[masan's saddle]

Slow Ben, on 12 October 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

Abyss, on 12 October 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 10 October 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

...American remakes aren't ALWAYS fuckups. For example, the american Office is better than the British. yeah, I said it, and if you want I'll back it up. It's true.

More successful yes, but not necessarily 'better'.

No its just better.

No, it is'nt.

[HoosierDaddy]

masan, on 12 October 2010 - 11:26 PM, said:

Slow Ben, on 12 October 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

Abyss, on 12 October 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 10 October 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

...American remakes aren't ALWAYS fuckups. For example, the american Office is better than the British. yeah, I said it, and if you want I'll back it up. It's true.

More successful yes, but not necessarily 'better'.

No its just better.

No, it is'nt.

You are both wrong! Yeah, I said it!

I prefer British The Office Season 1 to American The Office season 1. As was stated, the American version was almost a straight up copy, but the Brit version was more... realistic, I'd opine, than the American version. Early Michael is horrifically terrible, while David was somehow more believable... and Gervais with the guitar singing "Free love on the free-love highway" is great.

The American Office season 2 starts to hit its stride, and by season three I really, really love it.

It has jumped the shark though, I think. Probably with last season.

[MTS]

I saw the pilot for Running Wilde today, and have to say: it was surprisingly (and horrendously) unfunny. Definitely not the quality I expected from the creators of Arrested Development. Does it get any better, those who have watched it?

[Satan]

masan, on 12 October 2010 - 11:26 PM, said:

Slow Ben, on 12 October 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

Abyss, on 12 October 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 10 October 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

...American remakes aren't ALWAYS fuckups. For example, the american Office is better than the British. yeah, I said it, and if you want I'll back it up. It's true.

More successful yes, but not necessarily 'better'.

No its just better.

No, it is'nt.

This argument is like discussing which is better of dog shit or horse shit. While some may hold preferences in regards to digested substances they partake in, they are, in the end, both shit.

[amphibian]

Brynjar, on 13 October 2010 - 12:24 PM, said:

This argument is like discussing which is better of dog shit or horse shit. While some may hold preferences in regards to digested substances they partake in, they are, in the end, both shit.

Aren't you the guy who didn't like The Wire?

I think you've reached "Do not pay any attention to whatsoever when it comes to entertainment" status for me.

[Satan]

No, actually I love the wire. It has ruined every subsequent police series/movie for me, but it was so, so worth it.

[Slow Ben]

Tiste Simeon, on 12 October 2010 - 10:25 PM, said:

The American Office is definitely very funny. I really enjoy it but it has ceased to be a cleverly written mockumentary and has just become a well written sitcom based in the Office. The genius of the British was how much you just kept believing it was all actually happening and that it could be happening in offices across the country. It was subtle and very irritatingly funny. The American one is still hilarious but it's a lot goofier and more obvious. Sure, the laugh out loud moments are more frequent but there is something lost in translation I feel. Plus the first season was almost entirely made up of rehashed scripts from the British one.

H.D., on 12 October 2010 - 11:52 PM, said:

You are both wrong! Yeah, I said it!

I prefer British The Office Season 1 to American The Office season 1. As was stated, the American version was almost a straight up copy, but the Brit version was more... realistic, I'd opine, than the American version. Early Michael is horrifically terrible, while David was somehow more believable... and Gervais with the guitar singing "Free love on the free-love highway" is great.

The American Office season 2 starts to hit its stride, and by season three I really, really love it.

It has jumped the shark though, I think. Probably with last season.

I'm Slow Ben and i approve both these posts.

[amphibian]

Brynjar, on 13 October 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

No, actually I love the wire. It has ruined every subsequent police series/movie for me, but it was so, so worth it.

Once you've seen Jimmy and Bunk go "Fuuuuuck... fuck. Fuhck fuck... fuck...", CSI loses its luster.

I apologize. And still don't get why the hate for The Office. If it's the particular style of humor, well, I may not be partial to Tim & Eric-brand humor and never watch that show, but I won't denigrate it.

I agree with H.D. that the American Office ends up being better after a shaky first couple years spent aping the British one. I haven't ever sat down and finished an entire season of it, but have caught many scattered episodes and liked them more than Gervais's version.

Although Gervais is brilliant as Louie's doctor in Louie.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Ok, not comparing any other remakes but the Office as I haven't seen either the Brit or USA version of all of those mentioned. From what i have seen Brit ABFAB is shit but haven't seen the USA version, I predict shit as well. USA Coupling was shit, never saw the Brit version but I heard it was good. But we're talking about the Office.

