what about ufo

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

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]

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 ;-)


--

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.

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 [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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]