Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Red Dwarf Series Threatened By the Twitter Era

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the wouldn't-that-be-good-buzz? dept.

Communications 228

An anonymous reader writes "The announcement that the new series of Red Dwarf is likely to be shot in front of a studio audience, which hasn't happened for the show since 1998, has made one of the show's actors wary of the practicality of it. Commenting on his blog, Robert Llewellyn, who plays servile robot Kryten in the hit British SF comedy show notes: 'The fear among the producers now is that it's impossible to imagine an audience of around 400 people at the recording of a TV show like Red Dwarf, where nobody does a bit of a hint on Twitter, or sneaks a picture on Facebook or posts a bit of badly shot video on YouTube.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is why (4, Funny)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949400)

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949418)

Nice things? Red Dwarf jumped the shark awhile ago.

Re:This is why (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949422)

Oh yes. The last series was pretty bad, then the two 'special' episodes were just dreadful.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949530)

Fine don't watch it, what's it to you

Re:This is why (3, Informative)

ratinox (582104) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949598)

If it's not written by the Grant Naylor gestalt entity, then it's not Red Dwarf. That's pretty much why they were so awful...

Re:This is why (4, Informative)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949792)

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

Re:This is why (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949834)

I'm a big fan of the 6th series, mainly because they introduced some more sci-elements to their stories. It really felt like the 7th series would have been quite amazing had it come out with the usual writers.

Re:This is why (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950292)

FYI, Star Trek 5 >> Back To Earth. In every way, including comedy value.

Re:This is why (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950298)

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

Infinity welcomes careful drivers, Better than life and Backwards are all great books though, well worth reading. I'd rank them close to H2G2, a bit more lowbrow but still funny.

Re:This is why (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950454)

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

Re:This is why (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950470)

What made Red Dwarf good was the 80s British humour, the fact that nothing had really changed much in the future and so the jokes revolved around modern life situations.

For anyone who doesn't know before the 80s a lot of British humour was basically racist, sexist or based on some other kind of prejudice/stereotype. Then a new generation of comedians came along who did observational jokes. Ben Elton is one of the most well known. Red Dwarf was a refinement of earlier concepts like The Young Ones, Lister basically being an older version of the unwashed student who lives off beer and curry and Rimmer being the up tight one who takes it too seriously. I was surprised at how popular the show became in the US since many of the jokes were based on British culture and society.

The sci-fi stuff did work, but only because it was still basically bachelors in space. It was character driven rather than plot driven.

Re:This is why (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949774)

You are absolutely correct and you know what? I don't give a shit. If it's Red Dwarf, I'll watch it.

Re:This is why (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949928)

Well yeah, me too. I mean, there's always hope, right?

And even if it's rubbish, there are going to be a few decent moments. maybe, hopefully, possibly?

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950554)


Spoiler Alert (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949416)

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

Why are you even concerned?

captcha: sequel

spoilers (2)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949662)

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

Re:spoilers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949976)


duh (1, Insightful)

psavo (162634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949430)

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

Re:duh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949620)

Pretty sure they're more worried about spoilers.

Two for the price of one! (0)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949700)

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

Re:Two for the price of one! (2)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949866)

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

Re:Two for the price of one! (2)

angularbanjo (1521611) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950392)

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

Re:duh (4, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949808)

Anyone who watches Red Dwarf for the plot is missing the point. It's like watching Twilight for the sex. All that can really get out of a pre-screener like this are a few good jokes, which should hopefully convince the potential viewer to tune in anyway.

Movies have dealt with this for years. It's called Some-Of-Your-Audience-Sees-It-Before-The-Rest. Movies are still good movies. Red Dwarf will survive.

Re:duh (5, Interesting)

JunkmanUK (909293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949870)


The point they're making is that there is a vast difference between 'Some" and "Most". It is possible to send footage, commentary almost instantly to hundreds of thousands of people in this modern world. This wasn't the case 10-15 years ago.

Maybe this is the reason modern TV series filmed in front of audiences are so bland, is because if there were any twists some dickhead will always feel the need to shout it to the world through the many social media options available to them.

