BC

"Bok C"

01/10/2012 10:22 PM

New American series

So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series
production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you
think this could work???


This topic has 26 replies

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

02/10/2012 4:18 PM

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (The
Doctor) wrote:
> In article <k4dj54$svd$1[email protected]>,
> Bok C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series
> >production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you
> >think this could work???
>
> No!! Doctor wHo is uniquely British. Hopefully the BBC says no to
> this.

Unfortunately the BBC is just a greedy "big business" - it will say "yes"
to anything the morons in management believe will make THEM (and the
company, if it's lucky) even more money. :-(

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 9:19 AM

Key number 1 the BBC is in Control

Key number 2 Doctor Who is kept separate from the American one.
--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

sp

solar penguin

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

12/10/2012 1:23 PM

Your Name wrote:

>
> Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
> "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.

In what way irrelevant? It's definitely relevant to the movie studios
or TV companies, who always want a successful or popular product.

BC

"Bok C"

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

05/10/2012 11:52 PM

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.

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!


"Your Name" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series
> production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you
> think this could work???

Not a hope in hell of it working (just look at all the other British shows
they've tried to Americanise - Americans simply don't understand British
shows), but thankfully it won't even be trying to since it's fake news.

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 4:53 PM

On 07 Oct 2012, Daibhid Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.)

Point withdrawn, since I've just noticed that I already invited the
interpretation of "it's not 'proper X' if it didn't work, even if it's
meant to be in continuity" with my dismissal of Galactica 1980...

--
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.

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

12/10/2012 7:02 PM

In article
<[email protected]m>, solar
penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
> > "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.
>
> In what way irrelevant? It's definitely relevant to the movie studios
> or TV companies, who always want a successful or popular product.

Irrelvant to whether or not it fits with what has already been
established, whether or not it's really part of the existing franchise,
... Making money or being popular has absolutely nothing to do with
quality nor does it automatically mean something fits with what has come
before. Neither does simply having "Star Trek" in the title actually mean
it's part of the real "Star Trek" franchise (calling it "Star Trek Barney"
doesn't suddenly mean the "Barney" shows are part of the "Star Trek"
franchise).

Of course, most people are apparently too dumb to understand that names
actually mean something. They blindly believe that if it says "Batllestar
Galactica" on the tin, then it must be "Battlestar Galactica", even when
the people making it are telling them it's really completely different.
:-\

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

16/10/2012 7:09 AM

On 14 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:

> Not really. It's all part of the same mess - the complete lack of
> creative talent in Hollyweird these days and the massively-over-egoed
> idiots who believe they know better than the person who created the
> idea what it really is.

I know you completely blank me out whenever I suggest that by your
arguments, nobody should be making Doctor Who at all, but if only the
original creator knows how to do it properly, and the original creators are
all dead...


--
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.

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

13/10/2012 11:26 AM

On 13 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:


> Of course, most people are apparently too dumb to understand that
> names actually mean something. They blindly believe that if it says
> "Batllestar Galactica" on the tin, then it must be "Battlestar
> Galactica", even when the people making it are telling them it's
> really completely different.
>:-\

Or maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, they *don't care*. Maybe
they're perfectly capable of recognising that 21st century BG isn't 1970s
BG, but are capable of appreciating them both on their own merits.

I don't think Sherlock fits into continuity with the original Sherlock
Holmes stories, or with the Jeremy Brett series, because it's blindingly
obvious it doesn't, but I still like it. And it makes sense to call it
Sherlock, in a way that making it about a detective called William McHenry
wouldn't.

--
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.

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

06/10/2012 8:20 PM

On 06 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
> <[email protected]> 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.

>> 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.

So on the one hand, we've got a show that was killed off at least two
decades before the revival, and on the other, one where the original
continues in a different format. I'm not sure either of those demonstrate
that a remake "kills off" the original.

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.

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. And whatever happens, it
can't possibly be worse than the UK version of The Golden Girls...

--
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.

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

08/10/2012 9:24 AM

In article <[email protected]>, James Kuyper
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 10:56 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bok C <[email protected]> writes:
> >> So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who
> >> series production in the states, running parallel to the one in
> >> Britain. Do you think this could work???
> >
> > No. What would be the point?
>
> For producers: more money. US shows tend to be much better funded than
> British ones.
> For viewers: more episodes to watch.