First off, being derivative can't be held against the USA version (henceforth known as USAO) because it's a remake. Of course it's derivative. So, the Brit version (BRITO) gets points for being more original, but we're not comparing just originality, we're talking better over all.

So we've established that USAO is derivative, at least at first. Here's the thing though, it often does things BETTER when it is. Examples? For one, the goofy boss. Gervais, while funny, is really utterly unlikable in BRITO. He has really no redeeming features, just a stupid incompetant asshole. Carrell is just as bumbling, but there is a likeable side to him, in the end you want to see him succeed in spite of himself. Another character comparison, Pam versus her Brit version Dawn. Dawn is horribly acted, with no charisma, unconvincing delivery, and frankly odd looks. I never found myself rooting for her, and didn't see why Tim was interested in her at all. She was lame and their relationship felt forced.

Some characters that are a tossup are Tim versus Jim and Gareth versus Dwight. Both versions of these characters are great. I think you could swap them out in the different versions and they would work beautifully in either setting. Tim/Jim is a great everyman who people can identify with, with great delivery and sarcasm and is just likeable. Dwight/Gareth are brilliantly played. I call both of these characters a tie.

So, out of the four main characters in a character-driven show, I call it USA) is 2-0-2, with two wins, no losses and two ties. BRITO is )0-2-2. I think the vast majority of the minor characters are also more convincing and entertaining, but I don't feel like doiong every single comparison. Here's another thing to consider regarding characters. BRITO had only 13 episodes to develop characters and show any kind of growth. USAO has had 7 full season with something like over 150 episodes. Each character has a descernable arc and growth, plus you actually have the time to become attached to them. The most minor characters of USAO are better developed than the main 4 of BRITO. Bottom line is USAO wins characters, and that's the most important thing in a show like this, we could stop here.

But we won't. Let's talk story arc. A main one, the will they/won't they love story of Tim/Jim and Dawn/Pam. I've already mentioned how Dawn ruins it because any reasonable person would be rooting against Tim getting saddled with a blob like her. Here's another angle though. This type of love story is a staple of tv sitcoms, I'm sure it has its own trope. There is no way you can properly build up the tension, have the bait and switch of false moments where it seems it will happen, and get you emotionally invested in 13 episodes. 13 episodes is enough to intorduce you to the characters and lay the groundwork for such a relationship. So, regardless of if you appreciate this trope in sitcoms or not, it was done better in USAO. By the time it actually happened, there was an almost palpable relief that it was over. It was masterfully timed, where just as people were about to get fed up with wondering and caring, they got together. Well done. Advantage USAO.

I think I'm done with this for the moment, but will discuss it more if anyone cares. Bottom line is, BRITO is a good show. USAO took much of what was good and improved it, while avoiding some of the failures of BRITO. If you want to compare just the first 13 episodes and say BRITO wins, fine. However, USAO then continues for 140 episodes, becomes its own show, and eventually outshines the original.

[Morgoth]

[MTS]

My thoughts exactly.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Morgoth, on 14 October 2010 - 08:11 AM, said:

Brilliant argument. I especially liked the no points that you raised.

[masan's saddle]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 14 October 2010 - 07:20 AM, said:

So we've established that USAO is derivative, at least at first. Here's the thing though, it often does things BETTER when it is. Examples? For one, the goofy boss. Gervais, while funny, is really utterly unlikable in BRITO. He has really no redeeming features, just a stupid incompetant asshole. Carrell is just as bumbling, but there is a likeable side to him, in the end you want to see him succeed in spite of himself. Another character comparison, Pam versus her Brit version Dawn. Dawn is horribly acted, with no charisma, unconvincing delivery, and frankly odd looks. I never found myself rooting for her, and didn't see why Tim was interested in her at all. She was lame and their relationship felt forced.

Some characters that are a tossup are Tim versus Jim and Gareth versus Dwight. Both versions of these characters are great. I think you could swap them out in the different versions and they would work beautifully in either setting. Tim/Jim is a great everyman who people can identify with, with great delivery and sarcasm and is just likeable. Dwight/Gareth are brilliantly played. I call both of these characters a tie.

