The suck of American TV

[sabrinamari]

I noticed that Keith posted a nice rant about how much he hates clarified soup. I guess if he can rant about that, I can rant about something equally incidental and quirky: the pure suck of U.S. TV as compared to U.K. TV.


Friday night I had some time to myself, so I decided to check out the American remake of Being Human and compare it to the original British series on which it was based (you can stream them both on Netflix).

As a writer and as an American, I was deeply embarrassed. Really, seriously embarrassed.

There are many excellent American writers. I am sure there are lots of truly great American screenwriters, somewhere. [Oh yeah, Joss Whedon...]

The U.S. remake of the series follows the U.K. version with eerie accuracy, mimicking almost every plot development and introducing it at almost exactly the same place as the U.K. version. Sometimes even the lines are the same. The props, clothes and spaces are almost identical to the U.K. original.

Except...the British actors are amazingly good. They're not astonishingly sleek, slick or sexy, except for Mitchell (who is also the most boring character, IMHO). They weren't chosen for their cookie-cutter looks. They were chosen for fit and talent. Their delivery is believable, gripping, and not tediously overdramatic, even when really painful stuff is being voiced.

The writing is brilliant. Not overdone, bereft of cliches, totally believable, and genuinely, intelligently quirky.

The U.S. version, by comparison, is slick, overdone, and watches like a music video. The writing is a series of cliches punctuated by puerile patter. It is delivered in either a chirpy, saccharine style (Sally the ghost) or an overdone, heavily dramatic style (Aidan the vampire). Only Josh the neurotic werewolf is at all bearable, and he's not that bad. Of course, in the British series the neurotic werewolf is absolutely the best character in the series. In general, the American actors look like models who have been homogenized, pasteurized and slickified.

Ick.

The sequence of events in the U.S. version is exactly the same as in the original U.K. version, except when it has been made dumber.

There is one good thing about the newer, U.S. series: if you want to understand the actual difference between British TV and U.S. TV, you can watch the last 20 minutes of the final episode of Season 1 in the original U.K. version of Being Human and follow this immediately by watching the last 20 minutes of the final episode of Season 1 in the U.S. remake.

Warning: If you loved the British villain in this series as much as I did---such a complex, well-developed character with almost no hint of cliche---his American counterpart will really depress you, especially in this particular scene. Eat chocolate, get a rub, or put in place some strategy that will help you feel better about life while you watch it.

You don't have to know anything about the plot, characters or writing to grasp the difference between the two. You just have to have eyes and the ability to think.

The difference will be quite clear.

Comments

[showingup.livejournal.com]

Over here, we are constantly hearing about how the US just does grown up drama so much better than we do, because we're dumbed down and unimaginative.

A few years ago, while temping at the Beeb, I sat in on the beginning of a workshop for wannabe tv writers. A panel of distinguished writers and producers I admire talked about how much fresher, more inventive and solid US drama was. I put up my hand and said, "I lived over there for over a decade. There's some stupendous tv coming out of the US, but it's in the minority. Most channels show repeats of the thing they showed 3 hours before, reruns of old shows, reality shows, and so on. We get to see the best of the best - and most Americans don't get to see them because you have to have specific cable packages to get specific channels. HBO is fantastic, if you can get it bundled in. And in the US, they keep talking about British shows as something to aspire to. Everyone I knew over there was a massive fan. It's just that each side of the Pond gets to see some of the jewels in each other's crowns."

This was received with some discomfort, and was quickly followed by a discussion of how well treated writers are in US tv as opposed to the UK (perception: way better; reality: probably way better in some cases, way worse in others).

I didn't see the rest of it, as I had to go and make a bunch of phone calls for someone organising auditions for local teenagers. I wish I had, though.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

It's probably true that we each get to see the best the other has to offer, but I am really struggling to believe that there is an equal amount of great TV in each place.

It's just hard for me to believe that the percentages are the same.

[onyxtwilight.livejournal.com]

Well, the percentages probably aren't. We produce MASSIVELY more shows, total, than they do, because we have orders of magnitude more channels than they do. And, of course, most of it is shit.

They have some serious crap, too, though.

