Talk:Red Dwarf Remastered

NPOV, anyone?

I agree with everything on this page. However it reads a lot like "They remade Red Dwarf and I hate it". Yes, the computer graphics were totally crap. Frankly I found the model shots very realistic, whereas the CG just always, always looked like CG. Now, can anything objective be said on this page, rather than just "Many felt that". Was there actually an "outcry" or was it just lots of people like me, angry and grumpy, but silent? Stevage 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the US the Remastereds were received as a big improvement. We used to joke that the original series seemed like a parody of Thunderbirds rather than Star Wars! Since Star Wars was getting its Special Edition improvement in '97, it seemed good timing to show whose side you were on and go with improving Red Dwarf too and lose all that cutesy model stuff. That's how we saw it then, and I'm pretty sure that view was never revised, so it'll be interesting to see how the Bodysnatchers set will sell over here.

Whatever. The facts remain that Red Dwarf Remastered is a crappened version of the first three series, and that series VII and VIII are terrible, stupid series to anyone with intelligence. Of course we'll fighting our ground against stupid people but facts are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.204.125 (talk) 17:59, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

DVD Releases

I've added details of releases in continental Europe of the Remastered versions.White43 11:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentence

I've removed this sentence from Fan Reaction:

"The filmizing process resulted in degraded picture quality." This is POV.White43 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Old comment - but this isn't POV. The primitive field-removal technique they used to filmise the video does degrade the picture quality - throwing away half of the spatial and temporal resolution of the image. By any objective technical standard, the picture is of a lower quality after being processed. It's only from a subjective personal POV that it could be considered an improvement. Marwood (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remastered Broadcast dates

Is there anywhere I can find out the transmission dates of the Remastered episodes? Most info reads along the lines of: 'The remastered edition of The End aired as part of the show's tenth anniversary. The rest of the series followed soon after'

CGI additions

Re-removing the claims of CGI additions to live-action shots as no-one has provided a CGI example as yet. Skutters, flames, heads etc. were compositied from live-action plates. Also changed the funeral description back to 'heads' in the foreground - as they ARE heads. What would floating rocks be doing at a funeral? 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also taken out the bizarre claim of a Cat caption, which does not appear on any master tape or home release. Credited example, please? 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated: Please stop ignoring the edits unless you are able to provide accurate examples of CGI being added to live-action elements, or the other details. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What more do you want besides the extended polymorph introduction? We can't list every single addition of CGI to the remastered series - better to keep the list concise and to the point. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What more do I want? Truthfully, that a change be given consideration before being reverted - why keep re-inserting 'floating rocks' and a made-up caption? 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This "floating rocks / made up caption" thing was already there and I didn't notice I was putting them back in when I was reverting your other change. My reversion also sorted out a slightly dodgy spacing edit you'd made with your deletion. Anyway it said "shuffling rocks" but I don't suppose this alters the point. Until the Bodysnatcher DVD comes out it remains an elusive special effect to me and I don't know whether it's suppose to be shuffling rocks as the article said before (to give perspectival depth to the scene I would presume) or floating heads like you say (presumably the disembodied heads of people from previous funerals, which is a bit macabre?) Anyway I'm not fussed as to exactly what this special effect is meant to be, as it'll be explained with the DVD documentary and we can put the article right then. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

