Talk:Red Dwarf: Back to Earth

Reaction
I think people are being very unfair on the specials, Yes it was never going to be as good as the original broadcasts, It was great to see the cast back together and was really a treat to see Chloe back :), People expected to much for the specials, yes I thought it could of been much better but was good for what it was. Mike Barrett (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The storyline was ridiculous and ultimately vacuous, the Coronation Street stuff was gratuitous self-reference, as were the Dave references. A couple of self-references were sentimentally touching, and I liked the "then we stopped using DVDs and went over to what we use now." "Videos" joke, but that's about it. No wonder they didn't even offer it to the BBC.--MartinUK (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to be sharing personal reviews, even in the discussion section, which is intended to be a forum for discussing the article. However, the Reception section of the article should sample published responses from professional reviewers. BlueResistance (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed reviews that come from livejournal. Please note that sources added ought to reference published sources from professional reviewers, as BlueResistance has noted above. The correct policy to refer you to is WP:V, and particularly the section on self-published sources. These do not pass verifiability criterea and, as such, are not welcome. Please refrain from posting them. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the other sources which were added? It's very naive to think that SFX will publish an honest review after the marketing link-up.--MartinUK (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To spare any confusion, the reference to TV Scoop's comments on episode 1 are made in a review of episode 2, hence why the link connects to a review of that episode when our article says it is discussing the first. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that the critical reception hasn't been great, it seems to have improved since the weekend... certainly, some reviewers have said more positive things than "green shoots of improvement". For balance, I've added a short sentence to the end of "critical reception" that cites positive reviews from Total Sci-Fi, Liverpool Confidential, and Den of Geek. Hopefully those meet the criteria for being good sources (there's quite a few other good reviews but they're mostly from blogs).Señor Service (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Senor Service. It was rather unbalanced before, wasn't it? I'd planned on solving this but hadn't had time to find positive sources. Thanks for doing that. I have just tweaked the phrasing a little to make the paragraph flow better. I'm not sure if its an improvement or not, though! Thanks for the help! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the critical reception needs work. There are major aspects not covered, although I don't know whether or not you can find some of them in published sources. Most notably the tepid response to the lack of a laugh track (read through the comments on the Dave website, sadly I don't think these are source-able)! Also, this article gives TV-Scoop's opinion way too much credence. We need more negatives and positives from outside sources (what did happen to those added by Señor Service? What he added sounded just as good as TV-Scoop, whoever they are). In general, mixed is the only word I can think for Back to Earth. After watching them during Easter I went online and searched through hundreds of forums, and they all had mixed ideas (I know that sourcing them is trouble, but I don't see personally why someone writing for a magazine's opinion is more important than a Dwarf fan's is?). I would try and work on this, but people's paranoia about a reviewer's creditability is preventing me from even trying. Comrade Graham (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know all that stuff about why we can't discuss it here and that, but I do think it's a bit stupid that only a few people can be quoted, while the responses from the rest of the viewers are ignored. For example, if you were doing an experiment, you'd try and get as much data as possible to give a fair and accurate conclusion. Taking one persons opinion, just because they write for a magazine is ridiculous because their view mightn't be the same as everyone else.

I'm not annoyed so much with this article, but with that wikipedia rule. It just seems to say "If you are rich/powerful/famous your opinion matters." I do realise that you can't quote what random people on the internet say, because you don't know if they are telling the truth or not. I just think that with so many people saying similar things, you should atleast make some comment about it. --91.104.254.117 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Smeg Ups
Although Smeg Ups is being shown over the same weekend as Back to Earth, it is not in itself a part of the "Back to Earth" storyline, so surely should be listed seprately in the appropriate articles and pages.

