what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too because they were some what togetter it would be nice if they bring that too... like a different earth or different time
|
Administrator
|
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Dean wrote:
> what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too Well, supposedly UFO is to going to be made into a big budget movie with the possibility of two sequels! However, the company that is planning to do this has been pushing back the start date again and again, so who knows if anything will ever happen with that. The last indication I saw that this was still in the works was a March 10th Facebook post from New Deal Studios that said: "Project still moving forward." Marc |
It isn't going to happen. They don't have the funding.
Steve Alten's 'Meg' is far more 'current', arguably has a larger 'fan base', can point to book sales as an indicator of popularity. And is still 'in development' as far as a film goes. Alten publishes monthly updates, and for the past few years has been stating that shooting will start 'soon'. And if UFO ever is made, it will more than likely be a Hollywood production... which means rewriting of characters and plot to become politically correct and appeal to 'viewer segments'; will be set in the US; will value CGI over acting, story line and suspense; and will be dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'. Oh, and will either have a "happy ending" or a dumb-ending that spoon-feeds a sequel, rather than the open-ended nature of the original series. UFO simply doesn't fit to a movie format. Its too big, too long, and too wide in scope. From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marc Martin Sent: 26 April 2012 00:10 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo On Wed, Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Dean wrote: > what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too Well, supposedly UFO is to going to be made into a big budget movie with the possibility of two sequels! However, the company that is planning to do this has been pushing back the start date again and again, so who knows if anything will ever happen with that. The last indication I saw that this was still in the works was a March 10th Facebook post from New Deal Studios that said: "Project still moving forward." Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order.
--- On Wed, 4/25/12, Alan Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Alan Lewis <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo To: [hidden email] Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7:34 PM It isn't going to happen. They don't have the funding. Steve Alten's 'Meg' is far more 'current', arguably has a larger 'fan base', can point to book sales as an indicator of popularity. And is still 'in development' as far as a film goes. Alten publishes monthly updates, and for the past few years has been stating that shooting will start 'soon'. And if UFO ever is made, it will more than likely be a Hollywood production... which means rewriting of characters and plot to become politically correct and appeal to 'viewer segments'; will be set in the US; will value CGI over acting, story line and suspense; and will be dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'. Oh, and will either have a "happy ending" or a dumb-ending that spoon-feeds a sequel, rather than the open-ended nature of the original series. UFO simply doesn't fit to a movie format. Its too big, too long, and too wide in scope. From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marc Martin Sent: 26 April 2012 00:10 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo On Wed, Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Dean wrote: > what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too Well, supposedly UFO is to going to be made into a big budget movie with the possibility of two sequels! However, the company that is planning to do this has been pushing back the start date again and again, so who knows if anything will ever happen with that. The last indication I saw that this was still in the works was a March 10th Facebook post from New Deal Studios that said: "Project still moving forward." Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
it was pretty stupid to say
From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. --- On Wed, 4/25/12, Alan Lewis <mailto:zen18531%40zen.co.uk> wrote: From: Alan Lewis <mailto:zen18531%40zen.co.uk> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo To: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7:34 PM It isn't going to happen. They don't have the funding. Steve Alten's 'Meg' is far more 'current', arguably has a larger 'fan base', can point to book sales as an indicator of popularity. And is still 'in development' as far as a film goes. Alten publishes monthly updates, and for the past few years has been stating that shooting will start 'soon'. And if UFO ever is made, it will more than likely be a Hollywood production... which means rewriting of characters and plot to become politically correct and appeal to 'viewer segments'; will be set in the US; will value CGI over acting, story line and suspense; and will be dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'. Oh, and will either have a "happy ending" or a dumb-ending that spoon-feeds a sequel, rather than the open-ended nature of the original series. UFO simply doesn't fit to a movie format. Its too big, too long, and too wide in scope. From: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc Martin Sent: 26 April 2012 00:10 To: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo On Wed, Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Dean wrote: > what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too Well, supposedly UFO is to going to be made into a big budget movie with the possibility of two sequels! However, the company that is planning to do this has been pushing back the start date again and again, so who knows if anything will ever happen with that. The last indication I saw that this was still in the works was a March 10th Facebook post from New Deal Studios that said: "Project still moving forward." Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Hi,
an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
An apology for the untrue statement and insinuation that something is "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" -- This statement is an appeal to anonymous authority. If you remember the rules of the form they include "Treat the others in the group as you would want them to treat you." I don't appreciate being treated like that, first of all because it is untrue and secondly it comes across as an attack on a groups intelligence.
