Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment from 2001

'Each season of the show is a parody of a seperate sug-genre.' ...er, no I don't think it does, and I have seen every episode several times (and read the books). There are admittedly common themes within a series, but this looks coincidental rather than pre-planned. sjc

why di'n rob grant write his own series of red dwarf like he did with that book

he wrote his own book and should have done his own series he wuz the better writer

Yeah good question, well done.

Rob Grant decided to leave the series, from my understanding, due to a desire to move on to work on newer projects. I feel alot of the creative ideas stemmed from both Rob and Doug, and the show may have taken a slight downturn because of it. But props to Doug for sticking with it, otherwise we'd be stuck with 7 series and definately no chance of a movie. Frostyvegi 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

im gonna do aomparison of red dwarf with doctor who with red dwarf on wikipedia

well im gonna do compsarisons to prove doctor who is better - you will see city of death compared with pete part 2, talons of ting tang compared with parallel universe, and the first davros mask with michael wisher compared with the first kryten mask with david ross. we will see which one wins and the NPOV conclusion will end up on wikipedia. if you delete it i will keep putting it back.

Sounds brilliant; looking forward to it.

I question why would anyone assume Red Dwarf is in competition with Dr Who? Apart from the science fiction aspect, there is nothing to say that one is better than the other, as there is no other similarities. It's like comparing Dad's Army with Yes Minister, both are comedy, but are British made, but that's about all. Frostyvegi 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey I remember Red Dwarf!!

Hey brilliant I remember Red Dwarf from when I was about 12! It was brilliant! It had that one from Maid Marrion being some kind of dracula, I remember that. Anyone else here remember Red Dwarf?

I remember Red Dwarf it was kind of cool. It was well up there with the Crystal Maze - and actually when they clashed it was pretty hard to choose which one to watch! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.231.128 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I remember Red Dwarf coming on straight after Neighbours on BBC2 on Mondays. When it clashed with Challenge Anneka I wasn't allowed to watch it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Putnik

I like to ask a drawn question about Putnik in Red Dwarf, please?

Certainly; what is your question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Fancruft

Fancruft is a real word!

Yes. It's also highly subjective. RobbieG 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC

It's not subjective at all: fancruft *is* a real word; I've checked in a dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.148 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but it's still subjective. "Drivel" is a real word. So are "garbage," "claptrap" and "bulls**t". That doesn't make them unbiased. RobbieG 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft refers to unnecessarily detailed and/or obscure information about a subject, usually unverified, in which the general lay-public should have no genuine interest should they wish to speculatively research that subject for some reason, and it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. It's certainly a real world, just unnecessary in the case of an article such as this. It should be noted that the originator of this thread is not actually arguing anything in particular, and our responses are probably enough gratification for him/her. Let's laugh it off and put it to bed shall we. Kris 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Understanding that "series VIII" was a kind of spin-off...

Accepting that what people call "series VIII" was actually a kind of spin-off show that featured the same characters as Red Dwarf proper, why do its events follow directly after those of series VII? And why was it named "series VIII" and not "Back in the Red" as originally planned? Both of these factors imply that the viewer will require more than a passing appreciation of the episodes in series I-VII. Indeed, one could wrongly infer that the makers abandoned the "spin-off" concept entirely and just decided to make a continuation of the old show, but with a totally different setting and situation. It's very confusing.

Some people have argued that it has only been named "series VIII" post-airing, on VHS and DVD releases, with the "tally" markings in the credits referring only to the "prison nature" of the ship. However, there are eight of these markings, suggesting "the eighth series", and this doesn't explain why "series VIII" resolves the series VII cliffhanger!

Any solutions to all this? It's driving me crazy!

Where did you get the impression that it was a spin off? It doesn't ring any bells. Andymarczak 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would stop treating obvious wind-ups so seriously. Nothing personal Andymarczak, I've observed many of your quality edits, but I'm pretty sure this guy's taking the piss. The only reason I've taken this long to say something is that I'm simply amazed no one else has until now.