So, out of the four main characters in a character-driven show, I call it USA) is 2-0-2, with two wins, no losses and two ties. BRITO is )0-2-2. I think the vast majority of the minor characters are also more convincing and entertaining, but I don't feel like doiong every single comparison. Here's another thing to consider regarding characters. BRITO had only 13 episodes to develop characters and show any kind of growth. USAO has had 7 full season with something like over 150 episodes. Each character has a descernable arc and growth, plus you actually have the time to become attached to them. The most minor characters of USAO are better developed than the main 4 of BRITO. Bottom line is USAO wins characters, and that's the most important thing in a show like this, we could stop here.

But we won't. Let's talk story arc. A main one, the will they/won't they love story of Tim/Jim and Dawn/Pam. I've already mentioned how Dawn ruins it because any reasonable person would be rooting against Tim getting saddled with a blob like her. Here's another angle though. This type of love story is a staple of tv sitcoms, I'm sure it has its own trope. There is no way you can properly build up the tension, have the bait and switch of false moments where it seems it will happen, and get you emotionally invested in 13 episodes. 13 episodes is enough to intorduce you to the characters and lay the groundwork for such a relationship. So, regardless of if you appreciate this trope in sitcoms or not, it was done better in USAO. By the time it actually happened, there was an almost palpable relief that it was over. It was masterfully timed, where just as people were about to get fed up with wondering and caring, they got together. Well done. Advantage USAO.

I think I'm done with this for the moment, but will discuss it more if anyone cares. Bottom line is, BRITO is a good show. USAO took much of what was good and improved it, while avoiding some of the failures of BRITO. If you want to compare just the first 13 episodes and say BRITO wins, fine. However, USAO then continues for 140 episodes, becomes its own show, and eventually outshines the original.

To be fair Ray, I have watched some of the "USAO" and enjoyed them for what they are. But, and it's a big but, I fear you may have missed the point.

You acknowledge the originality of the British Office and here lies the crux of the issue for me. Gervais' character is supposed to be loathsome and unlikeable, he is supposed to be uncomfortable to watch. He is representative of every incompetent middle manager that most people have at some point in their careers, had to deal with. The format was supposed to be like a documentary and as such, realistic and uncomfortable to watch. This is why it was so ground breaking.

The USAO took what it wanted from the British version and more or less turned the concept into a sit-com, something Gervais' creation was never meant to be. Now, as I have said the USAO is entertaining in its way, but it is not even comparable to the original. I'm sorry I don't really understand your statistcal comparisons because the two shows are totally different animals.

I think this might just be a case of transatlantic quibbles, the USAO was "adapted" to make it more palatable to US viewers, personally I feel a lot was lost in translation. But being British i'm going to say that, if the USAO works for you then fine.

As for why a Swede and an Aussie would disagree, I couldn't possibly coment.

[MTS]

masan, on 14 October 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

As for why a Swede and an Aussie would disagree, I couldn't possibly coment.

I was agreeing with Morgoth, actually. This has become to TV what the PS3/X360 debate is to console gaming. That is, utterly pointless and like bashing your head against a wall, in that there's nothing on the other side and just makes your head hurt.

[Abyss]

Empirically speaking, this point...

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 14 October 2010 - 07:20 AM, said:

... BRITO had only 13 episodes to develop characters and show any kind of growth. USAO has had 7 full season with something like over 150 episodes. ...

...pretty much settled the debate in my mind. UK's ABFAB, MBB and COUPLING all ran for multiple seasons. THE OFFICE is the only example where the US versions commercial success wipes the floor with the UK's.

Taste is subjective but it's hard to argue with the objective $$$s.



Just watched last week's NIKITA - now this show is starting to impress me. It might just have legs. (aside from the obvious)

NO ORDINARY FAMILY - y'know, ordinarily i might give a show that revolves around super powers a chance, but i could barely get through seven minutes of the second ep. I'm out. best of luck to the show, but i'm out.

FRINGE - how are you all not watching this??? It's SO GOOD.

[Tiste Simeon]

At the end of the day, I love both versions of The Office, for different reasons and I change my mind as to which I prefer on a regular basis.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

MTS, on 14 October 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

masan, on 14 October 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

As for why a Swede and an Aussie would disagree, I couldn't possibly coment.

I was agreeing with Morgoth, actually. This has become to TV what the PS3/X360 debate is to console gaming. That is, utterly pointless and like bashing your head against a wall, in that there's nothing on the other side and just makes your head hurt.

Ah, fair enough. I guess I'll just deal with it the same way, and enjoy both.

