web
counter
 

What's the Cockney Translation for "Wrecking Ball of Dumbassery"?

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under TV Reviews | Comments (30)



0d03f4cfe357118d_mtv-skins.jpg

The American version of “Skins,” which premiered last night on MTV, is essentially a scene-for-scene recreation of the British pilot. It’s practically the same episode. So, why is it such a massive pile of greasy boners and failure? That’s the magic of American television, folks. Our carbon copy paper is smeared in perfect skin and brain damage. We can recreate scenes, but we can’t recreate the vibe. We can have characters do the exact same things, but we can’t replicate the magic. We can duplicate but we can’t rejuvenate. Stay away from British television, America. You have no idea what the fuck you’re doing. Your idea of Americanizing a British television show is to take out everything that was good in the British version. You’re not “translating” it, you’re “ruining” it. In the simple language that American execs understand, “You’re turning a ‘good’ television show into a ‘bad’ television show.” It is absolutely amazing to me how ungodly boneheaded you people are.

In the American “Skins,” Tony (played by Nicholas Hoult in the original) is some sort of cross-blend of Beaver Cleaver and Urban Dictionary entries from 1998. Who the fuck says “Gee,” “Golly,” and “get you spliffed up”? It’s like the American translators didn’t understand a particular bit of slang, so they replaced the Brit vernacular with something they picked up on “Nick at Nite” reruns of “My Three Sons.” The British series found an interesting non-traditionally attractive cast that was attractive exactly because they were a little unusual looking. The American series goes for “generically” interesting, which is to say blandly attractive, which is to say, not attractive at all. It’s like they’re bred in a petri dish of milquetoast, jaw bones, and hair grease. Effy’s name is now Renee. Cassie is now Katie spelled Cadie. Sid is Stanley. That’s fairly indicative of how they have genericized the American version. Even the music is generic indie pop, and you’d think that a television show that aired on MTV could find a decent goddamn track or two.

The British series dealt with urban kids saddled with insecurity and neurosis. None of that comes across in the American series — the kids are too arrogant, too pretty, too confident. The insecurity is exchanged for insincerity, and the neurosis by earnestness. They forgot to be awkward in a show about awkward teenagers coming of age. After the first episode of the British “Skins,” I felt like I knew the characters, like I could relate to them. I felt invested. With these American kids, I feel violated, like I just got felt up by a sheet of fabric softener, molested by a tube of chapstick

It’s a good thing that the American revolution was not waged on television. Sure, we’d win all the facial symmetry battles, but while England was going Guy Ritchie on our ass, we’d be putting up Luke Perry to go toe-to-toe with Vinnie Jones. He’d fall into a pockmark before he threw the first punch, and England would be remaking our shows. The only difference is: They’d probably be improving them.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



"Summer Wars" Review | Covering All Your Base Are Belong To Us | The Logistics of Sex in Spaaaaaace! | Pajiba (Geek) Dirty Talk









Comments

I did like the opening scene with Animal Collective, but otherwise I couldn't agree with this more. I didn't get the sense that all the kids were total a-holes in the British version... this was suddenly about a clan of insane drugged-up anarchist teens living on the fringes of society. Or so it seemed.

And to me, those snippets of pop music are what made this show just soooooo MTV (that is not a compliment). It's like the only way they know how to choreograph a show--it makes every program they have seem exactly the same. The only thing it was missing were little blank screens of text (or scribbles) describing the previous or upcoming scene.

Posted by: Lindsay at January 18, 2011 3:43 PM

The casting was the part that totally took me out of it -- seriously miscast almost every role. Tony and Cassie most grievously. Also, Cadie . . . come on.

Posted by: Caroline at January 18, 2011 3:55 PM

When I was about 6 years of age my uncle used to let me watch this odd show called Monty Python. When I was about 10 my brother let me watch this show called The Young Ones. Oh yeah, and as long as I can think back I would watch British shows on PBS when I spent the night at Granny's. So you can say that I have a very deep love of British things like their movies, music, Colin Firth. That being said FUCK YOU!! Get some original ideas already. Most of the good movies I have seen recently have been foreign. They can think up shit so can you American film industry.

Posted by: ellinad at January 18, 2011 3:55 PM

I want to hug ellinad. Thank you.

