http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=515841

Well NBC forked all this money over to Stephen Mofat for the American version of Coupling which only lasted 4 episodes...
Be that as it may since the vast majority of us here in the States have no way of SEEING the original, I guess this is the next best thing...

Or, they could just air it on a US Network like they do in the UK with US Shows.

But middle america "don't understand them accents"

That would be an ignorant generality. I only like a few UK TV shows and prefer the US Office over the UK. It has nothing to do with accents and I am a big fan of foreign movies. Culturally translated TV provides better identification with the audience and draws more viewers. Most countries might not re-create shows because it is more expensive and the European audience has grown up with the US culture, so the need for translation is minimal. Plus US productions companies are able to pour large amounts of money to hire the best.

You may prefer UK television to US, but you are in a minority and contrary to the implications of your deliberate grammatical errors, it isn't an elite sophisticated minority. It is just personal and cultural choice.

I believe there are rights issues with the music. Otherwise, I'd have already watched it on BBC America.

It was shown on the channel Trio (NBC Digital Cable channel, think it's now defunct) several years ago in the US.

From what I remember, the music was intact. But then having already seen the series several times through, I didn't pay close attention.

However, that aside, US shows tend to have a need to run extensively -- going for just 1 season (Spaced had what, 14 episodes? That would constitute about a half regular season) wouldn't warrant a pickup by studio heads.

Qu'est ce que Trio? Don't get it, and it was "years ago" so that info does me little good.

Just saying, there weren't rights issues with the music for TV broadcast (just DVD Distribution), and you would have already watched it if you were on the ball. Would have done you little good if it aired years ago on BBC America as you likely still would have missed it. But even the DVD rights eventually got fixed, and a US Boxset/Release is due in late July '08.

You can only show a 14 episode series so many times before it's just hammering it into the ground.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was awesome in the theatre but aged quickly and poorly. (Like Cameron Diaz... zing!)

I've never seen Spaced, but I liked the last McG show I saw, Fastlane.

It's coming out on DVD in July.

@##$%^##$#$#%%#$#$#$^^@#$#@$@ you McG!

It also aired on Bravo I believe.

Also you're implying that in the UK they don't hire "the best" because they don't have as much money as the US studio. Clearly that's true, look at the top talent that's on US TV all the time. Man, that Charlie Sheen really classes up hilarious ground breaking stuff like "Two and a Half men"

It's American cultural ignorance plain and simple. Either air the original, or come up with your own ideas.

There are plenty of bad acting and bad production in the UK that would compare in depth to 2 1/2 men. There are plenty of shallow non-scripted TV in both countries to appeal to those that enjoy lighter shows. Is 2 1/2 men a UK knock-off? Your point is silly.

Lost upped the bar on production value. Does the UK have anything to compare to it? The US is siphoning off UK talent for TV. The US is buying quality writing and production and interpreting it for the American audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. BBC America proves that it wouldn't work in the original format.

The US money allows us the luxury of translating foreign programming. It's not "cultural ignorance".

I don't understand your point that "BBC American proves that it won't work in its original format"

What does that even mean?

Money does not equel good quality television.

Which is my point about garbage like 2 1/2 men, that has a lot of money behind it, and it's terrible.

Money can make crap is well. I never said it guaranteed quality, but it allows the US the LUXURY of remaking shows tailored to the US audience. It gives the show greater commercial appeal. The US version of The Office is the perfect example.

When done poorly, of course it sucks. It won't happen at all if it isn't translated for wider appeal. Its not ignorance, its marketing. American TV isn't better or worse than the UK. US market has more money to attempt a broader range, including translation of foreign shows.

The UK is reducing the amount of American TV, as their own TV market becomes larger and more successful and US TV has become less popular in the UK. Does that indicate the UK has become culturally ignorant.

And that begs the question of what will happen when Little Britain finally materializes with a new season on HBO....

Careful...your elitism is showing.

The first part means BBC America doesn't pull amazing ratings, of course it's slumped into the digital cable stratosphere which isn't received in nearly as many homes as say ABC or CBS.

No, money doesn't equal good quality television. Yes 2 and 1/2 men is shit.

The US has a tendency to make long running shows, BBC? Most comedies seem to run a couple seasons at most. The issue here is US networks go for shows that can sustain for at least a hundred episodes (for syndication). 22 episodes of the office or 14 of spaced isn't going to do.

If you don't like the remakes, don't watch em, it isn't as if the originals won't be available to you and everybody else (through either BBC America or DVD sets). A good idea for a show is a good idea for a show, if some producer wants to take what worked for 14 episodes and see if they can make it work for 10 times that? It doesn't diminish the original in the least. And from what I can tell, Middle America doesn't have a problem with accents, they do take issue with jokes and references that don't apply to their culture. But as always, I take issue with slumping any large number of people together.

I am an elitist, it's hard not to be living in America.

Shows have less episodes in the UK to keep the quality up. "Spaced" is essentially a four hour long movie, rather than a 100 episodes long TV show. It's just a different mindset in general.

Spaced is one of the more commercial shows from the UK, it's not a BBC show, it's a Channel Four show, which is a commercial station, that sells ad time, etc. The people who wrote the show (two of them, not 23 of them, like on most US shows, although that is changing) star in the show as well, that's very important to the quality of the show.

Why remake a show? Because you should maybe get your own ideas, because it already exists, why do it again?

What about that is so hard to grasp? Like most things in life, remakes aren't black and white. Sometimes they're strictly an exercise in money grubbing. But sometimes people with creativity and talent do a remake, making their own spin on something. And related to that: sometimes they suck. But sometimes they're good/great ("All in the Family", "The Office").

That said, "Spaced" seems an odd choice for a remake. Because the show was never really about the concept. It was admittedly a derivative sitcom contrivance to begin with: strangers pretend to be a couple to rent an apartment filled with wacky neighbors. "Spaced" was great because of the acting, writing, and direction. None of which are carrying over to the US version. But if they bring in some really talented people, and like the UK show let them run wild with it, who knows?

This is kind of my problem though, if you have some really talented people and let them run wild, why not let them run wild with an idea of their own that might be just as unique, original and interesting, but has nothing to do with another show? Instead of a remake why not just get good people to do something original and interesting? Also this is all moot because talented creative people are not involved, "McG" is involved.

As much as I dislike McG, I will say his three biggest TV series had some occasional redeeming values, in a geeky sort of way (The OC, Supernatural, and Chuck). But then, I don't watch any of the 3 extensively.

Come to think of it, I think it's more Brett Ratner I don't like.

There's a weird sense of superiority for US TV which I find annoying. Like a "wow, look at the what little brits did, if we gave them some real money and got some talented people we could make that little thing really great"

Something like Spaced is compeltely fully formed, it can't be "improved" upon. Wasn't the working title of this remake "Myspaced" for a while? That alone sums up everything wrong with it.

That's fair, though I don't think of any of them trying to improve on the originals, just adapt it for a different audience.

And I think if they went with MySpaced as the title, there would be a revolt and many lives would be taken.