yet another unnecessary US remake of something pretty new and already in english

[dehro]

misfits (http://www.hypable.com/2012/01/09/chuck-creator-attached-to-us-misfits-remak/)
why not remake fawlty towers and keeping up appearances whilst they're at it?

[Goosefeather]

why not remake fawlty towers whilst they're at it?

They tried to. Three times. Mercifully, each failed.

I will never understand this mentality.

At least they haven't tried remaking Monty Python or Doctor Who yet, but it can only be a matter of time...

[Ravens_cry]

Well, there has been successful versions of this. I hear 'The Office' on both sides of the pond was pretty good.
So, Trope not bad, just often bad.:thog:

[shadow_archmagi]

At least they haven't tried remaking Doctor Who yet, but it can only be a matter of time...

Er... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Doctor_Who#The_2000s

There *is* an ongoing Doctor Who, you know.

EDIT: Oh, you meant a US remake. Oops.

[Goosefeather]

The Office does seem to be the major exception which proves the rule though - leaving aside the reality talent shows like Pop/American Idol.

I just don't get the need for a programme like Elementary to exist when Sherlock is pretty much perfect as it is. Nor am I looking forward to the proposed remake of Gavin and Stacey - it'll have none of the charm of the original.

I mean, we're perfectly happy to watch shows like How I Met Your Mother or House over here in the UK without feeling any kind of need to remake them - despite how jarring it is to hear Hugh Laurie speaking in an American accent! :smalltongue:

[Tiki Snakes]

Depending on how they approach it, a Doctor Who US remake could be amazing. Especially if they, instead of blindly keeping the name and changing everything else, they keep the lore and so on but use their own time-lord.

Because then there can be crossovers between the two shows. Which would be cool.
(I suppose having the main character simply be the Doctor wouldn't rule that out either, as alternate dimensions is already Dr Who canon).

[Selrahc]

The Office does seem to be the major exception which proves the rule though - leaving aside the reality talent shows like Pop/American Idol.

There are loads of exceptions. Off the top of my head... Whose Line Is It Anyway?, Sanford and Son and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? are all British formats exported to the US. It isn't hard to come up with more examples.

It gets tried because it works.

Of course it often fails too.

[Goosefeather]

Depending on how they approach it, a Doctor Who US remake could be amazing. Especially if they, instead of blindly keeping the name and changing everything else, they keep the lore and so on but use their own time-lord.

Because then there can be crossovers between the two shows. Which would be cool.
(I suppose having the main character simply be the Doctor wouldn't rule that out either, as alternate dimensions is already Dr Who canon).

The last season of Torchwood mixed the US and the UK pretty evenly, as I recall. And now that Rex seems to be immortal, like Jack
I expect that'll continue.

[John Cribati]

If the US does remake Misfits, there needs to be new characters.

Plus, the original creator looks to be in on it, so I'm holding on to a flicker of hope for now.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

They tried to. Three times. Mercifully, each failed.

I will never understand this mentality.

At least they haven't tried remaking Monty Python or Doctor Who yet, but it can only be a matter of time...

I heard about a Doctor Who movie planned by some American studio a few years back, but I think the plan has since caved and crashed. Luckily.

[Goosefeather]

There are loads of exceptions. Off the top of my head... Whose Line Is It Anyway?, Sanford and Son and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? are all British formats exported to the US. It isn't hard to come up with more examples.

It gets tried because it works.

Of course it often fails too.

Game shows do seem to work better, and I can understand the reasoning behind regional variations on shows such as Britain's Got Talent, or Pop Idol.

My problem is more the mentality that feels the need to remake something like Life on Mars or Being Human. It's not like UK English is unintelligible to a US citizen, and given that shows selected for remaking tend to be popular and hence already of high-quality anyway, one can't help but feel that the only reason for remaking it is so that the US audience doesn't have to leave the 'comfort zone' of the States. Which is, obviously, a rather poor reason.

[John Cribati]

It's not like UK English is unintelligible to a US citizen

Rebuttal: Kelly. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[thompur]

This really isn't unusual. There have been, historically, enough big successes that it will continue. Besides "The Office", there was "All In The Family"(Til Death Do Us Part), "Sanford and Son"(Steptoe and Son), and "Three's Company"(Man About the House).

[Raistlin1040]

The American Life on Mars was amazing. Shame they canceled it.

At least with television, American TV is just faster. More episodes, spaced out better, longer seasons, etc. Compare both versions of Life on Mars. American one did 17 episodes in six months. UK version did 16 episodes in fifteen months. When the episodes come out quicker, it takes forever for the next season (by the time Series/Season 7 of Doctor Who comes out, it will have been nearly a year since Series 6 ended).

From an artistic standpoint, American TV schedules allow for a story to wrap up in shorter time, which means they can spend 12 episodes on an idea and move on without a huge hiatus or less episodes. From a commercial standpoint, more episodes means more revenue.

And lastly, we don't get nine million BBC channels. We get BBC America and it is not basic cable. I watch Doctor Who on BBC America and Merlin is on SyFy, but I only know about those shows because Doctor Who is huge and my dad showed me Merlin. BBC America has way too many talk/reality shows (Graham Norton, Top Gear, Gordon Ramsey shows) and even has American shows (Why are X-Files and BSG on BBC America?).

A lot of British shows are on Hulu, but you can't exactly seek them out if you don't know what you're looking for. The American remakes let you know of their existence and if you don't like the American version but like the idea, you can go watch the original.

[Selrahc]

From an artistic standpoint, American TV schedules allow for a story to wrap up in shorter time,

If there is anything that the American method of TV does not do, it is that.

[Elder Tsofu]

A lot of British shows are on Hulu, but you can't exactly seek them out if you don't know what you're looking for. The American remakes let you know of their existence and if you don't like the American version but like the idea, you can go watch the original.

Just do like us and send the shows in the regular channels instead of bunting them into hard to reach ones, then you remove the need of remakes to enable the citizens to know what to search for. :smalltongue:
(Sweden)

[Raistlin1040]

If there is anything that the American method of TV does not do, it is that.Not in terms of number of episodes, no, but they can do a 10 episode arc in 2 and a half months and either take a break for a few months and come back, or move on to another 10 episode arc and then end the season. The British TV options seem to be "Write 10 episode arc: Spread it over 6 months", "Condense 10 episode arc into 3 episodes", or "Show 10 episode arc in 2 and a half months, then take year long break".

[Selrahc]

Not in terms of number of episodes, no, but they can do a 10 episode arc in 2 and a half months and either take a break for a few months and come back, or move on to another 10 episode arc and then end the season. The British TV options seem to be "Write 10 episode arc: Spread it over 6 months", "Condense 10 episode arc into 3 episodes", or "Show 10 episode arc in 2 and a half months, then take year long break".


