing new technology instead of moving a step backwards ?

If "adapting and embracing new technology" is a bunch of idiots taking photos and videos on their phones, then I think stepping backwards might not be such a bad idea.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Spoiler Alert by mosb1000 · 2011-01-20 19:55 · Score: 0

We already invented a thing for this, it's called the spoiler alert.

Just wait . . . by Seumas · 2011-01-20 20:08 · Score: 1

Until they find out that everyone's going to get it via bit torrent, anyway.

Also, have these people never heard of America? We get british stuff ages after it airs in the UK. And the UK often gets our stuff ages later. It's not like any of this is new.

Re:Just wait . . . by CProgrammer98 · 2011-01-20 20:53 · Score: 1

We get british stuff ages after it airs in the UK. And the UK often gets our stuff ages later.
eztv.it
My work is done here.

--
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Re:Just wait . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 23:38 · Score: 0

I just wish they would do away with trying to make the interior sets more "modern" and the exterior shots of the ship in CGI. Part of the charm and popularity of this series was its shoe-string budget sets and its miniture models. I think a lot of the older fans feel a bit alienated with the latest incarnation of the show.
Re:Just wait . . . by TheoGB · 2011-01-21 01:20 · Score: 1

And normally by the time we get it Sky have bought the rights and the first time us normal folks get to see a show is when the DVDs appear.

Robot Audience by chitokutai · 2011-01-20 20:17 · Score: 2

They could always just fill the seats with robots.

Then at the flip of an executive-controlled switch, they could all burst into cold, robotic laughter. Even better, special appearances from Robot Wars contestants could make their way into the program to give the audience something to relate to. Kryten might even end up the next Justin Bieber.

Re:Robot Audience by Legion303 · 2011-01-21 00:26 · Score: 1

I don't see why they would waste money on robots when Kryten has several perfectly good spare heads available.
Re:Robot Audience by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 11:42 · Score: 1

Kryten might even end up the next Justin Bieber.
Thanks for humorous, yet emotionally-scarring mental image you just created in my head.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Record the audience separately? by SheeEttin · 2011-01-20 20:18 · Score: 1

I don't know what kind of time is needed between a show being shot, the networks needing the content, and the actual airing, but if this is such a big issue, why couldn't they drop the "live studio" part and screen the episode for the audience shortly (i.e. days) before its premier, record the audience noise then, and tack it on?
It obviously "just wouldn't be the same", but if you're that worried about it...
(Which apparently they aren't, because according to the summary, the only one known to be worried is one of the actors.)

Re:Record the audience separately? by aiht · 2011-01-20 20:44 · Score: 1

(Which apparently they aren't, because according to the summary, the only one known to be worried is one of the actors.)
The quote from the actor says this is a "fear among the producers." I think this directly contradicts the summary's assertion that it's the actor who is "wary" about it.
Not even the summary writer read the article this time.
Re:Record the audience separately? by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-01-21 01:48 · Score: 1

Just use samples of the nerds laughing from Revenge of the Nerds. No one would notice.
Re:Record the audience separately? by delinear · 2011-01-21 02:06 · Score: 1

The point of a live audience here isn't to "tack on a laugh track" - the interplay between the audience and the actors is meant to enhance the experience. If you watch any of the outtake shows from the earlier studio audience series you can see that everyone is really having a good laugh and there's a generally good atmosphere whereby the actors are feeding off the energy of the audience. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to shoot very close to airing as a compromise. In the early days it was probably easier when sets were smaller and cheaper, although if this series is being made by Dave then that might not be an issue :)
Re:Record the audience separately? by Anaerin · 2011-01-21 06:24 · Score: 1

They did this in Series 7. It didn't really work too well. Part of why it works is the interplay between the audience and the actors. At the very least, the audience's laughter often ended up getting muted as there wasn't enough space left for it.
Re:Record the audience separately? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 09:20 · Score: 0

At the very least, the audience's laughter often ended up getting muted as there wasn't enough space left for it.
In space no one can hear you laugh.

spoilers by KingAlanI · 2011-01-20 20:19 · Score: 2

sometimes it's hard to avoid spoilers, especially when perusing other info related to the franchise, the kind of stuff that big fans would care to look at.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

Re:spoilers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 21:27 · Score: 1, Funny

LISTER KILLS DUMBLEDORE!
Re:spoilers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 23:57 · Score: 0

... in someone else's dream.

