US remakes of UK shows

Posted by: Dungassin on 06 December 2010

I see that the Yanks have made their own version of "Being Human". Yet another UK TV show plagiarised/copied for the US market. I suppose they could make an excuse for remaking a foreign language film, but why do it for one that's already in English? Are they incapable of understanding the Queen's English unless spoken/mangled by an American accent?

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by GreenAlex

I feel like I am being mocked

I did not mean that everything needs sfx. OK, I am sure a lot of people would like to see Casablanca with more fx

But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?

Same with older TV shows like Faulty Towers. Sure, if you are old enough and british and know the original, you will only accept the original.
But if you are young and do not know the original, you will want to see a remake that has people wearing "modern" clothes, normal haircuts and of course the "look" of modern shows. I don't know if it's the lighting or the cameras or what it is, but you can usually tell if a tv show is more than 10 years old.

You can say what you want but if you were young and wanted to watch tv, it wouldn't be reruns of ancient UK shows. You would want it to look and feel new and with references to current affairs.
After all, you are expected to suffer through the ads and pay for what you watch.

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by GreenAlex

quote:
Originally posted by Naijeru:
I think 10 - 13 is a good size for a TV season. I wish more American shows were edited for quality rather than to squeeze maximum profit from the suckers.

I disagree with the first part. I agree with the second.
Best example for the second part has to be Prison Break which was supposed to end after 12 episodes, was then on-the-fly expanded to 16 and then again to a full season. And then they decided to add more seasons.
That was a terrible decision and really killed the show.

But if a show has a good concept and is thought through in advance, then 22 episode seasons a perfect. After all, we have more than enough hiatus'es and enough breaks.
I am still frustrated about the decision to end season 1 of The Walking Dead after 6 episodes.

And I could easily live with full seasons of Dexter. Then again, I could do without a lot of other shows completely

A show has to be properly thought through. If it is, you can do full seasons. If not, don't bother.
Take Supernatural. The creator had the entire show lined up to a 5 season plan. From the beginning he wanted to tell a story with 5 seasons. And you could see that. And as you don't want to rush through the whole backstory in 12 episodes, you add episodes that simply show their adventures.

A bit like X-Files where there was an alien backstory and in between we had lots of independent episodes. Sure, X-Files went downhill fast in the later seasons, but the first few seasons were great.

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by George Fredrik

quote:
But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?

I do and some of monochrome films are so made within the style that to "colourise" them would be an artistic misjudgement to say the least.

I enjoy monochrome films and I enjoy colour. But, for example, I think there is a reason why Schindler's List is mainly shot in monochrome. It certainly would be different - less serious perhaps - had it been filmed in colour.

ATB from George

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by GreenAlex

Possible. Same can be said for Sin City or American History X. However, the entire look of the movies is different. You can see that one is "old black & white" and one is black & white by design.

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by George Fredrik

Though your examples are not known to me, I think you have seen the point I was making.

I don't watch much that has obvious "effects" as I find such video tends to rely on effect at the expense of plot ...

ATB from George

Posted on: 09 December 2010 by TomK

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
I feel like I am being mocked

I did not mean that everything needs sfx. OK, I am sure a lot of people would like to see Casablanca with more fx

But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?

Same with older TV shows like Faulty Towers. Sure, if you are old enough and british and know the original, you will only accept the original.
But if you are young and do not know the original, you will want to see a remake that has people wearing "modern" clothes, normal haircuts and of course the "look" of modern shows. I don't know if it's the lighting or the cameras or what it is, but you can usually tell if a tv show is more than 10 years old.

You can say what you want but if you were young and wanted to watch tv, it wouldn't be reruns of ancient UK shows. You would want it to look and feel new and with references to current affairs.
After all, you are expected to suffer through the ads and pay for what you watch.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are and where you're from? You presume to speak for the younger generation but you certainly don't represent my sons and their friends who thankfully are intelligent enough to recognise genuine quality whether it's presented in a 200 million dollar blockbuster movie, a 1976 BBC TV production, or a 1940s B&W movie. In my opinion the nonsense you're spouting here does the “youth of today” a great disservice.