Personally I've never understood (and never cared enough, really) why TV magazines insist on telling the reader what is due to take place in their soap of choice over the coming week.

Are people really unable to WAIT for anything any more? What is the achievement to be made from demonstrating that you know what happens in a TV programme, film or game?

Re:duh (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950126)

It really isn't that big a deal though.
I went to see "Avenue Q" a while back having no idea what it was.
I did recognise one of the songs "the internet is for porn" though which had become a bit of a meme.

when I got home I looked it up and found a whole pile of shaky phone camera videos of the show which were years old.
yet they in no way detracted from my enjoyment of the show when I first saw it.

Re:duh (4, Funny)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950096)

You WATCHED twilight? seriously?

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950206)

Yeah, me and my band "El blizzardo" stopped touring for exactly this reason. We are now going to sue Twitter for a huge sum of money since we were forced to stop touring before we even had a chance to get famous.

In other news... (1, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949436)

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

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

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

JunkmanUK (909293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949914)

Except that the perceived downfall of Red Dwarf ties in with the omission of the studio audience.

It has long been touted by comedy writers such as Richard Curtis (Blackadder) that a studio audience gives them a very solid gauge of what is working and gives them feedback on how things could be done better.

Plus, news that "there will be a new series of Red Dwarf" is one for the TV websites. A story on a technology site about concerns about social media accessibility and it's effect on TV series production is totally appropriate in my view.

Re:In other news... (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950312)

Studio audiences get a lot of stick but Red Dwarf is proof that it can improve series. The mini series just felt a bit soul-less without the studio and the interplay between characters didn't work. Of course the fact it was an overly mawkish not-as-funny-as-it-should be Blade Runner parody didn't help either.

Faraday Cage? (4, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949460)

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

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

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

Ryan Fenton

Re:Faraday Cage? (4, Interesting)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949480)

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

Re:Faraday Cage? (5, Funny)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949506)

Supposing we built a large wooden badger...

Re:Faraday Cage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949968)

Yes, and the people who see the show being filmed should be required to walk around inside their personal soundproofed Faraday cage until the episode airs.....

Re:Faraday Cage? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949552)

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

Re:Faraday Cage? (2)

reezle (239894) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949696)

No, since they would record and post later, the only sensible solution is metal detectors at the gate.
Perhaps the TSA could join the production?

Re:Faraday Cage? (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949848)

Unless they also have some sort of brain-wiping techniques it's still not going to stop someone Tweeting about it later.

Re:Faraday Cage? (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949962)

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

Re:Faraday Cage? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949754)


it might be tricky with things like radio mics and such, but i can imagine they can hide the gear in a quiet corner inside the cage. i'm surprised the faraday cage thing hasn't been done at many other venues where mobile phones are an annoyance.

of course they could post the scripts online before taping, or release artwork, modes, stills or synopses before the fact where, while not giving anything away, provide a value-add and enough of an appetizer to prevent people spoiling it.

i think the main fandom will not particularly want to watch the show as taped on an iPhone by an amateur without the context of the final cut-together show with VFX and enough editing to hide the goofs.

producers (rather, those working under them) need to start promoting creative ways around a technological problem. then they might create new revenue streams rather than "losing" money and control to a studio audience.

also... if the show manages to screen, the tweets will be coming at the same time as the show is. who's gonna watch twitter rather than the show?

Re:Faraday Cage? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949802)

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

Oh no free advertising! (5, Insightful)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949486)

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

Re:Oh no free advertising! (2)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949518)

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

Re:Oh no free advertising! (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949852)

The trailers will spoil more jokes than a dozen Twitter/Facebook feeds ever could.

Re:Oh no free advertising! (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950106)

They're probably afraid that people will report that this series will suck even more than the last few. I remember reading the first book over 20 years ago. It was pretty good, but I think we've all had our fill of both Alien and the time travel storylines by now, haven't we?

Re:Oh no free advertising! (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950030)

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

Re:Oh no free advertising! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950404)

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

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

Geez it's like there was (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949510)

five extras in Spiderman.. so no worries there.