I have a crazy idea! by Joe+Tie. · 2011-01-20 20:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

How about, I don't know, getting rid of one of the single most annoying thing about British comedies. The damn studio audience. I swear they bus in the most idiotic people around for them. I've heard the people involved with I.T. Crowd mentioning that they have to give a lecture to the audience to try not laughing at anything too dumb. In particular I remember hearing someone mention being exasperated because the audience would laugh at toilets. Not doing anything with a toilet, just, apparently, the fact that a toilet could exist.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.

Re:I have a crazy idea! by jayke · 2011-01-20 21:24 · Score: 1

To be fair, the people who are willing to spend full days during which most people would ordinarily be working watching a TV-show being recorded are probably not going to be representative of the best and the brightest. As always, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-01-20 21:46 · Score: 1

"Toilets are always funny!", The Octopus, the Sprint.

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 23:50 · Score: 0

Remember, we're British. The audience is probably all hammered. You'd find toilets funny too if your mate was looking green and in desperate need of one.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 00:17 · Score: 0

I've seen US sitcom audiences laugh because someone does little more than walk in to a room and say 'hello' in a manner which clearly isn't intended to be at all funny. Then there's the US audience tendency to emit a huge whooping cheer and applause when some guest star appears which is so loud and long that the actor ends up standing there for an awkwardly long amount of time waiting the audience to shut up so they can deliver their line. On the whole I find studio audiences on US shows far more intrusive than on British shows. Though maybe I'm bias due to being British.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Goboxer · 2011-01-21 02:31 · Score: 1

Maybe this indicates that British audiences are a hell of a lot more likely to get high before watching British television shows. Who could blame them?
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 04:14 · Score: 1

Have you seen The Big Bang Theory?
American audiences laugh before punchlines.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Philomage · 2011-01-21 07:47 · Score: 2

To be fair, I often laugh before the punchline while watching TBBT myself; it's because the setup writes the punchline and some of us get there a bit faster.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by noidentity · 2011-01-21 09:21 · Score: 1

The problem is that the audience laughing is an audience phenomenon, not an individual thing. Maybe they could circulate a terrible smell before any scenes showing toilets. That'd teach them to laugh!
Re:I have a crazy idea! by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 14:33 · Score: 1

That happens to me a lot... laughing long before everyone else at a movie. Sometimes I'm afraid it might be distracting but like you said sometimes the setup is enough to telegraph the joke and it's _still_ funny. Of course, I've watched hundreds of hours of MST3K, etc, so I've been known to bust out laughing for no outward reason when I think of something that would make a great riff. It's worse with my kids... that show has taught them to talk constantly during movies... it's a lot of fun for the right kind of movies, but some movies I just want to watch.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:I have a crazy idea! by Private+Baldrick · 2011-01-23 22:36 · Score: 1

Hello Joe Tie. (567096), sorry I'm a bit late to this conversation.
I'm one of the idiotic persons shipped in for the studio audience of Red Dwarf (Series 6 Episode 6).
I will say it was my first and only time in the audience in a comedy show providing the laughter track. (I was in the audience for a few other shows but nothing comedy).
Firstly the episode we saw was significantly different to the episode that was screen on TV. They replaced the cliff hanger ending with a mild joke about recycled urine giving you limescale on the top lip. I estimate that around 20-30% of the episode was changed for broadcast. They got us in for the laughs and they obviously switched bits around, re-edited for broadcast.
A large percentage of the audience had actually been in the audience for all 5 previous episodes in the series.
Do I object that we didn't see the finished episode? No, what we saw was really funny.
Do I object that my laughter was possibly reused for scenes I never saw (e.g. the cliffhanger)? No,
Something that maybe Robert Llewellyn has missed out was the internet was well established around the geek community (key audience group of Red Dwarf) alt.tv.red-dwarf newsgroup (and others) was popular and subscribed to (though I can't confirm there was a Red Dwarf based newsgroup at the time of my studio audience experience)
The information we went away with was enough for us to give someone a "TV guide" style synopsis of the episode, and we did! We got all our friends to watch it because "we'd been in the audience!"
Will things like Twitter & mobile camera phones upset the jokes... I suspect filming will be frowned upon and actively policed & the jokes will not really translate across to Twitter. Well except one...
They are dead Dave all dead. Dave they are all dead. Dead all they are Dave etc. etc..