Do you apply the same thinking to literature? Shakespeare, Dickens, Conan Doyle, and Wells all write according to the standards of their time which by your logic makes them dated and old fashioned and not worth reading.

Have you actually seen Casablanca? The Maltese Falcon? Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Wonderful movies that most of today's big name directors have undoubtedly been influenced by and would aspire one day to come anywhere near approaching in terms of quality of direction, cinematography, dialogue, wit and all round entertainment value.
If you can't see past the black and white 4:3 presentation you're missing an awful lot. I feel sorry for you as you're missing so much.
Never fear though. Not all young people are members of the thirty second concentration span MTV generation. There are still plenty of thinking youngsters who appreciate quality.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by Derry

quote:
Originally posted by George Johnson:
quote:
But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?

I do and some of monochrome films are so made within the style that to "colourise" them would be an artistic misjudgement to say the least.

I enjoy monochrome films and I enjoy colour. But, for example, I think there is a reason why Schindler's List is mainly shot in monochrome. It certainly would be different - less serious perhaps - had it been filmed in colour.

ATB from George

To be fair, many old films are in black and white because colour film was not widely available or was too expensive. But I would agree that "colourising" old films simply because you can does not increase the aesthetic.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by JamieL_v2

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?

Would you also go around art galleries and ink in colour on black and white drawings? I really do not think that black and white films should be looked at as if they are colouring books, I grew out of those in nursery.

If you do not wish to watch a film, then do not bother, but do not cast aspersions on those who do.

A film is shot using the technology that is available, and although this has limitations, it also allows the director to shape the film to work within those limitations. That is also why some directors choose to shoot in black and white still, or choose other limitations, screen size and shape.

I do think it is very hard to find of a remake that is better than the original, most seem to be done so that the plot can be simplified, and more explosions added - I would cite 'The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3;, but after seeing the trailer, I knew I would never match the tension and character of the original.

Actually I can think of a couple, the various versions of 'Hold the Front Page'.

If you want films with garish imagery and explosions there is no lack of those being made, but please do not besmirch old classics.

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
I don't know if it's the lighting or the cameras or what it is, but you can usually tell if a tv show is more than 10 years old.

Yes it is. Film and video have constantly been changing, and not just as they age, but the technology used for recording. Most television is now shot on HD cameras with twice the image size of old TV, and some films are now being shot on HD video too. The lenses have changed, as has technology for moving and mounting the cameras.

'The Shining' was revolutionary as it used Steadycam for the first time, so moving shots could follow the action over different surfaces without bumps, or that 'hand held feel' (the twins in the corridor and the maze scenes). Steadycam then made more flowing shots appears in a great deal of film and TV, and films from before then, you could notice bumps where camera tracks were laid over rough ground.

This sort of thing happens throughout the production process, so the character of film and TV can be seen to match the decade in which it was shot. Even if a modern film uses black and white stock, the rest of the production process will show its time, and the black and white stock itself will no doubt now have higher contrast.

I work in visual effects, indeed did one of the spaceships blowing up in the appalling film of 'Lost in Space', but I feel very strongly that films should stand as a piece of art representing when they were made, and if producers and directors wish to make something new, then they should take the time to write a new script, and not stain some old classic. I wouldn't call 'Lost in Space' an old classic, but I certainly wouldn't want to work on something like that again.

All that said the USA is still making some great films, just avoid the blockbusters and go see films by the Cohen brothers, John Sayles, Clint Eastwood, etc.

I am sorry if this sounds rather arrogant, but Alex if you do not know anyone who would wish to watch a black and white movie, do you know anyone who would go and see an orchestra perform? It seems a very similar choice to me.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by GreenAlex

TomK:
I did NOT say that I cannot appreciate good old series or movies. I said, that if you want to sell a tv show today, it needs to be up-to-date.

You can think of me as some dim witted idiot if you find it easier that way, up to you. But I am simply trying to explain why american networks try to remake UK shows.

