|
Post by topcat on Jun 1, 2008 4:51:10 GMT -5
Do we start a betting pool to see how long it takes someone to suggest Simone and/or Mandana do a cameo role? Or have I missed the boat on that one already? Not sure CB, only seen the TwP thread where it's mentioned. But I give it less that a week What I don't understand is why people would be thrilled to see exactly the same storylines with exactly the same characters - played by different people. Yes, I know that's what happens in theatre and, occasionally, films but I just don't get it with a TV series. I get that it's going to be Americanised for a mass audience who may not get the Britishness of the original version and those people won't care. I just cannot understand why staunch fans of the original would want to see characters they love played differently. It's not just Nikki. I just wouldn't want to see someone else as Fenner or Shell or any of those characters. That cast were Bad Girls.
|
|
|
Post by jilly2000 on Jun 1, 2008 10:22:05 GMT -5
Why the need to Americanize a British TV show like the BadGirls? The TV executives are selling the American audience short IMO. Esp the HBO audience is quite savvy and will enjoy the original version. It loses the essence of this show. It doesn't make sense. <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 1, 2008 21:24:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure either, particularly when I suspect all it will create is constant comparison. So whatever essence the American version might generate on its own merit will get snowed under by the point-by-point analytic breakdown of each episode in comparison to the British version. And the second it isn't as good as the British version, there will be nothing but complaints. I was about to give an example by saying, I pity the actress who has to compete with Mandana delivering a line like, "You're gorgeous. I'm totally in love with you." However, on second thought, I pity the poor actress who has to compete with Simone Lahbib, full stop! She is going to feel like a poor ant under a magnifying glass in the noon day sun! I like the idea of a gritty American version, but I think the transfer from "great idea!" to actual execution doesn't quite work for me. How can I not look at the new version of Nikki (and if it really is going to be Michelle Rodriguez, all I have to say is, "What???") and wistfully think of Mandana Jones? It's the same reason I avoided the (short-lived) American version of "Touching Evil". Someone other than Robson Green as Dave Creegan? Couldn't imagine it. I'm having the same difficulty when thinking about an American version of "Bad Girls".
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Jun 3, 2008 9:06:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure either, particularly when I suspect all it will create is constant comparison...... I pity the poor actress who has to compete with Simone Lahbib, full stop! She is going to feel like a poor ant under a magnifying glass in the noon day sun! Well, absolutely ;D I always thought it interesting that, during the two versions of The Musical, both 'Nikki' actresses were accepted readily but the 'Helen' was seen as poor. Maybe that was genuinely the case but I'm not completely convinced... Then, again, maybe that is exactly why people seem to be so excited - it will give them something to analyse now that they are all analysed out with the original! I read somewhere that apparently Shed pulled out of the original FX deal because the script for the first episode was too dark and gritty. Eileen Gallagher is quoted as saying that the HBO version will be very "glossy" and, therefore, more like series 1 I thought the whole point was that series one was dark and gritty and we all hated the gradual decline towards gloss! Well that is exactly why I never understood, firstly, the desire staunch fans had to see The Musical and now an American remake. It's a bit like the Starsky & Hutch film. I haven't seen it and have no intention of seeing it because, for me, David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser were those characters. As I said before, yes, I appreciate roles are not 'owned' as far as theatre and classic film roles are concerned and many people play the same characters but I do think it is very different when it comes to a TV series. Could you imagine the uproar if they did the X Files and someone else played Mulder and Scully, be it on stage or film??? That's how I feel about the BG characters and those of other TV series from Prime Suspect to Life on Mars. If TV performers don't 'own' the role then why not recast every time an actor wants to leave like they do in the theatre or James Bond??
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 3, 2008 10:10:45 GMT -5
Oh, believe me, I have no doubt the majority of the excitement in a remake is the fact that it keeps that lil' engine going! It sustains the raison d'ĂȘtre for many Bad Girls posters. Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about SHED and their view about Bad Girls. Series 1 was glossy? They think the only way to make them as much money as possible it accessible to as many people as possible is to make it glossy and camp. The problem is, I don't know what test audiences they've been talking to, but that's NOT what people want to see. The show is about women in prison for god's sake! If you're going to do the subject any kind of justice at all, if you're not going to insult the very subjects you're writing about, then make it gritty. Make it dark. Of course, the minute I heard they were making a musical of the show, I knew then they didn't give a shit about the subject. They play up like they do - and in the beginning, I believe they did- like they want to bring this issue out into the light for the public to see, but it's all just a ploy now to make the show look "important". HBO is known for some real quality. Wouldn't it be something if the show ended up being better as the American version?