--
I have a cunning plan...

Two for the price of one! by Aerynvala · 2011-01-20 20:27 · Score: 0

I follow a few bands with semi-elaborate stage shows and I've heard complaints (mostly from other fans) about accidentally seeing spoilers for the concerts. Because I guess knowing what outfits are worn totally ruins it or something. *shrug*

--
http://transformativeworks.org/

Re:Two for the price of one! by sammyF70 · 2011-01-20 21:05 · Score: 2

of course, Red Dwarf is a TV show and not a band, but I'm sure you wanted to point out something really interesting with your comparison.

--
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Re:Two for the price of one! by angularbanjo · 2011-01-20 22:59 · Score: 1

I suppose the difference is that a gig is the "finished product" and therefore by posting your phone's footage you are kind-of ruining it to some extent for certain audience groups (although most probably go to see good bands for the live experience itself). With a TV show recording, at least with how they usually record them in the UK, the audience experience is often very disconnected to the finished product, with things out of sequence, stopping and starting, seating view rather than camera view and of course the finessing / effects added later. With a comedy it can be an entertaining experience in itself, but I don't think it's close enough to the aired show to spoil that too much as a whole?
Re:Two for the price of one! by owlstead · 2011-01-20 23:44 · Score: 1

Uh, don't watch the spoilers?
As long as they are not posted on the 8 o-clock news or broadcasted on the radio, I would call them teasers, not spoilers.
Re:Two for the price of one! by TheCarp · 2011-01-21 02:50 · Score: 1

The tautology club is the tautology club!
Same purpose though. It is entertainment. Personally, I don't get it. Isn't it like saying "our show is so lame, all we have is what happens next, you wouldn't watch it twice".
I tend to think the twitter and spoilers etc can only help them. That is, unless they don't want more exposure, and potentially more people watching. A few spoilers (unless you call "it was horrible, don't waste your time" a spoiler) has never detracted from my enjoyment of a show, not convinced me not to watch it.
I think this is an example of "just because you can worry about it, doesn't mean that its a real problem".

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Two for the price of one! by sammyF70 · 2011-01-21 03:12 · Score: 1

Jokes can be badly spoiled if the "pointe" (can't remember the english wordfor that) is revealed beforehand, and Red Dwarf is mostly about jokes. In case you haven't seen it yet, Queeg500 is Holly playing prank. Other TV Shows, in particular those with an overall storyarch, and movies in general can be hurt by spoilers (thus the "Here be spoiler" titles at imdb). By the way, Wash dies in the end and River takes his place, Darth Vader is actually Luke and Leia's father and the three knocks come from Donna's Father. Spoilers are killing the fun for many people. On the other hand, I don't think fans of the show will read spoilers beforehand anyway.

--
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Re:Two for the price of one! by jahudabudy · 2011-01-21 05:49 · Score: 1

punchline

--
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA

Yeah, so? by meerling · 2011-01-20 20:48 · Score: 2

Big deal, think of it as pre-release publicity, for free. As long as you have an audience there will be leaks.

As to the show itself, even though I thought the old cast was fantastic, go for a new one. Obviously base it on the original British version, not that horrible American version that never got released.

And as a small note, even though I loved the show, that last thing they did,"Back to Earth", was horrible and should be forgotten with as much prejudice as possible.