Perhaps the worst thing is that, most people who vandalize the discussion page actually like Red Dwarf for what it is, and I kind of understand their humour because they're kindred spirits, but unfortunately they're also a bit dumb and it disillusions me somewhat. Kris 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Niven's Laws #17, Kris. --Orange Mike 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, lol. I kind of understand the method of your put-down here, being as I'm sort of coming from the same boat or whatever it is, but this fact makes me uncomfortable: by placing myself on the same level as you, I'm forced to render myself somewhat retarded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.203.32 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Kris, I'm sure you're right. I expect I was in a generous mood that day! Andymarczak 08:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're just not as terminally cynical as I am, not necessarily a bad thing. Kris 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the placement of your sci-fi axiom extraordinarily apposite. Kris 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an axiom I've had to take to heart many times when I see my allies, co-religionists, etc. act like fools or jerks. --Orange Mike 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tragically such occurrences are replete, but fear not, this page is overseen by those who suspect they know better. This discussion is becoming obsolescent for a Wikipedia discussion page, the object of which is to thresh out issues with the article at hand. Reply to my talk page if you wish to converse further. If not, have fun being Orange and promoting its figuratively proliferative virtues. Kris 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Hitchhiking's Guide to Some Galaxies

Red Dwarf got all its best things off of that Hitchhiker's Guide. Even the "parked Volkswagens" gag came from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Okay, then tell me where "You see, shoes have soles," appears in the Hitchhiker's Guide. (Red Dwarf fan's will understand this punchline.) Val42 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly easy. The Secondary Phase has loads of stuff in it about shoe shops and shoes. Anyway the person who started this thread said all of Red Dwarf's "best things", not rubbish jokes. Next! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.87.76 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't the statement "Even the "parked Volkswagens" gag came from there." refering to a joke, or 'gag' in this instance? The example used by Val42 is also a gag.Frostyvegi 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing the operative words are "best" and "rubbish" as opposed to "things" and "jokes"/"gags"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.219.32 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Point well taken. I appologise for my defensive comments. I guess the thing to ask of user 194.66.226.95 is firstly, what they want included, and state references. Frostyvegi 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not entertain this one any more shall we... I refer you to an above discussion entitled Understanding that "series VIII" was a kind of spin-off.... Don't humour them. We all know Red Dwarf is genius. Kris 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... try not to post POV remarks like "Red Dwarf is genius", especially not "We all know that...". While this is the discussion page, normal wikipedia rules still apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

And so is "Red Dwarf got all its best things off of that Hitchhiker's Guide.". Need more than one reference to use as proof.Frostyvegi 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Decision to go with the BBC? Was this to do with not wanting advert breaks to keep the running length up?

I have a question. Who do you think would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman, and who would you be rooting for? Be objective - remember it's an encyclopedia you're contributing to.

Red Dwarf DVDs

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

I saw series 1, 2 and 4 for £9 each today in the Woolworths in Tooting Broadway. So it's bargain time for all the little worms! 86.144.206.29 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to know why Craig Charles' Bio has no mention of him turning down the part of Joey in Friends to play the part of Lister. Surely this is regarded a moderately significant career-move? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a have a source, it can go in, otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated rumour. Ged UK (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be found on the Dwarfing USA documentary on the series V set. "BUY IT NOW" as Lardy Andrew would say. 86.141.194.122 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. That's very funny. Yes, I salute you. I know Lister has been known to do a bit of time travel, but really; Red Dwarf - 1987, Friends - 1993. --Nreive (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They're making a "joke" about Craig Bierko, who was Lister in the US pilot, and who did indeed turn down the role of Joey. Hilarious. Seb Patrick (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

None other than John Lennon himself appeared in the curry monster outfit. 86.141.193.252 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Impressive considering he was dead by then Ged UK (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Paul McCartney in the Curry Monster outfit (see Beat the Geek for this info), while Lennon just provided a few voices for vending machines and the like in the first couple of series. Again this is well known information, ask anyone like Seb Patrick or Andrew Ellard or John Hoare or Jonathan Capps. 86.141.193.252 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Script

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

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

Resolved

Why isn't this mentioned in the main article?

Oh no look at him!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not "comments you've seen here", though, is it? The IP address that you commented with earlier (I'm assuming these two are from the same person since you talk as if you were the earlier commenter even though you have a slightly different address) is the same IP address that STARTED this whole "Red Dwarf is a kid's show" thing in the first place : [1]. You started this "debate", and you've got a history of dragging it back up again for purposes that don't seem to stretch beyond winding people up (since the same IP address has also made offensive comments on Ganymede & Titan). So you'll have to come up with a bit more than that, and I think I'm fully justified in being short with people who are trying to muck about with Wikipedia. Seb Patrick 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

What's a "featured" article?

