Poll: American doctor who?
- Thread starter Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
in other words, having big budgets for the shield, leads to more reality showsSomeBoredGuy said:
oh...oh god...what have we done?!
something tells me you know nothing of american tv, because you obviously think its made up entirely of the office. its not, we have plenty of great shows like "the wire" "dexter" "the shield" "sons of anarchy" "24" "the last airbender" "true blood" "treme" "criminal intent" etcGabanuka said:
it depends on who the network is, fox is notorious for ad breaks, but if you were to watch a fox show like futurama on adult swim, there is only a single ad break, basically, its fox, fx, and comedy central that do constant ad breaks, and it just so happens that that is where all the good shows are (no doubt the ads help fund these high quality shows)Mercurio128 said:
actually, i think i just suggested comedy central has good television shows
i apologize, because they do not (well, except futurama)
There actually was plans for a American Doctor Who produced by Amblin.
Basically, it sucked.
You can read the scripts here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/thebatgranny/mcg.htm
Basically, it sucked.
You can read the scripts here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/thebatgranny/mcg.htm
@Dastardly (ceebs with quotes.)
"The BBC gets its money from the government, however indirectly you try to paint it. As you so aptly stated, the fees are law. That means that the BBC has a responsibility to make Parliament happy, or at least certain members (and their ideologies)."
No, the Government sets and enforces the fees but the money goes from the household to the BBC. The BBC has to keep Parliament happy but only by being fair and reporting the truth. There are slanted newspapers and tabloids that would pick up on any favouritism therefore if the BBC was biased then people would know, all press in Britain is free to report whatever it wants so long as it is the truth and does not endanger someone's life Also, informing isn't limited to the news. British television is well known for it documentaries (which, if I'm honest, have turned to shit in recent years.)
"To pretend as though BBC has some holy protection from bias and undue influence is to just have a ridiculously closed mind."
Obviously there will be some bias and influence, its run by people rather than soulless machines. But the repercussions would be severe if they stepped out of line.
"What a news organization reports, and how they report it, are directly influenced by who signs their paychecks."
So the Lancaster Guardian, my local rag, reports solely on what the people who pay for classified ads want?
"2) Educate
Everyone has educational programming, and it's all of pretty comparable quality. Of course, I find the "edutainment" on Discovery a lot more fun to watch and still just as informative as many documentaries. But this isn't a particular sticking point for me, so let's move on."
I think Educate and Inform are one and the same in this case.
" And the BBC works with a limited budget (as defined by the fees, as prescribed by law)... so maybe some of the artists wonder, "Hey, I wonder if I could make more money in a more privatized distribution setting?""
The BBC has the biggest budget of any TV or Radio company in Britain
"Bottom line, here's how shows work in America. Network has the airtime. Guy has the idea. Guy comes to the network and pitches the idea, and the network says "Yes" or "No." If the network says "Yes," they air it... until such time as they decide "No" on renewing the contract. Networks don't put out ads saying, "HEY! Anyone want to get some folks together for us and make a sci-fi action comedy?"
The network doesn't have to. It's got shows. It's up to the pitch-men to show them they've got something better. So, if there are talks about making an American "Doctor Who," those talks--and the whole idea, in fact--started over THERE, not here. Our networks will go for it, if they feel they can make a buck (just like SyFy did with the original)."
I don't know what point you're trying to make there.
"So, all we're getting at here? Enough with this "evil America" bullshit. We don't go chasing shows nearly as often as people chase us down with them. People all over the world are itching for their own share of the American "entertainment dollar," and they're throwing ideas at it all the time."
No country in the world tries to imitate American television, other than for spoofs.
"So quit blaming us for "stealing" your crap when really it might be that you need to complain to your OWN people for "prostituting" out their own ideas for a quick buck in another land."
The complaint isn't that American television is stealing programmes. I think the problem many people has is the 'Americanisation' aspect, it seems like an insult to the original. The majority of American television that finds its way onto the TV screens of the rest of the world is either a sickly sitcom (e.g. Friends), overblown action nonsense with epilepsy-inducing camera-work (e.g. 24) or just tiresome shock humour (e.g. Family Guy.)
Like I said in a previous post, I don't have a problem with American producers taking a stab at Dr.Who (although it would make more sense to just allow Americans to write for it) but you can see where the more defensive people's fear comes from. The American versions of Life on Mars and Red Dwarf just stick in their minds.
"The BBC gets its money from the government, however indirectly you try to paint it. As you so aptly stated, the fees are law. That means that the BBC has a responsibility to make Parliament happy, or at least certain members (and their ideologies)."
No, the Government sets and enforces the fees but the money goes from the household to the BBC. The BBC has to keep Parliament happy but only by being fair and reporting the truth. There are slanted newspapers and tabloids that would pick up on any favouritism therefore if the BBC was biased then people would know, all press in Britain is free to report whatever it wants so long as it is the truth and does not endanger someone's life Also, informing isn't limited to the news. British television is well known for it documentaries (which, if I'm honest, have turned to shit in recent years.)