Americans are individuals from all over the world, we do not all walk in lock step to a central controller. There have been fine movies written, made and directed in this country and poor movies made in other countries. Would it be ok to claim that all Irishmen are drunks, Englishmen are poor lovers ... --- On Thu, 4/26/12, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 1:57 AM Hi, an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Alan Lewis
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:34:46 +0100
"Alan Lewis" <[hidden email]> wrote: > it will more than likely be a Hollywood production... which > means rewriting of characters and plot to become politically > correct and appeal to 'viewer segments'; will be set in the US; > will value CGI over acting, story line and suspense; :D As a kid, I must admit that I did value the models and effects more than the acting or stories, in all of the Anderson productions. So I won't mind that so much ;-) -- |
In reply to this post by andelendir
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:57:44 +0100 (BST)
[hidden email] wrote: > Hi, > > an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the > truth. > You're right to say that there's a tradition of "dumbing-down" European films when reworking them for an American audience. But that's not because Americans are inherently less intelligent. It's just the American tradition of making them as commercially attractive as possible. |
In reply to this post by Bruce Sherman
Why? I’m not talking about individual US citizens, but how the US film and TV industry perceive their customer base, domestic and by extension foreign.
The original French Nikita, and the US remake? Fawlty Towers, anyone? Where the main character was removed...! Starship Troopers? Battle Los Angeles? The Walking Dead was a very, very welcome break from the mould. Credit where credit is due, especially the opening scene. Cloverfield, where many people ‘didn’t get it’. I really can’t see Hollywood being able to make UFO. I want to be wrong. From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bruce Sherman Sent: 26 April 2012 04:25 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo it was pretty stupid to say From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. --- On Wed, 4/25/12, Alan Lewis <mailto:zen18531%40zen.co.uk> wrote: From: Alan Lewis <mailto:zen18531%40zen.co.uk> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo To: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7:34 PM It isn't going to happen. They don't have the funding. Steve Alten's 'Meg' is far more 'current', arguably has a larger 'fan base', can point to book sales as an indicator of popularity. And is still 'in development' as far as a film goes. Alten publishes monthly updates, and for the past few years has been stating that shooting will start 'soon'. And if UFO ever is made, it will more than likely be a Hollywood production... which means rewriting of characters and plot to become politically correct and appeal to 'viewer segments'; will be set in the US; will value CGI over acting, story line and suspense; and will be dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'. Oh, and will either have a "happy ending" or a dumb-ending that spoon-feeds a sequel, rather than the open-ended nature of the original series. UFO simply doesn't fit to a movie format. Its too big, too long, and too wide in scope. From: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc Martin Sent: 26 April 2012 00:10 To: mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo On Wed, Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Dean wrote: > what about ufo if there going to be a new space 1999 how about ufo too Well, supposedly UFO is to going to be made into a big budget movie with the possibility of two sequels! However, the company that is planning to do this has been pushing back the start date again and again, so who knows if anything will ever happen with that. The last indication I saw that this was still in the works was a March 10th Facebook post from New Deal Studios that said: "Project still moving forward." Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Darth Garlic
--- In [hidden email], Darth Garlic <darthgarlic@...> wrote:
> > Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. Sadly, you are in the minority. "UFO simply doesn't fit to a movie format. Its too big, too long, and too wide in scope." Not quite right: It doesn't fit into a *Hollywood* movie format. As an example compare "Silent Witness" (British) vs CSI (American) Exactly the same premise, but one is accurate and pulls no punches and the other is often totally fictitious in its portrayal, everything is covered up and the whole thing is layered with exposition, otherwise most idiot Americans won't get it, the ratings will fall and the networks will pull it. Look what Frakes did to "Thunderbirds". I imagine Gerry Anderson still has nightmares about that one. |
I don't want to wade into this discussion by being rude to our American friends. As a Canadian, I can appreciate that the entertainment industry on both sides of the Atlantic have differing POVs. Most Brits and Yanks don't get Canadian humour, and some Canucks and Americans don't get Monty Python. So let's call it square.
