You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Original creators slam US Spaced remake

US Spaced should...

Be made with Wright and Pegg involved39%[ 9 ]
Not be made at all57%[ 13 ]
Be made without Wright and Pegg4%[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 23

Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 9:47am

Post 1 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Following the long tradition of unnecessary Americanisation, the latest British classic to get the 'special treatment' is Spaced, the flawless TV series that put Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright on the map and enabled them to make Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

The bad news is that, unlike the excellent The Office US remake, Pegg and Wright haven't been involved or even contacted, suggesting a rather cynical attempt to cash in on their good name by the execs at Fox. Check out Pegg's official response.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 3:16pm

Post 2 of 36

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Good, I'm glad they're speaking out against this. I mean... McG...McG?!?

I honestly think the american re-make of The Office was a fluke in that it was good. I don't think that will happen again. Has anyone here seen the American pilot for Red Dwarf? Dear God it was trash.

Spaced is too sacred to touch, and too good to be Americanized. The same could have been said about the Office, but at least Gervais and Merchant backed it.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 11:40pm

Post 3 of 36

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

If anyone votes for option 3, I vote for perma-ban.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:04am

Post 4 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not that I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, but....


I think the show could absolutely be made without Pegg or Wright.

The great thing about a mere concept for a show is that it can be taken in many directions from square one. The US Office did this (as Pegg notes, though he manages to 'slam' the comprehension of US audiences a bit, which I think is unfair) and it came into its own. Even with Gervais's influence and direction, I find the funniest parts of the US Office are derived from from when Michael Scott is the most unlike David Brent. Arguable, yes, but I think the dryness of British comedy has certainly lost some of its appeal since classics like Fawlty Towers and the like.

I think that, money making move or not, if you look past the fact that not using Pegg or Wright creates bad blood, it should be fine for Warners to undertake Americanizing the show. So many people think of this as a bad thing....why? Is it because you have no faith in American television? Pardon me for a minute, but isn't our television (Lost, Heroes, Rescue Me, The Office, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage, ER, CSI, etc) some of the most acclaimed and most watched fare in the world?

I'm not trying to brag here, as converted British shows ('Coupling' comes immediately to mind) most usually fail; but I would put more faith in American writers and directors; and, very respectfully, the American audience. Maybe the original 'Spaced' was genius. Coming from sources like Pegg, Wright, or Frost(?) I'm sure it was. But that does not at all mean that it can't equally- or in the case of the US Office, BETTER- spawn a different American remake.

Even if the genius was in Spaced's essence and the American show-port-ers fail to capture it, this doesn't mean that the same concept can't be made into an equally successful new show.

I think it's outright ridiculous for Pegg to go out and slam the prospect of even creating a new show, moreover slamming its potential. Pegg may not have given the project his blessing, and that's severe oversight on the producers' side, but does this mean it's going to be a dismal show?

By all means, no.

So I'm voting option three. Just to piss Serpent off. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 2:06pm

Post 5 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

ben3308 wrote:

it should be fine for Warners to undertake Americanizing the show. So many people think of this as a bad thing....why? Is it because you have no faith in American television? Pardon me for a minute, but isn't our television (Lost, Heroes, Rescue Me, The Office, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage, ER, CSI, etc) some of the most acclaimed and most watched fare in the world?
Erm.

You seem to have missed a vital part of your argument (probably because it would dismantle your point...), namely: the crucial thing is that in the UK and elsewhere we watch the original versions of Lost, Heroes etc. That's because they're really good, and we respect the creators and want to see the original show.

We don't have some odd compulsion to remake Heroes and Lost into a 'UK' version of them. That would be utterly bizarre.

However, America feels the need to remake UK shows. It's like you need a translation of something that is already in your language. It indicates either a fear or a lack of interest in other cultures and styles - as if the American mainstream can only comprehend and accept stuff which fits into their limited view of 'American'.