For fans: Episodes to completely ignore thanks to being utter ruubish
butchering the good name of the original.

sp

solar penguin

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

13/10/2012 12:58 PM

Your Name wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]m>, solar
> penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > >
> > > Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
> > > "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.
> >
> > In what way irrelevant? It's definitely relevant to the movie studios
> > or TV companies, who always want a successful or popular product.
>
> Irrelvant to whether or not it fits with what has already been
> established, whether or not it's really part of the existing franchise,

So when you say "irrelevant", you mean it's only irrelevant to the
tiny number of fans who are obsessed with classifying and categorising
everything for its own sake.

Thankfully, most people don't fall into that category, and never will.

> ... Making money or being popular has absolutely nothing to do with
> quality

True, but the franchising process has nothing to do with quality
either, and it has everything to do with making money and being
popular.

>
> Of course, most people are apparently too dumb to understand that names
> actually mean something. They blindly believe that if it says "Batllestar
> Galactica" on the tin, then it must be "Battlestar Galactica", even when
> the people making it are telling them it's really completely different.
> :-\

Most people are intelligent enough to know that words, including
names, are defined by how they're used in practice, not the other way
round. My screen name is "solar penguin", but I'm not a real penguin
and I don't come from the sun.

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

02/10/2012 10:22 AM

In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series
> production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you
> think this could work???

Not a hope in hell of it working (just look at all the other British shows
they've tried to Americanise - Americans simply don't understand British
shows), but thankfully it won't even be trying to since it's fake news.

JK

James Kuyper

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 11:45 AM

On 10/07/2012 10:56 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bok C <[email protected]> writes:
>> So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who
>> series production in the states, running parallel to the one in
>> Britain. Do you think this could work???
>>
>
> No. What would be the point?

For producers: more money. US shows tend to be much better funded than
British ones.
For viewers: more episodes to watch.
--
James Kuyper

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

13/10/2012 7:04 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Daibhid
Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2012, James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It isn't the continuity that's the issue; it seems as though no one
> > can make more than a few Batman movies before the next one has to
> > start all over again with his origin story. I can understand a
> > creative person feeling that they want to write about a Batman so
> > different from the previous ones that his origin story must have been
> > significantly different - but that doesn't mean you have to re-tell
> > that story. All you have to do is put a reference to the differences
> > in your new story. If you want to re-use the name "Batman", then you
> > should be able to count on most of your audience being familiar with
> > (and maybe even a little tired of) the origin story, and get on with
> > some completely new story of your own.
>
>
> That seems like a different issue to what Your Name was saying though.
<snip>

Not really. It's all part of the same mess - the complete lack of creative
talent in Hollyweird these days and the massively-over-egoed idiots who
believe they know better than the person who created the idea what it
really is.

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

06/10/2012 9:54 AM

In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
<[email protected]> 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.




> 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).

JH

John Hall

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 10:56 AM

In article <[email protected]>,
Bok C <[email protected]> writes:
>So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who
>series production in the states, running parallel to the one in
>Britain. Do you think this could work???
>

No. What would be the point?
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

08/10/2012 9:21 AM

In article <[email protected]>, Daibhid
Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2012, Daibhid Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.)
>
> Point withdrawn, since I've just noticed that I already invited the
> interpretation of "it's not 'proper X' if it didn't work, even if it's
> meant to be in continuity" with my dismissal of Galactica 1980...

Galactica 1980 was hopless rubbish because it was an attempt to change the
established ideas - it didn't fit with the previous show.

Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
"works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.
The point is that if it doesn't fit with what came before, then it's
obviously not actually part of the same franchise and therefore should
have it's own name and franchise.

The idiocy is compounded by things like the Batman and Superman movies
which are rebooting the franchises almost every year. :-\

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

13/10/2012 11:21 AM

On 13 Oct 2012, James Kuyper <[email protected]> wrote:

> It isn't the continuity that's the issue; it seems as though no one
> can make more than a few Batman movies before the next one has to
> start all over again with his origin story. I can understand a
> creative person feeling that they want to write about a Batman so
> different from the previous ones that his origin story must have been
> significantly different - but that doesn't mean you have to re-tell
> that story. All you have to do is put a reference to the differences
> in your new story. If you want to re-use the name "Batman", then you
> should be able to count on most of your audience being familiar with
> (and maybe even a little tired of) the origin story, and get on with
> some completely new story of your own.


