h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Office (It won american awards dontchaknow)
Red Dwarf
Men Behaving badly
Fawlty Towers
Porridge
Auf Wiedersein Pet (Original Series)



and many others too numerous to mention


American is all well and good but the list above is so much better television.


(Although their Sci Fi is so much better than our quaint attempts with Dr Who and Blakes 7)

Yes yes, the Office.
However, none of the shows you mention are currently in production. (disclaimer: I have no idea what's going on with Red Dwarf).

In comparision, take a look into the following:

Everwood.
The Gilmour Girls.
Tru Calling.
Smallville.
Angel.
One Tree Hill.

These are in addition to the excellent Sporanos, Six Feet Under et al.

Some of the best American TV is based on something that you don't see so much on Brit TV - formula-breaking writing.

Hopefully, One Tree Hill will make it from the USA to the UK. Smallville and Angel are already hits (and I'm now a season or two ahead of the UK...boy, are you in for some good stuff) and deserve to be followed by the non-genre titles above.

eh..

Sporanos should have been Sopranos, of course.

But now I have this wonderful idea for a Scottish organised crime family soap/drama...

What's wrong with the New series of Auf Weidersehen, Pet. Ya na what it is, only happy with orginals, divint na ya born!!!

I agree with some of your points Gradient but just what formulas are Smallville and Angel breaking?

As far as I can tell they are just slightly more mature treatments of kid/teeny programmes infact one is a spin-off from a formulaic teeny programme. Angel and Buffy use good looking heroes, hows that ground breaking and an occult theme ripped of from the much imitated cult favourite "The crow"

Angel: I guess the major genre-busting move that the Angel team have made is the avoidance of happy endings. The heroes don't always make the right choices, the people who should be together frequently aren't. The characters have reasons for doing the things they do and consequences often come back to haunt them later (in some cases literally). This is strong writing, something that doesn't feature so well in the UK at the moment. Compare Angel with Strange (which could have been great, but wasn't).

As for ripping off The Crow - would that be the two movies (which were OK) or the outstanding original comic book?

The casting is what the casting is. Ugly folks tend to end up as character actors, people like to watch Pretty Faces, people like to drool over members of their gender of preference. That sells advertising.

As for Smallville...
Firstly, it's playing with the established history of an Iconic character (two, if you count Lex Luthor). Granted, Marvel and DC do this themselves from time to time...but as far as I know we've only seen this kind of thing once before - The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. In the case of Smallville, you have a show based around character development and progression. We know how Superman ends up...how did he get there? I don't think there's another show quite like it, where we know the end of the story already. Again, the main strengths of the show are in the writing and plotting which, quite apart from the Kryptonite Monster of the Week, deal with the very human relationships that surround Clark Kent and how they are affected by his Big Secret. It also plays to the Fanboy audience without alienating the viewers that know Superman inside out. The new Doctor Who team could take a leaf from this book.

'I guess the major genre-busting move that the Angel team have made is the avoidance of happy endings.'

This, I am given to understand, is standard practice in Chinese 'wuxia' films, following the traditions of Peking Opera.

'The heroes don't always make the right choices, the people who should be together frequently aren't. The characters have reasons for doing the things they do and consequences often come back to haunt them later (in some cases literally).'

This sort of thing, I can confirm from personal acquaintance, is usual in anime (at least the more serious and well-written examples).

Not that Angel's production team would have had to look to the Far East to find examples of the avoidance of happy endings. Ancient Greek and Shakespearean tragedy offer plentiful examples, Oedipus and Macbeth being two famous ones. Western literature and theatre also offer plentiful examples of flawed characters, characters with motives, and characters whose actions come back to haunt them. So _if_ it really is only now that such plot aspects are appearing in 'genre-busting' Western television programmes, I can only assume that much of the West's creative talent is employed in other media.

The majority of people in the west are not necessarily familiar with 'wuxia', the closest they (or I, outside of knowing the style exists) have come to it is probably 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. Likewise, while the popularity of anime is rising it's still not exactly mainstream. So while you might be able to discern the influences of other styles and genres on Angel, the majority of people won't. Introducing them to that same style is in itself breaking new ground.

While Angel avoids happy endings it is also not tragic. Admittedly, it would be hard for Angel to go the whole Romeo and Juliet because the hero is already dead, but the point to a tragedy is that it comes to an end, which is hardly suitable for a 26 episode series. Therefore an ongoing series in which there is a plot arc, continuity, exploration of consequence and attention to relationships is, while not new inside the realm of soap opera, still news to prime time television.

While Western literature offers plentiful examples of all these things, there are still things you can do in a book that you cannot do on film or TV. Witness the necessity of adaptation. We've been writing books and plays for hundreds of years. We've had television for less than a century and a lot of artists still don't consider it a worthy art form. If Bill Shakespeare was alive and working today, he'd be sued for pinching ideas from Italian and Greek playwrights or be working for 'Eastenders'.