Artistically, British TV shows will almost always wrap up a storyline faster.
In terms of production time? It's probably a lot closer. But that is totally irrelevant when talking about the artistic presentation of a work.

[dehro]

"Show 10 episode arc in 2 and a half months, then take year long break".

nothing wrong with that.
if the show is good I will watch the next season even a year later.
the only real reason why the US media do this is to milk it and make more money. I don't agree that this is sufficient reason to take a show, change it often to the core or at the very least completely altering the main characters and their portrayal. the characters, the acting, the setting and the plotlines are what makes one love a show. changing the lot is, in my opinion, disrespectful and counterintuitive. if I liked it that way, changing it completely isn't going to make me like it any more. watching a rehashed version of something I loved is only going to make me think the people who wrote the show were too lazy to come up with something original. of course this isn't true per se, as they write it purposedly to milk the cow a little more... but still that's the impression it leaves.
it's like with music .. more often than not, music covers make me really miss the original version and leave me with the impression that the new guy is butchering the song/rendition of the original artist. sometimes a cover is as good or even better than the original..but mostly this is not the case.

[Lord Seth]

The Office does seem to be the major exception which proves the rule though - leaving aside the reality talent shows like Pop/American Idol.Even if we expand "reality talent shows" to all unscripted shows (e.g. no Undercover Boss, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, etc.), what about All in the Family? Being Human? Sanford and Sun? Three's Company? Shameless?


I just don't get the need for a programme like Elementary to exist when Sherlock is pretty much perfect as it is.A program that has like three episodes per season doesn't particularly work well for broadcast television in the US. Or even cable TV, for that matter.

[Androgeus]

Being Human?

If you've seen series 1 of Being Human, Season 1 of Being Human US is pretty much passable as it treads the same ground. Season 2 is good though as it starts telling its own story. The question is could the US version survive a cast change?

[Xondoure]

If they do this in the same universe with different characters, this is awesome. If not... you can't replace Nathan. Well, you can, but... well, that kind of stuff only happens in America.

[Goosefeather]

The American Life on Mars was amazing. Shame they canceled it.


:smallconfused: You are joking, right? It was TERRIBLE, especially next to the original, and there's a reason why the US version was cancelled while the British spawned Ashes to Ashes.

The US version had some slight promise, once you accepted that no Gene Hunt could match the original, but the big 'reveal' ruined the whole premise. The UK ending of Life on Mars was beautifully done - subtle, deeply moving, and everything television should be. The US ending made me laugh out loud from sheer derision, being about as subtle as a brick to the face. Lines like 'this is gonna be one successful gene hunt'? :smallsigh:



A program that has like three episodes per season doesn't particularly work well for broadcast television in the US. Or even cable TV, for that matter.

So treat it like a film trilogy. Or simply be more flexible. UK television has no problems showing US length series like Heroes, HIMYM or Lost, after all.



To be honest, the issue is not whether the remake turns out well or not, it's why anyone should feel the need in the first place. It comes across as either blatant commercialism or a superiority complex, like 'this is good, but it would be BETTER if it were American!'

[Lord Seth]

So treat it like a film trilogy. Or simply be more flexible. UK television has no problems showing US length series like Heroes, HIMYM or Lost, after all.There's a difference between taking a film series longer than your regular shows then broadcasting it and taking a film series shorter than your regular shows then broadcasting it.

Though I'm not sure what your point even is in relation to what I said. You asked what the reason for Elementary (not picked up yet, for the record, it's still in pilot phase) would be when Sherlock existed (which applies, I suppose, to any remake, but that was the one in particular mentioned). I pointed out that they can get a lot more out of a series will full-length (for the US) seasons than one with three episodes per season. And of course there's always the fact that it being something you own is superior for a lot of reasons than licensing it from someone else...

The Office is really the case in point. NBC could never have gotten all they've gotten out of that series had they just aired the British version.

[Goosefeather]

-snip-

Hang on, we may be communicating at cross-purposes. I assumed you meant it was difficult to schedule a 3-episode series when the standard is longer.

In the UK, broadcasters will happily show, for example, Toy Story one week, Toy Story 2 at the same time the next week and Toy Story 3 the third. I was assuming this could happen in the US, and wondering why something like Sherlock couldn't be treated the same way, hence the reference to film trilogies.

However, if your point is that Americans see 3 episodes (or 6, the default British series length) as too few, I guess it's simply an issue of quality versus quantity. I would argue that more definitely does not always equal better, and that being left wanting more is not a bad thing. It's like eating a decent-sized meal, whilst still having room for a little more at the end, versus eating til you're sick.

Shows like Buffy, Lost, Heroes, HIMYM, Scrubs, Prisonbreak, the Simpsons, Family Guy, all would have benefited from being a good deal shorter, for example - and this is when producers aren't trying to pad out a shorter original.

[Lord Seth]

Hang on, we may be communicating at cross-purposes. I assumed you meant it was difficult to schedule a 3-episode series when the standard is longer.

In the UK, broadcasters will happily show, for example, Toy Story one week, Toy Story 2 at the same time the next week and Toy Story 3 the third. I was assuming this could happen in the US, and wondering why something like Sherlock couldn't be treated the same way, hence the reference to film trilogies.That can happen pretty easily on cable. Broadcast (where Elementary would be shown if it's picked up) is another matter because they have far fewer hours to play around with (cable channels have 24 hours to play around with, but the majority of a day on broadcast networks is run by local affiliates). Though to be fair, they could maybe stuff it on Saturday or something, sometimes they put movies there.


However, if your point is that Americans see 3 episodes (or 6, the default British series length) as too few, I guess it's simply an issue of quality versus quantity. I would argue that more definitely does not always equal better, and that being left wanting more is not a bad thing.I don't think it's a good thing either. People often say "a show should leave you wanting more" but by that logic it'd be great if a good show was canceled after four episodes. You're left wanting more, after all! I thought a series that was the perfect length was The Wire, and I wasn't left wanting more with that; I was left satisfied with its length. So I've always disagreed with this "a show should leave you wanting more" idea.

In fact, my favorite show (BoBoBo-Bo Bo-BoBo) left me wanting more because it was canceled midway through an arc and has no real resolution. I do not consider that a good thing.

However, I was talking about the studio's perspective. When you get down to it, which is worth more to you...
1) A show someone else owns that you have a handful of episodes to show.
OR
2) A show you own that has a lot of episodes to show and can be sold into syndication (a major source of revenue).

I mentioned The Office before, and I stick by it. If NBC had aired the original, they would've gotten a few episodes and that would've been it. But because they made their own version, they've had a show that's pretty popular and has undoubtedly made them lots of money in syndication; they wouldn't have gotten anything close to what they've got from the U.S. version of The Office if they had just gone with the U.K. version. As I've stated a number of times, for the last few years The Office was one of the few shows on NBC I could say "is getting good ratings" about without adding "for NBC." (that hasn't really been true with this latest season...though it's still NBC's highest-rated scripted show. NBC's kind of...not doing well right now.).