But I will reply to your Shakespeare, Dickens, Wells etc.:
Do you really think that if they lived today they would write in the same style? I doubt it. Do you really think that they would be recognized as masters of literature if they were to write today? I doubt it.

Now I am NOT saying that they were not excellent writers. I am saying that time changes, societies change and entertainment does not always mean intellect nor should it.

If you think every form of entertainment has to be intellectual, then, if I knew you personally, I would call you a huge snob. Not everything old is "classic". Not everything ahead of it's time xyears ago would still be considered good today.

Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon and so many other movies were great. They still are great. And they might have inspired many a generation of actors and directors. That does not change the fact that the same story could now be told in a different fashion. And by the way, do you really think Casablanca would turn out to be such a great hit today?
Come on, times have changed. There are far more movies, shows, styles now. There is no absolute anymore. Things are more versatile.
And the competition is much bigger.

And before you jump to conclusions: I love the original 3 and hate the new 3, but George Lucas is a good example of someone who (apart from being greedy as hell) accepts that when he shot the Star Wars movies, his hands were tied by the Special Effects possible at the time. They did a hell of a job and I still love watching them, but you have to accept that technology moves on and especially SciFi (which is not equivalent to aliens!) can greatly benefit from better audio and video presentation.

You can either accept that or not. If not, your loss, not mine. Because seemingly unlike some I can appreciate and enjoy both the old classics and the new.

@Jamie:
Yes, each show or movie should be a piece of art in it's own time and fashion. But it also has to be judged as such and if for some reason it suffered from its time (no colour available, no steady cams, poor contrast, poor resolution, lack of technology or simply poor actors) then it has to be possible to criticise them for that. Again, I am NOt saying that black & white is bad! But if it was not intended that way but rather forced upon the director then it can be a downside.

And if you feel a story is great and you want to tell it but you feel it would benefit from being made with modern technology or a modern feel, then that is valid as well.
Honestly, I doubt the Lord of the Rings could have been told in such an amazing way if it had been filmed 20 years ago.
Sure, the magic of the director always shines through, but being able to use fx and color adjustments etc. allows the director to actually make his vision come true.
And if you check out the bonus material on such a movie it is unbelievable how much was changed. Colours and lighting in hundreds of scenes. And you can really see what a huge difference it makes to the way the movie "feels".

P.S.: I dislike those people more who think Shakespeare is the only true writer and everything modern is trash. Or people who think Mozart is the god of music and everything modern is simply a version of his art.
I actually prefer people who are honest to themselves and open to the world and watch crap like Reality Shows to snobs who think they are superior when in fact they are severly limited because they are stuck in their views and cannot appreciate anything new.
And no, I do not not watch reality-shows nor soaps or anything of that sort.

edit:
just a little addition:
I think Schindler's List was mentioned as back & white. But it was a voluntary move. And don't you agree that adding color to just a few scenes, to just that one little girl, did not make the entire scene that much more real and vivid? the director was able to make that decision and he used the possibilities he had to make that movie a piece of art.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by JamieL_v2

Alex, many would equally argue that films like the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, suffered greatly from the time in which they were made, they have too many effects and not enough plot and acting.

To look at the current fad in film, do you think that 2D was forced on Peter Jackson with 'Lord of the Rings' and now it is dated and in need of a 3D remake?

To take an example you mentioned, I would suggest that 'Casablanca' certainly did not suffer from poor acting, nor was Michael Curtiz's direction limited by the medium, he worked in that medium, with great collaborators and produced a masterpiece in many people's view.

Your argument seems to come from a very limited point of view, to use another music analogy, pieces written for just piano and vocal are not written because that artist could not afford a guitarist, drummer and bass player, they are written that way because it suits the piece.

Staying with that analogy, many remakes are no different to the appalling 'Hooked on Classics' pieces of a few years ago, where classical music was edited into sound bites over a drum machine backing.

Advances in technology do allow more options, but that does not devalue what came before, and sometimes those options simply confuse the artist.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by Naijeru

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
quote:
Originally posted by Naijeru:
I think 10 - 13 is a good size for a TV season. I wish more American shows were edited for quality rather than to squeeze maximum profit from the suckers.