"To pretend as though BBC has some holy protection from bias and undue influence is to just have a ridiculously closed mind."
Obviously there will be some bias and influence, its run by people rather than soulless machines. But the repercussions would be severe if they stepped out of line.
"What a news organization reports, and how they report it, are directly influenced by who signs their paychecks."
So the Lancaster Guardian, my local rag, reports solely on what the people who pay for classified ads want?
"2) Educate
Everyone has educational programming, and it's all of pretty comparable quality. Of course, I find the "edutainment" on Discovery a lot more fun to watch and still just as informative as many documentaries. But this isn't a particular sticking point for me, so let's move on."
I think Educate and Inform are one and the same in this case.
" And the BBC works with a limited budget (as defined by the fees, as prescribed by law)... so maybe some of the artists wonder, "Hey, I wonder if I could make more money in a more privatized distribution setting?""
The BBC has the biggest budget of any TV or Radio company in Britain
"Bottom line, here's how shows work in America. Network has the airtime. Guy has the idea. Guy comes to the network and pitches the idea, and the network says "Yes" or "No." If the network says "Yes," they air it... until such time as they decide "No" on renewing the contract. Networks don't put out ads saying, "HEY! Anyone want to get some folks together for us and make a sci-fi action comedy?"
The network doesn't have to. It's got shows. It's up to the pitch-men to show them they've got something better. So, if there are talks about making an American "Doctor Who," those talks--and the whole idea, in fact--started over THERE, not here. Our networks will go for it, if they feel they can make a buck (just like SyFy did with the original)."
I don't know what point you're trying to make there.
"So, all we're getting at here? Enough with this "evil America" bullshit. We don't go chasing shows nearly as often as people chase us down with them. People all over the world are itching for their own share of the American "entertainment dollar," and they're throwing ideas at it all the time."
No country in the world tries to imitate American television, other than for spoofs.
"So quit blaming us for "stealing" your crap when really it might be that you need to complain to your OWN people for "prostituting" out their own ideas for a quick buck in another land."
The complaint isn't that American television is stealing programmes. I think the problem many people has is the 'Americanisation' aspect, it seems like an insult to the original. The majority of American television that finds its way onto the TV screens of the rest of the world is either a sickly sitcom (e.g. Friends), overblown action nonsense with epilepsy-inducing camera-work (e.g. 24) or just tiresome shock humour (e.g. Family Guy.)
Like I said in a previous post, I don't have a problem with American producers taking a stab at Dr.Who (although it would make more sense to just allow Americans to write for it) but you can see where the more defensive people's fear comes from. The American versions of Life on Mars and Red Dwarf just stick in their minds.
1. nobody likes family guy, it stays alive because teenagers give it ratings, its not an american thing, its a kids show.Spaz91 said:
2. if friends is your example of an american sitcom, id like you to reconsider your opinion, since friends is nearly bottom of the barrel, ever watched seinfeld? curb your enthusiasm? always sunny in philadelphia? all in the family? the jeffersons? sanford and son? everybody loves raymond? king of the hill? simpsons? futurama?
never mind, you probably have seen some of these, and you probably laughed, but you refuse to like them because you apparently have a angry disposition towards america.
3.at what point in 24 have you come across epilepsy inducing camera work? are you perhaps confusing it with the bourne trilogy?
u mad, u mad that 24 had better production values than that uk ripoff, that i cant remember the name of, because i dont care about it.
I'm going to say that there's no reason not to remake it.
There are two ways it could go. Firstly, it could be bad, in which case the English version still exists and people eventually forget about the American Dr Who.
Alternatively, it will be just as good as, perhaps even better than English Dr Who, in which case we will have 2 good TV series of Dr Who to watch.
America has been putting out tonnes of good TV series, far more than England. House, the Wire, Deadwood, Sopranos, Dexter, Mad Men. We can try and second guess them and say that they will possibly make Dr Who an action hero stereotype, on the other hand, because the people remaking it may not be completely retarded, and will use the original as a blueprint to hire in some great writers and actors and produce something of genuine quality.
I see it as a no lose situation for us.
There are two ways it could go. Firstly, it could be bad, in which case the English version still exists and people eventually forget about the American Dr Who.
Alternatively, it will be just as good as, perhaps even better than English Dr Who, in which case we will have 2 good TV series of Dr Who to watch.
America has been putting out tonnes of good TV series, far more than England. House, the Wire, Deadwood, Sopranos, Dexter, Mad Men. We can try and second guess them and say that they will possibly make Dr Who an action hero stereotype, on the other hand, because the people remaking it may not be completely retarded, and will use the original as a blueprint to hire in some great writers and actors and produce something of genuine quality.
