From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: daibhidchenedelh@aol.com
Subject: Re: New American series
On 07 Oct 2012, YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> 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.
Honestly, I find it hard to imagine any changes they could make that
would be greater than the difference between an edutainment show about a
crotchety old man taking two schoolteachers to historic events against
their will, and an action-comedy about an alien with ADHD taking a
married couple to see the universe. The only real point of similarity is
"they travel through time and space in a Police Box, and he's called the
Doctor".
Oh, and the title character has a certain irreverent humour that keeps
the show "light" even when events are dark (and can be switched off to
indicate that things are *really* dark). Yeah, if they lost that it would
probably stop being Doctor Who. But it's not like the idea is totally
alien to Americans; they made M*A*S*H!
> 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'm not saying that an American version of a UK show *will* work; I have
clear enough memories of the TV Movie not to claim that. I'm saying that
there have been enough successful US versions of UK shows that I wouldn't
assume it *definitely* won't.
You do seem to be arguing two seperate things here. On the one hand an
American Doctor Who will make changes, and then it won't be Doctor Who
any more. On the other hand, even once it's stopped being Doctor Who,
Americans won't "get" it sufficiently for it to be any good.
>> 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.
"Killed off" was your word, not mine. And I wasn't talking about whether
Moore had the right to make his BG, or even whether it was any good. I
was talking specifically about your statement that the new series is what
killed the original.
>> 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.
You misunderstand; when I say "the original continues in a different
format", I mean that the original Star Trek universe, and all series
thereof, continues to exist in the ongoing novels. I bought a brand new
ST:TNG novel just the other day. The franchise still exists.
>> 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".
Wait, why isn't Enterprise proper Trek? It *is* meant to be in the same
continuity as the original! (It's a total continuity mess, sure, but how
much Doctor Who would survive that argument? Probably only one Gallifrey
story, for a start.)
>> 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". ;-)
It was actually B7 I was thinking of when I said UK TV was good at the
wrong sort of things to make Star Trek; we're more comfortable with anti-
establishment heroes fighting *against* the Federation.
>> 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 Red Dwarf US didn't have any affect on the original, even though it
was called Red Dwarf. That's kind of the reason I used that as an
example. Neither did The Office US, Being Human US, Cracker US etc, and
they were actually successful.
> BUT, not having any affect on the original doesn't equal that it
> should or is a good idea to be made either.
Like I said, in general, I'm sceptical but not prepared to rule it out. I
was just addressing the specific point that a US version would "kill" the
original. I can't see how or why that would happen.
--
Dave
The problems in this world are not caused by those who love.
They're caused by those who hate.
--Arthur, King of Time and Space.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: Androgum Vegetarian Society (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