Now, of course, you can mention "what about remakes that fail? Plenty of them have; not everything is a The Office." True. However, plenty of non-remakes fail also. I do think that there's probably a higher percentage of remakes failing than non-remakes, but I also feel that the percentage is probably skewed due to the fact that after The Office's success, remakes became in vogue and that resulted in a lot of subpar ones coming out that ordinarily would've been rejected (same thing happened after Lost hit it big), thus creating an artificially higher percentage.

(As a random note, because the word "The" is part of the title of The Office, does that mean I can put an indefinite article and definite article together like I did--when I wrote "a The Office"--and have it be grammatically correct? Hrm.)


Shows like Buffy, Lost, Heroes, HIMYM, Scrubs, Prisonbreak, the Simpsons, Family Guy, all would have benefited from being a good deal shorter, for example - and this is when producers aren't trying to pad out a shorter original.I'd disagree with some of these, like The Simpsons; I think it's still decent, if not as great (Family Guy, on the other hand...). I think season 25 would be a decent enough place to end it, though, and there's some indications they might do it then.

I don't think Heroes was a case where its problems were that it went on too long. I think they just started making some really bad decisions starting in season two and never stopped. The fact that the guy in charge of NBC's programming changed between seasons one and two of Heroes is something I regard as probably not a coincidence (especially considering that the new guy--Ben Silverman--is commonly regarded as the one who really dug NBC into the hole it is right now).

[Goosefeather]

sniiiiiiiiiiiipity snip

I do see where you're coming from, but I think our attitudes are fundamentally different.

As a viewer, I would rather have twenty consistently high-quality episodes of a show than thirty high-quality episodes interspersed with thirty low-quality episodes, for example. The bad can taint memories of the good, for me at least, and the longer you go on, the more danger there is of padding, Flanderisation, and lack of new ideas.

I have nothing but good memories of Firefly, yet I have mixed memories of Heroes. And Firefly wasn't even given enough warning to wrap up decently - if you know your show's short, it gives more incentive to pack in only the good stuff.

Studio decisions are entirely commercial, no disagreement there - and yet, British studios don't seem to do the same thing (again, game shows aside - I'm talking about things with plot and characterisation). I think there is a fundamental difference in attitude, with the US seeming to present a need for cultural homogenisation, for the 'comfort zone'. It's not just about making money, American TV executives seem to feel that US viewers will be less interested in a show if it's not set in the States.

Length of series is just a side-issue. Look at Game of Thrones - its seasons are only two episodes longer than those of the original Life on Mars, yet it's doing rather well for itself. Or take Top Gear - the UK series is on 147 episodes SINCE its relaunch, but this hasn't stopped attempts at US remakes. You can apply this to film - and I don't mean remakes of old classics, but something like Death at a Funeral, remade in the US only three years after its original UK release. I saw 'Let the Right One In' in 2008, in a UK cinema, despite the film being in Swedish. An excellent film, yet, two years later, the US remake it as 'Let Me In'.

Irrelevant of how successful or not these remakes have been, the question is why are they culturally 'necessary' in the first place? Even if it's just naked commercialism, studios are still playing off their audience's staunch cultural hegemony, or the remakes wouldn't be commercially viable.



Heroes, to be fair, never really recovered from the writers' strike. It lost its inertia and by the time it got it back, it had been cancelled. The Simpsons, however, is like a really old dog, who you hate to put down, because of all the good memories you have, but you know it's the right thing to do - he's infirm and suffering.
And I think the article thing is grammatically fine, but it looks better if you italicise or put the title between inverted commas - it's not a The Office! :smalltongue:

[dehro]

let's not include game shows in this debate. a good gameshow needs to be adapted to the country it broadcasts in because otherwise half the questions and quizzes would go unanswered.. (because, really, the baseball "world":smallamused: series aren't a viable subject for a quiz in any european country)
and good gameshows go on eternally so they kind of break this debate to begin with.

Irrelevant of how successful or not these remakes have been, the question is why are they culturally 'necessary' in the first place? Even if it's just naked commercialism, studios are still playing off their audience's staunch cultural hegemony, or the remakes wouldn't be commercially viable.

this

every time a show or movie is remade for the american market when the original is still running or is only a couple of years old, I do believe that most non americans will at the very least go :smallconfused:, and most likely have a thought or two in the direction of annoyed references to american cultural imperialism.
by the way, Americans have copied that attitude as well, they didn't invent it. half the Roman Empire's pantheon was made of Greek gods that appealed to their tastes, were stolen and retconned to fit within the cultural patterns of their society and history. it wasn't a cool thing to do then and it isn't one now...despite how well it may have worked out for the Romans then and for the Americans now.
the Americans do it better/it would be better if it were American attitude that allows these endeavours to be commercially viable does grate on ones nerves when it touches shows that are good the way they are and have in fact had a good success in the US as well...as they were in the original show.
it's just plain disrespectful and it annoys me more than it makes me go "oh, at least it will be just as good" to know that the sirencall of "more money" has actually made the author of the original version sell it out. I'm sure he's a successful businessman and commercially speaking it IS the right thing to do for him..but that doesn't really mean I have to like the principle of it. I can't help but echo Lauren "kelly" Socha's sentiments on the matter.

its subsequent success in the new format/version is not relevant to why one feels the need to do it in the first place

[Xondoure]

I think there is a lot to be said for spin off series in the same world, but different parts of it. But I agree that just straight copy pasting with different accents is a little ridiculous.

[dehro]

I think there is a lot to be said for spin off series in the same world, but different parts of it. But I agree that just straight copy pasting with different accents is a little ridiculous.

that, I would watch.. after all it's not like the infamous black cloud day can have affected only people in England. I'd love to see a show that happens in the same universe somewhere else...who knows..sometimes in the future the two casts may actually meet at some stage.
I'm just hoping they're not going to replicate things the way they usually do in these circumstances.

[Lord Seth]

I do see where you're coming from, but I think our attitudes are fundamentally different.

As a viewer, I would rather have twenty consistently high-quality episodes of a show than thirty high-quality episodes interspersed with thirty low-quality episodes, for example. The bad can taint memories of the good, for me at least, and the longer you go on, the more danger there is of padding, Flanderisation, and lack of new ideas.

I have nothing but good memories of Firefly, yet I have mixed memories of Heroes. And Firefly wasn't even given enough warning to wrap up decently - if you know your show's short, it gives more incentive to pack in only the good stuff.I'm not sure how any of this has any relevance to what I said...