I will say this: British made historical drama is often THE best made in terms of accuracy. This applies to case in point: movie "A Night To Remember" vs "Titanic". While James Cameron (who is a Canadian BTW) got the forensic aspects of the sinking itself down pat, he ruined the screen play with his stoooopid Jack-Rose love story - there were plenty of REAL love stories on board the ill fated liner without creating a bogus one. Then there is JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek 2-3 yrs ago. To say I was aghast when I saw it would be understatement. Here is a historic and much beloved SF franchise ruined by someone whose filmmaking depends solely on CGI and derivative riffs off other better movies of the past. So to say that an American film company would "ruin" UFO is beside the point, because it has been proven the wrong people at the helm - no matter what their nationality - can take a concept and go to hell with it. To me, things like this (plus all the other remakes that have failed so heavily at the box office and/or with the critics: Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Lost in Space, Abrams' Trek, et al) scare me in terms of what could happen to UFO. I don't want the characters re-written. I don't want the dark side of the show washed up and made PC (ok take out the cigarettes! as I'm a non smoker!). I'm scared some fool will turn Straker into the wrong kind of guy as Abrams did with Kirk & Company. All the reasons we LOVED those original Trek characters were destroyed in one fell swoop. Kirk became an arrogant, brawling SOB whom you'd like to punch into next week, plus what gives with making Spock boff Uhura? None of this is even remotely appealing or canon. Straker is an OCD hard ass with skeltons in his closet and suffering in his past. Don't take that away from him. Foster is (at first) an arrogant young whippersnapper who comes around and joins SHADO because he sees the life or death struggle. Freeman is Straker's heart on his sleeve side kick, who thinks people should not be judged by computers. Thanks for letting me air my POVs - Pam the Canuck [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Rob Neal
Cultural differences have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. You would think that after six thousand some years of global conflict we would have learned that lesson by now.
UFO had a relatively small following in every country it was shown, had it been a super hit, I'm quite sure Gerry and the crew would have pushed forward with season two. The ratings were high enough that a second season was under consideration. I would speculate that the show has more fans now than it did during its first run. I have personally introduced UFO to many of my friends, and almost all of them enjoyed it. I don't know how UFO was shown abroad, but here in the United States, it did not get prime time slots on the big three networks. I suspect some of that had to do with the misconception that Gerry Anderson only did children's shows, and UFO was anything but. As to gritty sci-fi, the 2004 remake of Battlestar Galactica made UFO look tame in my eyes. Of course one has to consider the thirty some years of evolution in the entertainment industry. |
In reply to this post by Pam McCaughey-2
I'm a long time reader, first time contributer and felt I should make an observation. I feel Darth Garlic has taken a general statement very personally. I agree that there is a very strong possibility that a 're-imagining' of UFO could be dumbed down and re-directioned for what studios believe are the American audience's desires. Yes, there are many that prove this could be wrong ("The Walking Dead" being an excellent example). This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, just that there are exceptions to the rule. I also believe that the original point wasn't meant to be a direct insult to Darth Garlic or American people in general but an observation made by many people across the world about the standards of US (as well as many other country's) ideas of 'good TV'. Sadly, there is a trend of 'lowest common denominator' shows that are designed to appeal to the largest audience which leads to greater international sales and advertising revenue. Sadly, since US shows are quite widespread around the world, they get the butt of the criticism. The fear being expressed is that since the US produce most of the world's well-known English language shows, and are very commercialised TV-wise (the UK viewer pays a 'TV licence' which means BBC is ad-free), that a gritty show like UFO would have all the much loved elements removed to appeal to the wider audience. It is a fear I share. The term used to describe this is 'Dumbing Down'. Now if I heard that the Battlestar Galactica or Walking Dead team were going to produce a new UFO show, I'd be doing cartwheels!! Anyone else and I'd be very anxious! To: [hidden email] From: [hidden email] Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:32:34 -0300 Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: what about