Observation Dome

PETE TRYS TO KICK KRYTEN OFF LIKE HIS JUST TROD IN SOME DOG POO!

Excellent grammar there.

Comments

Let's pretend for just one moment that not everyone knows what you're talking about. How would you explain further?

By Phil on 26-03-06 @ 00:47

It's a typo in a deleted scene caption, Series VIII.

Not created by us, BTW, it's from the play-on rough cut edit, so is likely the work of the series editor. I can't believe he wasted his time cutting a difficult and demanding show when he should have been going back to fix captions never intended for broadcast in case they upset Mr F... :-)

By Andrew on 26-03-06 @ 02:10

>It's a typo in a deleted scene caption, Series VIII.

Ohhh, I see. Comedy everyone except those who still don't have the DVD released in their region...

See, that's why I like good old Ganymede and Titan...they don't rub it in my face by writing a review of the DVD set at all. It's a very nice gesture on their part.

By Phil on 26-03-06 @ 02:50

"Comedy for everyone" I meant.

See, I just finished off another of those proofreading articles in which I slag everyone off for not paying attention to what they type before they submit it.

By Phil on 26-03-06 @ 02:51

But, I mean, if you're an editor who has got to the level of editing a major BBC show, you should at least be able to write properly.

By Kirk [TypeKey Profile Page] on 26-03-06 @ 13:18

Grr. Bad grammar.

I've just mentioned this myself on the fan club forums. I'm a bit embarrassed now I've seen this.

Just know this - I didn't copy - just a matter of great minds seethe alike.

By si on 26-03-06 @ 15:50

"But, I mean, if you're an editor who has got to the level of editing a major BBC show, you should at least be able to write properly."

What's editing got to do with writing? Also, I write for a living - and my capacity for typos is second to none. (And hell, Einstein was dyslexic.)

More to the point, when you have a pre-record to cut overnight ready for an audience shoot, wouldn't his priority be the cut, not some caption he's never expecting anyone to see after that day?

It's indiciative of a tight schedule, not laziness or stupidity. We provided deleted scenes as-was for a reason - to keep the context, to better show how things were. This shows a crew under pressure, wouldn't you say?

By Andrew on 26-03-06 @ 16:40

Alright, Andrew, calm down.

We's only jocking. thers nothing rong wif bad speling and grammer is theer?.

By si on 26-03-06 @ 17:09

Next time I'm under pressure at work I'll have to see if I can still write a coherent English sentence.

By Kirk [TypeKey Profile Page] on 26-03-06 @ 22:56

> I can't believe he wasted his time cutting a difficult and demanding show when he should have been going back to fix captions never intended for broadcast

What do you mean? It's on the DVD, isn't it?

By Smeghead2044 on 27-03-06 @ 19:31

>This shows a crew under pressure, wouldn't you say?

But you'd think that someone, somewhere, who's not under quite as much pressure might tell him that he probably ought to rewrite that sentence.

Unless it's intentional misspelling, the kind of intentional misspelling that many people 'round these parts will use occasionally. I hope it's someone trying to be funny, as it's a pretty stupid sentence anyway.

By Austin Ross on 27-03-06 @ 19:41

Smeghead2044 - the caption *was* never intended for broadcast. It was created for something for the studio audience to see back in 1998. They never expected it to be released on DVD!

I'm extremely happy it was, though - and was released exactly how it was done back in 1998, rather than redoing it. A valuable insight into the production process.

By John Hoare [TypeKey Profile Page] on 27-03-06 @ 19:55

>But you'd think that someone, somewhere, who's not under quite as much pressure might tell him that he probably ought to rewrite that sentence.

NOOOO!

Warts and all! Purism! So on!

Would you really want this stuff corrected? Why not go back and add bigger explosions over the little sparks in the episodes that Wragg wasn't happy with? Why not go back and delete the second "The saga continuums..." from Backwards?? Why not etc!

I say leave it. If the man made a booboo, keep the booboo. That's far more interesting to me than a reworked correction could ever be.

By Phil on 27-03-06 @ 22:26

> Why not go back and delete the second "The saga continuums..." from Backwards??