Re:Yeah, so? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-01-20 21:17 · Score: 1

Back to Earth? They should have stopped at the end of Series 6.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Yeah, so? by leuk_he · 2011-01-20 21:55 · Score: 1

Yes.. It is all great soicial advertising. There is no better way to leak things than to say "Please keep this a secret"(without any consequnces...) . It is exactly as the BBC did with doctor who in 2005(rose) where a perfect quality first episode was leaked to p2p a few days before the actual broadcast.
Since twitter is now hot they say " don't twitter about it" .... right..
You don't need a depressed computer with an IQ of 6000 to figure this out.
Re:Yeah, so? by abigsmurf · 2011-01-20 22:47 · Score: 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZyZrGEx2wQ

The Rimmer Experience single handedly justifies the existence of Series 7
Re:Yeah, so? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-01-21 01:26 · Score: 1

You, Sir, win precisely one Internet.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Yeah, so? by ConceptJunkie · 2011-01-21 14:34 · Score: 1

I'll see you and raise you "Stoke Me A Clipper"... and "Tikka To Ride". Season 7 was a different style, one that didn't work as well for Red Dwarf, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some great material there, and some great episodes.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Just watch the old ones by gunner800 · 2011-01-20 21:03 · Score: 1

Whenever they reboot, respin, retcon, or remake something I love, I'm usually just happier watching what I love. The original Red Dwarf episodes are amazing. If a recombobulation ever does come to be, have a watch party and pop in the classic.

Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 21:23 · Score: 0

I know its probably hard as hell to do this - but wouldn't it be cool to do the show live and run it at the same time? This way the fans can watch and the tweeters can tweet at the same time and no one is getting in on the plot before anyone else. Hell it might even make more people want to watch it, so the outcome doesn't get spoiled by the netverse.

I'm sure it'll probably be really hard to do but when theres a will theres a way.

Problem solved! by macraig · 2011-01-20 21:47 · Score: 1

Just borrow a TSA squad - complete with embarrassing scanner - from the USA. That'll fix it. Leave your guns AND your gadgets (and your privacy) at the door, buddy!

The easiest solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 22:10 · Score: 0

Do it live, not just a live audience. (If they could manage the sets this way, it'd be hilarious.)

That said, people aren't going to post all the jokes from the show on twitter. They are more likely to say the show is crap if its crap though, which I think is the real concern.

I Hate "Humour" by tirefire · 2011-01-20 22:19 · Score: 0

Am I the only one here who hates British humor*? I may be an American, but I'm tired of being told that I'm a brash yank who doesn't understand the subtleties of british humor. I know damn well what it is. It's people doing really weird things nonchalantly, often intentionally. And nothing else.

*Okay, you've got me. I liked Monty Python's Flying Circus. Still, I can't help but see every other example of british humor as an inferior copy of Flying Circus.