|
|
|
Post by romanmachine on Jun 3, 2008 17:40:22 GMT -5
It's a bit like the Starsky & Hutch film. I haven't seen it and have no intention of seeing it because, for me, David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser were those characters. I loved Starsky & Hutch! I seriously wanted a Torino when I got older, too. Like you, I haven't seen the movie and never plan to. Remakes are hit or miss for me, depending on the original show and who's in the remake. Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson as Starsky & Hutch? Not a chance. I do want to see the new Get Smart movie, even though I loved the tv show, because I think Steve Carell is a comic genius on The Office. I don't know about this Bad Girls thing. I'll watch the first couple of episodes out of curiosity, but I don't have a lot of hope for it. Yes, OZ was a great show, but Tom Fontana created that. This will be done by Alan Ball who made Six Feet Under. Now, I really liked both those shows, but they also both went a bit in the later seasons. (Although, Six Feet Under really pulled it back with the finale.) Knowing that Nancy Oliver will be writing it, though, makes me feel better. She wrote the screenplay for Lars and the Real Girl and that was a brilliant movie (and nothing at all like it was portrayed in the adverts!) The "glossy" thing bothers me. Our tv shows do look glossier than yours, that's true. It's something I've always noticed and one thing that attracts me to British television. I don't know what it is exactly, but it's like the differences you notice when you watch something made on film and then something made on video tape. In my opinion, British tv looks more realistic than ours. So, if this is what she meant, I could understand. I don't think that's what she meant, though, because, at this point, she's probably just seeing treatments or whatever and the difference I'm talking about is in the actual filming process. She also said she didn't want it to be 'gritty' like OZ and, in this case, OZ was just as glossy looking as every other American tv show. Chances are, when she says "glossy', she means something that I'm really not gonna like.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 3, 2008 18:27:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm very curious as to what her definition of "gritty" and "glossy" are, because while the story content of OZ could be considered "gritty", it was glossy in terms of presentation. To put it in a different context, to me, CSI: NY is gritty in terms of how it looks (lots of hand-held cameras, low lighting, grainy film), but in actuality, the writing is very glossy. (That is to say, there are clear heroes and villains, a crime and a solution, with very little areas of grey.)
Her aversion to "gritty" puzzles me. Don't we want a drama about women in prison to be gritty? (Writing or filming)
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Jun 7, 2008 8:00:43 GMT -5
My whole bedroom wall used to be covered in posters. I just adored David Soul. Always used to love the bit in the titles where he was ogling some girl and Starsky had to blow in his ear (or was it the other way around??) I just lost all respect for them during series 3 and ever since. I strongly believe that it was Chris T's input that made the first 2 series what they were. The moment she fell ill and passed away, they reverted to their day jobs of writing soap. The musical was the final nail, for me. They always claim, to this day, that they want to draw attention to women's issues in prison. I'm sure tap routines in spangles did the trick nicely
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 17, 2008 23:16:13 GMT -5
HBO? Alan Ball? Where was this announcement made - can you direct me? I haven't been on the computer much lately so hadn't read about HBO developing Bad Girls. What I will say is that anything Alan Ball is involved in will be a quality production. I absolutely trust his sensibilities. "Six Feet Under" is the finest television program (with the finest ending) ever created, so, if Alan Ball is involved in this project I am excited. Being gay himself he may want to honor what was right about the original show....maybe he is a fan, who knows? I could even see him employing Mandana because her intellect shines through in her acting. In the past I have been shocked that Mandana wasn't snapped up by the powers that be in British tv. I could not believe they didn't recognize her exceptional ability in every role she takes on. Mr. Ball takes great care in casting actors, I would love to know if he is familiar with MJs work because I think he is definitely the kind of person who would appreciate and hire her. I generally don't think British productions should be Americanized. I just don't see the point. (The only recent exception to that is, IMO, the American version of "The Office" which is MUCH funnier than the original and whoever said Steve Carell is a genius is SO right!) If HBO and Alan Ball are involved producing "Bad Girls" I will definitely be looking forward to the result!
