01 February, 2009
Original piece from M - The Sunday Age
Remakes are always a tricky proposition especially when all you do with the remake is set it in America. Especially when the original is so peculiar: a detective thrown back in time, where his 21st century policing skills clash head-on with their 1970s counterparts; underpinned by his struggle to return to his own time; further underpinned by the question--is he really in the 1970s, or just completely bonkers yeah, sure, but still definitely better than the drivel that passes for quality programming these days--especially seeing as it works? Surprisingly, this US version is terrific funnily enough because the original was just that. There's a cracking cast, including Harvey Keitel and Michael Imperiolo oh blah--Simm! <3. The New York setting works brilliantly, every bit as dirty and claustrophobic as the Manchester of the original tcheh, but with a slightly different soundtrack and milieu you'd hope so. Unfortunately for existing fans, the series depends too heavily on mystery and surprise to really work the second time round so watching an exact (albeit American) replica is a bit tough on the intellect, but if you haven't seen the original, you'll love V2 why don't we just stop here and say: watch the original.
Thanks, lunatoic, you've got me riled up about this, too. And really, I'm never an advocator for watch the original!! better than the remake FTW and all that. I mean, I liked the US remake of the Office! Admittedly moreso when they moved themselves away from the UK script. There's great script and then there's the lazy version where you just take the aforementioned great script and transplant it in a new and foreign country and wow just watch the little bugger go! go! go!
Look, I'm willing to give it a go--just don't let me hear you harp on about how great the plot is or I'll give you something new to harp about.
9 comments:
Yeah.
I should be a little more fair to this US version so I don't seem like some crazed biased lunatic. But the most annoying thing is that yeah, the US version probably IS pretty good, and people who haven't seen the original will love it, and then when it comes round to them checking out the UK version they'll already have been spoilt.
What they've done is created two series so identical that you can't judge them by their own merits. The one you love will be your first imprint, the version you watched first. And that isn't fair at all.
Or go the way of the Pancake and like it for the actors? XD
pffffft. :D
I heard they were pretty similar so I figured -- hey, if they're practically identical in both presentation and awesome, I might as well watch the one I find more aesthetically pleasing because I'll enjoy it just as much (if not more) than the other awesomecakes version. B)
coughshallowcough
Although, I totally understand where you're coming from. XD
WHAT. IF YOU ARE BUYING A HOUSE AND YOU HAVE TWO HOUSES TO CHOOSE FROM, BOTH WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF ROOMS/BATHROOMS/LIVING SPACES, BOTH AT THE SAME PRICE AND THE SAME DISTANCE FROM PUBLIC TRANSPORT, DECISION CLEARLY TURNS ON WHICH IS THE NICER LOOKING HOUSE. ;) ;) ;)
One would, say, be the original Victorian building and the other would be a 20th century copy. 8D?
if they're the same in all other respects, the fact that it's a copy is irrelevant. :P unless it would be unbearable to live in a house that was anything but original, factoring in that the two houses are practically the same, the reality of one being a copy doesn't really detract from its merits because originality is not in and of itself a merit to me. :) unless of course the copy is an unrecognisable pseudo-victorian mess, in which case bring on the original house.
(with regards to housing though, I'd have slightly more faith in the reliability of 20th century plumbing. :\)
.....all this comment spam is making me hungry. :3
aha, you do have a point. My issue in that case is the fact that sure, if you have a wildly popular 20th century house and you want to market this wildly popular 20th century house in a larger, more expensive suburb, by all means go and do so -- but if you have a wildly popular TV show and want to market it, at least wait 50 years before you steal the script and give it a new cast so you can call it a remake instead of an adaptation. >:0 The very essence of life on mars was that it was british and had that black british humour. You can't use the same lines in the US version and get the same effect.
and ultimately what I'm really sad about is that life on mars was such a great show, and I thought a US adaptation of it would mean that I could enjoy it twice. Seeing O'Mara act out scenes in almost exactly the same way is kind of pointless, and, worse, it feels like a farce :(
anyway, the point of this is: I freely admit I'm an old codger who will beat down anyone who doesn't love original 20th century plumbing with a large cane. ;D
Post a Comment