Re:I Hate "Humour" by ledow · 2011-01-21 00:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm afraid, as a Brit, I am now legally required to murder you.
1) For liking Monty Python after the 70's have passed.
2) For linking Monty Python to English humour.
3) For thinking that any modern UK comedy show follows Monty Python.
Monty Python was "funny" in the 70's because it was outrageous. Their three worst sketches were the most outrageous and the ones that everyone remembers. 99% of what they produced was absolute shite. They are not, in and of themselves, funny any more anyway. The films? Pah. Basically designed to be outrageous / controversial with a few good lines thrown in. Follow the example of XKCD who understand this: http://xkcd.com/16/ Anyone caught with the words "Ni", "Very Naughty Boy" or "It's dead" should be shot on sight - it's like schoolkids that think they're cool because they have a designer jacket that ALL the schoolkids are wearing. Few UK people remember MP, fewer discuss them out of anything more than nostalgia, and even fewer think they are "English" humour.
What you fail to miss is that Monty Python is the exact OPPOSITE of the proper English humour. That's why it was funny at the time. Proper English comedy has nobody doing weird things. It's mostly sitcoms or standup in perfectly ordinary scenarios (e.g. a shopkeeper in a shop, a market trader on a stall, etc.). If it's "surreal", chances are it comes from the crap, outrageous side of English humour (e.g. Little Britain, etc.). However, things like Red Dwarf, Blackadder (Series 2 onwards), Only Fools & Horses (historically, but too many re-runs), etc. are funny not because of the situation, or because of slapstick, or because of "weird stuff" - the comedy is mostly background and almost all of it in simple dialogue between two people. A "newer" example would be Not Going Out with Lee Mack and Tim Vine but you'd have to watch several series to get into it, especially if you have trouble with the accents. It can't be written down or recited or told to people, because it's about inflection, and facial expression, and intangible stuff, but if it is funny to someone it's because they've SEEN it and are reminded of their reaction to it at the time. It's as much the comedian delivering the line as the comedy itself - this is why Rowan Atkinson is a comedy genius and Michael Palin (despite being in the original Monty Python line-up) films documentaries about travel. John Cleese *can* "get it", especially now, but it's more Bond-film-style humour in his case, not one-man-on-his-own.
Any fan of British comedy will instantly recognise things like these clips below but they are ONLY funny if you've actually seen the joke, delivered first in its original form, in its entirety, beforehand:
Red Dwarf, while on "Blue Alert": "Red alert sir? Are you entirely sure? It does mean changing the bulb."
Only Fools and Horses (while picking up girls in a bar): "You've got to impress 'em, talk about money" , "Yeah? I found one of those old five-pound notes the other day."
The Two Ronnies: "Four candles?" "There you are: four candles." "No, no, no, FOUR CANDLES" "Well, there you are, four candles." "NO, handles for forks."
Otherwise, it's just a bad Christmas-cracker joke.
Chances are, as a "yank", you've probably never seen anything truly British and actually funny, because you don't import them (only the crap). The US pilot of Red Dwarf was a travesty because the US networks wanted so many changes it wasn't funny any more - seriously go hunt down one episode of Red Dwarf and the US pilot and then watch them one after another - and that was AFTER a revolt including script re-write by the only original cast member to still be involved in the US pilot by that point.
You also need to give anything funny at least 4 episodes of your time. It takes me that long to "get" things like Friends, or Frasier (yuck!), or Just Shoot Me, or Ally McBeal (and you accuse us of weird stuff?) or anything else that's ever been available over here and
Re:I Hate "Humour" by Maritz · 2011-01-21 02:00 · Score: 1

You're right.
You DID say 'fail to miss' though which I smirked at ;)

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 03:06 · Score: 0

I don't suppose it occurred to you that American culture is just different from British culture, and we're importing the parts of it that _we_ like regardless of whether or not you appreciate it yourselves?
We're for example unlikely to appreciated the "cutting remark inserted into normal [British] conversation" because the "normal" conversations sounds foreign to us. So it wouldn't have the same impact. On the other hand "surreal slapstick" works well when translated to another culture because it only get's more surreal in the transition.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by khallow · 2011-01-21 04:18 · Score: 1

But there's a significant difference - English humour is NOT about the jokes, it's about the delivery. A cutting remark inserted at exactly the right time, after the perfect amount of pause, in the middle of a quite normal conversation, that takes people several seconds to realise they've been insulted - that's a key sign of an English comedy.
English comedy is not-funny with an English accent. Got it.

And then please look at the shit you export, too.
Room 101 logic: "we export shitty comedies because we can."
Re:I Hate "Humour" by ediron2 · 2011-01-21 04:38 · Score: 1

tl;dr: British Imperialism applied to Sense of Humor.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by sutekh137 · 2011-01-21 04:44 · Score: 1

You go on and on about smart/clever humor and then give a "yuck!" to Frasier?
You probably need to re-read your own post and follow your own advice. Frasier's mostly incredible, exactly in the background, character-driven, inflection sort of way you've gone on ad nauseum about.