I just don't get it. I like American shows BECAUSE they're American. Same when I watch foreign language films etc - I find it interesting to see stuff that is different to my 'normal'. That doesn't seem to work in the US, and I'm not sure why.

Is it actually what the 'people' are like, or is it the studio execs underestimating their audiences?
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 2:48pm

Post 6 of 36

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Just to nip this one in the bud, it seems Ben3308 has simply misread the poll/topic.

The issue is not whether Spaced can be remade without Pegg/Wright - thats indisputable: of course it can. The issue isn't whether it would succeed without P/W: in all likelyhood it'll be a roaring success.

The issue is whether the show should have got this far without P/W having even been contacted, even just to say "hey man, we're re-doing your thing, take it up with our legal team if you have any problems, we're flexible either way". This is indisputably odd, and at worst; underhand.

Its about rights, not writers.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 4:40pm

Post 7 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Xcession wrote:

Its about rights, not writers.
Perhaps, except, as the Peggler says, he and Wright don't have any rights to the show at all.

I think the bigger question here is why on earth wouldn't you get Pegg and Wright involved? Given the cult success of Spaced and Shaun of the Dead, and the major US/UK success of Hot Fuzz, it seems like a no-brainer to get them in to at least consult on the US show. It'd most likely result in a better show, a bigger in-built audience and thus bigger rewards.

As you say, it's indisputably....odd.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 4:59pm

Post 8 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Allow me to delineate:

Of course I want Pegg or Wright involved. But the option for them not necessarily being involved was not an option. If you reread what I said, I know that the show can be made without them, but I also think that it still can come into its own and succeed. Just because something is transplanted to America does not mean it will suffer completely. This does not mean that I don't want the original creators involved; just that if they end up not being involved, I still have faith in the system, as it were. biggrin

Again, the only reason I further this argument is because Spaced, unlike American shows you watch (hence my Lost reference) is cancelled, meaning there are only a limited number of episodes and it can only be run for a short time. Considering the producers only have a timeslot for a full-time show, we face the prospect of full-time American Spaced - or no Spaced at all. Given these circumstances, I choose the former.

Am I making more sense here? Or are you still 'erm'ing your way through my nonsense? biggrin
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:10pm

Post 9 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

Am I making more sense here? Or are you still 'erm'ing your way through my nonsense? biggrin
I like to think I'll always be erming my way through your nonsense, ben. razz

But I do see your point clearer now. However, given a Spaced remake without Pegg/Stevensen/Wright's involvement or no new Spaced at all, I'd actually take the latter. As with The Office, Extras, Spaced and the aforementioned Fawlty Towers, less can very often mean more when it comes to comedy.

Another question, which I think Pegg raised, is why call it Spaced at all? If you're going to trade on the brand, then presumably you think it's worth something (which I dispute, given the show's generally cult/niche status, particularly in the US), in which case you might as well bring in the people that created it, to strengthen that brand. Otherwise, you might as well just call it something else and avoid annoying/confusing anybody.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:31pm

Post 10 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sad for the American public's capacity to watch TV shows for more than five minutes, but in essence a new show needs a hook: some anchor of persuasion to lend popularity to a new show.

Bionic Woman and Knight Rider run off of the facts they come from classic shows- though neither have much to do with the originals. The Sarah Connor Chronicles uses Sarah Connor, but doesn't even try to fit into the T3 storyline (which, granted, I can see not going that route. But still.) but they still use the Terminator brand from T1, 2, and 3 because it's recognizable to the American public.

Things that don't try and brand what they're really remaking (Smallville is a superb example) are often less-viewed and therefore more apt to cancellation. I had no idea Smallville was about Superman until I actually took about a day to look into the show. Had I known the brand that they were pushing (Superman) I probably would've instantly picked up on the show. Instead, it was a harder sell.

Brands make a more marketable product. You guys of all people should know that!
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:37pm

Post 11 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

The Sarah Connor Chronicles uses Sarah Connor, but doesn't even try to fit into the T3 storyline
Actually, that show fits into the T3 continuity perfectly, and rather cleverly. I won't say anymore for fear of spoilers, however.