ufo I don't want to wade into this discussion by being rude to our American friends. As a Canadian, I can appreciate that the entertainment industry on both sides of the Atlantic have differing POVs. Most Brits and Yanks don't get Canadian humour, and some Canucks and Americans don't get Monty Python. So let's call it square. I will say this: British made historical drama is often THE best made in terms of accuracy. This applies to case in point: movie "A Night To Remember" vs "Titanic". While James Cameron (who is a Canadian BTW) got the forensic aspects of the sinking itself down pat, he ruined the screen play with his stoooopid Jack-Rose love story - there were plenty of REAL love stories on board the ill fated liner without creating a bogus one. Then there is JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek 2-3 yrs ago. To say I was aghast when I saw it would be understatement. Here is a historic and much beloved SF franchise ruined by someone whose filmmaking depends solely on CGI and derivative riffs off other better movies of the past. So to say that an American film company would "ruin" UFO is beside the point, because it has been proven the wrong people at the helm - no matter what their nationality - can take a concept and go to hell with it. To me, things like this (plus all the other remakes that have failed so heavily at the box office and/or with the critics: Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Lost in Space, Abrams' Trek, et al) scare me in terms of what could happen to UFO. I don't want the characters re-written. I don't want the dark side of the show washed up and made PC (ok take out the cigarettes! as I'm a non smoker!). I'm scared some fool will turn Straker into the wrong kind of guy as Abrams did with Kirk & Company. All the reasons we LOVED those original Trek characters were destroyed in one fell swoop. Kirk became an arrogant, brawling SOB whom you'd like to punch into next week, plus what gives with making Spock boff Uhura? None of this is even remotely appealing or canon. Straker is an OCD hard ass with skeltons in his closet and suffering in his past. Don't take that away from him. Foster is (at first) an arrogant young whippersnapper who comes around and joins SHADO because he sees the life or death struggle. Freeman is Straker's heart on his sleeve side kick, who thinks people should not be judged by computers. Thanks for letting me air my POVs - Pam the Canuck [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Darth Garlic
Are you an American? Have I called *all* Americans ‘dumb’? No. I simply referenced how the American entertainment industry is perceived by the rest of the world, and how *it* perceives its’ own audience.
I am tempted to say though – look at some of the responses to my post; at what point did I even infer that Americans “walk in lock step...”? I’m wasn’t referencing fine movies - To Kill A Mockingbird, The Green Miles, Shawshank Redemption are imho some of the finest movies ever screen – but the ingrained aversion the ‘Hollywood’ has to anything that requires though on behalf of the audience. Want an example? Battle Los Angeles, where in mid-film they explain why the aliens were invading. Compared to Skyline (and Cloverfield) where there is no explanation. As it happens, I wouldn’t want UFO to be made by a British company... the chances are it would be shot by an art-house, even more PC correct, be underfunded and thus make do with small-screen actors, and would run out of money thus creating a film that has a ‘rushed’ ending (Xtro, anyone). Although perhaps the team behind ‘Dog Soldiers’ could have a stab at it... From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darth Garlic Sent: 26 April 2012 09:10 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo An apology for the untrue statement and insinuation that something is "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" -- This statement is an appeal to anonymous authority. If you remember the rules of the form they include "Treat the others in the group as you would want them to treat you." I don't appreciate being treated like that, first of all because it is untrue and secondly it comes across as an attack on a groups intelligence. Americans are individuals from all over the world, we do not all walk in lock step to a central controller. There have been fine movies written, made and directed in this country and poor movies made in other countries. Would it be ok to claim that all Irishmen are drunks, Englishmen are poor lovers ... --- On Thu, 4/26/12, [hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> <[hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> > wrote: From: [hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> <[hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo To: "[hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> " <[hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> > Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 1:57 AM Hi, an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Darth Garlic
Hi!