--
What Would Sutekh Do?
Re:I Hate "Humour" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 05:33 · Score: 0

Please, don't mince words. Tell us what you really think.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by ContractualObligatio · 2011-01-21 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm afraid, as a Brit, I find your post to be such an embarrassment to our nation that I must ask you go into a quiet room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver, and do the right thing.
Surreal and nonsensical humour requires that you enjoy the "different", are not so concerned with what is "proper", and don't need at least 4 episodes of preparatory material before you can "get" the joke. Don't criticise what you can't understand. Let's take a brief tour of exaggeration, silliness, farce and slapstick in British comedy:
18th century: Jonathan Swift writes about midgets and giants to satirise the pomposity of Brits obsessed with what is "proper".
19th century: Gilbert & Sullivan based entire plots on ideas like a fully grown pirate being only 5 years old, having been born on Feb 29th.
20th century: in the 50s, The Goon Show goes surreal, blazing the path 18 years before Python. Spike Milligan is famous both for being surreal and for writing funny books which do not need to be acted out to be funny, and Peter Sellers is famous for his over-the-top characters. The Two Ronnies relied upon "stupid costumes, over-exaggerated characters [and] nonsensical situations" for 16 years. Eric Morecambe, also drawing in many millions of viewers with Ernie Wise for 15 years, was famous for slapstick.
We're now in the 21st century. We still have several of The Goodies, another surreal 70s show, as regulars on I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue in its 54th series, with guests such as the ridiculous and surreal Ross Noble. How much more bloody "proper" and "English" can you get than Radio Four on a Sunday afternoon?
It's about time to get down from your ivory high chair and catch up with the past few centuries of what us Brits think is funny. Don't be the guy giving the rest of us a reputation for having a stick up our arse.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 09:15 · Score: 0

You sound like someone who listens to The Archers.
Re:I Hate "Humour" by rx7chick · 2011-01-21 23:18 · Score: 1

I think I feel a Jackson Pollack coming on....

Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim by Rogerborg · 2011-01-20 22:55 · Score: 2

He's a likeable chap, but not the sharpest droid in the box. To wit, he's rabidly in favour of electric vehicles, to the point where he accuses anyone pointing out the obvious flaws with current vehicles - production costs, bad and reducing range, battery recycling issues, and that the vast majority of the electricity still comes from fossil source - as being biased shills.

So, well intentioned fellow, but rather superficial in the thinking department.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Re:Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim by jo_ham · 2011-01-21 00:25 · Score: 0

The way you've written that, it makes me think that you have an axe to grind. He's not "dim" because you disagree with him.
"bad and reducing range"? - the argument always touted as the downside because once a year you need to drive 600 miles towing a manatee on skis to go on holiday, when for the remaining 50 weeks of the year the range of the all-electric is well inside what you use it for - commuting (which is what it was designed for).
"vast majority of energy comes from fossil sources" - and that will never change, right? In itself it's not a reason to dismiss electric vehicles out of hand. Centralised energy generation is more efficient than shipping hydrocarbons out to each individual vehicle (and yes, I know only a tiny percentage of electricity is produced by burning oil, most is coal). It also depends where you live; if you're in France a very sizeable portion of your energy comes from nuclear reactors. As time goes on, the percentage of fossil fuel-derived power will go down as the sources become scarce and greener options become available. The argument that our power infrastructure is mainly fossil fuels as a reason to ignore electric cars just doesn't hold water. That's the same as saying that there's no way HD streaming of video over the internet will ever work because who's ever going to have a fat enough pipe at home to do that? 56k is as good as it will ever get!
Production costs will also fall as economies of scale come into play.
He's against people who tout those arguments because many of them have been debunked already. They're arguing that the Earth is still flat when we've already photographed it from space and shown it rotating around.
There are issues with electric vehicles that need to be solved - improvements to the power grid to accommodate recharging large numbers of vehicles simultaneously, the time it takes to recharge a car fully compared to filling a hypothetical tank with flammable hydrocarbons, increasing the longevity of rechargeable cells (like Lithium Sulphur) and reducing their weight.
Re:Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim by dbIII · 2011-01-21 01:06 · Score: 0

If you consider their role as shifting pollution out of the middle of London, LA or wherever they do the job better than anything other than trains or trams. If you are thinking of them as a remote are 4WD or long haul truck replacement they suck. It all depends on the context.
Re:Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim by DerekLyons · 2011-01-21 17:22 · Score: 1

So, well intentioned fellow, but rather superficial in the thinking department.
Sounds like he'd be a shoe-in for a ton of 'insightful' moderations on Slashdot.

Wrong mode by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 23:12 · Score: 0

I think Kryton needs to switch off his paranoia chip.