Brands make a more marketable product. You guys of all people should know that!
Absolutely! Brands are great! (and a total pain in the ass to get going...)

However, I'd debate whether Spaced is actually a brand. Sure, to geeks and people 'in the know' it is, but to the general populace it isn't. So what's the benefit of using the name? The only real benefit to using the brand and name is if you get the original fanbase on board in order to give the show's launch and marketing a free boost. As they've failed to do that, it leaves the Spaced branding a bit flimsy and pointless.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:48pm

Post 12 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

People like my dad are people who love Brit-coms. Because of my dad, I've seen every episode of Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf, and Hotel Babylon (that's not yet cancelled, is it?). Even though the general public might not recognize a Brit-branding, because some Americans do appreciate the originals, they are likely to spread favorable word of a remake that one "has to watch!!!".
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:58pm

Post 13 of 36

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

The Sarah Connor Chronicles uses Sarah Connor, but doesn't even try to fit into the T3 storyline
Actually, that show fits into the T3 continuity perfectly, and rather cleverly. I won't say anymore for fear of spoilers, however.
Is there any continuity in T3? Its an ok film but it makes no sense whatsoever plotwise. Plus in one scene a fireman can't even lift arnie because he is so heavy and yet in another scene he walks on wooden decking carrying a coffin full of guns and ammo and people without it giving way, not to mention numerous problems that weight would cause with vehicles and other situations in the film. It was fine imagining that he was made of some futuristic light but strong alloy. Why even draw attention to that obvious mistake in the first place and mess up something that worked?

Back on the OT, I don't know how you CAN remake an american version of spaced because there is nothing special about the situation, it is the style of humour that makes it. Also America is always going on about how the rest of the world doesn't respect its IP. Its pretty hypocritical to go round trampling on other people's.

I hate to sound anti-american but this sort of thing really says something about the typical population. I am often gobsmacked that programs like Americas Dumbest Criminals can even exist because they are painful to watch (because of how dumbed down the show is, not the criminals). Have you seen Idiocracy?
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 9:31pm

Post 14 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Kid wrote:

Is there any continuity in T3? Its an ok film but it makes no sense whatsoever plotwise.
Indeed. However, rather than simply ignore T3, which would cause even more continuity questions/problems, the TV show's creators have rather slyly acknowledged it while also writing it out of the timeline (while still keeping one of the more interesting sub-plots).

As a result, the TV show is entirely in the style and continuity of T1 and T2, and simultaneously actually makes T3 more enjoyable, as you can now watch it and enjoy the silly action while safe in the knowledge that it is no longer the official canon storyline. razz
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 3:48am

Post 15 of 36

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Although I myself really liked T3, let's also not forget to mention the TV show utilizes the awesome theme song of T2 into an all-out remixed score for the episodes.

Another reason the show is fairly badass.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 8:15am

Post 16 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

yes! Brad fiedel's themes plus bear mcreary's skills works brilliantly. Not including those themes in T3 was such an odd decision.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 10:38am

Post 17 of 36

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

We don't have some odd compulsion to remake Heroes and Lost into a 'UK' version of them. That would be utterly bizarre.
Oh really... smile (Your version is so much better anyway)
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 11:50am

Post 18 of 36

v3rlon

Force: 1800 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 25

VisionLab User

Gold Member

What all to address?

To the original topic.... The original is not always the best (though it OFTEN is). Compare the original Battlestar Galactica to the newer version. They didn't get the original creators in on that. If fact, they were in direct competition with them for a while.

There is no magic that makes British magically perfect and beyond improvement. I have never seen "Spaced," and it might already be AMAZING. Nothing is perfect. Wait and see how it turns out. Comedy can often be limited by time and culture. Some jokes cross cultural barriers, but others get lost in translation.

