From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: New American series
In article , Daibhid
Ceanaideach wrote:
> On 06 Oct 2012, YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > In article , "Bok C"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know what you mean here. Some American versions of British
> >> TV shows have been flip flops, but others ones really took off. Just
> >> look at Being Human, Too Close For Comfort, Three's Company, Not
> >> Necessarily the News, The Office, Sanford and Son, American Idol and
> >> Queer and Folk.
> >
> > Most, if not all, of those are American shows "based on" of British
> > shows (extremely loosely in some cases). They aren't re-using the same
> > name or ideas, and have lots of, usually silly, changes that really
> > make them into different shows.
>
> Out of eight shows mentioned, three change the name completely, two
> change the name slightly, and three (Being Human, The Office and Queer as
> Folk) keep it exactly the same.
>
> Yes, they certainly make changes. I would assume that an American Doctor
> Who would also make changes. I'm not sure how that indicates it can't
> possibly work.
Because of the silly changes it wouldn't be "Doctor Who" any longer. Plus,
with or without changes, Hollyweird simply doesn't understand British
shows, which is why they make such a mess when trying to recreate them.
If you want an on-topic exmaple, look at the mess the last season of
Torchwood was thanks to being Americanised (plus the obvious set-up for an
American version which thankfully seems to have been dropped).
> >> I actually think it makes more sense to try launching an American
> >> version of Doctor Who while it's still popular and running in
> >> Britain. Not only will help the ratings, but if it doesn't succeed
> >> we still have the original British version to watch, and if it does
> >> we have twice as much Doctor Who! It's win/win!
> >
> > It can't work, and thankfully it's unlikely to even be attempted. You
> > can't have two competing version of the same thing going at once. It
> > destroys the coherence of the franchise ... hence Ron Moore's version
> > of "Battlestar Galactica" has killed off the original, real
> > "Battlestar Galactica", and JJ Abrams version of "Star Trek" has
> > killed off the real "Star Trek" (to name just two cases).
>
> The last time "real Battlestar" was made was 1980, some twenty years
> before Ron Moore. (And that's assuming you consider Battlestar 1980 to be
> "real Battlestar"; plenty of people don't.) Meanwhile, a wide range of
> "real Star Trek" novels are being published, from original series to
> Enterprise.
If you're going to include novels, then real Battlestar Galactica has also
had some published (as well as comic books) ... nowhere near as many as
Star Trek of course. Then of course there is the DVD release and the
on-going attempts by Richard Hatch and Bryan Singer (and I think Glen
Larsen) to resurrect the show properly.
> So on the one hand, we've got a show that was killed off at least two
> decades before the revival,
The fact that it (supposedly) a dead show doesn't give someone the right
steal the name and butcher someone else's hard work.
> and on the other, one where the original continues in a different format.
"New Star Trek" isn't "another format" ... it's a different franchise
altogether. Even more so with Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica.
> I'm not sure either of those demonstrate that a remake "kills off"
> the original.
It kills off any change of the real version continuing properly, even if
that chance was virtually zero beforehand. It also makes a confused mess
of the franchise as a whole since nobody knows which version you're
talking about when you say "Star Trek" - the proper one, Beavis &
Butthead's silly Enterprise, or JJ Abram's inconsistent "new Star Trek".
> Meanwhile, the BBC have announced a fifth season of Being Human,
> suggesting the American series has had very little effect in killing it
> off.
>
> If I'm honest, I'm a bit sceptical about the idea of a "Doctor Who US"
> (nothing against the US; I'd also be sceptical of "Star Trek UK" if
> anyone proposed such a thing; our countries are good at different things,
> television-wise). But I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong if anyone
> wants to have a go.
There was a "Star Trek UK", but they had enough common sense (although
more due to legalities) to call it "Space 1999" and "Blake's 7". ;-)
> And if they have a go and fail, well, it'll just be another failed
> attempt at an American version of a UK series, like Red Dwarf US or The
> Minister of Divine (Dibley starring Kirstie Alley). Either way, I can't
> see it having an adverse effect on the original.
Calling it a different name means it doesn't have any affect on the
original ... that's one reason for my whole point about why silly
"reboots" should use a different name for their different show / movie.
BUT, not having any affect on the original doesn't equal that it should or
is a good idea to be made either.
> And whatever happens, it can't possibly be worse than the UK version
> of The Golden Girls...
I didn't say the reverse wasn't true as well. British version of American
shows are usually pretty hopeless as well. As are American versions of
Australian shows (not that the Australian shows are any good to start
with), etc.
Just think yourself lucky that you don't have to also suffer the
Australian and New Zealand versions of "reality TV" trash like X's Got
Talent, Idol, Dancing With the "Stars", Top Gear, etc. Here in New Zeland
we often get the American, British, Australian, and New Zealand versions,
plus the numerous clones made by other networks, all clogging up the
schedules. :-(
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: Aioe.org NNTP Server (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