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 18, 2008 12:17:48 GMT -5
Here's the original article that most other places seem to be paraphrasing and/or copying, justafan: Hollywood Reporter. I love this quote: ... "Bad Girls" has been praised for its portrayal of the complex relationships among female inmates. Talk about selective memories! Here, let me fix that quote: "Bad Girls" has been praised for its portrayal of the complex relationships among female inmates in the first three seasons. Unfortunately, it went completely tits up camp after that and had absolutely no sense of duty or responsibility to the subject of women in prison thereafter. Ah, but if you subscribe to a line of thinking that's going around in select places, a gay man couldn't possibly know what a gay woman wants or desires! Only a lesbian could possibly write a lesbian story with any conviction! I've always found this line of thinking interesting- "only a lesbian/gay man could write a lesbian/gay man story"- because it goes against what I would consider a driving belief behind most gay people. That is to say, we want to be accepted just like anyone else; that we're not so different or weird or strange that we don't have the same wants and desires and needs of the straight community. Isn't that one of the largest arguments- that we're NO different? We want to be loved, we do love, just like you crazy straight people?? And please, you can't tell me that some of the best hetero romances haven't been written by gays, particularly Hollywood films! The odds just don't support it. As well- and I'm most uncomfortable with this- having this particular bias... doesn't it go against everything people like Mandana Jones were trying to overcome?? Mandana was trying to prove to straight people that you can look at a person and see their sexuality second; wasn't one of her goals to make people look at Nikki and not immediately say, "Lesbian"? That one of her points of pride was when she told people who she played on the show, and their first inclination wasn't to say, "Was that the lesbian?" So isn't this attitude- "only gays can truly know gays"- a kind of reverse discrimination? If someone said, "Only a straight person can write straight relationships, because gays have no idea what we feel", gay folks would be outraged. And this view is even MORE specific than that- only gay WOMEN can write gay women stories. It's like saying only straight women can write straight relationships, because straight men are too busy writing about blowing things up and shooting people to truly understand relationships. It's a generalization that not only is unfair, but disheartening, really. It's divided the world into Straight and Gay, when I was certain the point was to make it all the same. Mandana's quote: I find it offensive- you don't talk about the straight couple. You don't talk about the white family. You don't talk about that. You don't use that prefix. So let's just try and get rid of it, let's just drop it. She's militant, she's gay, she's out. I couldn't come to it that way. I could only come to it from my truth, which is: It's love, it's universal. It'd be nice if her fans- straight or gay- had the same attitude.
|
|
|
Post by justafan on Jun 19, 2008 22:56:58 GMT -5
Thanks for the link! I only wanted to say that if anyone was going to remake "Bad Girls" for American tv (which I agree is unnecessary) you couldn't have a better person involved than Alan Ball working with HBO.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 20, 2008 9:00:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the link! I only wanted to say that if anyone was going to remake "Bad Girls" for American tv (which I agree is unnecessary) you couldn't have a better person involved than Alan Ball working with HBO. I know. I was just teasing. I for one agree wholeheartedly that, considering the possibilities, as Bad Girl fans, we're lucky to get Alan Ball. Poor "Life on Mars" fans are getting David Kelly (Alley McBeal/Boston Legal guru)!
|
|
|
Post by jilly2000 on Jun 20, 2008 11:03:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the link! I only wanted to say that if anyone was going to remake "Bad Girls" for American tv (which I agree is unnecessary) you couldn't have a better person involved than Alan Ball working with HBO. I know. I was just teasing. I for one agree wholeheartedly that, considering the possibilities, as Bad Girl fans, we're lucky to get Alan Ball. Poor "Life on Mars" fans are getting David Kelly (Alley McBeal/Boston Legal guru)! Regarding LOM the Guardian is reporting that the pilot was very disappointing and will probably not air. The writer/producer and David Kelly have walked out. Even some cast members will be replaced and the whole pilot will be reshot in NYC.
|
|
|
Post by topcat on Jun 22, 2008 4:07:10 GMT -5
Poor "Life on Mars" fans are getting David Kelly (Alley McBeal/Boston Legal guru)! Oh no. Please let them leave Life on Mars alone too. Gene Hunt is a legend and I couldn't bear to watch someone other than Philip Glenister playing the role.
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jun 22, 2008 7:09:25 GMT -5
Not even Colm Meaney? That's who they've cast.
|
|