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???
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???
In article <k4dj54$svd$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
Bok C <stopstaring@boobs.com> wrote:
So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series >production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you >think this could work???
No!! Doctor wHo is uniquely British. Hopefully the BBC says no to
this.
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: stopstaring@boobs.com
Subject: New American series
So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you think this could work???
So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who series production in the states, running parallel to the one in Britain. Do you think this could work???
I don't know what you mean here. Some American versions of British TV shows have been flip flops, but others ones really took off. Just look at Being Human, Too Close For Comfort, Three's Company, Not Necessarily the News, The Office, Sanford and Son, American Idol and Queer and Folk.
I actually think it makes more sense to try launching an American version of Doctor Who while it's still popular and running in Britain. Not only will help the ratings, but if it doesn't succeed we still have the original British version to watch, and if it does we have twice as much Doctor Who! It's win/win!
In article <k4o9t9$uo9$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>, "Bok C" <stopstaring@boobs.com> wrote:
I don't know what you mean here. Some American versions of British
TV shows have been flip flops, but others ones really took off. Just
look at Being Human, Too Close For Comfort, Three's Company, Not
Necessarily the News, The Office, Sanford and Son, American Idol and
Queer and Folk.
Most, if not all, of those are American shows "based on" of British
shows (extremely loosely in some cases). They aren't re-using the same
name or ideas, and have lots of, usually silly, changes that really
make them into different shows.
I actually think it makes more sense to try launching an American
version of Doctor Who while it's still popular and running in
Britain. Not only will help the ratings, but if it doesn't succeed
we still have the original British version to watch, and if it does
we have twice as much Doctor Who! It's win/win!
It can't work, and thankfully it's unlikely to even be attempted. You
can't have two competing version of the same thing going at once. It
destroys the coherence of the franchise ... hence Ron Moore's version
of "Battlestar Galactica" has killed off the original, real
"Battlestar Galactica", and JJ Abrams version of "Star Trek" has
killed off the real "Star Trek" (to name just two cases).
On 06 Oct 2012, YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
In article <k4o9t9$uo9$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>, "Bok C" <stopstaring@boobs.com> 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...
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???
In article <k4dj54$svd$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
Bok C <stopstaring@boobs.com> writes:
So apparently somebody is planning to start a new Doctor Who
series production in the states, running parallel to the one in
Britain. Do you think this could work???
No. What would be the point?
In article <XnsA0E5DAAB456Ddaibhidchenedelhaolc@130.133.4.11>, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh@aol.com> wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
In article <k4o9t9$uo9$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>, "Bok C"
<stopstaring@boobs.com> 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).
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.
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.)
On 07 Oct 2012, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchenedelh@aol.com> 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...
On 10/07/2012 10:56 AM, John Hall wrote:
In article <k4dj54$svd$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
Bok C <stopstaring@boobs.com> 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.
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. :-\
Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.
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.
On 08 Oct 2012, YourName@YourISP.com (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.
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.
:-\
In article <35995d55-867b-4be9-a8a3-bfc9bc72451a@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:irrelevant.
Your Name wrote:
Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows / movies actually "works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely
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
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.
:-\
On 13 Oct 2012, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.
Here is a question to ponder:
Would LAmbert and Newman condiser an American production of DW ?
@MSGID: <k4o9t9$uo9$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>
@REPLY: <YourName-0210121623030001@203-118-187-91.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz> BC>From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: stopstaring@boobs.com
Subject: Re: New American series
I don't know what you mean here. Some American versions of British TV shows
have been flip flops, but others ones really took off.
I actually think it makes more sense to try launching an American version of
Doctor Who while it's still popular and running in Britain. Not only will BC>help the ratings, but if it doesn't succeed we still have the original BC>British version to watch, and if it does we have twice as much Doctor Who! BC>It's win/win!
In article <k4dj54$svd$1@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>, "Bok C" BC><stopstaring@boobs.com> 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 BC>> think this could work???
Not a hope in hades of it working (just look at all the other British shows BC>they've tried to Americanise - Americans simply don't understand British BC>shows), but thankfully it won't even be trying to since it's fake news.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 920 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 180:45:58 |
| Calls: | 12,198 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,530 |
| Messages: | 2,239,328 |