Posted by: Parker Jammstein at January 18, 2011 3:59 PM

I've not seen the original, and I won't be seeing this, but I'm not surprised by Dustin's assessment. Other than The Office (after it found its legs and before it lost its way), has there ever been a good quality American version of a British show? I think it has to do with the difference in how TV shows are created and marketed. In Britain the thought process seems to be "Let's make 18 really great episodes,and when we move on to the next project, the fans we made will likely follow along". In North America the mindset is "Let's ride this horse for as long as we can, because syndication is where the real money is", and production execs (mostly those from the Big 4), feel the best way to do that is to buff all the edges off of the original show and polish it until it's nothing but a glossy ball of same.

Posted by: Groundloop at January 18, 2011 4:10 PM

"Even the music is generic indie pop, and you’d think that a television show that aired on MTV could find a decent goddamn track or two."

Have you not been watching the same MTV I quit watching in 2003? They quit playing music about the time the dageurrotype went out of fad.

Posted by: dahlia6 at January 18, 2011 4:14 PM

As a show about american teenage identity, they should have filmed it in the USA. I could tell from the first few scenes that it wasn't shot in an american city. Sometimes that doesn't matter, but it makes this already bland and unoriginal show seem even more generic and inauthentic.

Posted by: notblind at January 18, 2011 4:58 PM

i love the original skins. i didn't even watch this one and i already think US tony looks too much like a douche to pull off the role well.

Posted by: mandatron at January 18, 2011 5:23 PM

While I have no doubt that MTV's "Skins" is crap, it's not accurate at all to say that American TV fails at every attempt to adapt British TV. Historically, that's not even close to being true. And I feel quite sure there are plenty of horrible Brit TV shows that we never even hear about.

But go ahead and hate America. I'm sure you're making The Terrorists very happy.

Posted by: Blimey at January 18, 2011 5:35 PM

Bwuaha. dahlia6, I love you for that daguerreotype joke.

Did anyone think this would be remotely decent, what with it being on MTV and all?

Posted by: Gabs at January 18, 2011 5:48 PM

ellinad, yes! And I LOVE The Young Ones.

Posted by: the bees knees at January 18, 2011 5:56 PM

If it helps you feel better, remember we gave you Simon Cowell, Anne Robinson and Piers Morgan.

Sorry about that!

Posted by: Simon at January 18, 2011 6:30 PM

There's definitely more heading west than east, if you compare these 2 lists. Also noticable is that the UK rarely tries to remake US sitcoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_television_series_based_on_British_television_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_television_programmes_based_on_American_television_series

Posted by: Simon at January 18, 2011 6:39 PM

The problem is that everything sounds so much better with a British accent!

Posted by: badkittyuno at January 18, 2011 6:45 PM

Who the fuck says “Gee,” “Golly,” ...?

Me, that's who! Especially if I accidentally walk into the men's public bathroom! Aside from being involuntary, it expresses that I am shocked at my own error. It also turns the tables around so that, rather than me being the offender, it makes it known that anything I may have seen over by the urinals may have scarred my mind which is so lily-white that I can still exclaim such things.

PS: I love the Young Ones and I love Neil's lentils.

Posted by: mfg at January 18, 2011 7:16 PM

Sure, the pilot was less-than-impressive. (Especially if you've seen the original version). We just need to give the cast and writers some time. Soon enough, the series will grow into its own.

Please note:

1. Effy's name is Eura, not Renee. Now that's not a generic name at all.

2. Only the "Tony" episode and the "Chris" episode are the exact same as their British counterparts. The rest have similarities, but branch off into different story lines.

3. Bryan Elsley -the creator of Skins itself- produces US Skins. I trust that he'll guide this show to reach our expectations.

Posted by: Jennifer at January 18, 2011 8:23 PM

If any of you are actual teenagers living in today's society, you would realize that this show is accurate. It's going to change your point of view on how many teenagers actually function.

The thing is that when Tony said, "gee" and "golly", he was being sarcastic. My friends and I use spiffed-up word choice like this all the time as a joke. Tony's sarcastic comments help highlight his sense of superiority and lack of taking things seriously.

Also, Tony's character appeals in a kind of "bad boy" way. The boys that I know can seem charming because their arrogance can be outwardly translated to confidence, which in itself is very attractive. Tony is meant to be a manipulator, not necessarily the nicest kid you know. He knows how to get his way. With his friends, he can be an asshole because many of them, like Stanley, envy him for his looks, his smoothness with girls, and his wit.

This show is going to bring to light many characteristics about the young generation today that many people have overlooked. Their activities, like the drug usage, under-age drinking, promiscuity, and rudeness, are obviously bad behaviors, and a teenager like me can clearly see this. I feel like this show will also help other teenagers learn what consequences can arise from their irresponsible actions.

