SHP Forums

AndreaDraco wrote: However, when showrunners and authors add a gay character to their story just for the sake of it, just to stir up some kind of shock, that irks me to no end. See, when the sister is revealed to be a lesbian, I thought: why? Why is it important to the story that the sister is gay? What meaningful stories could be told about it?

I agree, to make a character gay just to shock is trite bullshit. Its not the 1980s anymore. I don't agree on that by adding a gay character they're supposed to be making some statement or doing some meaningful story about her. However, yes, I don't expect the show to be good enough to just treat it as part of a characters make up and not their defining characteristic.

AndreaDraco wrote: If this was the UK show, I'm sure they will treat the character's sexuality tastefully and appropriately, whilst being SyFy I'm dubious and I tend to think that they added it just for a WTF moment.

Yeah, unfortunately you are very likely to be right. Coincidently, the original had an episode in series 2 with the vampire, I think it was Mitchell's mentor/friend. I can't recall the guy's name.

AndreaDraco wrote: To be honest, there is only one American network that - so far - has talked about sexuality in a meaningful, thought-provoking way. And that's HBO. The others - The CW in primis, but the rest isn't that better - are a mixed bag, varying greatly from show to show. But I found that, unfortunately, LGBT topics get the worst treatment in genre shows -- and that's why I've no high hopes for this remake.

Yeah, genre shows are generally apalling in this regard. The only genre shows currently in production/on air I can think of on the top of my head as having gay characters in significant parts are Torchwood, True Blood. Heh, if you count Spartacus as a genre show, it definately counts.

HBO generally brings the awesome. Also Omar Litlle! of The Wire

AndreaDraco wrote: However, when showrunners and authors add a gay character to their story just for the sake of it, just to stir up some kind of shock, that irks me to no end. See, when the sister is revealed to be a lesbian, I thought: why? Why is it important to the story that the sister is gay? What meaningful stories could be told about it?

That's just it, though. I don't think it IS a shock to make a character "gay" anymore. It's so widely accepted in SO many shows now, it's become the norm. Like I said, when I watched it, I wasn't the LEAST bit shocked she was gay - I was more shocked to discover that the girl was his sister, and not some girlfriend he was running from.

As for it being significant to the story and the why - it might be as simple as making it more realistic/modern. I honestly did not think there was any shock value. If they wanted SHOCK value they would have introduced the sister, let the viewer audience get to know her, and get a feel for her character - then six episodes down - show her kissing another girl that she introduces as her girlfriend. Since they pretty much did the kiss right off the bat in the first episode, there was absolutely no shock value for me.

Well, the second episode isn't quite over yet, but I think Being Human is pretty decent so far. I like it at least.

I really like this blogger's take on the whole remake thing http://www.tvsquad.com/2011/01/25/skins-mtv/

It strikes me that both 'Skins' and Showtime's 'Shameless,' another U.K. remake that has had a mixed reception here, have very British attitudes toward rebellion. English television audiences tend to like subversive characters who break the rules and give the middle finger to the richer, more educated classes. The class system in the U.K. isn't as rigid as it used to be, but it's left a cultural legacy -- a love of underdog characters who don't really care about the rules and care even less about getting ahead. Characters who stick it to the Man and have no real ambitions are common in the U.K. They're far less common in the generally aspirational fare we see in the U.S.

---

The fact is, if you want to bring a show across the pond from the U.K., some things have to change. Attitudes, characters and situations have to speak to the audience of that country. If anything, the episodes I've seen of all three shows ('Skins,' 'Shameless' and 'Being Human') run into the same problems: They're holding on too hard to the British original. (And in the cases of 'Skins' and 'Being Human,' the casts aren't nearly as good as the casts of the original shows. The sensational ensemble of 'Shameless' is that show's saving grace.)