I am VERY cross... (4, Funny)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949522)

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

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

Ahh Slashdot (1)

bennet42 (1313459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949562)

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

Re:Ahh Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950200)

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

So what? Take advantage of this... (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949532)

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

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

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

Big Bang Theory is shot in front of an audience (-1, Troll)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949538)

...and that show's winning awards and doing just fine. Piss weak excuses from British fat cat fools. You gonna cede the battlefield to the yanks now?

Good (3, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949542)

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

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

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

Re:Good (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949570)

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

Re:Good (2)

Mendy (468439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949874)

I seriously don't understand what you mean by 'doesn't work any more'.

Since Rob Grant ceased to be involved with the writing (after series 6) the quality of the episodes has been generally poor. As it's now been over 10 years since the series was on (Dave specials excluded) they would likely have to assume viewers weren't familiar with the characters and do a lot of work setting up their personas which might bore fans of the existing episodes. The writers may also struggle to come up with anything new to write about after 8 series as they can't cover "relationship humour" without adding a woman and breaking the "blokes in spaaaaaaaace" thing.

I also think they'd need a new Cat, unfortunately Danny John-Jules is getting a bit too old now to be convincing in the "Cool" role.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

VVrath (542962) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949670)

[I]t feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago.

Craig Charles has been on the UK soap Coronation Street since 2005 [] . Given it's one of the most popular shows on UK TV, I'd say his career has significantly improved since the days of Red Dwarf.

Re:Good (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949806)

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

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

6031769 (829845) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950002)

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

Re:Good (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950352)

That land being the whole world you mean?

Shit like Coronation Street, Friends, Sex and the City has always rated better than science comedies simply because there are more brainless drones in the world than there are people who appreciate science enough to get the jokes in science comedies.

It doesn't matter where you are, mass market stuff that anyone can get into is always going to do better than more targetted sciency stuff.

Re:Good (2)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950416)

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

Re:Good (1)

geordieboozer (849533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949882)

plus he hosts his own radio 6 show The Craig Charles Funk Show

Re:Good (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949680)

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

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950090)

Probably because the last time they touched it since the end of series 6, they messed it up horrifically.

Series 1 was not fantastic, but then both the writers and the actors were still finding their feet. Series 2 was OK, but it definitely needed the refreshment that took place at the beginning of series 3.

4 and 5 were also great series. By series 6, however, it was pretty obvious they were running out of gags. 7 and 8... ugh.

Then they remastered series 1 and 2. The net result was:

Scene 1 - characters sat around wearing grey boiler suits on a grey set which was obviously cobbled together some time in the 1980's from a bit of scrap wood and a special deal on grey paint.
Scene 2 - characters wandering around a fantastically cheap grey set.

Cut to swishy modern CGI spaceship animation with lots of colour and pretty FX. Maybe a starfield in the background and a few bright colourful planets.

Scene 3 - character walks in on a cheap & nasty grey set.

The mental jarring was painful.

Then they did "Back to Earth". I couldn't watch that through, it was so bad, and I don't think I'm alone.

Re:Good (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950412)

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

Re:Good (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950120)

but it is clearly a series that doesn't work any more.

The show, the comedy, the characters all work fine, all the 3 episode special proved is that if you use a shitty script it will still stink regardless of the quality of the cast and how much the series is loved. The original series still works today extremely well, it is one of the few comedy series I can watch over and still enjoy the humor.

Re:Good (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950560)

"but it feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago."

To be fair on the guy, back in the 90s during Red Dwarf's peak he was victim of a false rape allegation which delayed the later series and harmed the ratings somewhat as a result. After that he seemed to dissapear from public view somewhat.