Has anybody told Graham Linehan? by DominicSayers · 2011-01-20 23:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

And yet The IT Crowd somehow manages to survive being shot in front of an audience of geeks.

Re:Has anybody told Graham Linehan? by RealGrouchy · 2011-01-21 04:32 · Score: 1

Not to mention most game shows, where contestants don't get their winnings if the results are leaked before the show airs.
- RG>

--
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Re:Has anybody told Graham Linehan? by ErikZ · 2011-01-21 04:47 · Score: 1

Not really. That show is terrible.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:Has anybody told Graham Linehan? by TheQuantumShift · 2011-01-21 05:29 · Score: 1

And reading that sentence with an alternate meaning of "shot", all I can think of is:

"I've got a ruddy gun! I've got a ruddy gun!"

--

Shift happens. Fire it up.

Not done since 98'? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 00:04 · Score: 0

No show has been shot in front of a studio audience since 1998? Doubt it. Hot in Cleveland is currently being produced and announces that it is indeed shot in front of a live studio audience and proclaims so at the start of each episode.

wont matter by Charliemopps · 2011-01-21 00:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

The types of people that will read about the episodes on twitter or watch terrible videos from the audiance on youtube are the same types of people that will watch an episode 15x so they can come to work and annoy me with sad quotes. Then they'll buy your show on DVD, the "Editors edition" DVD, the "Extended cuts" DVD and then the box set.

So what? by RichiH · 2011-01-21 00:17 · Score: 2

Use that to create buzz and get people more excited about the whole thing.

Yet another example of someone not getting the Internet. Nothing to see here, move along.

Back to Live Television? by jabberw0k · 2011-01-21 00:40 · Score: 2

If they are so concerned about Spoilers, then why not do it as live television in front of a live audience? Or are modern series so stuck on special effects and multiple takes, that this can't be done like a stage play or vaudeville? Gee, it might even be "different."

I don't think so by dbIII · 2011-01-21 00:48 · Score: 1

I ended up watching Star Trek 5 twice because I was sure I'd never seen it and just could not remember what happened in it. I still can't remember anything at all about it. It must have been pretty bad because I can still remember the Paris and Janeway amphibian sex episode from Voyager which is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel.

Re:I don't think so by nosferatu1001 · 2011-01-21 01:23 · Score: 2

Centre of galaxy, "finding God" (really trapped being, revealed to be an exiled Q in books (as is the entity past the galactic barrier, and why there's a barrier in the first place...)
It was pretty damn terrible.
Re:I don't think so by PopeRatzo · 2011-01-21 01:42 · Score: 1

You just made it sound much better than it was. Maybe you should have had a try at the screenplay.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:I don't think so by jellomizer · 2011-01-21 02:53 · Score: 1

Excuse me but what does Q need with a Star Ship?

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:I don't think so by CohibaVancouver · 2011-01-21 05:04 · Score: 1

...not to mention the fact that the FX were worse than what we'd seen ten years ago. The sequence with the shuttle crashing into the shuttle bay is almost unwatchable...

who wants set laughter anyway? by yakumo.unr · 2011-01-21 01:09 · Score: 2

Honestly, surely it can't just be me who thought the audience laughter canned or not was the worst thing about Red Dwarf by far.

Shoot it without an audience, and don't add any recorded laughter either.

Solves both problems.

You'd be breaking the Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 01:39 · Score: 0

aside from the logistics, you'd be breaking the Law by *deliberately* blocking telecoms like this.

In the UK this is not allowed.

Paranoid anyone? by grapeape · 2011-01-21 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The people watching are fans the people seeking out the sneak peeks, virals, bloopers, etc are also fans. Its not like they are going to loose anything by letting this stuff get out. Most fan sites are good about hiding "spoilers" for those that don't want to know..and for those that do all it does is generate hype and buzz...which usually is something niche programming clamors for.

"Proper"? by Kenshin · 2011-01-21 02:32 · Score: 1

Personally, as a Canadian, I enjoy the surreal British humour alongside the "proper" humour. Stuff like Monty Python and The Mighty Boosh get equal laughs as Yes Prime Minister and The IT Crowd.