Studio decisions are entirely commercial, no disagreement there - and yet, British studios don't seem to do the same thing (again, game shows aside - I'm talking about things with plot and characterisation). I think there is a fundamental difference in attitude, with the US seeming to present a need for cultural homogenisation, for the 'comfort zone'. It's not just about making money, American TV executives seem to feel that US viewers will be less interested in a show if it's not set in the States.Which is true for...every country, not just the U.S. It's why pretty much every single country's fiction is chiefly composed of things that occur in that country. Most Japanese shows take place in Japan. Most U.S. shows take place in the U.S. Most U.K. shows (I believe) take place in the U.K. I'm sure that's true for all the other countries of the world also.


Length of series is just a side-issue. Look at Game of Thrones - its seasons are only two episodes longer than those of the original Life on Mars, yet it's doing rather well for itself.Game of Thrones is on HBO, which has a very different business model than almost every other channel. And there's also factors like budget (huge budget) and the fact it's based (from my understanding) pretty strictly on the books, so you can only get so much out of it anyway. This isn't something like, say, The Vampire Diaries, where they took some parts of the premise of the books and then went off in their own direction with completely different stories.


Or take Top Gear - the UK series is on 147 episodes SINCE its relaunch, but this hasn't stopped attempts at US remakes.Or Australian remakes, or Russian remakes, or Chinese remakes, or Korean remakes...


You can apply this to film - and I don't mean remakes of old classics, but something like Death at a Funeral, remade in the US only three years after its original UK release.And didn't do particularly well, either.
I saw 'Let the Right One In' in 2008, in a UK cinema, despite the film being in Swedish. An excellent film, yet, two years later, the US remake it as 'Let Me In'.Is it worth pointing out that Let Me In was very well received and the person who wrote the original novel and original film gave it high praise?


Heroes, to be fair, never really recovered from the writers' strike.I keep seeing people say things like this, but I don't get it. The writer's strike was not the reason Heroes' second season failed. The season was failing well before the strike occurred; in hindsight, it started failing from the first episode (certainly in the ratings...there was a dramatic increase in viewers for the first season premiere, and then an even more dramatic decrease for the second episode of the season). If anything, the strike may have improved the season because it forced them to actually have things start happening.


It lost its inertia and by the time it got it back, it had been cancelled. The Simpsons, however, is like a really old dog, who you hate to put down, because of all the good memories you have, but you know it's the right thing to do - he's infirm and suffering.I disagree. I think The Simpsons is still decent and worth keeping around for at least a few more years.
every time a show or movie is remade for the american market when the original is still running or is only a couple of years old, I do believe that most non americans will at the very least go :smallconfused:, and most likely have a thought or two in the direction of annoyed references to american cultural imperialism.I think most just don't care, to be honest.

I know that Americans certainly seem to have little problem with foreign remakes of their stuff. There actually semed to be a fair amount of interest in that anime version of The Powerpuff Girls, and I haven't seen anyone get perturbed by Law & Order UK. Actually, looking it up, it looks like there's been a number of foreign Law & Order adaptations...which I've seen no American get distressed over. Or the various Sesame Streets. The only time I saw anyone get bothered about a foreign remake was when some Belarus show was a clone of The Big Bang Theory, and that was because the whole thing was done without permission and constituted copyright infringement, not because it was a remake.


it's just plain disrespectful and it annoys me more than it makes me go "oh, at least it will be just as good" to know that the sirencall of "more money" has actually made the author of the original version sell it out.What.


its subsequent success in the new format/version is not relevant to why one feels the need to do it in the first placeUh...how? I'd think that something being a success would be completely relevant to why someone would want to do it in the first place.

[Goosefeather]

I'm not sure how any of this has any relevance to what I said...

It's perfectly relevant to the theme of shorter versus longer series, which, if I'm not mistaken, we were discussing. It's an expansion on my previous 'more is not always better argument'.


Which is true for...every country, not just the U.S. It's why pretty much every single country's fiction is chiefly composed of things that occur in that country. Most Japanese shows take place in Japan. Most U.S. shows take place in the U.S. Most U.K. shows (I believe) take place in the U.K. I'm sure that's true for all the other countries of the world also.

Most countries produce a lot of television set within themselves, yes. However, if a foreign series, set somewhere else, is worth watching, most countries don't then remake it purely to set it within their own country, they watch the original.



Game of Thrones is on HBO, which has a very different business model than almost every other channel. And there's also factors like budget (huge budget) and the fact it's based (from my understanding) pretty strictly on the books, so you can only get so much out of it anyway.

Quick point but, it actually cuts a lot out of the books, for budget reasons, and is a simplification of the original plot. However, it rather undercuts your point about American series HAVING to be long if a channel like HBO can simply use a different business model, especially when it seems to be working.

I have neither seen nor read the Vampire Diaries, so can't really comment.



And didn't do particularly well, either.Is it worth pointing out that Let Me In was very well received and the person who wrote the original novel and original film gave it high praise?


Irrelevant of how successful or not these remakes have been, the question is why are they culturally 'necessary' in the first place? Even if it's just naked commercialism, studios are still playing off their audience's staunch cultural hegemony, or the remakes wouldn't be commercially viable.


I keep seeing people say things like this, but I don't get it.
The problem is it forced anticlimactic abortions to storylines and left gaping plot holes which were never filled in (that Irish girl trapped in the future and never mentioned again, for example).


I think most just don't care, to be honest.
Actually, dehro is on point there. Whenever I mention to any of my European friends that a show they like is getting a US remake, the response is invariably something along the lines of 'What!? Why the hell would they do that? Why don't they just watch the original?' With the recent examples of Sherlock, Only Fools and Horses, and the proposed Doctor Who movie, the responses were even more annoyed.

[Lord Seth]

It's perfectly relevant to the theme of shorter versus longer series, which, if I'm not mistaken, we were discussing. It's an expansion on my previous 'more is not always better argument'.And shorter is not always better either.

At any rate, I stated:
"I don't think it's a good thing either. People often say "a show should leave you wanting more" but by that logic it'd be great if a good show was canceled after four episodes. You're left wanting more, after all! I thought a series that was the perfect length was The Wire, and I wasn't left wanting more with that; I was left satisfied with its length. So I've always disagreed with this "a show should leave you wanting more" idea.

In fact, my favorite show (BoBoBo-Bo Bo-BoBo) left me wanting more because it was canceled midway through an arc and has no real resolution. I do not consider that a good thing."

I don't see how your response really responded to that.


Most countries produce a lot of television set within themselves, yes. However, if a foreign series, set somewhere else, is worth watching, most countries don't then remake it purely to set it within their own country, they watch the original.I don't think any were remade purely to set it within their own country (that seems more a simple side effect of what occurs to something that's already being remade).