I disagree with the first part. I agree with the second.

What's wrong with a 12 episode season? I'm not saying all seasons should be no more than 13 episodes, just that I think it's a good manageable size. Full seasons can work, but there is greater risk associated with putting one together. Why should someone try to stretch a concept good enough for 10 great episodes into 22 mediocre ones?

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by GreenAlex

@Naijeru:
Nothing is wrong per se. I was just disagreeing that 10-13 is a good size. imho it's too few episodes if the show is really good.
That is from the perspective of a viewer who enjoys the show and is not eager on spending most of the year waiting.
After all, in a 12 episode season, which starts around September and ends in January, you will probably have 2-3 breaks and will only have a few weeks of entertainment.

It's not a problem with it being to little to tell the story, it's just sad to only be able to enjoy a good show for such a short time

@Jamie:
Poor acting was not meant specifically for Casablanca.
But if you look at older movies, especially lower budget ones, quite often actors who are not lead roles or in any way crucial to the movie, were simply terrible

2D/3D, well, right now, imho technology is not there yet. Not so much on the movie end, but rather on the user's end.
I do think that in theory LotR could benefit from 3D. But right now it does not because 3D right now has far too many downsides.

If we were to pick up this discussion in 10-15 years, I am sure it could be argued, that the movie experience of LotR could be heightened even more if it were native 3D

Your piano-concerto analogy missed my point a bit. After all, I did say, that it is only a problem if not intended to be that way (see my comment on Schindler's List.
But in movies and tv shows, not everything is by choice and some decission are "the lesser evil".

quote:
Advances in technology do allow more options, but that does not devalue what came before, and sometimes those options simply confuse the artist.

Again, se comment I made before.
And if an artist is overwhelmed or confused by options, then it stands to argue, that he is limited in his creativity. He does not need to understand binary to be able to use cgi to his and his movies advantage.
And he does not need cgi to make a great movie. He does need to know that he has the option, though.

Posted on: 10 December 2010 by TomK

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
TomK:
I did NOT say that I cannot appreciate good old series or movies. I said, that if you want to sell a tv show today, it needs to be up-to-date.

You can think of me as some dim witted idiot if you find it easier that way, up to you. But I am simply trying to explain why american networks try to remake UK shows.

But I will reply to your Shakespeare, Dickens, Wells etc.:
Do you really think that if they lived today they would write in the same style? I doubt it. Do you really think that they would be recognized as masters of literature if they were to write today? I doubt it.

Now I am NOT saying that they were not excellent writers. I am saying that time changes, societies change and entertainment does not always mean intellect nor should it.

If you think every form of entertainment has to be intellectual, then, if I knew you personally, I would call you a huge snob. Not everything old is "classic". Not everything ahead of it's time xyears ago would still be considered good today.

Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon and so many other movies were great. They still are great. And they might have inspired many a generation of actors and directors. That does not change the fact that the same story could now be told in a different fashion. And by the way, do you really think Casablanca would turn out to be such a great hit today?
Come on, times have changed. There are far more movies, shows, styles now. There is no absolute anymore. Things are more versatile.
And the competition is much bigger.

And before you jump to conclusions: I love the original 3 and hate the new 3, but George Lucas is a good example of someone who (apart from being greedy as hell) accepts that when he shot the Star Wars movies, his hands were tied by the Special Effects possible at the time. They did a hell of a job and I still love watching them, but you have to accept that technology moves on and especially SciFi (which is not equivalent to aliens!) can greatly benefit from better audio and video presentation.

You can either accept that or not. If not, your loss, not mine. Because seemingly unlike some I can appreciate and enjoy both the old classics and the new.

@Jamie:
Yes, each show or movie should be a piece of art in it's own time and fashion. But it also has to be judged as such and if for some reason it suffered from its time (no colour available, no steady cams, poor contrast, poor resolution, lack of technology or simply poor actors) then it has to be possible to criticise them for that. Again, I am NOt saying that black & white is bad! But if it was not intended that way but rather forced upon the director then it can be a downside.