But, yeah. Being Human US sucked so bad I couldn't keep watching it. Just really, really bad.

On the other hand, I'm enjoying the US version of Shameless MUCH more than I enjoy the British version. Part of that is the acting; our version has some top-notch actors, and even the kids are turning in outstanding performances week after week. Even the unlikeable characters are good. (And I'm self-aware enough to realize that part of it is also cultural familiarity.)

And I say again, in case you missed it, I think you'd really enjoy Touch. :-)

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

I agree that HBO is fantastic. There are also occasional, brilliant mainstream series, but the percentages are just so damn low...

And what passes for good writing here scares me.

[showingup.livejournal.com]

To be fair, we got rid of our tv hook-up in 2000, after we both found ourselves drowning in infomercials and repeats as we flicked endlessly through 100+ channels in search of something other than BtvS, Angel, and Farscape. After that, it was all Netflix.

Since coming home I've only been exposed to BBC programming that I've elected to watch via iPlayer, or highly recommended series I've rented on DVD.

Having had to actively seek out the tv I've watched, instead of watched it because it was there, means it's usually been worth while.

I do believe the BBC bats well over the average, though, and is much maligned because people take it so much for granted.

[showingup.livejournal.com]

I have to say, though, that I watched all 3 series of 'Robin Hood' starring Jonas Armstrong as Robin and Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborne while on heavy duty painkillers between periodically passing out, and even in my sorry state I was mortified by how bad it was. I really couldn't move without pain, so I was pretty much trapped! Richard Armitage was gorgeous, though.

Still. 3 series. Dear gods.

The BBC redeemed itself with one series called The Fades, which you'd probably like. It made really brave character choices, especially when Our Hero is faced with making choices between the obvious and the authentic responses. It pushed back against the usual superhero cliches, and I adored it.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

OK, I laughed so hard at this description that Michael insisted I tell him what was up.

I can totally see you zoned out on painkillers, too weak to move and wincing in pain.

I can't wait to see you and laugh so hard I can't think!

[showingup.livejournal.com]

We're very excited about you being here!

[spiffnolee.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah. Robin Hoodie.
Seriously, did the costumers put him in an old sweatshirt?
Maid Marian is more butch than Robin Hood.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Yesterday I asked Michael if we still had TV and he thought about it and said that we did, because he discovered we'd only save $8 a month by turning it off. We just forgot about it and haven't turned it on since October. But we've done tons of downloading and streaming and some regular Netflixing.

Now that I remember that we have it, I might put on BBC America sometimes just to see what it's got.

And maybe some science programs--life cycle of the mollusk and all that stuff.

[showingup.livejournal.com]

Well, I love BBC Radio 4 and 4extra (which used to be 7 and have more of its own identity). It's amazing that you can be doing the washing up or cleaning the bath while Melvyn Bragg guides a group of academics through a discussion of the discovery of oxygen, or the concept of zero, or Aristotlian logic, or why we depict angels as having wings. Also, the radio drama very often rocks my socks.

I picked up the radio habit early in life (all those books on tape from the library when I was ill as a little one and they were trying to keep me in bed), though I wonder if I'd listen as much if I was a regular tv watcher.

Btw, 'Call The Midwife' is a brilliant tv series just begun on the Beeb - the memoirs of a midwife in 1950s London slums, and one of the most best examples of lobbying for social justice and the NHS wrapped up in storytelling and good humour.

[roy-batty.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna challenge you on "what passes for good writing", because really, just because it's on the air doesn't mean anyone (not even a show's producers) think it's good.

As you observed, there's *lots* of AMAZING writing going on in American television right now. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's experiencing a renaissance of sorts and the consistent quality and availability of the good stuff (the quality to crap ratio) is much better on American T.V. right now than in American cinema. I'll *not* argue the point that there isn't still a HUGE amount of crap, because there certainly is. But look at the load of crap: much of it (so-called "reality TV") isn't 'written' at all. True, even in the 'written' entrants, there's still a lot of crap, but then there's crap *everywhere*.