Also, Hollywood is frightfully 'hit driven.' Everyone wants a hit because of the environment. One way to make the case that 'your' idea is more likely to make a hit is if it already has some other place/time. It is just the way the place works.

Would it be better with the creators? Would having the creators keep them from the other projects they are pursuing now? Isn't Pegg in the new Star Trek? Hmmm.... A new TV show remake prevents a really nice casting in a movie I REALLY want to be good. I'll take the movie, thanks.

Terminator continuity...uhm...why are those two words in the same sentence. THE WHOLE FRICKIN' POINT of the Terminator movies is that continuity can be altered. The original robot went back in time to alter continuity. Every trip through time is altering the continuity. The robots technically aren't even coming from "the future," but "one possible future." Sarah and John are very probably fighting machines from a version of the future they will never see.


Oh, and don't rip on McG TOO hard.... Supernatural is fun. And the "Hollywood Babylon" episode goes a long ways towards pointing out the obstacles that go into making a movie 'by committee,' as most Hollywood affairs are.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 11:59am

Post 19 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

v3rlon wrote:

There is no magic that makes British magically perfect and beyond improvement. I have never seen "Spaced," and it might already be AMAZING. Nothing is perfect.
Spaced is. Simple as that. smile

Terminator continuity...uhm...why are those two words in the same sentence. THE WHOLE FRICKIN' POINT of the Terminator movies is that continuity can be altered.
Well, obviously. But still need to keep continuity within you own stories, even if a crucial part of that story is changing the timeline. You can't just make random stuff up and say "oh, it's ok, beccause THE WHOLE FRICKIN' POINT is that continuity can be altered!"
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 1:05pm

Post 20 of 36

v3rlon

Force: 1800 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 25

VisionLab User

Gold Member

Spaced is....

OK... not going to argue over a comedy. I probably won't watch the new version. Besides, if it were perfect, it'd be Red Dwarf smile

What part of Terminator is 'out of continuity' in your mind when every scene is an ongoing alteration of continuity?

The original movie is a continuity nightmare.... If the machines to not travel back in time, Kyle Reese doesn't go back in time, John Connor doesn't exist and doesn't lead the revolt agagainst the machines and they have no need to go back in time. If Skynet hadn't gone back in time in the first place, it wouldn't have to. So where did the ORIGINAL John Connor come from?

Any scenario that gives you a Connor to fight the machines explains pretty much any random stuff you want to add.... So while trying to keep from any series spoilers (but WILL spoil 3 movies...)

T1
A cyborg from the future comes back in time to kill the mother of the leader of the resistence before she can give birth to a child. The leader of the resistence sends someone back to protect her, and that someone turns out to be the father of said leader.

T2
In an effort to be thorough, the machines send a second, MUCH more advanced machine to kill the leader of the resistence when he is around 11 years old (in case the other one fails- what happens if the other had succeeded?). This has the unforutnae side effect of persuading said child leader to believe his mother where he previoulsy considered her a nutcase. Skynet is making him into the leader that it fears.

The Connor family works to destroy the original creation of Skynet. They believe the coming apocalypse, 'Judgement Day' is averted.


T3
A THIRD robot makes an attempt on the future leader of the resistence, this time in his mid-twenties. This machine is quite different from the one in T2. It would seem to indicate that it is coming from a different future than the one in T2. This time it also targets his key sidekicks (and this is important) with some degree of success. This marks the first time Skynet has actually altered the future in its own favor. The bad machine in T3 also helps facillitate the creation of Skynet.

It is explained in T3 that 'Judgement Day' is inevitable. It is only the date that changes. But now, Skynet has gained an advantage in the future. Presumably, Judgement Day happens earlier as a result of the events in T3.

Now the Skynet in the future has a whole new setup. Enter the TV show...


