Review: Red Dwarf: Back To Earth

Where to be begin? I think I can safely say that they weren't the best Red Dwarf episodes ever.

For me the first episode wasn't that good at all. It just wasn't funny. The most amusing part was the Cat's diving costume. Instead we had what appeared to be quite high end special effects which just looked completely out of place. At times the odd thing looked good, like the rememberance garden, but for the most part it just made everything look too shiny and clean and just not Red Dwarf. I think I'm amongst a number of people who hate the overuse of CGI in programmes - usually cos it attempts to cover up a poor plot.

And thats before we get into them re-using gags from old series too. And I also wonder whether the lack of a studio audience (all but series 7 had one) had any impact on it, I feel that the actors timing might have been better with it and they might have come up with some funny bits too. I felt that the episode wasn't horrible, but I can't think of anything good to say about it.

Fortunately the next two episodes were better. I guess the whole TV characters realising that they are TV characters has been done before, but I thought it wasn't done too badly. More to the point I actually laughed during those episodes. They still weren't as good as classic Red Dwarf shows though, one of the main problems was that everything just seemed a little overdone, amusing things went on so long that they weren't as funny as they would have been if they had ended sooner, either that or they appeared to obviously have been borrowed from earlier series (the main exception I can think of is where Sophia Winklemans character explains how it is ethical to kill holograms like she plans to do to Rimmer and he promptly pushes her in front of a moving vehicle). The episodes weren't like you could hate them, but someone could and should have done something better with them.

But what I do want to address is some of the comments made by Phil at A Very Public Sociologist made in his review (see http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/04/red-dwarf-back-to-earth.html)

Firstly I want to take up the division between the series that he creates, which are

1) Series 1 and 2 (early Red Dwarf)

2) Series 3 to 6 (mid-aged Red Dwarf)

3) Series 7 and 8 (Red Dwarf post Rob Grant)

I think this division is wrong, we need to be more exact about the changes in location for the series, change in writers and change in cast. Instead I think it should be split up as follows,

1) Series 1 and 2 (On Red Dwarf, Grant and Naylor writing, crew-Lister, Rimmer, Cat, Holly)

2) Series 3 to 5 (On Red Dwarf, Grant and Naylor writing, crew-Lister, Rimmer, Cat, Kryten, female Holly)

3) Series 6 (On Starbug, Grant and Naylor writing, crew-Lister, Rimmer, Cat, Kryten, Female-Holly)

4) Series 7 (On an enlraged Starbug, Naylor by himself, crew-Lister, Rimmer(for part of the series), Kochanski(for part of the series), Kryten, Cat)

5) Series 8 (On Red Dwarf (in the tank), Naylor by himself, crew-Lister, Rimmer (alive), Kochanski, Kryten, Cat, Holly, Hollister and others)

The shift from series two to three with two different charcters (one new) changed the shape of the show, but not as much as happened in later series with the set changing each time as well as the cast and also shifting from having a studio audience to a film-like version then back to a studio audience again. Every time you change things it means the programme is going to turn out differently.

Basically, my problem with Phil's version of the development of Red Dwarf is that for him series 1-6 are great and 7-8 (as well as Back to Earth) are bad and it's all Doug Naylor's fault. This is way too simple for my liking and I don't think its completely accurate either.

I think there are good things about series 7 and 8 for a start, for example I really like Tikka To Ride, the first episode of series 7 (the recap at the beginning of that episode from series 6 is excellent, as is the recap at the beginning of series 6 - miles better than Back to Earth). And the bunk scenes in series 8 are rather good (perhaps if Doug Naylor had had at least one of these in Back to Earth the first episode might have been better, I think he writes those really well). But most importantly they are a different kind of Red Dwarf to the earlier series. (and by the way there are some crap bits in some of the earlier series too - using Rhyl as a location for an exotic resort, for example!)

But there is a point to Phil's comments about Doug Naylor writing stuff by himself. When writing comedy its generally advisable to have a partner writing with you. It's almost a necessity as you need to bounce your ideas of someone else to make sure other people find them funny and tease out any humour to it's full potential. If they plan on making further Red Dwarf episodes then the issues I've raised simply have to be addressed.