Thinking about US remakes, I have to say that I really liked the short lived American remake of Touching Evil. I liked it exactly because it didn't copy the original, it just took its concepts and struck out on its own. Also, it didn't hurt that Jeffrey Donovan was the lead Also, I have to admit that I was practically traumatized by the first episode of the original Touching Evil. I mean it was very good but bloody hell.

therogue wrote: Thinking about US remakes, I have to say that I really liked the short lived American remake of Touching Evil. I liked it exactly because it didn't copy the original, it just took its concepts and struck out on its own. Also, it didn't hurt that Jeffrey Donovan was the lead Also, I have to admit that I was practically traumatized by the first episode of the original Touching Evil. I mean it was very good but bloody hell.

It becomes a double edged sword though. Some people would be bothered that they veered TOO far off from the concept. (Like when movies veer off from the concept of books and such - say like the current discussion about The Hobbit). While one's based on a book, another is a show; the same concept applies, I think. Veer too far off the concept and some people get upset, even if the details, are for the most part, minor.

Maureen Ryan is a great journalist, and she has a penchant for genre show too!

I have also been giving Being Human a try, but it hasn't amazed me so far. It's not bad, but it's not really doing anything new. The vampire/werewolf trying resist his darker nature has been done so many times and far too often lately.

In some ways, it's more interesting if they're more rare, as opposed to being a part of some secret society of [insert supernatural race here].

I've also started watching Lost Girl, thinking that since it deals with Fae instead of vampires and werewolves it may be a bit more interesting. Alas, the main character is a succubus....you guessed it, trying to learn to resist her urge to feed and kill. They could have done so much more with the Fae! I love urban fairy stories.

I'll probably give them both a bit more of a try before giving up on them, but I'm not holding my breath for either. The characters in both seem quite unremarkable so far.

I miss Heroes and Ugly Betty.

So I decided to give Lost Girl a bit more of a try, since Space Channel has the episodes online anyway.

I actually like it more now that I've watched the entire first season. I still wish the main character had a little more personality or reacted a little more emotionally to some things, but at least she's not actively annoying or overly melodramatic. The rest of the characters help to make up for it to some extent and all the Fae stuff is kind of neat.

I hope they continue to have multi-episode story-arcs in season 2, since that leads to a more developed story in the long run.

Maiandra wrote:So I decided to give Lost Girl a bit more of a try, since Space Channel has the episodes online anyway.

I have a friend that keeps nagging me to watch it.

I tried the first episode. I must admit that when I got to the giant the protagonist has to fight I found hard not to laugh However, the protagonist's friend is adorable, at least in the first episode, and I think that the acting made up for the obviously poor production values. However, it strikes me as perhaps too similar to True Blood and that is enough for me

AndreaDraco wrote:

Maiandra wrote:So I decided to give Lost Girl a bit more of a try, since Space Channel has the episodes online anyway.

I have a friend that keeps nagging me to watch it.

I tried the first episode. I must admit that when I got to the giant the protagonist has to fight I found hard not to laugh

I know! I was thinking, "How convenient that she suddenly knows how to fight. When did she learn to fight like that?". There are certainly a few moments that have me laughing a little because they are a bit goofy or cliched, but they don't do it so much that it makes it annoying.

AndreaDraco wrote:However, the protagonist's friend is adorable, at least in the first episode, and I think that the acting made up for the obviously poor production values.

I like Kenzi a great deal as well. The stuff she says can be hilarious and it's almost impossible not to like her (although there was one or two earlier episodes where she was a little too perky and began to get annoying). She certainly has a great deal of personality and I can't help but like that she's a shameless thief.

Unfortunately, Showcase just won't have the budget of HBO. Although the production value wasn't great, I didn't think it was terrible either. I've certainly seen worse. It seemed better later on in the season, but perhaps they were just better at covering it up.

I'm just glad it will be back for a second season.

AndreaDraco wrote: However, it strikes me as perhaps too similar to True Blood and that is enough for me

I actually didn't think it was that similar, other than the fact that they are dealing with adapting to supernatural societies. Since that's pretty common in a number of different supernatural series I've read, though, it doesn't make me think of True Blood first.

To me it's more like a cross between Laurel Hamilton's Meredith Gentry series (of which I've only read a couple novels) and Angel.