The TV Show:
Without giving too much away, Skynet and the resistence are now fighting a battle across time. The broad continuity of the movies is out the window. The machines take a shot at the future leader in high school, and he gets another guardian from the future as well. They do something that RADICALLY alters future continuity (and they reference it). It completely supercedes the T3 movie. Those events simply aren't going to happen as depicted anymore. They can't.

Now, if you subscribe to the 'infinte parallel universes' theory some physicists like, then the time travellers aren't going back to THEIR past because you get cause and effect out of order. They go to some spontaneously spawned parallel universe that is just like the point in time they arrive at. Then, they create a whole new version of events in a whole new universe, but THIER original timeline is unaltered. All those people still died aand the war is still going on (or ended as it ended for them).


Put another way...you go back in time and kill your own mother before you are born. How are you around to go back in time to kill her? So instead, you bo gack to an alternate reality and kill the woman who would have been the mother to someone just like you had she lived. Meanwhile, the people where you LEFT are all wondering "what happened to Tarn? He was working on the crazy time machine and then just vanished one day."

Now you go forward to 2008. You could either arrive (depending on your story) in your original 2008 with your mother still alive and well. You the wonder, "what the @#$%! I changed all this!" you could also arrive in the future where 'your' mother died before you were born. You then get the "Its a Wonderful Life" version of the future. There was actually a Superman comic series on this many years ago (but their are physicists who believe in the infinite universes theory).

The short version is that with time travel, you pretty much CAN make up random stuff.

Now the bit about how much Arnie ways in T3 and the deck not giving way...well, that was just the effects guys not minding their p's and q's. The deck thing was pretty minor actually. It was more important that he be too heavy for the EMT guys to lift.


Heck if the machines are coming from a POSSIBLE future (as explainded in the original), how LIKELY does that future have to be before it can manifest a cyborg killer to go after its enemies? The Connors may end up fighting enemies from timelines that do not even involve them.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 1:08pm

Post 21 of 36

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Tangent Ahoy!!
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 4:14pm

Post 22 of 36

vilhelm nielsen

Force: 798 | Joined: 28th Jul 2003 | Posts: 345

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It shouldn't be made at all. The original Spaced was so brilliant, and should not be touched. If americans have a problem with British television shows, then they will never see the brilliance.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:58pm

Post 23 of 36

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Thanks to the power of t'interweb just watching some episodes of Spaced again, it really is superb. V3lron, if you like Red Dwarf, imagine it in its funny days and multiply it by Shaun of the Dead. Only 14 shows ever made (and this is always considered a good thing in Britain - good comedies know when to stop to keep it pure).

Really, watch Spaced, it's an absolute gem, you'll see why it's getting this reaction smile
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 1:36pm

Post 24 of 36

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Sometimes remakes work: The Fly for example, Cronenburg's reinvention of the original was a masterpiece, almost theatrical in its use of (almost) a single set and a cast of three. But I have to express a general frustration with the (predominantly) US desire to see something that was good or successful and to say "let's make that, but American". Not apparently because the new execs see a new angle or a way to improve on the original but rather because it is easier than thinking up something original.

The original Spaced was pure genius (and even large parts of the UK missed it - you either know and love it or are waiting to discover it I feel) but apart from anything it just wouldn't translate across the Atlantic. It has somethinn inherently British about it. And if you're just taking the name and not the concept then why not come up with a new name?
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 6:59pm

Post 25 of 36

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

For however brilliant Spaced may be, it can't and never will match the uniqueness, subtleties, or hilarity of neither 'Arrested Development' nor 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

And for that, you Brits can whine all you want about Americans trying to change brilliance and act like it's not offensive to us freedom'ers on here that converse with you. smile
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 1:49pm

Post 26 of 36

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I am in way trying to suggest that there have not been any original and brilliant US tv shows - what I don't get is the remaking concept which does seem peculiarly American.