[Obdigore]

I just caught the first to episodes of season 2 of 'The League'.

If you play in a league with people you know, especially a FFL (not 'futbul'), you will enjoy this show. Even my GF enjoyed it, and she dosen't play in a league.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

masan, on 14 October 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 14 October 2010 - 07:20 AM, said:

So we've established that USAO is derivative, at least at first. Here's the thing though, it often does things BETTER when it is. Examples? For one, the goofy boss. Gervais, while funny, is really utterly unlikable in BRITO. He has really no redeeming features, just a stupid incompetant asshole. Carrell is just as bumbling, but there is a likeable side to him, in the end you want to see him succeed in spite of himself. Another character comparison, Pam versus her Brit version Dawn. Dawn is horribly acted, with no charisma, unconvincing delivery, and frankly odd looks. I never found myself rooting for her, and didn't see why Tim was interested in her at all. She was lame and their relationship felt forced.

Some characters that are a tossup are Tim versus Jim and Gareth versus Dwight. Both versions of these characters are great. I think you could swap them out in the different versions and they would work beautifully in either setting. Tim/Jim is a great everyman who people can identify with, with great delivery and sarcasm and is just likeable. Dwight/Gareth are brilliantly played. I call both of these characters a tie.

So, out of the four main characters in a character-driven show, I call it USA) is 2-0-2, with two wins, no losses and two ties. BRITO is )0-2-2. I think the vast majority of the minor characters are also more convincing and entertaining, but I don't feel like doiong every single comparison. Here's another thing to consider regarding characters. BRITO had only 13 episodes to develop characters and show any kind of growth. USAO has had 7 full season with something like over 150 episodes. Each character has a descernable arc and growth, plus you actually have the time to become attached to them. The most minor characters of USAO are better developed than the main 4 of BRITO. Bottom line is USAO wins characters, and that's the most important thing in a show like this, we could stop here.

But we won't. Let's talk story arc. A main one, the will they/won't they love story of Tim/Jim and Dawn/Pam. I've already mentioned how Dawn ruins it because any reasonable person would be rooting against Tim getting saddled with a blob like her. Here's another angle though. This type of love story is a staple of tv sitcoms, I'm sure it has its own trope. There is no way you can properly build up the tension, have the bait and switch of false moments where it seems it will happen, and get you emotionally invested in 13 episodes. 13 episodes is enough to intorduce you to the characters and lay the groundwork for such a relationship. So, regardless of if you appreciate this trope in sitcoms or not, it was done better in USAO. By the time it actually happened, there was an almost palpable relief that it was over. It was masterfully timed, where just as people were about to get fed up with wondering and caring, they got together. Well done. Advantage USAO.

I think I'm done with this for the moment, but will discuss it more if anyone cares. Bottom line is, BRITO is a good show. USAO took much of what was good and improved it, while avoiding some of the failures of BRITO. If you want to compare just the first 13 episodes and say BRITO wins, fine. However, USAO then continues for 140 episodes, becomes its own show, and eventually outshines the original.

To be fair Ray, I have watched some of the "USAO" and enjoyed them for what they are. But, and it's a big but, I fear you may have missed the point.

You acknowledge the originality of the British Office and here lies the crux of the issue for me. Gervais' character is supposed to be loathsome and unlikeable, he is supposed to be uncomfortable to watch. He is representative of every incompetent middle manager that most people have at some point in their careers, had to deal with. The format was supposed to be like a documentary and as such, realistic and uncomfortable to watch. This is why it was so ground breaking.

The USAO took what it wanted from the British version and more or less turned the concept into a sit-com, something Gervais' creation was never meant to be. Now, as I have said the USAO is entertaining in its way, but it is not even comparable to the original. I'm sorry I don't really understand your statistcal comparisons because the two shows are totally different animals.

I think this might just be a case of transatlantic quibbles, the USAO was "adapted" to make it more palatable to US viewers, personally I feel a lot was lost in translation. But being British i'm going to say that, if the USAO works for you then fine.

As for why a Swede and an Aussie would disagree, I couldn't possibly coment.

So, are you really trying to tell me that the Office came up with the idea of the mockumentary? Or the bumbling evil boss?

[amphibian]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 15 October 2010 - 04:36 AM, said:

So, are you really trying to tell me that the Office came up with the idea of the mockumentary? Or the bumbling evil boss?

Yeah, dude! The British Office doesn't go up to 11!