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

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

Continuity

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

There's no picture there anyway.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

Independent production

I could be wrong but wasn't Red Dwarf always an independant production from the very beggining?Saul Taylor

No, it definitely started life as an internal Beeb effort (BBC NorthWest, I think). As the article notes, it doesn't make much practical difference, it just means that various bits of money get transferred back and forth between different branches of the Beeb and the independent company to not much effect (except that the BBC has some sort of requirement these days to source a certain fraction of its material from independent producers, so it helps in that regard). Bth 18:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've just watched the end credits for the first episode, and it doesn't have a PJP logo but the credits do say "developed for television by Paul Jackson Productions." Saul Taylor 00:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the important thing in this regard is the copyright notice; if I'm right, in series 1/2 it would be (c) BBC, series 3 (c) PJP and series 4 onwards (c) Grant Naylor productions. But my tapes are 200 miles away so I can't check immediately. The "developed for TV" credit is about who was responsible for getting it into the state that the Beeb could start making, and thus slightly different. --Bth 11:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the BBC would own the copyright to a any television programme that the commision whether it was an independant production or not, although i've just watched the end of a series 3 episode and its a bit ambigious. It has a PJP logo and says "A PAUL JACKSON PRODUCTION FOR BBC NORTH WEST" and says "(c)MCMLXXXIX" underneath. I'm not copyright is the main factor anyway, I would've thought the important difference is that an independant production is where the BBC paid an outside company to make a programme for them.Saul Taylor 15:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parody Sources

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

80.177.213.144 18:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Page size and merges

Right now, this page is 37KB- soon to need some splitting. The most obvious split to me would be to move the episode guide to a separate page, say Red Dwarf episodes, but I'm not sure of the proper style/convention in this case.

Furthermore, per VfD, Blue Midget (a substub) is to merge into the main Red Dwarf- There's also a Starbug and a Red Dwarf (spaceship) and even a Category:Red Dwarf ships. Seems to me like a case of several small articles that should go into a single Red Dwarf vehicles or Red Dwarf craft article to keep everything tidy.

Thoughts, opinions on these two points? --Rossumcapek 18:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Good to know it's more than just me- I agree that the Category:Red Dwarf ships is overkill. Unless there's any objections, in the next few days I'll move the (wonderfully complete) episodes to Red Dwarf episode guide. I'm also wondering the best way to collect the rest of the information. Should all of the universe details be on a single page? Perhaps three separate People, Places, and Things articles? I'm not exactly thrilled with that suggestion, though. Should check to see how Star Wars and Star Trek handle their fictions universes... --Rossumcapek 16:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Esperanto in Red Dwarf?

I just read a claim on the Esperanto article that Red Dwarf portrays a future in which Esperanto is widely used, and signs can be seen in both English and Esperanto. I don't recall ever seeing any such signs. Is this true, and my memory is failing, or have the Esperantist been getting a bit overexcited here? PaulHammond 06:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's true. The signs in the lifts are in English and Esperanto, and there is an episode (series 2 I think) where Rimmer is desperately trying to learn Esperanto and failing dismally. -- Tarquin 10:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The episode in question is "Kryten". ("Please could you direct me to a four-star hotel?") The ship's original interior design was far more obviously bilingual in series 1 and series 2: all the corridor signs read "LEVEL/NIVELO" in big letters. The idea rather got lost when Mel Bibby came in for series 3. Hig Hertenfleurst 17:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nova 5

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

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

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

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

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

File:Space-hoppers.co.uk.gif

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture of Red Dwarf

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

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

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

Series 7 criticism

I removed the following from the Scenario section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the first book

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

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

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

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

Smeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Groovy Channel 27

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

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

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

Theme lyrics copyright?

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

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

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

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

Time travel television series

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

Chinface

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

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

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

if red dwarf is alien free explain the gelfs.

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

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

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

Editing Pastiche & Parody

I've now seen Pete so that's done. However, I realise that's no reason to post here. What I'm actually here about is a couple of minor irritations. I'm sorry; I know I'm guilty of being protective - possibly a little bit overprotective - of my additions to the page, but I want to stress that what I'm about to say is not me being very cross - just almost annoyed.

1. OK, I can sympathise here with the capitalisation of 'Of The' in titles (it's a mistake I tend to make frequently), but it does scuff the links up, so please don't capitalise.

2. This is more difficult to say, as I feel I may be on shaky ground here, but why delete Epideme, The Inquisitor or Terrorform from the list? They were valid. Epideme was an obvious parody, the This Is Your Life reference was no less valid than the Star Trek one, that stuff about The Inquisitor is mentioned in the DVD collector's booklets and is no less valid than Polymorph being inspired by Alien, and as for Terrorform, what is the problem with it? It seems very subjective to discriminate between which parts of the article may be removed in this manner (might I timidly use the term POV?).

There. That's that off my chest. I hope I've explained my reverts, and I now want to request that nobody changes them back again, unless they can give a satisfactory reason. I'm always a bit nervous about reverting other people's changes in case they get offended and we end up edit-warring. Please spare me that. 21:04 April 22 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason that I cut them was that I'd seen complaints that segments of the entry were little more than lists; and also it seemed the article was getting too long. They were purely, therefore, length cuts, but if people don't feel that cutting them was necessary then I've no objection to seeing them reverted. Seb Patrick 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

30 min?