If you can cite more than a dozen US remakes of European movies (which is by the way what we are talking about here, rather than individual Americans) of the last 3 decades which are more intelligent, controversial, politically/culturally daring than the originals (or at least on the same level) and aimed at an adult audience at the same time (rather than at teenage males), I think you might have a basis for that demand, as then you have a point made. Otherwise I really do not see it. Blindly taking umbrage is easy by the way, giving things a proper consideration not. That said, I entirely agree with Alan, insofar that I do not believe that a Hollywood-made UFO movie will be any good (or even just true to the original) and that I think (or maybe also hope) that the whole project vanished in development hell for good last year. Cheers An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012, 10:09 Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo An apology for the untrue statement and insinuation that something is "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" -- This statement is an appeal to anonymous authority. If you remember the rules of the form they include "Treat the others in the group as you would want them to treat you." I don't appreciate being treated like that, first of all because it is untrue and secondly it comes across as an attack on a groups intelligence. Americans are individuals from all over the world, we do not all walk in lock step to a central controller. There have been fine movies written, made and directed in this country and poor movies made in other countries. Would it be ok to claim that all Irishmen are drunks, Englishmen are poor lovers ... --- On Thu, 4/26/12, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 1:57 AM Hi, an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Pam McCaughey-2
Pam, fair points, but straight away you prove the point
"I don't want... made PC (ok take out the cigarettes! As I'm a non-smoker!)" Unfortunately, this interest group/exec/whoever wants the short skirts taken out, as it demeans women. That group feels that there is under-representation of an ethnic minority group. That group objects to the implicit sexist attitude. Slippery slope. Where do you stop... Which leads to my main point. UFO established the show's premise in an episode. How would Hollywood explain the plot to the audience in a film time of 90-120 minutes? I'm not saying it is impossible, but it would take one hell of a slick screen writer, short of an opening 'explanatory' sequence. Which - again imho - tends to be overly intrusive. Unlike Jaws, for example, UFO is hardly res ipsa loquitor From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pam McCaughey Sent: 26 April 2012 14:33 To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: what about ufo I don't want to wade into this discussion by being rude to our American friends. As a Canadian, I can appreciate that the entertainment industry on both sides of the Atlantic have differing POVs. Most Brits and Yanks don't get Canadian humour, and some Canucks and Americans don't get Monty Python. So let's call it square. I will say this: British made historical drama is often THE best made in terms of accuracy. This applies to case in point: movie "A Night To Remember" vs "Titanic". While James Cameron (who is a Canadian BTW) got the forensic aspects of the sinking itself down pat, he ruined the screen play with his stoooopid Jack-Rose love story - there were plenty of REAL love stories on board the ill fated liner without creating a bogus one. Then there is JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek 2-3 yrs ago. To say I was aghast when I saw it would be understatement. Here is a historic and much beloved SF franchise ruined by someone whose filmmaking depends solely on CGI and derivative riffs off other better movies of the past. So to say that an American film company would "ruin" UFO is beside the point, because it has been proven the wrong people at the helm - no matter what their nationality - can take a concept and go to hell with it. To me, things like this (plus all the other remakes that have failed so heavily at the box office and/or with the critics: Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Lost in Space, Abrams' Trek, et al) scare me in terms of what could happen to UFO. I don't want the characters re-written. I don't want the dark side of the show washed up and made PC (ok take out the cigarettes! as I'm a non smoker!). I'm scared some fool will turn Straker into the wrong kind of guy as Abrams did with Kirk & Company. All the reasons we LOVED those original Trek characters were destroyed in one fell swoop. Kirk became an arrogant, brawling SOB whom you'd like to punch into next week, plus what gives with making Spock boff Uhura? None of this is even remotely appealing or canon. Straker is an OCD hard ass with skeltons in his closet and suffering in his past. Don't take that away from him. Foster is (at first) an arrogant young whippersnapper who comes around and joins SHADO because he sees the life or death struggle. Freeman is Straker's heart on his sleeve side kick, who thinks people should not be judged by computers. Thanks for letting me air my POVs - Pam the Canuck [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by andelendir
I am English (live in Texas) and informed I am great lover. Do have less
than perfect teeth, however. My own experience is American versions of British TV are not to my liking and in my own personal estimation generally horrid. There are a few exceptions. If a GA show was to be acceptable to my memories it would need to be independent, and probably wouldn't make any money. Shame, but we have the originals and I am OK with that. Sent from Colin's iPad On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:32 AM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi! If you can cite more than a dozen US remakes of European movies (which is by the way what we are talking about here, rather than individual Americans) of the last 3 decades which are more intelligent, controversial, politically/culturally daring than the originals (or at least on the same level) and aimed at an adult audience at the same time (rather than at teenage males), I think you might have a basis for that demand, as then you have a point made. Otherwise I really do not see it. Blindly taking umbrage is easy by the way, giving things a proper consideration not. That said, I entirely agree with Alan, insofar that I do not believe that a Hollywood-made UFO movie will be any good (or even just true to the original) and that I think (or maybe also hope) that the whole project vanished in development hell for good last year. Cheers An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012, 10:09 Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo An apology for the untrue statement and insinuation that something is "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" -- This statement is an appeal to anonymous authority. If you remember the rules of the form they include "Treat the others in the group as you would want them to treat you." I don't appreciate being treated like that, first of all because it is untrue and secondly it comes across as an attack on a groups intelligence. Americans are individuals from all over the world, we do not all walk in lock step to a central controller. There have been fine movies written, made and directed in this country and poor movies made in other countries. Would it be ok to claim that all Irishmen are drunks, Englishmen are poor lovers ... --- On Thu, 4/26/12, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 1:57 AM Hi, an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by andelendir
The Prisoner Us remake v The Prisoner UK Original.