Posted by: Jessica at January 18, 2011 9:51 PM

Don't kid yourself, though; the UK has its share of poor "wow I'm a mixed up london teen" narratives. I mean, have you even seen Kidulthood?

Posted by: seed at January 18, 2011 10:12 PM

the red haired chick and the big haired chick were kinda cute though

Posted by: arrrghzi at January 18, 2011 10:57 PM

If anything, this has brought the original to my attention.
Cassie is wonderful and sad. (I might love her)
And Peter Capaldi just showed up as Sid's Da'. YES

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 18, 2011 11:35 PM

All seasons of the UK "Skins" is on Netflix Instant.

Save yourself the stress and just go for that.

Posted by: duckandcover at January 18, 2011 11:38 PM

Peter Capaldi!? Might have to check this out.

I've seen neither the original nor the remake, but I totally agree with the point about American remakes ruining really good British shows. Last night I watched the remake of Being Human on SyFy (though it's actually Canadian and not American), and there is absolutely no comparison. I couldn't get engaged with the characters at all, and the whole thing was just so lame compared to the original.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine recently, and we wondered if British audiences just generally hold television actors to a higher standard than Americans. I admit, we haven't seen a whole lot of British programming outside of Doctor Who, Being Human, Misfits, and a little of Torchwood. Still, the quality of acting seems to consistently be higher on U.K. programming than on the majority of U.S. shows.

Posted by: Patrick the Bunny at January 19, 2011 12:00 AM

i didn't like the original,so i doubt i'll enjoy this.the original was filled with self-indulgent,immature teens whose problems were romaticized.kind of like "oh wow drugs and sex and problems! how cool!",I sound inane but thats exactly what it was.i was however,in love with effy,who I think only appears in generation 2 although I'm not sure.

Posted by: nikolai at January 19, 2011 1:22 AM

Patrick the Bunny - I think the trouble is you're only seeing the British shows that are good enough to export. 90% of UK TV ranges between average to downright awful.

The equivalent of your conversation is often held on this side of the pond: "Why can't our TV be more like the US - they have Mad Men/The Daily Show/The Wire etc etc..."

Posted by: Simon at January 19, 2011 1:40 AM

Wow, in that list of British shows remade in the US was Dad's Army. I can't see how a US version would work. Someone doled out cash to make a pilot...what idiot bankroled that?

Posted by: curtdwar at January 19, 2011 5:09 AM

"3. Bryan Elsley -the creator of Skins itself- produces US Skins. I trust that he'll guide this show to reach our expectations."
Posted by: Jennifer at January 18, 2011 8:23 PM

Oh he will at that. I expected it to be a heaping pile of shit; and it certainly reached that expectation. the one good thing about it is it made me go back and watch the original again. which I hadn't done since soon after it aired.

Posted by: Pete at January 19, 2011 7:44 AM

The problem with the american version of skins is it does not deal with the issue at the heart of the original series, the issue of class differences and how they can shape one as a person. In america the media is still pushing the idea of the american dream, specifically that your income is the only determination of class and that everyone has free mobility within this system. In reality, as almost any american can tell you, your personal income is one of many determinations of class, others being wealth of your family, culture, race, and so on. The original skins deals with all these issues, and without having to literally spell them out. Such issues are rarely mentioned allowed, but demonstrated by the lives, feelings, and relationships of the characters. The american version was made to look the same on the outside, but the inside is unfortunately empty, whereas the original has incredible depth.
Bring back Maxxie!

Posted by: mirandapantz at January 19, 2011 8:19 PM

As a huge fan of Skins who has seen the original pilot alone at least 4 times, I couldn't even make it 15 minutes into the US version without wanting to puke. I skimmed through it to get a full idea of what it's like and what it's like is this: a steaming pile of dog shit. They all look like douchey shitheads, they can't act, and they somehow make the show look bland and extremely boring. Nothing interesting or unique about it in the slightest.

Posted by: Penelope at January 19, 2011 10:46 PM

One of the absolute worst things I have EVER seen was the pilot (actually, two different pilots) for Red Dwarf USA.

Smeggin' tripe.

Posted by: pumpkin at January 23, 2011 10:30 PM

I recently started watching the original Skins on Netflix instant watch and it is just sooooo very good. I hate that the original couldn't be shown as is instead of remade.

I haven't seen the American version, but people are calling it child porn. The UK version is very riske, often disturbing, and relatively dark. I've heard the American version was toned down, but I never felt the UK version was pornographic.

Posted by: lucy at January 24, 2011 1:14 PM