Quick point but, it actually cuts a lot out of the books, for budget reasons, and is a simplification of the original plot. However, it rather undercuts your point about American series HAVING to be long if a channel like HBO can simply use a different business model, especially when it seems to be working.HBO's different business model to is to be subscription-only, meaning that to get it you have to have a cable subscription and then on top of that pay extra money to get HBO (for me, at least, I'd have to pay more than double what I already pay for cable to get access to that channel). Clearly this has worked out for HBO and a few other channels, but it's not something that could work for most.


The problem is it forced anticlimactic abortions to storylines...really? I'd say it actually gave us some decent climaxes. Not as good as the first season, but a heck of a lot better than what we were getting in the season so far.
and left gaping plot holes which were never filled in (that Irish girl trapped in the future and never mentioned again, for example).That's not a plot hole, that's just something unresolved. Though I don't see how the writer's strike caused that, they could have easily just come back to it in the same season or the next. Though she was a boring character anyway, from what I remember...

But my point was and remains that the things people complain about in season 2? They started before the strike. People were complaining about the direction the show was taking well before the strike had any effect on it. So I do not think the strike was the source of the problems for season two.
Actually, dehro is on point there. Whenever I mention to any of my European friends that a show they like is getting a US remake, the response is invariably something along the lines of 'What!? Why the hell would they do that? Why don't they just watch the original?' With the recent examples of Sherlock, Only Fools and Horses, and the proposed Doctor Who movie, the responses were even more annoyed.Well people in the US don't seem to have any problem with other countries remaking our stuff from what I've seen. Reaction seems to range from "huh, that's interesting, I'll check it out" to just not caring. I haven't seen Supernatural fans get outraged by the fact it had an anime adaptation. Some seem to have not considered it to be a good adaptation, but I didn't see anyone complain about the fact it had one.

Though the reaction to Sherlock confuses me, considering Sherlock itself was an adaptation. It seems like the complaints about that--"why don't you watch the original?"--extend to the "original." Even if we ignore the books due to it being a different medium, there were already Sherlock Holmes film/TV adaptations. Why make Sherlock? Why not just watch those instead? The exact same argument/complaint applies from what I can tell.

[dehro]

Well people in the US don't seem to have any problem with other countries remaking our stuff from what I've seen. Reaction seems to range from "huh, that's interesting, I'll check it out" to just not caring.


it happens very rarely if at all... whereas it's a growing trend on your side of the pond.


I haven't seen Supernatural fans get outraged by the fact it had an anime adaptation. Some seem to have not considered it to be a good adaptation, but I didn't see anyone complain about the fact it had one.
I don't watch it but you're describing an adaptation to an entirely different medium. that doesn't qualify in my opinion for a direct remake.

[t209]

Don't forget about
Death in the Funeral (Bad US Adaption but still have
Gay dwarf lover of the dead man.)
Shark Tank (Dragon's den in UK).

[dehro]

Don't forget about
Death in the Funeral (Bad US Adaption but still have
Gay dwarf lover of the dead man.)
Shark Tank (Dragon's den in UK).

who was played by the same guy, Peter Dinklage in both films, yes. galling.

[Lord Seth]

I don't watch it but you're describing an adaptation to an entirely different medium. that doesn't qualify in my opinion for a direct remake.TV show to TV show is an "entirely different medium"? What?

You can maybe say animation is a slightly different medium than live action, but it's extremely close. The differences between the two are really nuances when you get down to it. For example, animation allows you to do special effects much more easily than in live action. Sure, it's not the exact same thing, but both are audio visual mediums and both are done in regular installments (in contrast to, say, a movie, which is a one-shot affair). An "entirely different medium" would be something like book->TV or TV->film, not something like live action TV->animated TV.

[dehro]

TV show to TV show is an "entirely different medium"? What?

You can maybe say animation is a slightly different medium than live action, but it's extremely close. The differences between the two are really nuances when you get down to it. For example, animation allows you to do special effects much more easily than in live action. Sure, it's not the exact same thing, but both are audio visual mediums and both are done in regular installments (in contrast to, say, a movie, which is a one-shot affair). An "entirely different medium" would be something like book->TV or TV->film, not something like live action TV->animated TV.

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Lord Seth]

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.But what's even your rationale for saying a cartoon is an entirely different medium? You've never explained that.

[dehro]

But what's even your rationale for saying a cartoon is an entirely different medium? You've never explained that.

honestly, I didn't think I needed to. also, I haven't seen this particular anime so I can't be in good conscience entirely sure of my case, even though I stand by my opinion.
on the whole, a cartoon, especially so an anime has a completely different visual impact. its production is an entirely different business than that of shooting a live action tv show, it's usually aimed at a different target and carries taboos and limitations that are different from those in place in a live action show. special effects and general scenography are wildly different issues from one medium to the other, acting, casting and its quality are what makes or breaks the real life show..which is very much a limited issue when "only" voice acting is involved...
on a more basic level, one is done on a stage/in a location, the other is done with a pencil/graphic tablet.
seriously..do I have to continue? I probably could... anyway, the point is that if all of the above isn't enough of a gap between the two mediums for you to accept my definition of entirely different because you consider being in installments/episodes, and being displayed on a television enough for the two to be closely related, then that is your privilege. it's a standpoint that has its merits. I just happen to disagree with it.

[Lord Seth]

honestly, I didn't think I needed to.Well you should. I pointed out that a cartoon and a live action show have the same format, even if one is filmed and the other is animated. Yes, they are a little difference in that there are a number of nuances, things that work well in one and not the other, and vice versa. But the format (audio visual presented in half-hour/hour segments) is the same. Quite frankly, there's more differences between live action formats (e.g. daily shows versus weekly ones) than there are between live action and animation.


on the whole, a cartoon, especially so a manga has a completely different visual impact. its production is an entirely different business than that of shooting a live action tv show, it's usually aimed at a different target and carries taboos and limitations that are different from those in place in a live action show. special effects and general scenography are wildly different issues from one medium to the other, acting and its quality are what can make or break the real life show..which is very much a limited issue when "only" voice acting is involved...This is just an explanation of how things are different on the production end, which I would agree with. But in the presentation end, how are they entirely different? You still haven't really answered that.


on a more basic level, one is done on a stage/in a location, the other is done with a pencil/graphic tablet.Again, production different, not presentation difference.

It's kind of like saying The Powerpuff Girls is an entirely different medium from The Simpsons because the former (I believe) involves making a storyboard first and then writing the script based on that, whereas the latter has them write the script and then draw the storyboard based on that.