If the US TV execs liked the original Spaced why not just show it? The UK TV companies didn't see Friends or Rosanne or Californication or 30 Rock (insert your favourite classic US comedy series title here) and think let's take the concept and remake it with a UK cast, they just showed the originals.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 1:56pm

Post 27 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

For however brilliant Spaced may be, it can't and never will match the uniqueness, subtleties, or hilarity of neither 'Arrested Development' nor 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.
Humour's a subjective thing, though, even more so than most other 'opinions'. However, I'd say all 3 of those shows are genius. I don't see the need to rank or choose favourites out of them.

The main point, though, as petet2 says, is that here in the UK we didn't feel the need to remake them. We recognised their genius and simply showed the originals. Same with Frasier, Friends, The Simpsons etc.

Remakes of foreign language shows/films at least makes a partial sense - annoying though it is, foreign language shows are never going to find as big an audience in a predominantly English speaking territory as a show in English. But remaking a show that is already in your own language, and which is already regarded as excellent (ie, there's no benefit in taking advantage of 'modern technology' etc etc) just seems like a silly exercise in silliness.

Basically, we're not scared of American stuff, but you seem slightly scared of British stuff. razz
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 2:07pm

Post 28 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

For however brilliant Spaced may be, it can't and never will match the uniqueness, subtleties, or hilarity of neither 'Arrested Development' nor 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.
Humour's a subjective thing, though, even more so than most other 'opinions'. However, I'd say all 3 of those shows are genius. I don't see the need to rank or choose favourites out of them.

The main point, though, as petet2 says, is that here in the UK we didn't feel the need to remake them. We recognised their genius and simply showed the originals. Same with Frasier, Friends, The Simpsons etc.

Remakes of foreign language shows/films at least makes a partial sense - annoying though it is, foreign language shows are never going to find as big an audience in a predominantly English speaking territory as a show in English. But remaking a show that is already in your own language, and which is already regarded as excellent (ie, there's no benefit in taking advantage of 'modern technology' etc etc) just seems like a silly exercise in silliness.

Basically, we're not scared of American stuff, but you seem slightly scared of British stuff. razz
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 4:52pm

Post 29 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Let me have my say, and you can take from it what you want....

I think Americanizing British TV shows is many times necessary because there is a language barrier. When Americans hear words like "tosser", "muppet", "chav", "daft", etc (most especially when these words are use derogatorily or in jokes, which is actually quite often) they have no idea what they mean.

What's more, this is sort of the 'ignorant American' attitude, but upon hearing funny words like this, we mock them or discount them simply because they're something we don't understand. When I see an episode of Coupling (UK, not failed US) and someone is called a 'bloody muppet' I laugh at it because it just sounds like a weak insult to me. I dunno. The small cultural difference proves vast when put into a TV show.

We think there's no barrier, but there clearly is. So Americanization, at least some of the time, makes sense. I also don't think Americanizing a show is a bad thing. The more TV shows, the better. This doesn't 'muddy the waters' of quality TV, it just expands its potential. Yes, there are large, large failures some of the time (Coupling US comes immediately to mind) but this doesn't mean we should discontinue porting shows for American TV viewers. After all, we wouldn't have The Office US if not for this penchant for conversion.

So, weighing the options, we gain a great show (potentially) and all we really lose is some of the American faith in converted TV shows. This isn't that big of a deal, guys! biggrin We think we're vastly watering-down Britcoms- and while sometimes we really are- it's mostly worth the risk.

Have I made sense? I sort of 'stream-of-consciousness'ed this post, so it's a little rambly. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 6:01pm

Post 30 of 36

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Ben, Exactly.


On average, I watch a huge amount of films from the UK (Indie and mainstream), so I've gotten quite used to pretty much all the stereotypes/slang/cultural references commonly used. However, I definitely can't see the average American being able to handle a show where every single character has a full-on British accent and uses completely culturally removed slang.


I know many, many people that can't understand a medium to thick British accent enough to not enjoy a film because of the inability to understand what they're saying. Especially if the character resides near Yorkshire.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 6:17pm

Post 31 of 36

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I never understood why I couldn't adapt well enough to accents, but even though I know Brits speak English (and the 'proper' English as some might say) a lot of their words sound mumbly and under-annunciated to me, probably about half the time. I know this is a culture thing (my speech probably sounds stilted and sharp to them, haha) but even as a very lenient person I find it hard to get through some of the heavier British accents.

It's weird, too, because Indian, Mexican, Pakistani and Ebonic-accents I can all fully comprehend, but some Brits I get completely lost. Even one of my best friend's mothers (who hails from Gloucester, I think) has such a thick accent that even after all these years of knowing the family I've yet to adapt to what pronunciation 'translations' I have to d in my head to realize what words she's saying. (e.g. Tarn in the VideoWrap video says "rules", but I hear it as "rooz", simply because I say it harsh as "rew-ahls")

Bah, but I digress.

I just think Tarn's point about adapting foreign language shows compared to British shows is a bit of a misnomer. And even after the diatribe about accentuation, I think it's more of a jargon thing and less of a tone thing. A British guy at 7-11 the other day called the black, Southern cashier a 'tosser' and all she did was laugh at how awkward and pathetic the insult was. I'm afraid this sort of thing happens a lot when Americans aren't as thoughtfully receptive to UK-jargon as most of the Americans on this board are (you guys even have me cutting my Z's for S's half the time! biggrin).
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 6:30pm

Post 32 of 36

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

A biiiiig part of why UK shows are remade for the US is the number of episodes thing. Culturally, in the UK, 12-14 30-minute episodes in total is agreed to be 'about right' for original comedy (Fawlty Towers, Spaced, The Office, Extras, etc - none of which 'jumped the shark'), whereas the US network model is about getting 100+ episodes (7 series of 13+ - why US TV contracts are based around 7 years). 100 episodes is the dream for international/repeat sales - at 100 episodes, you can keep collecting royalties until you die (this is why after 7 years, stars like the cast of Friends can near enough name their price - they know the massive value of every episode after 100).

Showing the UK Office or Spaced would leave the audience wanting more, which the network couldn't provide, as the shows voluntarily ended (they weren't cancelled) in order to fill their needs. This means they have to remake everything with their own actors (on 7-year contracts) to reach the 100-show level, and retire to Hawaii on the proceeds. Whilst remaking it with their own actors, they take the opportunity to add their own cultural twists and references. It's all about the money, all about the money...
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 12:04am

Post 33 of 36

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

For British accents, depending on the kind of British accent, it takes me about an episode (30 minutes) to get used to. Example: watch first episode of the Office, comprehend fully by the end. Rewatch episode, then the rest of the series is fine. I have to re-get used to it if I take a long break.

I used to live in Europe and have been exposed to British accents my entire life, just not in the last few years.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 9:17am

Post 34 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryce007 wrote:

On average, I watch a huge amount of films from the UK (Indie and mainstream), so I've gotten quite used to pretty much all the stereotypes/slang/cultural references commonly used. However, I definitely can't see the average American being able to handle a show where every single character has a full-on British accent and uses completely culturally removed slang.
I understand what you're saying, but we have the same thing with American slang and some of the more obscure American accents. I guess the difference is that I actually find that really interesting - it adds a nice 'flavour' to things. I like finding out about different places. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, though - it's entirely possible that the average Brit doesn't like that either, I've no idea.

Especially if the character resides near Yorkshire.
Oh, we find them difficult too. wink
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 12:40pm

Post 35 of 36

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:


Especially if the character resides near Yorkshire.
Oh, we find them difficult too. wink
But not as difficult as Geordies :-$
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 2:05pm

Post 36 of 36

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I guess the difference is that I actually find that really interesting - it adds a nice 'flavour' to things. I like finding out about different places.
Oh, I definitely agree. That's why I'm such a fan of foreign cinema (Particularly from the U.K). I've seen quite a few obscure Asian and French films that were also quite good, despite the fact that I had to adapt a bit to figure out some of the cultural things...