TV Review – Jonathan Creek, BBC 1, 1st Jan ’09, 9pm

It’s been years since they made the last episode of Jonathan Creek, and as a fan of the series I was quite excited by the fact that another had been made. For those who have never seen the programme before, Alan Davies plays the title character – a man who devises tricks for a magician who gets roped in to use his skills to solve seemingly impossible mysteries.

In this latest episode he is brought in to solve a series of disappearances in a room in a house. The room is an attic room in a house where someone had, in attempt to disprove a superstition, locked themselves in overnight and had disappeared in the morning. So it’s a classic locked room mystery, and therefore the solution shouldn’t be too hard – as if a room is completely sealed the body should still be in the room. Yet there is in my opinion a brilliant piece of mis-direction in the episode as there is something that grabs you as unnecessary the first time you see it, yet story distracts you from it and focuses your attention on both the bed and a painting on the wall. Whilst it’s not an entirely original mystery, it is a rather good one.

Yet the rest of the episode lets it down. There is just too many things going on that seem unnecessary, the magician Creek works for is up to his usual womanising shenanigans, Creek is once more unlucky in love and there’s a whole side mystery to do with a kidnapping that feels somewhat unnecessary. Its like they’ve had to do lots more to fill-up the episode. But also there are some parallels with the previous Christmas special episode, a big house with a deadly secret, a hidden romance between possible suspects. It all just takes the edge off what would have been a decent mystery.

Review - Kevin McCloud and the Big Town Plan

Over the last few weeks Channel 4 has been showing a series of documentaries about a project they set up with the local council (Wakefield) to renovate various areas around Castleford chosen by the local population. Being from the area, this immediately caught my attention when it was advertised on TV and only being busy has stopped me writing about it before now.

Now there are probably issues about how this scheme was devised, how it has been funded etc. But I want to deal what is billed as the central question, can ‘good design’ re-invigorate a run-down town. The idea of designing out social problems is not one that I haven’t come across before, in criminology the idea of designing out crime exists for example. The project is conceived as follows; the funding from various bodies for 8 initial schemes will create a boost that will lead to the regeneration of the whole town.

That the design of things can make a difference I personally am of no doubt of. Just the physical dimensions of any object affect how it can be used. A good design that fulfils the needs of local people will be of more use than a bad one. But no matter how good a design you have it is not isolated from the conditions around it.

The programme also suggests that it is innovative in involving the local community. In each programme there are some sort of community representatives, which although I am unsure how they are selected, I would think that any re-design of public space should include, indeed be the dominant group involved. Generally speaking though, in all the schemes covered, where the architects have listened to and taken up the ideas and needs of the people who are going to use it this has resulted in the best outcomes. Wherever the council takes direct responsibility for anything or tries to push its own agenda it ends up in creating something mediocre or worse. One programme has farce of a town square of benches, trees and paving being replaced by different benches, trees and paving.

Generally speaking it is the minor projects that have a large amount of local involvement that are big successes, and the ones where this involvement is either lacking or taken over by the council or a private company the result is less than satisfactory. But has good design reinvigorated the town economically. I think the answer is no – other factors such as the relocation of the market and a private investment plan are doing that for the town as a whole which are somewhat independent of the programme. But on a local basis around some of the smaller projects (particularly the parks) it has brought a community spirit back through a communal working together and ownership of these projects.

Knock-Off Nigel

People reading this blog will probably know what the title of this post refers to, but for those who don't it is to the latest series of anti-film piracy adverts on British TV.

Basically the jist of the adverts is that people who buy or download pirated films are basically cheapskates that are hiding within our midst and the adverts end with a public humiliation of the now revealed pirate film user by a crowd calling him knock-off nigel. You can see one of them set in a pub here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbqBPmInjQ) and another set in an office

The basic aim of the advert is to try and portray people using pirated films by... saying they will become moral degenerates because of it and become subject to public humiliation - this is supposed to stop them buying them.

For example the pub-based advert strings together the following traits of a knock-off nigel

1. they do things on the cheap


2. instead of buying gifts they give things they have acquired free of charge (in this case by finding items in the street)


3. they steal things from their relatives


4. they regualarly acquire favours/gifts of friends with nothing in return (in this case scrounging drinks)

Or the second office based advert which gives very similar things but with stealing from workmates and "being a real creep".