At any rate, the differences you've mentioned seem awfully irrelevant to your dismissal of the two as "entirely different mediums."


seriously..do I have to continue? I probably could... anyway, the point is that if all of the above (and whatever else I could mention) isn't enough of a gap between the two mediums for you to accept my definition of entirely different because you consider being in installments/episodes, and being displayed on a television enough for the two to be closely related, then that is your privilege. it's a standpoint that has its merits. I just happen to disagree with it.But you haven't made it relevant to this case. Likely the main reason they even did go animated was because they didn't have access to the actors themselves, and if they did they could've done the exact same thing, just in live action.

There's some nuances in the difference between cartoons and live action, to be sure. Some series would be different to do in one or the other, and some shows just plain work better in one or the other. But they are not entirely different, and your dismissal of my example on that grounds is shaky at best.

[Raistlin1040]

Really guys, your argument seems to boil down to "gosh, Americans are so stupid", and that's not very cool. Yeah, some remakes are stupid. Some are good. Some are marketed to a completely different demographic (Death at a Funeral UK and Death at a Funeral US are NOT targeted to the same groups). Obviously some people have different tastes and that is reflected in the remakes (for example, I liked the US Life on Mars where some fans of the original didn't. I liked the UK Skins first and then watched the US Remake and liked both, but can definitely see why some people only liked one or the other). Ultimately, it doesn't detract from the original if it's a bad remake, and a good remake can compliment the original.

Think of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The original Swedish film is great. The American remake is also great. Which one is better? I don't know, I prefer the American one but both are good. Even if the remake had been awful, I would still have the original to watch though, and that's where it seems like everyone is getting so pissy. TV Shows are not The Highlander; There can be more than one. If you don't like the remakes, don't watch them. If someone you know likes a remake, try showing them the original, maybe you'll make a new fan. But yelling about American Cultural Imperialism and getting all angry because people like to watch TV Shows where the people are in places they know and speak with accents they recognize seems a little petty.

[Senator Cybus]

After the last season of Misfits, I'd welcome a U.S. replacement of the show, never mind a remake.

Actually, after the last season of Misfits, I'd happily let a gang of drunken goat herders from the Ukraine have a go at a remake. :smallfurious:

[dehro]

Really guys, your argument seems to boil down to "gosh, Americans are so stupid", and that's not very cool. Yeah, some remakes are stupid. Some are good. Some are marketed to a completely different demographic (Death at a Funeral UK and Death at a Funeral US are NOT targeted to the same groups). Obviously some people have different tastes and that is reflected in the remakes (for example, I liked the US Life on Mars where some fans of the original didn't. I liked the UK Skins first and then watched the US Remake and liked both, but can definitely see why some people only liked one or the other). Ultimately, it doesn't detract from the original if it's a bad remake, and a good remake can compliment the original.

Think of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The original Swedish film is great. The American remake is also great. Which one is better? I don't know, I prefer the American one but both are good. Even if the remake had been awful, I would still have the original to watch though, and that's where it seems like everyone is getting so pissy. TV Shows are not The Highlander; There can be more than one. If you don't like the remakes, don't watch them. If someone you know likes a remake, try showing them the original, maybe you'll make a new fan. But yelling about American Cultural Imperialism and getting all angry because people like to watch TV Shows where the people are in places they know and speak with accents they recognize seems a little petty.
I love and appreciate plenty of original US shows.. friends, scrubs, the early xfiles, babylon5 etc etc etc.. no, I don't think americans are stupid. I do believe this recent trend is stupid.
I just don't see why non-americans are expected to know about america enough to understand the shows that are set there, (and we usually manage to do so) but the reverse seems to be too much of a bother for the average american... to the point that they need to remake stuff purely for a different accent, which frankly isn't such a big deal to adapt to.
it's the same sort of lazy assumption that many anglophones (not just americans) apply when they visit a foreign country, ask for directions in english and when the local farmer they're asking it to doesn't understand a word they're saying, try and make it clearer by repeating it very slowly and loudly.
indeed I try to avoid watching pointless remakes.

@lord Seth.. as I said twice, I can't argue your specific example because I haven't actually seen the Supernatural Anime..
again, speaking in generic terms, from a viewer point of view, watching a cartoon means I appreciate the artistry, the quality of the drawings.. watching a live action show, about the same subject, I am much more influenced and intrigued by the acting, the performance, the scenarios and special effects.. in short, it's an entirely different kind of empathy (not dissing one or the other, I like both mediums).. and an entirely different.. don't quite know how to put it.. cultural experience?
similarly, just because a book happens to be printed on paper just the same as a comic strip, doesn't mean they are the same thing, even if they share the same subject or plot and happen to take the same amount of time to absorb.
I don't know really how else to explain the profound difference I see in both these examples.

I may be wrong but I don't believe that your rebuttal of my previous explanation as it being insufficient to make my point stems from you not getting what I meant..
I assume you have understood it just fine and making my previous post all about production as opposed to presentation is mostly nitpicking, caused by the fact that you disagree with my view....which is perfectly fine.. I didn't want to transform this in a semantic debate anyway, which is why my original reply was so brief.

[Lord Seth]

to the point that they need to remake stuff purely for a different accent, which frankly isn't such a big deal to adapt to.I don't think anything has been remade purely for a different accent.


it's the same sort of lazy assumption that many anglophones (not just americans) apply when they visit a foreign country, ask for directions in english and when the local farmer they're asking it to doesn't understand a word they're saying, try and make it clearer by repeating it very slowly and loudly.Does that actually happen in real life? I always figured that was just a joke on TV. At least the loudly bit.

It is true, however, that speaking slowly can really help with comprehension.


@lord Seth.. as I said twice, I can't argue your specific example because I haven't actually seen the Supernatural Anime..

again, speaking in generic terms, from a viewer point of view, watching a cartoon means I appreciate the artistry, the quality of the drawings.. watching a live action show, about the same subject, I am much more influenced and intrigued by the acting, the performance, the scenarios and special effects.. in short, it's an entirely different kind of empathy (not dissing one or the other, I like both mediums).. and an entirely different.. don't quite know how to put it.. cultural experience?All irrelevant to the present issue at hand. These are nuances at best.
similarly, just because a book happens to be printed on paper just the same as a comic strip, doesn't mean they are the same thing, even if they share the same subject or plot and happen to take the same amount of time to absorb.Books are text. Comics have pictures and text. This is a far greater difference than anything between animation and live action.
I don't know really how else to explain the profound difference I see in both these examples. Offhand, I can't think of a single thing on a cartoon that can't be translated perfectly (content-wise) into live action or vice versa. Granted, it may take a high budget to translate it into live action in some cases, but still, it can be done with anything I can think of.

Would it necessarily be as good? Maybe not. Probably not in a number of cases. And in a number of cases it'd probably look just plain goofy. But you can take one scene in live action and convert it exactly to animation, and vice versa. You cannot do the same thing in a book->TV show, because even if the book described every single aspect of every single scene so they matched up, you still wouldn't be seeing it in the book. Changing from animation to live action and vice versa changes it from something you're seeing...to something you're seeing. It doesn't even change things like format like TV->movie does, because it's the same format (okay, if it's a TV movie or something it isn't, but we're talking about series here).