Maiandra wrote: I actually didn't think it was that similar, other than the fact that they are dealing with adapting to supernatural societies. Since that's pretty common in a number of different supernatural series I've read, though, it doesn't make me think of True Blood first.

Have you seen True Blood's third season, Maia? Do you already know what Sookie is? I won't say not to spoiler you, in case you still have to watch the season.

Anyway, I guess the fault is mine because I watched the Lost Girl pilot almost right after the finale of TB and the same themes - the world of fairies, werewolves and vampires -, the same luscious atmosphere and similar dynamics (supernatural protagonist with normal friend that falls for the first supernatural being she meets) slightly annoyed me.

Anyone up on the new series of Being Human. I just caught up with the latest episode and never before have I been creeped out and laughing like a loon at the same time.

OH GOD. THE GIMP.

AndreaDraco wrote:

Maiandra wrote: I actually didn't think it was that similar, other than the fact that they are dealing with adapting to supernatural societies. Since that's pretty common in a number of different supernatural series I've read, though, it doesn't make me think of True Blood first.

Have you seen True Blood's third season, Maia? Do you already know what Sookie is? I won't say not to spoiler you, in case you still have to watch the season.

Anyway, I guess the fault is mine because I watched the Lost Girl pilot almost right after the finale of TB and the same themes - the world of fairies, werewolves and vampires -, the same luscious atmosphere and similar dynamics (supernatural protagonist with normal friend that falls for the first supernatural being she meets) slightly annoyed me.

Yes, I did see the third season. To be honest, I forgot about her being a fairy. (I thought the fairies in True Blood were a bit flaky too.) I guess in that context, I can see how you'd see them as similar, especially if you're just thinking of TV shows.

Neither show seems extraordinarily original to me in terms of ideas, since I've read a number of supernatural series over the years, plus a lot of urban fantasy. To me Lost Girl just another set of tales in that tradition, using similar themes from a number of sources. For example, the first thing I thought of with the two Fae courts was in an older Charles de Lint novel, Jack of Kinrowan. It dealt with the Seelie and Unseelie courts and took place in an urban setting. It was the first book I read like that and I loved it.

However, if your thinking of recent TV and just finished True Blood, I can see how you'd see some similarities.

I think the focus of the two series is reversed, though. I don't think Kenzi is anything like Tara. I don't know if you've watched any further episodes, but she's a lot more favorable about Bo being with Dyson than Tara was about Sookie being with Bill. Some of her positive comments are hilarious. Read after episode 3: Like after she sees Dyson change into a wolf for the first time and comments to Bo about his "wolf junk". I just about died laughing.

Maiandra wrote: Neither show seems extraordinarily original to me in terms of ideas, since I've read a number of supernatural series over the years, plus a lot of urban fantasy. To me Lost Girl just another set of tales in that tradition, using similar themes from a number of sources.

Aside from Changeling: The Dreaming, an old pen-and-paper RPG set in the World of Darkness, I never really approached the urban fantasy genre. Unless you count in it Gaiman's Nevermore, which is quite stunning I must admit.

For example, the first thing I thought of with the two Fae courts was in an older Charles de Lint novel, Jack of Kinrowan. It dealt with the Seelie and Unseelie courts and took place in an urban setting. It was the first book I read like that and I loved it.

It seems interesting. I may check it out

I think the focus of the two series is reversed, though. I don't think Kenzi is anything like Tara. I don't know if you've watched any further episodes, but she's a lot more favorable about Bo being with Dyson than Tara was about Sookie being with Bill.

I also hope that she's also not as depressing as Tara, who in the latter half of the season did nothing but crying and pouting!

Anyway, I think I'll check Lost Girl out this summer, after the gazillion of other TV shows I watch are on summer hiatus

Seeing as Aussie TV sucks, I don't watch it. Instead, I watch DVDs. That way, I can be reasonably confident that I'm going to like what I watch.

So if you're wondering what I'm watching this right now, it's this.

In fact, it just inspired me to create a Daria-esque saying:

Rath wrote:Don't worry. In the depressant market, television is still marginally better than tranquilizers.