Don't forget; the American media is deeply conservative in nature. Seeing these things emerge in a time when the majority of competing TV is Reality Show based I take as a sign of hope...especially since the last time I was in the UK the highest rated TV show would have been about a Detective who solved crimes by renovating people's house and gardens while his witless sidekick cooked gourmet meals with the major suspects. Add to this mix the possibility of the detective solving real crimes with real suspects and you've got a winner.

While Angel avoids happy endings it is also not tragic. Admittedly, it would be hard for Angel to go the whole Romeo and Juliet because the hero is already dead, but the point to a tragedy is that it comes to an end, which is hardly suitable for a 26 episode series. Therefore an ongoing series in which there is a plot arc, continuity, exploration of consequence and attention to relationships is, while not new inside the realm of soap opera, still news to prime time television.

Err I think thats a pretty good description of a soap opera.

I do understand what you mean about prime time telly over here. Reality is cheap, even cheaper than the game shows it has replaced. Soaps are reliable ratings and therefore revenue winners. Cookery is the new travel why spend hours looking at a place you can never go to, or have been to on the telly when you can learn how to cook the food from those places in your own home?

What you dont seem to get is that they do not represent the whole of Brit telly output. Original drama that is not necessarily dour and gritty but realistic enough to be able to carry some of the real mirth and pathos of life. On the flip side to that "24" is a big hit over here even with its contrived plot twists it is original for its scale and "real time" portrayal of events. Home grown comedy lie wise is at its best when it takes chances and goes away from the tried and tested sitcom route, The Office, The League of Gentlemen and The Day Today. To name but a few are shows where new ideas were used to great effect.

Soaps don't make prime time in the USA. Well, not any more. They aren't taken seriously enough. However, given the soapesqueness of some of the shows I mentioned it's easy to see where some of the writers cut their teeth or stole their ideas.

The comedy - League of Gentlemen and The Day Today being personal favourites - I saw less of, because prior to my emigration to the US last year I was generally appalled by British TV, with a couple of notable exceptions. 'Spaced', for example, was great. As was 'Coupling' (the US version of which was dire).

There has been some great TV recently, particularly 'Everwood' which seems to have a very light touch with some rather serious issues and doesn't appear to be all that interested in moralising. Specifically wonderful was this week's ep, in which the subject of sex (and losing virginity) was handled with humour, honesty and tact...and in which none of the obvious plot directions were followed.

Having not seen Brit TV in 5 months, I can't comment on how good it is right now. As a counterpoint to how much I enjoy American TV, I miss the heck out of certain shows (which turn up from time to time on PBS) and am having serious nostalgia for the 'cardboard set and CSO SFX' of BBC science fiction. I'm going to have to invest in some Balkes 7 and Doctor Who DVDs soon...

'Introducing them to that same style is in itself breaking new ground.'

Yes, but in terms of audience penetration, rather than in terms of plot development. It is still not necessarily the case that something that _appears_ to a given audience to be 'genre-busting' actually is (although presumably the audience doesn't mind). So yes, you've made a valid point, but you haven't defeated my original refutation.

'While Angel avoids happy endings it is also not tragic.'

I didn't actually claim that it was tragic; what I wrote was this: 'Not that Angel's production team would have had to look to the Far East to find examples of the avoidance of happy endings. Ancient Greek and Shakespearean tragedy offer plentiful examples, Oedipus and Macbeth being two famous ones.' That is, there are numerous examples of pre-Angel plots without happy endings; Ancient Greek and Shakespearean tragedies have plots without happy endings (and are pre-Angel); therefore they are examples of pre-Angel plots without happy endings. That's all that's required as a counterexample to the claim that Angel's avoidance of happy endings makes it 'genre-busting'.

As for your points about the 'necessity of adaptation' and the conservatism of the American media, these, if I have interpreted them correctly (and I admit that I am not certain), are essentially expressing the sorts of issue considered in my earlier post, i.e. the limitations of what is devised for Western television.

You know Gradient, Dr. Who is on PBS at 11:30...pm...on Saturdays...

They're in the middle of the beginning of the Fifth Doctor's run.

You use Tru Calling as an example of American quality television?!? That's even funnier than the poster above you citing Porridge and Auf Wiedersein Pet.

Tru calling has been widely panned as the most excruciating piece of new drama in the current US season. Thank god they've axed it already.

Angel has, of course, just been cancelled...And frankly rightly so. It's dreck and has only been made bearable in season 4 by James marsters wonderful comic turn as Banquo's ghost...

Porridge and Auf Weidersen I'll give you as a pair of fantastic series from the UK, but Red Dwarf and men Behaving badly? Puerile nonsense.