Your argument seems akin to saying that a color comic book is an entirely different medium from a black-and-white comic book.


I may be wrong but I don't believe that your rebuttal of my previous explanation as it being insufficient to make my point stems from you not getting what I meant..
I assume you have understood it just fine and making my previous post all about production as opposed to presentation is mostly nitpicking, caused by the fact that you disagree with my view....which is perfectly fine..I can hardly see how it's nitpicking. Your claim was a dismissal of it because you claimed they were entirely different mediums, which I have explained quite well why they are not. A bit different? Sure. Entirely different? Heck no.

I didn't want to transform this in a semantic debate anyway, which is why my original reply was so brief.It's not a semantic debate. It's you dismissing something I brought up on grounds that doesn't make sense.

[Elder Tsofu]

Remaking something could be done for various reasons, such as "It can be done better" or "subtitles, what a distraction from the rest of the content". It is just that the first tend to reaffirm beliefs like "the Americans sure are full of themselves" and the second could give rise to reactions like "but that's just a lazy excuse, you just removed all the content!".

As someone from Sweden I tend to sigh and roll my eyes when I see something like it. It is just how it is done, like Germans apparently dubbing everyone and their grandmothers or the Swedish television channels importing some tired new game-show where they once again can pit the same old G-rank celebrities against each other.

[Kato]

As someone from Sweden I tend to sigh and roll my eyes when I see something like it. It is just how it is done, like Germans apparently dubbing everyone and their grandmothers or the Swedish television channels importing some tired new game-show where they once again can pit the same old G-rank celebrities against each other.

Wait, what's wrong with dubbing? Maybe it is because I grew up in germany and am used to everything (or half of it) being dubbed but I don't see a better way for airing foreign shows. Admittedly as an anime fan I have grown to prefer subs over dubs for multiple reasons but I can see how most people are lazy and don't want to read all day. And there are enough decent dubs if people try hard enough.
What else should we air? Original German shows all the time? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........ Not funny.

On topic... I wouldn't mind the US making new shows or adding something or whatever but from what I know many, many British shows don't get aired in the US but they try to make different shows and often they fail. Why? Because they are not anymore what the originals were. And they remove what made the shows good. And they fail to realize it and it really is kind of stupid...

For another example, it's by now very uncommon for German stations to adapt foreign shows. The latest example was (yet another) Office copy, which is very popular (though not one of my favourites). I can't comment too much on it since I saw like three episodes of the British Office but I guess they stuck to the format and kind of the characters yet changed everything else. I guess it's just a REALLY good format so it wirks in all it's incarnations(?)

[dehro]

no offense intended..but I've tried watching a john wayne movie in german (well..with my limited understanding of german that is)..
the voice...
I don't think I've ever laughed that hard watching any western..and I've seen Blazing Saddles and The Frisco Kid
it just doesn't "fit" the actor or the character... to an ear used to hearing the natural voice of the man.
subtitles are much better..allow you to actually appreciate the acting more..and learn a language at the same time.

@Lord Seth
again, to me a cartoon and a tv show are different mediums and they evoke different emotions, stirr different considerations and appreciations. I'm not trying to convince you that I am right in saying so, I'm saying that this is what these mediums do for me, please stop trying to convince me I am wrong, as I said, it is a personal matter based on different opinions.

the slow-loud talking does actually happen, yes.,..more so than one would think (though a little less frequently in the last few years, on account of most anglophones finally catching up) and no, it doesn't help at all if the guy you're talking to has never learned English or any other language that vaguely sounnds like it.

se io parlo lentamente non è che tu magicamente capisci l'italiano se non l'hai mai imparato a scuola, nella vita reale non si ha google translate sottomano
=
me talking slowly doesn't magically make you understand Italian if you haven't learned it at school. in real life one doesn't have google translate at hand.

and the reverse is just as true. that said, someone who has a working knowledge of a language similar to italian (spanish or french or even portuguese) could work things out, but it really isn't that easy for an untrained ear..and I'm not even going to touch on the subject of accents. even people with a scolastic knowledge of english are often stumped by local accents or expressions that are typical to english but are unlike anything they've ever encountered in their language.
expressions like "pulling my leg" or "taking the piss", to name the first examples that cross my mind, simply mean less than nothing to someone who hasn't encountered them before. translating them word for word only breeds confusion.
an anecdote...
back in 1989, during one of my dad's first trips to China, he was there with an English friend and colleague. my dad's grasp of English has always been patchy and mostly focussed on work-related stuff. his accent is as italian as it gets.
his English friend, a man of some culture and with a fairly easy to grasp English accent tried several times to make himself understood by the local guides and businessfolk.. he even tried the "COULD... YOU... TELL.. ME... WHERE... THE.... TOILET...IS?" approach..
and this was with people who supposedly did speak english to some degree.

in the end he gave up and let my father and his patchy english do the translation for him. the Chinese people at the factory were able to understand my dad's brand of english mixed with explanatory hand gestures much better than the obviously "better" English of the English native.

[Kato]

no offense intended..but I've tried watching a john wayne movie in german (well..with my limited understanding of german that is)..
the voice...
I don't think I've ever laughed that hard watching any western..and I've seen Blazing Saddles and The Frisco Kid
it just doesn't "fit" the actor or the character... to an ear used to hearing the natural voice of the man.
subtitles are much better..allow you to actually appreciate the acting more..and learn a language at the same time.


Oh, don't worry... I know sometimes dubs are terrible but then again sometimes you ae so used to it they seem superior to the original... e.g. I've watched German Scrubs for years and I actually like JD's voice actor much more for the character than Zack Braff if only because he has that whimsical bit that fits somehow... Or I can't for the love of good get myself to watch the original DBZ shows because of... Son Goku...*shudder*

But yeah, often the original is better but many people don't like to read all the time... and it might just be me but I didn't learn any Japanese in more than five years of watching subs, I think.

[John Cribati]

This is just an explanation of how things are different on the production end, which I would agree with. But in the presentation end, how are they entirely different? You still haven't really answered that.

Again, production different, not presentation difference.



For the record:

World English Dictionary
medium (ˈmiːdɪəm)

— n , -dia , -diums
5. a means or agency for communicating or diffusing information, news, etc, to the public: television is a powerful medium
10. art

a. the category of a work of art, as determined by its materials and methods of production: the medium of wood engraving
b. the materials used in a work of art

[Hopeless]

If the US does remake Misfits, there needs to be new characters.

Plus, the original creator looks to be in on it, so I'm holding on to a flicker of hope for now.