Still, since 2005 he's been on the UK's longest runnning, most popular, and regular award winning prime time soap which, unlike American ongoing soaps are held in much higher regard here, and have much higher audiences proportional to population differences. This largely came about with the British terrestrial TV system which for years meant there was only 5 main channels and cable/sky TV with hundreds of channels was much less common. Whilst we have more channels today via Freeview the original channels have kept their status as being generally seen as the better quality channels, so getting a role on a soap on one of these channels is really a sign of success- to give an example, Ian McKellen that played Gandelf in Lord of the Rings took up a short storyline in the same soap that Craig Charles is in just a few years ago only shortly after the success of the LotR movies.

Craig Charles also has a radio DJ show on a popular radio channel in the UK.

So he may not have moved on to say, Hollywood movies, and given the setbacks he's seen in terms of the false rape allegation over the years he's done pretty well for himself, certainly you can guarantee he's far more widely known now for his Coronation Street role, and far better paid than he will have been for Red Dwarf, as good as it was.

So what? (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949548)

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

Their solution? Do jack shit.

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

The fans who do, do.

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

Re:So what? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949608)

Plus, people who like the WWF usually can't afford computers, anyway, so there's no chance of them finding out until it's aired.

Re:So what? (0)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949634)

You'd be surprised.

Re:So what? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949856)

WWF has quite a wide demographic. Once you realise it's improvisational theatre and not sport, it suddenly becomes a lot more entertaining.

Re:So what? (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950004)

Agreed. I wouldn't consider myself a wrestling fan (the only wrestlers I can name are The Rock and Hulk Hogan), as I've only been to a few wrestling events, but they are quite enjoyable. I saw midget wrestling once and that was more entertaining than it should have been.

Re:So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950006)

homoerotic performance art at it's finest.

Re:So what? (1)

Pastis (145655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950220)

Exactly. How often can you solve problems by just getting rid of the fear ?

People are afraid all the time.

Exactly (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949556)

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

What if they do? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949558)

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

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

New Media New Model (1)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949566)

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

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

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

Re:New Media New Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949684)

Learn what spoilers are, you fucktard.

And maybe learn to punctuate properly while you're at it.

Re:New Media New Model (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950530)

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

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

Spoiler Alert (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949572)

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

Re:Spoiler Alert (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949732)

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

Just wait . . . (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949614)

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

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

Re:Just wait . . . (1)

CProgrammer98 (240351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949826)

We get british stuff ages after it airs in the UK. And the UK often gets our stuff ages later.

My work is done here.

Robot Audience (2)

chitokutai (758566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949652)

They could always just fill the seats with robots.

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

Record the audience separately? (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949658)

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

Re:Record the audience separately? (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949772)

(Which apparently they aren't, because according to the summary, the only one known to be worried is one of the actors.)

The quote from the actor says this is a "fear among the producers." I think this directly contradicts the summary's assertion that it's the actor who is "wary" about it.
Not even the summary writer read the article this time.

I have a crazy idea! (4, Interesting)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949694)

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

Re:I have a crazy idea! (1)

jayke (1531583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949964)

To be fair, the people who are willing to spend full days during which most people would ordinarily be working watching a TV-show being recorded are probably not going to be representative of the best and the brightest. As always, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions.

Re:I have a crazy idea! (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950064)

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

Yeah, so? (2)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949794)

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

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

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

Re:Yeah, so? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949924)

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

Re:Yeah, so? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950110)

Yes.. It is all great soicial advertising. There is no better way to leak things than to say "Please keep this a secret"(without any consequnces...) . It is exactly as the BBC did with doctor who in 2005(rose) where a perfect quality first episode was leaked to p2p a few days before the actual broadcast.

Since twitter is now hot they say " don't twitter about it" .... right..

You don't need a depressed computer with an IQ of 6000 to figure this out.

Just watch the old ones (1)

gunner800 (142959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34949858)

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

Just a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34949956)

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

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

Problem solved! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950068)

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

The easiest solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950174)

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

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

I Hate "Humour" (0)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950208)

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

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

Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950372)

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

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

Wrong mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34950482)

I think Kryton needs to switch off his paranoia chip.

Has anybody told Graham Linehan? (3, Insightful)

DominicSayers (781748) | more than 3 years ago | (#34950574)

And yet The IT Crowd somehow manages to survive being shot in front of an audience of geeks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?