Putting it bluntly, British TV has lost it's bottle. The broadcasting system that gave us series such as Boys From The Blackstuff, GBH, Edge of Darkness and The singing Detective (to name the most obvious examples) is now obsessed with slack 70's style sitcoms (My Family? What in god's name is Robert Lindsay doing and thinking?) and shabby soaps and reality tv which is actually more unrealistic than a dozen episodes of Star Trek back-to-back.


While the US has given us Hill St (compare and contrast Juliet Bravo), the Sopranos (erm...), Six Feet Under (erm...), Nip/Tuck (erm...), ER (compare and contrast Casualty), The X Files (compare and contrast Bugs), Buffy.

Dear god, the last really challenging (or even remotely well written drama) drama we did was that thing with Christopher Ecclestone as the Second Coming. Messiah?

May we have a little supporting detail to complement the criticisms? It's a touch difficult to determine whether the proposition 'x is dreck' actually refers to an objective fact external to one's opinions; and this in turn makes it difficult to determine whether there is a basis for agreeing, or indeed disagreeing, with those opinions.

The statement 'Angel is dreck' is purely subjective. However, from a purely objective view, it lacks any of the wit and sparkle that made Buffy such a (relative) success. Buffy was bright fresh television programming in a genre (horror/fantasy) that all to often turns out nonsense that is both poorly written and stereotypical.

Buffy offered some of the strongest female leads in years, particularly in a genre based series, and also dealt with uge issues - faith, the responsibility of growing into adulthood, the death of ones parents in a witty and sensitive way. Really, it's years ahead of it's time - compare it to other 'teen angst' shows, for example Dawsons Crek or the recent Jake 2.0 and I think the point is obvious.

Angel is the reverse side of the coin. It's all flash and no substance. It doesn't deal with anything of consequence because it's *all* based around the supernatural. The attempt to create a 'darker' series simply by turning out all the lights fails miserably. Aesthetically its unpleasant and it's intellectually bankrupt. Only Spikes appearance has made it palatable because james Marsters is a very fine comic performer.

Thanks. Not having seen either series I'm not qualified to comment, but hopefully anyone else who wants to debate the point will have something to go on.

On the matter of Soaps, it seems to me that the best of what is presently being offered by The US networks does employ the same tactics as soap operas, merely in slightly more 'acceptable' formats - Buffy, ER, Hill ST, Homicide, Nip/Tuck and Six Feet Under all enjoy writing styles that resemble soaps in places, as do comedies such as Frasier, Friends and Sex in the City.

Thren of course, there's the antidote to soaps, The Simpsons, which actually owes more than a little to the long gone but forgotten 'Soap', in which Billy Crystal got his big break.

One of the things you have to remember about US television is that it works slightly differently to TV in the UK.

Shows are made to fill slots in the schedule, but those slots are determined largely by advertising. Advertisers want to reach a target audience, will only buy time during shows that will attract that audience and the networks will therefore only finance shows that can attract the right revenue stream. You see this in action when they look at the ratings and decide which excellent shows are going to be axed this year...

...genre stuff like 'Firefly', 'Farscape' etc, which have passionate and vocal fanbases but no ratings...

The other thing that determines the longevity of a show is whether it can be syndicated. Syndication, for those who don't know, is when a show is sold on to local networks or cable/satellite networks. For this to happen, a show has to reach a minimum number of episodes. Syndicated shows are not necessarily broadcast in any order, so any show with a plot arc is in danger of being shown badly out of sequence. That never used to matter - a show would be written so that any issues it generated would be resolved in 45 minutes or less, leaving it self contained. Any episode of Star Trek can be shown next to any other episode, for example, and the same is broadly true for TNG, DS9 and Voyager. The same can also be said for comedies like 'Seinfeld' and 'Friends'. These shows are already guaranteed revenue streams for anyone who cares to broadcast them - they'll get people watching and advertisers will want to buy the commercial slots during the show's run time.

This is also why many American shows run in the following format:

Teaser (the five minute build-up to the story)
Titles
(ad break)
ten minutes of show
(ad break)
more show...etc

When you understand that the market place for new shows is geared towards attracting a large audience that will sit still to watch the ads too, you begin to understand why there is more pressure in the US to write new, innovative and different television.

God bless it, the Beeb's basic revenue is safe. Brits HAVE to pay the licence fee. That, in theory, should allow the BBC the freedom to commission television that breaks a few rules. They don't have to keep the advertisers happy. Theory, however, seldom equals practice and it looks as though British TV is suffering at the hands of US imports and the rising costs of television production.

Did everyone know that the BBC no longer has a special effects department? Or that a large part of BBC production has been taken on by external production companies? It looks as though there simply isn't the money to make the kind of TV that the BBC was once famous for.

For anyone reading this who's actually a fan of Angel, last week Warner Bros made an announcement that means we'll soon be discussing Angel in the past tense.

Yup, Angel is no more