However, on this point maybe it's the original article wording that's at fault. The line reads "applied to particular scenes", which suggest augmentation to existing filmed scenes ("applied to" rather than "replaced"). The Polymorph example simply replaces an existing model shot, it is not a CGI application to existing footage. Nor is there an example available from The End, despite the sentence stating that these changes are especially prevalent in that episode. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My feeling would be that we already have CGI model replacements covered at least twice in the preceding points, and unless there are other examples of CGI being laid over actual scenes, it's best to leave it there. For the list to be well-organised and sensible, including the same model effects more than twice churlish. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, both of these "CGI model replacements" bits concern different aspects of remastered. There's the replaced models of Red Dwarf in space, and the article observes the impact this has on the mood of the programme. Then we address the new CGI crafts including the newly modelled Blue Midget. I'd argue that this relevantly covers a different aspect of remastered and isn't just repetition of the same point. Before it came to our attention that the skutters and other elements inserted into scenes were actually physical models bluescreened in, the rest of the visual alterations came into a third category described as "CGI elements added to live-action screens". Thinking about what you've said I think that these elements should be described simply as bluescreen ones, as you've been saying, but we should introduce a third example of CGI to the list - one that covers miscellaneous, non-ship based CGI alterations. This would need to be broken up to include entirely new effects sequences like the tunnel into backwards earth, the polymorph introduction etc, but also the alterations to scenes such as Rimmer glitching in Queeg. How does this sound to you? 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that the time hole comes under space and model effects, along with the dust storm or any nebula the ships pass. It's all one thing. And the vent replaces a model shot - a push in on a hole in the hull - with a CGI shot that begins aoutside the ship. They're still ship exterior model sequences, really. The glitching Rimmer isn't CGI at all, though. It's another Avid composite trick. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm going to leave the article as it is for now until I find another breach of fact or other suddenly creeping in that particularly annoys me. For the first time ever that list is readable and in a sensible order. You can change Rimmer's glitching for the pedal bin if you like but I don't think it matters. And also I'd argue that there's a difference between the replaced model shots and CGI transition scenes without ships. The latter need to be mentioned at least, and why bundle them in with the former when you'd then need to alter what stands as a good explanation of the model shots being replaced with CGI? 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, I finally found a live-action/CGI element! The swing-bin fix in The End! It may be the only full-on example, but I stand corrected that there is one at all! 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. I appreciate some of the other changes you've made but I disagree with the use of the word "hologrammatic" which, despite its use in the programme, isn't a real word. Putting "hologrammatic" into wikipedia indeed redirects to "hologram" but this doesn't negate the point since anyone can make such a link, and anyway this then points to "holography". If we're being descriptive and authoritative we need to ensure we don't just use words we've acquired from the characters. As an actual fact of description, Rimmer is holographic, and we should describe him as such in the article. We could say 'despite being what the other characters called "hologrammatic"' but this seems unnecessarily long-winded, and quite unnecessary given the purpose of wikipedia. Best place is "made-up words" in the main Red Dwarf article. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I'll leave you to think it over. I will, however, be correcting some other factual glitches (such as the 'tin can' in the opening titles, which only appears on DVD intro menus for non-remastered episodes). Before reverting, I'd appreciate the opportunity to debate if you're absolutely certain of the facts. 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes that I was suggesting above. Hopefully they'll allow us all to get back to our lives! 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably get me one of those... 86.144.204.125 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Added Heads

Just to be clear - the 'objects' added to the funeral scene of The End are heads. They are meant to be people attending the funeral, with the camera just catching the tops of their heads. People were filmed from behind in front of bluescreen and composited in. This is not hypothesis, just simple fact. 86.144.204.125 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why this doesn't make sense to some users, yet 'amorphous blobs' or 'floating rocks' (?!?!) does is beyond me. Look at the tapes - since when do rocks have bald spots? 86.144.204.125 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it's subjective isn't it, that's why people have this view or any other interpretation. Rocks don't have bald spots, and there was never any suggestion they were floating. Rocks have various reasons why they're lighter in some places than in others. Bleaching from the sun, erosion, lichen etc. Nobody ever said they were "floating rocks with bald patches". I posted ages ago that they were "shuffling rocks" because I thought that's what they were, and that they had been added because GNP were unhappy with the lack of perspective in the room or something. A pile of rocks though, with the occasional one teetering, not "floating". Somebody else put something about them being amorphous shapes as it seems fair to keep this unopinionated until that rather vague special effect is finally explained on the DVD. I'm not going to continue an edit war, though, so they can stay as "heads" since it's as good an explanation as any, and I doubt that many people will come here and be mislead in the meantime if you're wrong. 86.144.204.125 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wrong, it's not opinion. I've directed the new documentary - hence I know that the heads belong to Ed, Doug, Mark the editor and his assistant. But even if I didn't you need only look at the episode. They are head-shaped heads that look like heads. See also: almost any fan article about this addition. It's easy to research, and they all recognised them. I just figured the article shouldn't suffer just because of two fans' eyesight! 86.144.204.125 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't involved in this debate earlier, looks like it's been fun! I have to say that I too had no idea what those things were supposed to be in the funeral scene, so it's wrong to say "you only need to look at the episode". It's Rorschach as far as I'm concerned and you'll easily see them as heads if you KNOW they are heads. 86.144.204.125 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Starbug is a children's show train?

Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 23:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Percy, his name is. Thanks for pointing this out - now fixed. 81.157.212.157 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh I've accidentally put Percy back in! 81.157.201.189 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL Percy's back in again! Don't you see? Starbug is green and so is Percy! So they are the same!! It's funny putting him in the Red Dwarf Remastered article, don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.204.125 (talk) 14:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It's not especially funny. But even if it were, this is an information site. The Remastered episodes are coming out on DVD shortly, searches for information are becoming more prevalent, and it's better that users be provided simple facts rather than one person's 'comedy'. 91.104.93.162 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.204.125 (talk) 14:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

LOL look at that old Persil there. 86.144.204.125 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone flaunting the same signature in this damn coop?

Why in Dobbin's name is everyone flaunting the same signature in this damn coop? It's confusing. 81.132.254.74 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a picture of Gemini 12

I've supplemented the pictures of other remastered ships with a new one of Gemini 12 from Tikka to Ride Remastered. It's captured from the DVD and hope this doesn't break any copyright laws. If it does we can always take it down. 86.133.14.35 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're adding two "humorous" pictures to the article. I'm sure we're all impressed. --Rawfully 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support but it seems you've accidentally removed them from the article. I've put them back. 86.133.14.35 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that pictures of Percy the Engine and a pair of Nike trainers don't quite adequately illustrate space vessels such as Starbug or the Gemini 12. But thank you for your contributions, anyway. --Rawfully 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when were you quality control? Please keep this a reasonable debate or stop reverting my edits. 86.133.14.35 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locking the article

Thanks to whoever locked the article. However you realise you've "locked in" the vandalised version? It contains incorrect pictures and misinformation. 208.105.10.10 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no it doesn't. The version that exists now is the unvandalised version. Seb Patrick 14:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RedDwarfShip.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How long before deletion of this picture is implemented? Anything we can do to speed it up?  :) 86.141.193.252 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Added valid "non-free/fair use rationale" to image. -- Nreive (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A discovery - Balance of Power Remastered

I've discovered something strange... if you check out Ed Bye's promotional trailers for Red Dwarf Remastered, you'll notice that the "after" version of Lister's biking to the bunk room (in the Balance of Power clip) has new moving stars and nebulae added outside the window, until Lister says "lights" and the stuff outside the window disappears, as if a result of the contrast with the lit room. However - check it with the final remastered version of Balance of Power, and you'll see that the window has been left as per the unremastered episode. Anybody else notice this before? 86.132.202.76 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rimmers Mother

Have just watched the remastered version of polymorph. Anyone know why the voice of Rimmers Mom was re-dubbed and what was wrong with the original ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.134.40 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See Polymorph. The makers felt that the original voice didn't fit in with Mrs Rimmer's posh character. Nreive (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again - very stupid of them. Have they recognised that they were wrong to do this or do they still not fundamentally understand the series? I don't hold out much hope for the forthcoming series X since the people making it still haven't acknowledged how crap series 8 was! It'll be clownish falling and fart jokes from start to finish! 81.159.52.5 (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the yellowish background colour an error, then?

For series 3 remastered, one of the main visual changes was the stripping out of the yellowish background colour which I always considered intrinsic to the series 3-5 aesthetic. As visible below: thumb

Was the yellowish colour an error, then? A shame that one of the things I always considered central to the character of the series was probably an error with the tape or recording process, and something the makers wanted to remove. 92.40.220.60 (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A horrible voice

A horrible voice ruins the "Re-Dwarf" documentary on the Bodysnatcher disc. I wonder why the BBC chose such a crap narrator. Longacre Broomuncle (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the voice of Andrew Ellard, one of the main Red Dwarf fans. I think he runs a fan magazine or convention or something, and he was picked so that the narration would seem more objective. They could have gone with Robert Llewellyn but it would have made it seem like a more internal project. 86.135.75.159 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)