NEVER get rid of that! It's one of my favourite little details. Series VIII review?

By performingmonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] on 27-03-06 @ 23:22

>Warts and all! Purism! So on!

Normally, I'd agree with you, but (as that nice man Ellard pointed out) it was never intended for broadcast. Sure, if it's in this form on the DVD, keep it as is. But saying that they should not fix a poorly-written sentence just for the sake of purity is rather silly. That's like saying Rob and Doug should have used the rough drafts for their scripts - "warts and all" - as opposed to revising them. For me, artistic purity is all about making it as good as you can *at that time*. That's why I despise people who constantly fix things that they made twenty years earlier - they change it to fix what they see as fundamental problems with the work, but those same "problems" not only provide a blueprint for how the creator(s) has changed since then, they also give the piece its unique vision. I honestly can't believe that this is the best they could have done at the time.

However, I have yet to even see the DVD, so I'll just go over here in the corner, shall I?

By Austin Ross on 28-03-06 @ 03:51

The tone of some of these posts makes this business sound much more important than it is. It's just a caption, written seven or eight years ago, in which someone has put "his" instead of "he's". When I saw it, I was quite amused. There's no way it should have lead to this level of round-in-circles debate.

By Ian Symes on 28-03-06 @ 08:18

Have you tried looking trys up in the dictionary recently?

Yes, it's minor, it just surprised me that it would have ever got as far as a studio audience.

By Kirk [TypeKey Profile Page] on 28-03-06 @ 10:58

"That's why I despise people who constantly fix things that they made twenty years earlier - they change it to fix what they see as fundamental problems with the work, but those same "problems" not only provide a blueprint for how the creator(s) has changed since then, they also give the piece its unique vision. I honestly can't believe that this is the best they could have done at the time."

I don't know about despising them. Are you talking about people altering their films and television programmes, or live works as well? Because reworkings of old live works happen as artists mature, which might be viewed as not much different from the difference that occurs anyway with repetition as part of the working process. Even with television and film I think it adds an intriguing historiographical element to see progressive alterations of the work. It's like holding a piece of glass over an old painting and seeing how you work with the same ideas now and doing so repeatedly, in layers. And after all the original and subsequent versions still remain so it's all just experimentation, which is fine with me.

I guess this isn't what you're talking about exactly, though. People like Lucas "constantly" change their works in order to bring them up to date and offer definitive versions of their work according to developments in special effects and their desire to fit them in with their sequels and that kind of thing. I still think it's only a problem when it's a money making exercise however, rather than an artistic one.

By James on 28-03-06 @ 11:17

> Yes, it's minor, it just surprised me that it would have ever got as far as a studio audience.

I don't see why. It's smack in the middle of an edit of CGI, model, bluescreen, studio and location stuff, and would likely have been cut in the last few hours before the audience record (when they're often still filming and cutting to drop into the pre-VT).

If you're saying that you've never made a layout error or typo on something due in just a few hours...well, we bow. A lot.

> But you'd think that someone, somewhere, who's not under quite as much pressure might tell him that he probably ought to rewrite that sentence.

As in "Scuse me Mark - I know you've got four different shoots to get together, get approved and have timed right for audience laughter before they bring the smeggers in this evening, but that caption's spelt wrong. Can you stop with the important stuff and fix it?" :-)

By Andrew on 28-03-06 @ 15:16

>As in "Scuse me Mark - I know you've got four different shoots to get together, get approved and have timed right for audience laughter before they bring the smeggers in this evening, but that caption's spelt wrong. Can you stop with the important stuff and fix it?" :-)

All right, point taken.

And (despite what it may look like) I honestly don't really care about the caption. It was more Phil's post that set me off a bit.

By Austin Ross on 28-03-06 @ 16:49

> It was more Phil's post that set me off a bit.

Wait til you read what I said about your mother.

By Phil on 28-03-06 @ 22:32

Post a comment


(required)


(required, but will not be displayed)


(optional)

Remember Me?


Simple XHTML is allowed; you can use: <a href=""> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote> <img /> <br />.


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.observationdome.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1660

RSS 1.0 Feed RSS 2.0 Feed Atom 0.3 Feed Livejournal Syndication