In comparing British T.V. to American, I'd suggest that your conclusion is suffering from two errors:

1) Comparison error. A good show from abroad was written to be good, had success and was received as a quality work, and garnered enough popularity to encourage an American domestic version. *This* version however, was never written with the goal to produce a good show; rather, it was created to capitalize on something already deemed to be successful so that a product with a higher percentage chance of marketable success could be produced. So, looking at Americanized versions of British shows will only rarely reveal anything of quality, because quality isn't the point, and the quality effort is being directed at original series that are pretty fantastic (and who knows, might themselves spawn crappy versions abroad if our amazingly efficient and voracious international marketing and distribution systems miss the mark).

2) Samling error. We're not alone in producing a lot (by percentage) of crap. That said, most of the crap produced abroad, *stays abroad* and we never see it here. What we see coming out of Britain, or anywhere for that matter, if it makes it here for our consumption has been effectively vetted for some level of quality. So, in comparing everything we see of our stuff, to everything we see of their stuff, we're effectively seeing our own un-homoginized raw milk and comparing it to the skimmed off cream of their crop.

[wgseligman.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I've been curious about the US version; you've saved me some time.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

That whole last 20 minutes comparison strategy is really entertaining, though, in a sort of a oh-my-gods-its-a-trainwreck-and-did-they-really-do-that?-whoah! sort of way.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

And their version of "Annie freaks the hell out of the ex that killed her" scene is really terribly sad. They pulled every moment of triumphant, phoenix-like resurrection out of it and substituted "the sexy vampire steps in and saves the day".

It was soooooo depressing.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Dude, it looks like we are both coming to your place on Sunday.

I will bring something like a treat for the cat that hates my guts.

[wgseligman.livejournal.com]

"Both" means you and Michael? That's great.

If you're going to try to make friends with Shadow with treats, bring two of whatever it is. The other cat (Mist, also known as "the cute one") will come out to have some too.

[akrissy.livejournal.com]

I've been catching up/Neflix the UK version. Your suggestion of the last 20mins of each will save me the temptation and to watch the minimum of the US version

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

Eat chocolate to soothe yourself, or throw foam bricks. Foam bricks are really cool.

[glenmarshall.livejournal.com]

I did not fully get Monty Python until I went to the UK and saw the BBC news of the time. Monty Python was a parody of the news.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

I did not know this---thanks!

[karmawings.livejournal.com]

I gave the US version of Being Human a couple of chances and hated it. I wasn't aware there was a British version. Will give it a shot when I finish Doctor Who and Torchwood.

You see similar comparisons of the US versions/developers being more cliche and overblown and Not At All Subtle (I think this is the key and it kills me) when you compare videogames as well. And the Broadway adaptations. Grr.

And of course the US and UK versions of "Pride and Prejudice" and "Jane Eyre", two of my favorites that made me die a little when comparing the US version to that of the BBC >_

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

You got it just right when you said "made me die a little" when comparing the two versions...

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

The UK version of Being Human is brilliant.

[evaelisabeth.livejournal.com]

I watch very little drama or comedy on the TV. I mostly catch shows about topics that interest me like antiques, cooking, gardening and archaeology. I have to say that there is no comparison with most of the stuff that comes out of America. Most of the time when I watch an American cooking show it's bland cookie cutter drivel with a very few exceptions and they don't even have anything like Time Team which is one of our favourite shows. I like the fact that I can probably name at least a dozen prominent gardeners and I'm not alone in that over here.

[dubiartos.livejournal.com]

I am not to be construed, in any way, as an expert on TV. I, like Eva, watch primarily non-fiction (and kid's programming, since I have one) - especially nature and archeology documentaries (usually through Youtube or Netflix). For validation, I offer the fact that I didn't even catch Buffy until 2010 - streaming. The only show I seem to watch in current run is Dr. Who, which took me two or three years to get back on board (I watched the show in 'the old days' when it first came to America quite emphatically). I'm not a TV guy, I dislike most media, don't see many movies unless they are dreadful/cult/force-fed. That said...