They even do it to their own – V remake was far inferior to the original. From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Friday, 27 April 2012 12:02 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo Hi! If you can cite more than a dozen US remakes of European movies (which is by the way what we are talking about here, rather than individual Americans) of the last 3 decades which are more intelligent, controversial, politically/culturally daring than the originals (or at least on the same level) and aimed at an adult audience at the same time (rather than at teenage males), I think you might have a basis for that demand, as then you have a point made. Otherwise I really do not see it. Blindly taking umbrage is easy by the way, giving things a proper consideration not. That said, I entirely agree with Alan, insofar that I do not believe that a Hollywood-made UFO movie will be any good (or even just true to the original) and that I think (or maybe also hope) that the whole project vanished in development hell for good last year. Cheers An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic <[hidden email] <mailto:darthgarlic%40yahoo.com> > To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012, 10:09 Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo An apology for the untrue statement and insinuation that something is "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" -- This statement is an appeal to anonymous authority. If you remember the rules of the form they include "Treat the others in the group as you would want them to treat you." I don't appreciate being treated like that, first of all because it is untrue and secondly it comes across as an attack on a groups intelligence. Americans are individuals from all over the world, we do not all walk in lock step to a central controller. There have been fine movies written, made and directed in this country and poor movies made in other countries. Would it be ok to claim that all Irishmen are drunks, Englishmen are poor lovers ... --- On Thu, 4/26/12, [hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> <[hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> > wrote: From: [hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> <[hidden email] <mailto:andelendir%40yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [SHADO] what about ufo To: "[hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> " <[hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> > Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012, 1:57 AM Hi, an apology? What for? One doesn't apologise for saying the truth. It is commonly known and visible for anyone who cares to have a look-see that this "dumbing down" is being done whenever a European source is adapted to the US film market. I'd suggest you watch in direct comparison La Femme Nikita (1990, French original) vs. Point of No Return (1993, US remake) Nattevagten (1994, Danish original) vs. Nightwatch (1997, US remake) Trois Hommes et un couffin (1985, French original) vs. Three Men and a Baby (1987, US remake) The Avengers (1960s, British original) vs. The Avengers (1998, US remake) These four ought to suffice to clarify what he is talking about, should you indeed have missed that trend. In all these cases the US version is dumbed down, simplified, adjusted to what is considered politically correct and acceptable in the USA, which happens to be a lot, lot less than what routinely works for European audiences. UFO indeed is a whole lot grittier than any US series of the time. Some of it I still doubt would or could be translated into a US version and it was geared towards a completely different audience in Europe than that which is movie-going in the USA. So, please, why should he apologise? For stating the truth? He wasn't discussing the background of such differences, nor suggesting that you personally are in any way unintelligent, he just stated the blatantly obvious facts--regardless of why the US producers do it that way *shrug*. Cheers and back to lurk-mode An ________________________________ From: Darth Garlic Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:58 PM To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [SHADO] what about ufo Please stop with the whole "dumbed down so that US audiences 'get it'" - Its insulting and inaccurate. I for one an not stupid because I am an American and I believe an apology is in order. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4959 - Release Date: 04/25/12 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by TheBetpet
Steve