And if you feel a story is great and you want to tell it but you feel it would benefit from being made with modern technology or a modern feel, then that is valid as well.
Honestly, I doubt the Lord of the Rings could have been told in such an amazing way if it had been filmed 20 years ago.
Sure, the magic of the director always shines through, but being able to use fx and color adjustments etc. allows the director to actually make his vision come true.
And if you check out the bonus material on such a movie it is unbelievable how much was changed. Colours and lighting in hundreds of scenes. And you can really see what a huge difference it makes to the way the movie "feels".

P.S.: I dislike those people more who think Shakespeare is the only true writer and everything modern is trash. Or people who think Mozart is the god of music and everything modern is simply a version of his art.
I actually prefer people who are honest to themselves and open to the world and watch crap like Reality Shows to snobs who think they are superior when in fact they are severly limited because they are stuck in their views and cannot appreciate anything new.
And no, I do not not watch reality-shows nor soaps or anything of that sort.

edit:
just a little addition:
I think Schindler's List was mentioned as back & white. But it was a voluntary move. And don't you agree that adding color to just a few scenes, to just that one little girl, did not make the entire scene that much more real and vivid? the director was able to make that decision and he used the possibilities he had to make that movie a piece of art.

"But if we want to stick to this example, who today likes to watch black & white movies?"

You wrote that last sentence. Very strong implication that you have a problem with old movies. I love some old movies and I love loads of new movies. I actually like most of what I've seen of Michael Bay. I loved Armageddon and Transformers. Don't know where you get the idea I'm a snob. Far from it. I like nothing better than a big loud colourful spectacular blockbuster. However I'll not dismiss a movie because it's from before my time. Similarly I would never praise a movie just because it was old.

I'll take issue with you about Dickens etc. Of course they wouldn't write in the same style today. They wrote in the style of their time, just as Casablanca was created according to the styles and technology of its time. Does that make them somehow inferior though? Of course not and to imply as you did that younger people are only capable of appreciating stuff that's been up jazzed up into the latest technology is in my opinion an insult.

And I agree that to get something shown on prime time US TV it has to be up to date in terms of production values. Fawlty Towers wouldn't make it, just as it's rarely shown on prime time here. However when we lived in California it was massively successful on PBS. But I remember Men Behaving Badly being remade shortly after it was a massive hit here. It was nothing to do with improving its technical quality but everything to do with trying to make it more palatable to American sensibilities. The original was rude, vulgar, often sexist, but hilariously funny while the remake was watered down and awful, and certainly no better technically.

Posted on: 11 December 2010 by GreenAlex

Yes, I did write that sentence.
And it holds true, imho. Sure, we will watch the occasional black & white movie.
Just like we would watch stuff we normally wouldn't from time to time.

But it is rare, at least for me, and I do not need black & white at all. It's something I have to accept because that's the way the original movie was or the way the director chose to make it, but that does not make it more appealing to me.

And I did not say that that all younger people are only capabale of accepting jazzed up stuff, but the majority of us tv viewers in a certain age group, I think it's 18-49, will prefer it.
That does not mean they cannot appreciate true art. But tv is about selling ads and you need to target the biggest possible viewership to do that.
If making the show more visually stimulating helps that process, they will do it.

Maybe not everything said here should be generalized. Especially comedies do not really need better cgi or better cameras or a newer feel.
They might need re-writing due to different expressions and different morals in the uk and us. And they might need adjusting political or celebrity references. Well, need is a strong word. Some might feel it would help.

About the snob comment, I explained why I would call you a snob, if that statement were true. As you, like myself, can in fact enjoy both, the "intellectual" and the "mindless", I wouldn't need to

About the writers like Dickens: They would be just as good, they just wouldn't be the only good ones anymore nor would they be such a huge influence anymore.
There are far too many writers nowadays for one writer to stand out that much.
And I would assume that in their time, writers like Dickens, Wells or Shakespeare were not held as high as they are today. Worldwide that is.