To disown the surreal and silly just because it goes against a standard is idiocy. Some of the most memorable and revolutionary things were purposefully done against the standard, very much so for art and music too. Monty Python laid the groundwork for generations of comedians. (Especially Canadian comedians.)

--

Does it make you happy you're so strange?

New models for a new era by woboyle · 2011-01-21 03:10 · Score: 1

What the producers don't realize (or don't want to acknowledge) is that these sort of "leaks" just drive demand for the product (show). They need to get their head out of the sand - this stuff is going to hit the Internet anyway, so they might as well embrace it.

--
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.

What's so special about Red Dwarf? by Larry+Lightbulb · 2011-01-21 04:00 · Score: 1

I must be missing the point because I don't understand why this is such a big problem for Red Dwarf and not for any of the many other sitcoms that are recorded in front of an audience.

They're looking at it wrong by wiedzmin · 2011-01-21 05:37 · Score: 1

How much damage to the show's popularity can a Twitter post or a Facebook picture do? If anything, they're running a rick of one of the "badly shot videos" going viral and 25 million people tuning in to see what it supposed to look like during the actual episode.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.

Saturday Night Live seems to do ok by Aristos+Mazer · 2011-01-21 06:21 · Score: 1

There's at least one major TV show that is done in front of a live studio audience. Saturday Night Live seems to do fine despite YouTube, Twitter, etc.

Re:Saturday Night Live seems to do ok by SirGeek · 2011-01-21 06:42 · Score: 1

There's at least one major TV show that is done in front of a live studio audience. Saturday Night Live seems to do fine despite YouTube, Twitter, etc.
There's a reason that is the case. It is because the show is WATCHED live, not taped and aired weeks/months later.

--
UPS Sucks

Red Dwarf: The Next Generation? by Bones3D_mac · 2011-01-21 07:48 · Score: 1

Honestly, I can't see how this is going to work. Are they bringing back the old cast or starting over with a new one? is it going to be the same story following "Back To Earth" or a complete reboot like the recent "Star Trek" feature film versus the TOS version?

If it is a set of new characters, who are they... Lister's kids, a Rimmer Jr created by Rimmer and instructed to activate in 20 years, cloned versions of the cat, only younger, with kryten left to baby sit them all? And what about holly... crashed, hologrammed like Rimmer was or replaced by Kryten as Red Dwarf's main computer?

Personally, I think Red Dwarf needs to stay dead. The entire series is on NetFlix now if I get the urge to watch it again, and I doubt the series could survive in the same context it did in the 90's. Hell, just look at how tame The Simpsons has gotten in the last 20 years compared to the early years. They can't even show a character's butt in the current episodes without a disclaimer or a time shift, something that was perfectly acceptable early on. (Yet, the syndicated episodes are still shown with butt crackss intact.)

If you really want new brit space humor, I recommend checking out "HyperDrive" (which is also on NetFlix). Granted, the show is still rough around the edges, there is potential.

--

8==8 Bones 8==8

Colbert show is strictly no cellphones or cameras by SteeldrivingJon · 2011-01-21 10:20 · Score: 1

Security watches the audience, and presumably if they spot someone using a phone, that person gets thrown out.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA

Glossy sets and magic tech? Just say "no". by LukeWebber · 2011-01-23 10:10 · Score: 1

I enjoyed 6 well enough, but 7 and 8 lost me completely. Bringing back the annoying, superior Kochansky and losing the gritty, mining-ship feel of the sets and costumes did not go down well with me. Moreover, I liked the limited cast of the original seasons, so bringing back the crew didn't work for me either.

I'm also going to say that the nanobots were some of the most annoying dei ex machinae I've come across as well. Magic tech is fine, but only as long as it doesn't become godlike.

And that's without going into the writing. As others have pointed out, Grant/Naylor made a great team. Either one on his own, not so much.

Maybe I'm wrong, and they could succeed in rebooting the series, but I very much doubt it.

Slashdot Mirror

New Red Dwarf Series Threatened By the Twitter Era

228 comments