That seems like a different issue to what Your Name was saying though.

And I'd agree ... with the caveat that Batman Begins was all *about* the
differences in the origin story. It's a completely new story (mostly)
which has been irretrevably interwined with "Parents shot, went off to
train himself to the peak of physical and mental ability so he could beat
up criminals".

You can't just say "Oh yes, he trained with Ra's Al Ghul" when Ra's shows
up, you need to establish it properly. And a film that actually follows
Bruce's time abroad training is actually a very different take than
Burton's, which has a single flashback to establish "Ever danced with the
devil?" (The problem, of course, is when Batman arrives back in the US,
and both films start riffing off Miller's Year One. That does get a bit
repetitive.)


--
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.

JK

James Kuyper

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

13/10/2012 9:21 AM

On 10/12/2012 12:44 PM, Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> On 08 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:
>
>> Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
>> "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely
>> irrelevant. The point is that if it doesn't fit with what came before,
>> then it's obviously not actually part of the same franchise and
>> therefore should have it's own name and franchise.
>>
>> The idiocy is compounded by things like the Batman and Superman movies
>> which are rebooting the franchises almost every year. :-\
>
> Take that argument to its limit and there shouldn't be any Batman or
> Superman movies at all, since none of them have ever been compatable with
> the comics.

It isn't the continuity that's the issue; it seems as though no one can
make more than a few Batman movies before the next one has to start all
over again with his origin story. I can understand a creative person
feeling that they want to write about a Batman so different from the
previous ones that his origin story must have been significantly
different - but that doesn't mean you have to re-tell that story. All
you have to do is put a reference to the differences in your new story.
If you want to re-use the name "Batman", then you should be able to
count on most of your audience being familiar with (and maybe even a
little tired of) the origin story, and get on with some completely new
story of your own.
Better off - don't re-use "Batman" - create your own new story about
someone else - but I suppose that's too much creativity to ask of Hollywood.
--
James Kuyper

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 9:22 AM

In article <[email protected]>, Daibhid
Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 06 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
> > <[email protected]> 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. :-(

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

12/10/2012 4:32 PM

Why do I have the feeling Red Dwarf is written all over this?

--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

YY

[email protected] (Your Name)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

16/10/2012 4:50 PM

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (The
Doctor) wrote:

> Here is a question to ponder:
>
> Would LAmbert and Newman condiser an American production of DW ?

Nobody would "condiser" anything. ;-)

Nobody with an ounce of integrity or intelligence would consider an
American Doctor Who either. Unfortunately greed is the motivating factor
for most people, so they've no doubt considered it in the past and will do
in the future ... but hopefully common sense continues to prevail.

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

02/10/2012 10:55 AM

In article <[email protected]>,
Bok C <[email protected]> wrote:
>So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series
>production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you
>think this could work???
>

No!! Doctor wHo is uniquely British. Hopefully the BBC says no to
this.
--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

07/10/2012 4:06 PM

On 07 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Daibhid
> Ceanaideach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 06 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bok C"
>> > <[email protected]> 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.

DC

Daibhid Ceanaideach

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

12/10/2012 12:44 PM

On 08 Oct 2012, [email protected] (Your Name) wrote:

> Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually
> "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely
> irrelevant. The point is that if it doesn't fit with what came before,
> then it's obviously not actually part of the same franchise and
> therefore should have it's own name and franchise.
>
> The idiocy is compounded by things like the Batman and Superman movies
> which are rebooting the franchises almost every year. :-\

Take that argument to its limit and there shouldn't be any Batman or
Superman movies at all, since none of them have ever been compatable with
the comics.

Come to think of it, take that argument to its limit and any series about a
time traveller in a police box that isn't an edutainment show that
alternates between space opera and straight historical shouldn't call
itself Doctor Who.

--
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.

dT

[email protected] (The Doctor)

in reply to "Bok C" on 01/10/2012 10:22 PM

16/10/2012 9:59 AM

Here is a question to ponder:

Would LAmbert and Newman condiser an American production of DW ?
--
Member - Liberal International This is [email protected] Ici [email protected]
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
USA petition to dissolve the Republic and vote to disoolve it in November 2012


You’ve reached the end of replies