I HATE AMERICAN COOKING SHOWS. I am a professional, if reluctant, chef. I can't stand most of the 'personalities' that host these so called shows, and the chefs I respect don't actually do shows where they cook. People are also somewhat lied to about the thrilling world of culinary professionals, the romance is different than what they do (or could) show. The main exception here is that I defend Julia Child's efforts, especially since she never slaved to the fire and knife on a Saturday night. My career path has become checkered with dubious newbies, employers that expect a degree to earn $12/hr with no benefits and more part time positions that lead absolutely nowhere. It didn't start this way but I think the media has made restaurants suffer more than just the current recession. You want the truth, read Bourdain (he never cooks in his shows, despite his skill - his cookbook is divine and READABLE AS A BOOK). I've seen much of what he writes of and I watch it dying, not in the 'cleaning up' aspect but in the 'how do I make a living as a pirate' reality...

I love American cartoons, however. Huge fan of Western animation!

Fox

[citabria]

Well said about cooking shows! As for Bourdain, at times his writing has, essentially, talked me off a ledge. You might want to pick up Gabrielle Hamilton's book if you want reality with a different voice -- it has a similar feel.

[spiffnolee.livejournal.com]

Alton Brown, _Good Eats_. It's not a cooking show, it's a show about how to cook. Each episode focuses on a technique or a food, usually with several examples of what you can do with said food or technique. Also, quirky, geeky, funny.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

I like Alton Brown a lot.

[dubiartos.livejournal.com]

Alton does tend to make things a bit more, well, anal retentive than is necessary - and that's coming from a French (style) trained chef. But, then again, he was a TV producer who went back to college (NECI in Montpelier) to work in culinary programming. I don't dislike his show, but, honestly, it doesn't have the heart of Julia Child or Ming Tsai.

Fox

[divalion.livejournal.com]

There is really a lot of excellent television in the US, and the amount has been increasing since (I'm estimating) HBO got into the original series game. Leaving aside all reality television and focusing on hourlong dramas/dramedies as well as some sitcoms (mostly, IMO, the ones without a laugh track), the sheer amount of quality TV in the US is pretty staggering for someone who was a kid in the 80's, when most things were pretty terrible but we loved them anyway.

There's a flow between film and TV now that I think is unprecedented, in the sense that many TV shows are now much more cinematic in style and filming and subject matter, and it is no longer such a huge stigma for film actors to do TV. The exploration of comedy, in and of itself, in the last decade is impressive as hell to me. From Joss Whedon's turn-the-cliche-moment-on-its-head to the absurdism of Arrested Development or My Name Is Earl to the surrealism of Scrubs, to name but a very few, comedy has gotten incredibly daring and sophisticated in its experiments. On the whole, I'd venture to say that not only has TV in the US learned extensively from film, it's actually left film in the dust. I'd be quicker to call most American movies crap than I would TV.

Frankly I think any show that's just one country's version of another country's idea is always going to suck, because it's not original. It's just a copy. Have you ever looked at Bollywood knockoffs of American movies? Painful.

One thing US television is pretty bad at is longevity. That's where I feel we could really learn from the UK-- here it's all about committing to huge seasons and everything's fixed length, whereas the UK seems to be so much more about telling the story in the number of episodes needed and no more. I think now that the US has permanently abandoned the idea that there's a season and then just a bunch of reruns, and everything is so staggered, our next step should be to tailor the length of a season to the needs of the story and not the whims of the advertisers. The fault in US TV that I'll readily grant is that we keep shows going long past the point in which they have good material left.

And to counter, I will say that while UK shows might be overall brilliant, they still have to own "'Allo 'Allo" and "Keeping Up Appearances". ;-) Both of which I loved, by the way, but they were pretty terrible-- as was early Dr. Who. Simply unwatchable, in my opinion.

[spiffnolee.livejournal.com]

I loved the UK Being Human pilot. Then they switched the cast, except for my least favorite character, and I felt cheated. The rest of the series was good, but never completely won me back.

I thought Law and Order: UK was an interesting experiment in importing. Not sure it succeeds, but the police procedural is apparently new to the UK. I may also just be tired of L&O.

BBC America is definitely a most-watched channel in our house, but I agree it's largely because they compress all of their good stuff from the last ten years into a single channel. If there was a single "Channel US" in the UK, it would only include great shows.