Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarant  Sorry about the initial, dismissive, response. It was 1 in the morning, and I was tired. Anyway, when I said Americans have this down to an exact science, I wasn't refering to remakes but to wacky episodic genre stuff - Lost, BG, Pushing Daisies etc... Even Journeyman does the man out of time thing - not quite in the same manner, but it does it fucking well. LOM isn't The Office, Fawlty Towers or even Cracker - shows whose greatness relied on the singular talents of those involved. Yeah, Gene Hunt is awesome, probably the best part of the show, but I doubt he's irreplaceable.
Also, I'm in no position to argue the show's Jungian or Freudian implications, but I can tell that I found the stories themselves to be pretty fucking weak and far too easily concluded. I thought the concept was incredible, and felt let down by the execution.
And as far as a remake being nothing but "That 70's Show" type of observations, I really doubt David E. Kelley (who's taken on the remake) would go that route.
|
That really surprises me, man. I actually found the cast of LoM to be one of the greatest things about the show. Each character was well drawn and vividly imagined, in my opinion. Ray Carling and Annie Cartwright, in particular, were such strong support characters with their own motivations, story arcs, just really well-rounded, I thought.
For me personally, it more than just Gene's never-ending quotability. The interaction between all characters made it a great viewing experience for me, as well as the way they went about creating an air of believability amongst the everyday aspects of an unbelievable concept. Annie, for example, is not the conventionally (ie - TV-wise) attractive female lead/love interest, but she's certainly no slapper, either. And in that final scene in the last episode, where she smiles at Sam outside the pub, her entire face lights up, she's stunningly gorgeous, and you know exactly why Sam feels the way he does about her. She's
obtainable, and that's her greatest strength when put against someone like, say, Jaime Murray.
The other thing that really struck me about how they made the world seem so believable was the subtlety of the 70's representation. Apart from a few tracks, the majority of the music used was not a "The Greatest Hits Of The 70's" compilation, which is where alot of shows would fall down. If you used every major hit of the era, it makes it very obvious that you're referencing the era too much, but just playing the songs that were on rotation at the time doesn't stand up and yell "IT'S THE 70'S, GET IT?!" . . . you just soaked it all in.
I'm not saying that a US remake wouldn't be good. I'm sure with the right people involved, they could do a great job. But I've always wondered where the point is in remaking a show that is, essentially, perfect? It's all personal opinion, of course. Why not try to take something that didn't quite work the first time around and improve upon it if possible? I mean, there's a reason they remade '3:10 To Yuma', not 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly', right?
As i said, it's just personal opinion and nothing more . . . but I reckon if it ain't broke (and that show certainly wasn't broke in any way), then don't try to fix it.