Isn't one of the characters from the british version locked away in prison in the US?

(I said character not actor!)

[John Cribati]

Isn't one of the characters from the british version locked away in prison in the US?

(I said character not actor!)

That would be hilarious, but Robert Sheehan (Nathan's actor) left for movies and stuff. But a cameo would be kind of awesome.

[Omergideon]

I would say that if the person you are talking to has a grasp of English, but is not great at it, speaking louder and slower can greatly imrpove your chances of being understand.



Anyways.....I thought Misfits Season 2 was the first time the show got interesting really, and even then it was mostly just the Simon plots that I liked. S3 was better in that I HATED (and I mean that) Nathan as a character and wanted him gone. Not "wanted to see suffer like a wrestling heel" gone, but just got rid of. So unsuprisingly I thought S3 was a massive improvement. And thus my opinion on the original show is spoken.

As for remaking it, I don't mind when it happens. Both Being Human (UK) and Misfits were shows with good basic concepts and ideas that lots of people would be interested in exploring. However the shows themselves are massively entrenched in a British mind set, with British sensibilities and attitudes to nearly everything. This does not make them bad of course, but it does mean that the good parts of the characters and stories can be lost in a setting that is so intrinsic to the shows as they stand, but is unfamiliar to a foreign audience. I mean the show Law and Order UK is very different from the original. It needs to be to be relatable to the english mindset. But the idea was strong enough that it was worth trying.

I mean lets look at one basic difference. In the US guns are everywhere. In the UK they are much rarer, being illegal, and I don't remember really any showing up in Misfits of Being Human (they may have though). The presence or absence of this speaks to different mindsets towards how to treat them. It becomes an elephant in the room. And this is just a single example of a real and meaningful cultural difference between the UK and the US. Throw in production factors and expectations such as series lengths and how to resolve plots.....a remake can make sense. You want to tell a good story, but the original version is too foreign for the new audience.

I suppose you could say "just create a new show with a similar premise". This makes sense and I think has merit. But if you do that and have a new name you lose cross advertising (bad for business) and will be damned for doing this as well.

[Yora]

Plus, the original creator looks to be in on it, so I'm holding on to a flicker of hope for now.
Because he's getting checks.

[Brother Oni]

I heard about a Doctor Who movie planned by some American studio a few years back, but I think the plan has since caved and crashed. Luckily.

There was an US Doctor Who movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(1996_film)), but I seriously doubt that the BBC or the writers would let anybody else play with the franchise currently.

That said, a multiple Doctors movie would be fun, much like the ones they did years ago.
Getting Christopher Eccelston, David Tennant and Matt Smith into a single movie might be a bit ambitious though, let alone Paul McGann or any earlier Doctor.

[dehro]

Omergideon..
a show that has the same premise and is in-universe with what happens in misfits UK...just call it misfits USA..throw in Nathan for half an episode in a "omg, here too?" kind of way..and take it from there...comunity services and such need not be involved, thereby distancing the series plotwise from the UK show but still keeping the core elements (and the marketing) alive.
I don't think a spin-off would piss off a lot of fans..just like it was perfectly cool to do law&order UK.
the main difference however between law&order and a show such as Misfits, is that Law&order doesn't necessarily have to have an overarching plot. stand alone episodes work just fine. Misfits doesn't work that way. you can make it do that, in parts, if you want to make the series much longer.. but it still needs to have a driving plot...if it loses that, they might as well just write a new show altogether.

[Omergideon]

An american series in-universe would probably work out, though I would advise avoiding Nathan if only because he is total tool, completely unlikeable, moronic and the kind of person who's appearance on screen made me want to vomit uncontrollably.

No that is not a joke. Of all characters in fiction (who are not mass murderers, rapists and the like) I probably hate him the most.

TBH, unless the premise forbids it, making a "remake" into a spin off instead works out well. The only downside is that it ties you into the continuity of the main show in a way that may be hard to shake. Misfits itself perhaps not so much, but in general it may be rejected as it limits the things the creators can do or change.

Though S1 of Misfits did not have an overarching plot in the way S2/3 did. Sure the character actions meant that you needed to watch them in order but the episodes are almost standalone. And even S2/3 don't need more than the odd nod to continuity for the most part to be perfectly understood. And may even be forgotten after in some cases.

[John Cribati]

TBH, unless the premise forbids it, making a "remake" into a spin off instead works out well. The only downside is that it ties you into the continuity of the main show in a way that may be hard to shake.

The main show happened in England. A potential spin-off would happen in America. Nothing that happened in the first show would affect anything, really.

[dehro]

An american series in-universe would probably work out, though I would advise avoiding Nathan if only because he is total tool, completely unlikeable, moronic and the kind of person who's appearance on screen made me want to vomit uncontrollably.


I share your animosity towards Nathan...which is why I thought it'd be cool to see him get the crap beaten out of him on both sides of the pond, before getting rid of him :smallbiggrin:

[dehro]

An american series in-universe would probably work out, though I would advise avoiding Nathan if only because he is total tool, completely unlikeable, moronic and the kind of person who's appearance on screen made me want to vomit uncontrollably.


I share your animosity towards Nathan...which is why I thought it'd be cool to see him get the crap beaten out of him on both sides of the pond, before getting rid of him :smallbiggrin:

[Goosefeather]

Just came across this (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmjpk4_the-it-crowd-us-pilot_fun?from_fb_popup=1&error_reason=user_denied&error=access_denied&error_description=The+user+denied+your+request.#_= _) - a wonderful example of how NOT to do a remake. The comments underneath pretty much say it all.

[Xondoure]

I always liked Nathan. He was a complete prick, but a very funny one.

[dehro]

it was a great character... but so much of a prick that it was really over the top and grated not just a little..

[Omergideon]

I always liked Nathan. He was a complete prick, but a very funny one.

It's a personal preference thing, but I felt Nathan was such an over the top self centered jerk and nonce that I could not enjoy him being on screen. And I don't find that sort of thing funny whatever happens. Though I get the appeal of such a character for ensemble pieces he (for me) lacked the basic level of charm to pull it off. The Jerk character is a tough one to make work and Nathan failed at that by having too few (i.e. barely any) redeeming qualities. Even bringing him back just to make him suffer would be horrid for my enjoyment of the show.


But further to continuity, whilst most powers have been very vague in description there are some ground rules about them that have been laid down. In this specific case of Misfits they are minimal enough that I don't think that would cause any restraints on actions. But for some shows they can and do lay down restraints to the choices you may want to make about how to take the concept, especially in terms of storyline.

[irenicObserver]

I've only recently heard of Misfits, it sounds like a pretty good show. It's just we've already had a number of shows where people are empowered en masse, and they never last long. People still have a bad taste left over from Heroes. I'm distant enough from the whole thing to want to watch it though.