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

Red Dwarf was first shown on the BBC, which has no adverts - so the episodes are pretty much the full 30 minutes long. I think when repeats are shown on UK Gold for instance, which has adverts, the slots are 40 minutes long. -- jeffthejiff 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Continuity "errors"

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

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

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

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

Queeg

From the latest edit :

(The name "Queeg" has sometimes been incorrectly assumed to be derived from Queequeg, a character from Moby Dick).

Has it? I've never heard that assumption before - is there a citation or something for it? I always thought the Caine Mutiny reference was pretty clear, particularly given how strongly the episode also alludes to Mutiny on the Bounty. I'm not sure where this has come from, so I'd quite like to see some evidence of it, particularly as a Google search for queeg "red dwarf" queequeg only turns up ten results, including a few wordlists... Seb Patrick 08:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference isn't that clear. I mean, when I saw the episode, I didn't get the reference. On the other hand, I believe the assumption that it comes from "Queequeg" is unusual. I've never met anyone who made that assumption. Still, clearly someone, somewhere has, or the statement never would have been made. Or am I assuming too much there? (RobbieG 16:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Okay, maybe the actual reference isn't the clearest, but like I say, it seems strange to make mention of such a rare misconception in the Wiki entry. Even if someone, somewhere made the assumption once, does that justify its inclusion? I'm not so sure, particularly without any kind of citation. Seb Patrick 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Style Guide

I would propose making the following guidelines about style and formatting consistent within this entry :

• The name of the series, and any other TV series/films, should be italicised, e.g. Red Dwarf.
• The name of the SHIP Red Dwarf, and any other ships, should NOT be italicised, in order to avoid confusion when referring to the ship rather than the series, e.g. Red Dwarf, Starbug.
• The titles of individual episodes of the series, and any songs from the series, should be un-italicised and in double quotation marks, e.g. "Out of Time", "Stasis Leak", "Tongue Tied".

If you ask my opinion, I'd suggest keeping the italics. It is standard practice to put titles in italics.

• The word "Series" (capitalised) rather than "Season" should be used when referring to individual years of the show. This is the term used specifically by the show's creators, and is the term that has always appeared on DVD and video covers. In addition, series numbers should be displayed in Roman numerals (there is debate among some Red Dwarf fans about whether the Roman numerals are applicable for Series I-II, since they were technically only introduced for Series III, but for the sake of consistency in this particular instance I feel they should be used for all eight series), e.g. Series I, Series VI.
• Since Red Dwarf is a British series, Standard English (as opposed to American English) should be the dialect of the entry.

On a number of occasions when things have been added to the entry, there's been inconsistent formatting, and so I think it's worthwhile agreeing on a consistent set of guidelines. I hope people agree with them. Seb Patrick 10:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Barrie & Charles

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

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

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

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

Unfashionable cast members

Within the context of British comedy in general, meanwhile, Red Dwarf occupies a curious position. While revered by many — and still a successful programme, as recent DVD sales have shown (Series IV and V were the third and fourth bestselling BBC DVDs respectively in 2005 [9]) — it is also often looked down upon by those in the comedy fraternity. This could be the result of any number of factors — its niche content, the fact that its writers largely worked alone and are noted for little else in the industry, or the 'unfashionable' status of some of its cast members.

I'm curious to know which cast members might be considered "unfashionable" and why, considering that this isn't elaborated on anywhere else in the article. 67.190.101.254 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say most of them, to be honest. I'm not talking about how they probably should be viewed, simply by how they are. Craig Charles, for example, is never at the top of anyone's lists of "favourite comedians" - certainly not rated by people in the business, anyway. Hardly any of the cast have really done significant work outside of Dwarf, Chris' Brittas and the Tomb Raider movies notwithstanding; arguably the closest to carving out a niche of his own has been Robert with his work on Scrapheap etc., but then he has the benefit of people not recognising him without the mask on (and being The Nicest Bloke In The Entire World). It is a contentious statement, I'll grant you - but it's always been my opinion that the various cast members of Dwarf have never really been held in the highest regard by the comedy fraternity, with the possible exception of Chris. Seb Patrick 07:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that both the statement that some cast members are unfashionable and that the series is looked down upon by others need citations, otherwise they are fairly POV. Chardir 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Also, none of the core four members for the first series were actually actors: we had an impressionist, a poet, a dancer and a stand-up comedian. Morwen - Talk 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Internet parody/fan fiction

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

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

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

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

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