Is J.K. Rowling the Shakespeare of our time because she is by far the best selling author or the best known? Not sure. I don't like the books, I didn't finish any because the first I read I really didn't like. Same for the movies. Pretty pathetic cgi and overall very mediocre story.
Difficult to judge true art nowadays. And as always, in the eye of the beholder

Posted on: 11 December 2010 by Derek Wright

TV is not about selling ads - it is about selling an audience to the advertisers.

The audience is the product, not the program.

Posted on: 11 December 2010 by George Fredrik

quote:
Originally posted by GreenAlex:
Yes, I did write that sentence.
And it holds true, imho. Sure, we will watch the occasional black & white movie.
Just like we would watch stuff we normally wouldn't from time to time.

But it is rare, at least for me, and I do not need black & white at all. It's something I have to accept ...

I have more than fifty DVDs and at least ten of them are colour.

I do not have these discs because of the colour or otherwise, but because of the quality of the artistry in the films.

For some the technical limitations or the date of making are no barrier at all to enjoyment. I enjoy films for what they are. I might ask this question. Which would you prefer - a massive, and techinically advanced technicolour production like Gone With The Wind, or the technically simpler film like Casablanca?

I could think of no way to improve Casablanca, but have never stayed awake through the duration of Gone With The Wind ...l'd call black and white a welcomed quality of the film ... one of many ...

ATB from George

Posted on: 11 December 2010 by David Scott

quote:
There are far too many writers nowadays for one writer to stand out that much.

This is silly. There have always been plenty of writers.

quote:
And I would assume that in their time, writers like Dickens, Wells or Shakespeare were not held as high as they are today. Worldwide that is.

Dickens was a huge celebrity throughout the English speaking world and was certainly read by far far more people than he is now. There weren't any films or tv shows of course, but he toured extensively doing one man shows and his works were serialised in popular magazines. Wells was extremely popular too, I believe, but I know less about him. Shakespeare was probably not that much known outside London in his lifetime, because that's where his theatres were. Nowadays I suspect he would most likely be working in film - a medium which owes a huge debt to him as the man who largely invented our way of thinking about the business of being human. I don't see why this would affect our view of his plays though? They don't seem to have got much worse over the last 400 years, so I expect they'll last a while yet.

All three of these writers had a very broad appeal, so I'm not sure the highbrow/lowbrow thing is relevant here. I enjoyed Transformers (apart from the 'token black' trash talking robot, which was, of course - was it satirical? - the only one to die) and I love Anthony and Cleopatra. I accept that studio and network bosses are conservative and risk-averse by nature, which leads to a standardised product and tends to build an audience which expects more of the same, but I don't accept their generalisations any more than yours. Young people can like old films. I've seen it happen.

Posted on: 13 December 2010 by mudwolf

Oh I agree in most cases that the Americanization just doesn't work. There are your shows where the characters are so rich and funny and I"m very happy to see the originals. One comment that they are in the Queens English, yes and many aren't, trying to figure out a piece of Cockney or other local accents is sometimes nigh impossible especially with slang words. I've had times that the words and clipped slang just passed me by but that doesn't stop me from watching and looking at the actors and settings.

I must say that many Americans just don't get your humor and find it a struggle to decipher so they don't bother. It is sad when one incredible show is remade and poorly done. My offering is Death at a Funeral. Saw it with a friend here in LA, not widely distributed but we laughed so hard and were so aghast and the shenanigans. Then it was remade into a "black" comedy here, I wouldn't even go see it.

PBS has done a great job over the years of showing your films and shows. I don't even bother with the crap of reality shows.

That was more than 2 bits worth but keep making the good stuff and I'll watch.

Posted on: 13 December 2010 by TomK

Can you imagine what an American version of this would turn out like?

Taysiders in Space.

Posted on: 13 December 2010 by Dungassin

They did ... it was called Star Terk (sic).

Posted on: 13 December 2010 by David Scott

Tom,

The holodeck bit was the funniest thing I've seen in years.

Posted on: 14 December 2010 by JamieL_v2

Apparently 'Shameless' is to be remade in the US with William H Macey in the main role. Good casting, but hard to imagine it having the grittiness of the Manchester original.