One of the first things that stands out is that these are characteristics thrown together at random as being supposedly 'morally wrong', I highly doubt that these characteristics of pirated film users.
Secondly what is so wrong with doing things on the cheap - as someone with a very limited income I have to by necessity do things on the cheap a lot of the time because of this (also doesn't this in essence imply that to be morally good you have to spend lots of money?). This doesn't mean that all the other traits apply to me. One of them does that of being bought drinks, but that stems from the fact that I'm poor and people tend to drink as a social activity and don't want me to be sat there without a drink when I can't afford it. But then when I've had money I've done the same for other people and that doesn't make them moral degenerates either! Also, it is a semi-custom for many people to buy drinks for their partners (particularly female ones) which when extended to them shows how stupid this generalisation is!
Thirdly, it completely rips why people buy these DVDs out of context. In the adverts 'nigel' is portrayed as someone who has the money to buy 'real' films but choose not to. Some people do not have this luxury, to be able to view all the films they wish to, that is before even discussing why DVDs costs so much. But more importantly this advert discussing it from only the angle of the buyer (although previous adverts have tried to tell us that all pirate DVD sellers are gangs using it for funding other criminal activities). This can also be examined at the level of individuals who copy DVDs too, but a discussion of how mainstream companies are complicit and can benefit from being involved in the trafficking of knock-off goods was discussed on Bent Society last week (see http://bentsocietyblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/last-week-i-graduated-and-found-ehell.html)

Now obviously you can't put all this in an advert, but an attempt to put the advert into its correct context would have been better at the very least. But we have also to question the motives behind such adverts and the whole question of pirated films/music etc. I'm hoping to write more on these issues over the next few weeks, but also I'd like to examine in further detail some of the question raised above, particularly the actual extent of film piracy and its composition. I would appreciate feedback and comments on this article very much.

The Socialist Crime Fiesta

This weeks socialist features a wealth of article of interest to the budding left/socialist criminologist. We have articles on youth crime, the exeter attempted terrorist attack, civil liberties, a review of a crime tv programme and a report of barbaric violence in South Africa. To read these go to http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/The_Socialist

Review – The Whistleblower – BBC1 Weds 5th March (8pm)

Recent high-profile child safety cases, such as the disappearance last year of Madeline McCann are the background to this episode of BBC One’s Whistleblower documentaries. The programme features an insider ‘whistleblower’ from OFSTED as well as an undercover journalist taking three different jobs in childcare; one at a local ‘family-run’ nursery, the second at an internationally renowned holiday resort chain and the third at a chain nursery which recently saw a child die in it’s care.
The impression you are left with from all these undercover visits is that childcare is seen by these businesses as just another way of making a ‘quick buck’. High prices are charged to parents for the care, but this certainly doesn’t go towards high quality staffing and facilities. Instead, the money seems to go in the owners back pockets, whilst they employ staff on the cheapest rates, with no training and as a result morale at all the places is really low, with a high staff turnover due to the high stress levels this provokes. At the resort we are shown some of the various tricks the company goes into to cuts costs, where they make staff work illegally on tourist visas rather than paying out for work permits for them.
Safety is also poor. As a result of chronic understaffing, stressed and over-worked staff struggle to keep an eye on all the children. Added to this are unsafe toys and objects, as well as a lack of safety equipment for some activities. We are also shown how one nursery owner denies that children have burnt themselves on radiators whilst simultaneously installing radiator guards ahead of an upcoming inspection (and this work, with power tools and all lying everywhere, is being carried out whilst children are still playing in the room!!)
Ofsted is shown to do next to nothing to protect the children, in the words of the programme’s whistleblower, its inspections ‘barely scratch the surface’. And keeping with the recent sleaze scandals we are told that the nursery where the child died may have been saved from closure to safeguard the career of Michael Falon, a Tory MP, who was the company’s managing director at the time.
What the programme didn’t go into was the need for a socialist solution to these problems. Instead of privatised nurseries with poor safety and low paid staff, there needs to be a publicly owned, fully funded childcare system under the democratic control of parents and workers to provide the care children and parents alike deserve.