I see it as a no lose situation for us.
Take a chill pill, asshole, then read what I wrote again.hcig said:
"ever watched seinfeld? curb your enthusiasm? always sunny in philadelphia? all in the family? the jeffersons? sanford and son? everybody loves raymond? king of the hill? simpsons? futurama?"
Futurama is the only one out of the collection that isn't vomit-inducingly bad.
"u mad, u mad that 24 had better production values than that uk ripoff"
No u mad. 24 was rubbish and whoever was holding the camera was having continuous seizures. And what ripoff?
Yeah, and they royally screwed the ending and the theme of the show.CrikeyO said:
It turns out that they were all astronauts on a mission to Mars, specifically they were on a "Gene Hunt" to literally find "Life On Mars", and that Gene Hunt was actually Sam's father, Major Tom.
Finally to top it off and to complete the shoehorned Bowie references, as the end credits roll guess which Bowie masterpiece plays... Life on Mars? Ziggy Stardust? Space Oddity? Hallo Spaceboy?
No, Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters by Elton John!
There aren't enough hands and heads on planet Earth give it the facepalms it deserves.
I'd say British humour and American humor are two very distinct things, so if they try to come in and do a clone, it'd suck. However, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, just mostly, because what is the only thing that could beat 1 Doctor Who? Two Doctor Whos. If they could nail the American quirkiness as well as they nailed the British quirks, I think we'd have a winner. And hey, crossovers could be amusing, amiright?
To reiterate: If they did it well, I'm all for it. Odds are they won't, however, therefore overall I'd have to say no to the idea.
To reiterate: If they did it well, I'm all for it. Odds are they won't, however, therefore overall I'd have to say no to the idea.
Americans don't really watch Dr. Who, so it really doesn't matter.
It really hasn't been "ingrained" into our culture yet.
So.... Yup.
It really hasn't been "ingrained" into our culture yet.
So.... Yup.
Dr Who is a distinctly un-American character so I don't see how you can Americanise him without destroying him. I'm not sure why you'd want to either.
right off the bad with asshole, nice.Spaz91 said:
not sure what im taking the chill pill for though, i would prefer some explanation there.
if you SERIOUSLY think that futurama is the only show on that list that isnt "vomit-inducingly bad" you are clearly bias...thats not even opinion, because alot of those shows are like futurama, you cant simply like (or in your case, withstand) the humor of futurama, and completely hate the simpsons, or always sunny. the list i made is full of complementing shows, just waiting for you to look like a silly billy
also, that u mad thing was me trolling your cracker ass, and im surprised you couldnt see through the non existent veil on that one. also, i dont know what ripoff it is, but its some show that is exactly like 24, but its british, of course, you WOULD feign ignorance in order to not look like an idiot, wouldn't you?
I understand completely, making Dr. Who American is like if someone took Superman or Spiderman gave them a different accent and had them start eating shitty food with a cup of tea. We (the American fan-base) would be pissed. I agree. Keep Dr. Who English, or at least from one of the neighboring countries Britain has forcibly made call themselves English.
Now while we are on the subject of countries and their hyper-violent tendencies, I find it very interesting that in this instance Americans are being berated by the people who conquered the "Dark Continent." or if that seems forgivable how about india? To quote a great comedian "Don't you know your own history yet?" the English and the Americans are not that different when it comes to our foreign policies historically. Americans are, after all, Brits on a two-hundred year spring break. My whole point here is that there is no high ground in accusing any one country for being overly violent, we all take our turn at it.
As far as the Doctor being a glorious champion of non-violence. He may not kill on a regular basis, but when worst comes to worst, he loves to pull the genocide card.
Keep him British, it's part of the charm.
Now while we are on the subject of countries and their hyper-violent tendencies, I find it very interesting that in this instance Americans are being berated by the people who conquered the "Dark Continent." or if that seems forgivable how about india? To quote a great comedian "Don't you know your own history yet?" the English and the Americans are not that different when it comes to our foreign policies historically. Americans are, after all, Brits on a two-hundred year spring break. My whole point here is that there is no high ground in accusing any one country for being overly violent, we all take our turn at it.
As far as the Doctor being a glorious champion of non-violence. He may not kill on a regular basis, but when worst comes to worst, he loves to pull the genocide card.
Keep him British, it's part of the charm.
I dont think it would have that same feel.
Also I think there would end up being too much fighting in it, from what I undertsnad there isnt much in it as it goes out at about 7 PM.
But theres one thing you cant have, theres no way in hell your taking Mock the Week, I love that show...
Also I think there would end up being too much fighting in it, from what I undertsnad there isnt much in it as it goes out at about 7 PM.
But theres one thing you cant have, theres no way in hell your taking Mock the Week, I love that show...