Air date passed
The first episode has aired, and so needs to be updated to show the correct tense (past instead of future) for its air date. — Balthazar  (T 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am on it, though do be afraid of doing this yourself in future if you spot an article that needs correction. -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it might be best to leave this until Sunday night when all the episodes have broadcast. That way we don't need to keep altering it. -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Blade Runner
I've never actually seen Blade Runner all the way through, but perhaps someone who has could make a list of the references? All I got was the line "time to die", and that the origami squid was based on the unicorn, but I'm sure there's more. Daibhid C (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. The last part was filled to the brim with BR references, and there were a few in part 2 as well.  If there is a consensus that such a list would be a useful addition we can make one. magnius (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was such a list, but someone deleted it. It also contained notes on series continuty, simlar to the Futurama articles, and listed previouis Red Dwarf content that had plots similar to the new episodes, noting the influences of Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers (not knowing their fantasy, and not wanting to leave it), "Queeg" (Katerina trying to replace Rimmer due to incompetence), and of course "Back to Reality". You can try and re-add it if you want, and it is still accesible on Tounge Tied, being perfictly in scope of a fan wiki. 72.45.107.156 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This type of material, though interesting, is original research, and as such falls foul of WP:NOR. If you can find reliable published sources that say that parts of the episode are based on Blade Runner, feel free to add these sourced ideas with correct citation. Though I agree with you that there was a lot in the episodes that was a parody of Blade Runner, wiki policy is that verifiable, cited sources are necessary to post information, while original research, here meaning the connections we all spotted ourselves, is not acceptable. First person to find such a source wins a prize! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the episode itself, in which the character of the Creator says that the fake death sequence is based on Blade Runner count as a source? Daibhid C (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh does it say that in the episode itself? I missed short segments of the episode on first broadcast, so that must have been one I did not get. Yes, that should be fine! Excellent! Write it into the article and source it properly and we should be good to go! Just make sure that what you don't make wider claims than those supported by the source (eg. if the Creator said one section was based on Blade Runner, don't claim that anything outside of that section was based on it too, and you will be fine! Happy editing! (And by the way, I'm sorry, but I was joking about the prize!) -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The creator is not an independent source. Any article on a topic is required to cite reliable, third-party, published sources independent of the topic. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. 59.167.58.33 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah. Try reading the post again, and realising that the Blade Runner comparison was within the dialogue of the show (spoken by the 'creator' character).--MartinUK (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivia sections should be avoided. 59.167.58.33 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To stop this squabble before it blows up, I have found two other good sources to cite this connection and have indluded them in the article. If anybody finds any more, please feel free to flesh out this section. I am also in two minds about if it belong in 'Production' or 'Reception', given that the sources thus far are critics noting the influences on Blade Runner on the programme. Any thoughts? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Major edit required
Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Manual of Style (writing about fiction). 59.167.58.33 (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why not remove the offending material yourself? It would be good to have your active involvement in this. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking back on this, it wasn't really a matter for debate. WP:PLOT is rather clear about such matters, and the material we have does not justify such a long and slavish plot summary. I know a lot of people have put in a lot of work on that summary, but I'm really sorry to say it just can't be justified according to policy. I have therefore been bold with my edit and reduced it to the few lines that are probably justified by the limited information the article contains on other matters. Do not revert this edit without adequate discussion here, as per WP:BRD. Please use this space to debate this edit and, after some discussion, we ought to be able to agree what is best for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As it is in three parts, I think it is fair that each part is given a small summary (albeit much edited) as each part is an act within a larger story. magnius (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can see your point, but I think these need to be much, much shorter even than those you have instated, as the rest of the article is so brief. I have made a few edits to your suggested summaries. How does that look to you? If you disagree, please do not just revet but return here to discuss potential new wording of them so that we can reach a compromise. Thanks for the help with this article. I am sure that, with a little discussion, we can get this balance right! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Series 9 and 10?
What were they on about in this story? They mentioned series 9 and 10? There's only 8 series according to Wikipedia. Do the producers counnt them differently? 81.157.236.16 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing such matters. This talk page is for discussing the article we are currently producing. Please take questions such as this to fan forums elsewhere on the internet. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if there are series 9 and 10, then surely wikipedia should be changed to include them. If the producers do count differently, then wikipedia should be changed to reflect that, and if there in no series 9 and 10, then surely the article should note that in some form. 81.157.236.16 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no series 9 and 10. In the world of the fiction they happened between series 8 and Back to Earth, though in reality they were never made. If you can find a source then feel free to add this information, though I think it would belong on the Red Dawrf series page itself rather than in this article, since it has little bearing on these episodes, other than being mentioned in them. Sorry to have been a bit quick to refer you to fan forums; I thought you were simply after the information rather than improving the article. My mistake. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Series 9 and 10 are the ones Dave are making. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.199.111 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical response
I've changed the wording of the second para slightly in what I hope is a fairly innocuous edit. On reflection, I was concerned that the previous version muted the positive reception among some critics by making it sound like they merely agreed that there were green shoots of improvement in the second episode ("the second episode contained 'green shoots of improvement'. This positive response was shared by other critics..."). For balance, if we're going to quote one of the show's detractors laying into it in no uncertain terms, I don't think we can understate the positive reception, where it existed.Señor Service (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comedy-drama
would you classify this as a dramedy? 188.222.41.105 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, as the article says it's a "science fiction sitcom". I think that this is the most accurate description. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)