Exactly. In an earlier email I had put something about The Walking Dead being a massive exception, especially the opening scene of Episode 1, Series 1, which was hugely adventurous, shockingly so that an *American* studio *and* network had ran it. We joke over here about "shooting Bambi in the face" and upsetting the liberal luvvies, but shooting a little girl in the face (even a zombie) must have taken some persuasion, and some cajones on the part of the execs. And of course, the audience loved it... Shame I deleted it all from the post K From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Godrich Sent: 26 April 2012 15:15 To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [SHADO] Re: what about ufo I'm a long time reader, first time contributer and felt I should make an observation. I feel Darth Garlic has taken a general statement very personally. I agree that there is a very strong possibility that a 're-imagining' of UFO could be dumbed down and re-directioned for what studios believe are the American audience's desires. Yes, there are many that prove this could be wrong ("The Walking Dead" being an excellent example). This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, just that there are exceptions to the rule. I also believe that the original point wasn't meant to be a direct insult to Darth Garlic or American people in general but an observation made by many people across the world about the standards of US (as well as many other country's) ideas of 'good TV'. Sadly, there is a trend of 'lowest common denominator' shows that are designed to appeal to the largest audience which leads to greater international sales and advertising revenue. Sadly, since US shows are quite widespread around the world, they get the butt of the criticism. The fear being expressed is that since the US produce most of the world's well-known English language shows, and are very commercialised TV-wise (the UK viewer pays a 'TV licence' which means BBC is ad-free), that a gritty show like UFO would have all the much loved elements removed to appeal to the wider audience. It is a fear I share. The term used to describe this is 'Dumbing Down'. Now if I heard that the Battlestar Galactica or Walking Dead team were going to produce a new UFO show, I'd be doing cartwheels!! Anyone else and I'd be very anxious! To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> From: [hidden email] <mailto:mccaug%40nb.sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:32:34 -0300 Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: what about ufo I don't want to wade into this discussion by being rude to our American friends. As a Canadian, I can appreciate that the entertainment industry on both sides of the Atlantic have differing POVs. Most Brits and Yanks don't get Canadian humour, and some Canucks and Americans don't get Monty Python. So let's call it square. I will say this: British made historical drama is often THE best made in terms of accuracy. This applies to case in point: movie "A Night To Remember" vs "Titanic". While James Cameron (who is a Canadian BTW) got the forensic aspects of the sinking itself down pat, he ruined the screen play with his stoooopid Jack-Rose love story - there were plenty of REAL love stories on board the ill fated liner without creating a bogus one. Then there is JJ Abrams' version of Star Trek 2-3 yrs ago. To say I was aghast when I saw it would be understatement. Here is a historic and much beloved SF franchise ruined by someone whose filmmaking depends solely on CGI and derivative riffs off other better movies of the past. So to say that an American film company would "ruin" UFO is beside the point, because it has been proven the wrong people at the helm - no matter what their nationality - can take a concept and go to hell with it. To me, things like this (plus all the other remakes that have failed so heavily at the box office and/or with the critics: Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Lost in Space, Abrams' Trek, et al) scare me in terms of what could happen to UFO. I don't want the characters re-written. I don't want the dark side of the show washed up and made PC (ok take out the cigarettes! as I'm a non smoker!). I'm scared some fool will turn Straker into the wrong kind of guy as Abrams did with Kirk & Company. All the reasons we LOVED those original Trek characters were destroyed in one fell swoop. Kirk became an arrogant, brawling SOB whom you'd like to punch into next week, plus what gives with making Spock boff Uhura? None of this is even remotely appealing or canon. Straker is an OCD hard ass with skeltons in his closet and suffering in his past. Don't take that away from him. Foster is (at first) an arrogant young whippersnapper who comes around and joins SHADO because he sees the life or death struggle. Freeman is Straker's heart on his sleeve side kick, who thinks people should not be judged by computers. Thanks for letting me air my POVs - Pam the Canuck [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |