I'll get to the "U.S. version vs. U.K. version" debate shortly. First, let's talk about last night's episode as if we've never seen the original.
The second episode of Syfy's Being Human picked up where last week's solid season premiere left off, with the conclusion of a two-part opening that introduced us to the lives of three monsters sharing a flat an apartment in Boston. And at this point, I figure those of you who are watching the franchise for the first time are either hooked or have decided to pass on it altogether.
The early episodes of Being Human, in focusing more on interpersonal relationships than on taking down a vampire king or battling an evil league of werewolves, have definitely follow suit with Syfy's determination to bring in a mass audience.
So if you didn't watch the U.K. version, answer me this: Is the SyFy version too "soft" for you? I've gone on record in the past with the argument that Syfy's newer shows have been too aimed at a mainstream audience and that they've abandoned real science-fiction. But Being Human is the network's first foray into its new brand that works for me. What some call soft, I call fantastic character development. Each one of the main trio of characters is equally likable and flawed, and we're taking our time to get to know them. Aside from the occasional full-moon transformation or whatnot, these characters feel very real, don't they?
Monday's episode featured several pivotal moments: Josh's struggle over whether he should tell or not tell his sister about his lycanthropy, Aidan's conflict with his past and his decision to "save" Kara, and Sally's honest and desperate attempts to make some contact with her ex-fiance. We don't know what it's like to hide the fact you're a monster, we don't know what it's like to have an insatiable thirst for blood, and we don't know what it's like to be dead. But we all can relate to keeping secrets from loved ones, regretting decisions we've made, and yearning for a lost love. And that's what makes the writing in Being Human superb. It feels very human, and that makes these freaks people we want to root for.
But Being Human isn't all about feelings. Add lots of blood, a painful metamorphosis here and there, and a few unexpected deaths (Kara, we hardly knew ye!) and you get a show that's more than just reflective fluff. You get a show that works on both levels.
And now let's talk about the U.K. version vs. the U.S. version...
Many of the comments on last week's article focused on comparing the new with the old. Most of you prefer the U.K. version over the U.S., and that's understandable (you never forget your first!). And there seems to be a pretty even split between people who thought the Syfy version was pretty good and people who hated it. Sadly, there's no easy way to tell which of you commenters are from the U.S. and which of you reside across the pond, so we can't say it's a matter of patriotism. Me, I'm liking the new show just as much as the original, mostly because Syfy's version is nearly identical to its source material.
Of course, one common question has been, "Why make it so similar to the original?" But the question we should ask ourselves is "Would the show really have been better if Syfy's version blazed its own trail?" It's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't: If Syfy's version had gone off on its own, plenty of people would complain about it being stupid. But since it is staying so true to the original, it's being slammed by naysayers for doing so.
I think Syfy made the right decision in staying close to the original. It still works, and it works well. While you aren't going to get a lot out of Syfy's take if you've seen the original—that's an argument I 100 percent agree with—I still think the Syfy version is absolutely beautiful to watch (maybe it's because I never saw the original in HD). Plus, you have to consider the likely, albeit unfortunate, alternative: Wouldn't you rather have a U.S. version that does the original justice than an Americanized version featuring a hipster vampire, a hip-hop werewolf, and an emo ghost, or whatever other horrible ideas TV execs usually come up with when they want to domesticate a show?
As a fan of the original, I certainly would.
Follow TV.com writer Tim Surette on Twitter: @TimAtTVDotCom
Watched both, and love both. The divergence becomes apparent, but the undertones and love of characterization is in both. If you open to 'localization', it has immediate familiarity and one-offness with heart. So far, good beginnings. Now to see where both lead.
I'm from the US and first saw the UK version. I tried to watch the US series but it was difficult. Maybe I would have loved it if I had seen it first but I felt like I was watching everything over again just without the actors I had grown to love. It's like listening to a live version of a good song and the singer does it differently during your favorite parts. What's the point? Plus the UK allows more in terms of censorship and theirs is more gritty.
I like the u.s. version beta the UK version is slo
Well I've never watched the UK version, I really don't know why but I didn't. Somehow, when I heard about the "remake" I really felt interested in watching ( since, you know I wouldn't have to watch several seasons like in the old version).
I can say that I honestly love it !!! Is amazing and moving. Most "supernatural" shows focus too much on showing the blood and dead people etc. and forget to show us all about the character. This one was excelent on both sides, and I can say that even if there's been only 3 episodes so far, I want to see all the rest !!
I dont think the show will STAY the same show. All I keep hearing is how its exactly the same and if they were going to remake a show they should change it. I agree that if they outright changed it too much the audience would complain about that too- your never going to win someone over. I DO think that the US version will go its own route and make its own way but I think the idea was to throw in the same ideas to help bring in the audience that is already obsessed over the UK version. I also have a very hard time with people who will up and judge a show after 2 whole episodes. It's great that you like the UK version.... but the US version has only aired 2 (3 after tonight) episodes... how can you possibly know which is better. I'm definitely interested in the US version...and have every intention of watching it. But save the blanket knock down who's version is better for after the first season. OR you could just sit back and enjoy them both for different reasons and not worry about who's is better. It's tv....there for entertainment.... not bickering. ;)moreless
I'm in the U.S. And I'm for the UK version all the way. The US cast lacks the natural chemistry the UK cast has. I'd watch the UK version first then watch the US. Its interesting to compare though there isn't much comparison.
If I'd never seen/watched the UK version, I would totally be into this. But as it stands, I know I'll be comparing and annoyed at the PG-13 watered down American version. Kudos for them casting Sam Witwer as the vampire. I thought he'd make a great vampire. Just look at those cheekbones!
Netflix has UK version
Tried watching the US version, but couldn't get through much more than about 20 minutes of it. The relationship between Annie and George (can't remember the US names - Sally and somebody) is way too harsh in the US version. Why can't the US just air the original UK version? Why oh why oh why? I've never understood my country's obsession with Americanizing everything from overseas.
Yeah the US version is very pretty but that pretty much it as far as I am concerned. I hate that the plot is almost word for word the same as the UK version- could they not have made a few changes because I really don't get the point of a remake if it is a clone of the original, and I really wanted to keep watching but I can't stand it I just keep missing the original. And I am Canadian by the way!
I'm a fan of the UK version, but the US version is actually beautiful. The technical details are improve and the casting is almost perfect (Do I always will be a fan of the UK vampire!). Go SyFy !
I'm going to be brutally murdered for saying this, but I actually like the US version better than the UK version!(Plus, I've gotta say it. The US Aiden is way hotter than the UK Aiden ;))
the main difference between vampires from both version is that eh US version has Aidan have increased speed and telepathy of some sort. In the UK, we never see this, and it is never mentioned. Had the same story line from the first 2 US episodes happened in the UK version, George's sister, would be dead now, b/c Mitchell would be still sucking that girls blood and even if he could, he couldn't speed run like Aidan did. AS for being in the sun, ehh, not a big deal for me, as long as they don't sparkle and crap like Twilight vamps, I'm ok with the sun bit.
I watched both versions, or maybe I should say all three versions, considering initally the UK pilot had some different actors for the vampire and the ghost, of all three, I certainly enjoyed way more the US version, mainly, because I thought the acting was way better.
On a different note -- can someone please explain to me why those Vampires are able to run around in broad daylight without even getting a sunburn…?! (I've always wanted to watch the UK version, never found time for it -- and even though I was a bit reluctant I'm kinda liking the US version now after the second episode…! But that sunlight thing really irks me…!!!)
I'm from the US and watched the original in the US (online because BBC America airs edited versions), and am currently in the UK studying, and I am so far disappointed with the new one for the exact reason that Tim likes it: IT'S THE SAME DAMN SHOW! Would it really be that bad to take the same core, and take it in a new direction? Because otherwise this show is going to either fail or bring in a whole new demographic to the channel, neither of which I'm a big fan of. The original borders on soap opera drama, and if you've seen any of the other UK prime time shows you would know that this is like the only thing they know how to do over here (EastEnders anyone?), and that's why I stopped liking the original. SyFy's version is just following along and is going to do the same thing, which is great for the UK, but the US is a completely different audience and should be treated as such. UK dramas are effectively slightly overacted soap operas, and Being Human is no different. This is why a lot of people say it doesn't have the same amount of drama as the original. That's because the original was over-everythinged. Maybe if they aired it on a different channel (maybe air it on the mother-network of NBC to try and save it, they could actually USE a new good show) I wouldn't have a big problem with it, but this is just embarrassing to the network. They are going way too mainstream with this one.moreless
It's starting in the same place but you shall see them diverge into their own story lines as the US show progresses their intent is to complement not to copy or replace the UK show.And I'm watching SyFy in the US.
i'm from the US, but i prefer the original UK one, but the remake is still good. it's close enough to the original without trying to do it exactly like it and even use the same script (Coupling, Skins, anyone?). the US one is a solid watch, and if they had aired the UK one here other than BBC America, they'd have to seriously edit the crap out of it. i like both, but i prefer the UK one.
it will be better if they change the aidan actor, i hate him, the rest are ok.
But they cant compare the us version with uk, the uk its a million times better
I don't understand the point of doing a remake. Especially when the original is so recent.
And especially because both are in the same language.
I absolutely love the original, so I'm probably not the best at being impartial.
The key difference I've seen between the two so far is that the original was better acted. The UK version feels raw and unrestrained, as though the actors are giving it their all. Where as the US version, everything feels muted. They can have the exact same scenes play out as in the original, but there's no passion or pain in their line delivery.
For instance, take the attack on Mitchell's date and the aftermath. When George tells Annie how he never understood how much Mitchell tries to be good and how he truly saved the girl by not turning her, everyone in that room looks and feels absolutely traumatised, like they genuinely just watched that girl die in their arms. But when Josh talks about Aiden to Sally, it didn't register at all emotionally. It felt like a crass wrap-up to a tv show (admittedly it was). Anyway, my point is the UK version felt real, while the US version felt fake and hollow.
If I had to guess, I'd say Syfy weren't neccessarily interested in scaring the audience like the BBC try to. They just want their next inoffensive mainstream hit.moreless
PS keep the US verison a bit darker and dramatic than the original. UK does comedy much better and this US version clearly does other the "drama" better.
I gotto admit I was sceptical after watching the first episode but after the second I was pretty sure this thing can work. The UK version is good, so I dont really need the US version at all, but I think this version will work better in the US than the original would.
2 points for note : first i think it's brilliant that the actor for the UK version has the same name as the character in the US. Secondly i can't remember if annie had trouble in the beginning touching things but i really want the ghost in the US to start making lots of tea i miss it. My main point is they are the same for the most part and where they differ is small things that dont effect main plots but add some different texture to the show to make it interesting for someone who's already watched it once.
Having watched every episode of the U.K. version, and loving every bit of it, and now seeing both U.S. episodes, I feel that both shows are great mirrors of each other, but not identical, each stand their own. Regardless of name change, of locale change, the characters each have their own unique twist from their UK counterparts. For Aidan, his twist, thus far, is that he isn\'t so proactive in keeping his monster at bay. In the U.K., Mitchell has a tough time, but recognizes and seems more emotional (externally) for his past actions b/c of his curse. Aidan seems to come off as saying \"I have a curse..... It\'s a *** That\'s about it, Mitchell would be more in your face, moving about, and have the backbone that comes with the amount of people he has killed.George and Josh, are my favorite characters, more or less, b/c I always sorta preferred werewolves over vampires, who knows. Moving on, George is a smart guy, back in season 2 (U.K. remember) he said his IQ was 156. George is smart, sweet, noble, and tries to put his monster separate from him, he tries to compartmentalize it, but he fails to, mostly in the beginning. Where I see George as a sorta strong but lost puppy dog in a way, -how ironic, lol-, I see Josh as an above average guy, who had goals laid out, much like George, who now has this curse on him, and he has it bleed into his life. Where George tries to call his monster \"it\", Josh doesn\'t. Their close, but slightly off. The addition of the sister for the U.S. version, made it interesting, but seeing as how she is probably not gonna be a recurring character, I don\'t see the main reason past, having a family member, or person of great interest put at life\'s risk with one of the 3. (more likely Josh or Aidan, seeing as how Sally can\'t move anything, and barely can control her powers at this point). I like Nina as a character, as well as the actress, I think the British actors are great, and do a superb job. They sell it very well, and it makes it more believable that they could be those people in those roles, because it seems to suit them. Also, before I get to Nina and Sally, the U.S. version, outside of Aidan, who needs to work more on the scary and less on the inner struggle, because he hides it in him so well, the other 2 actors, if they should change in the future, need to work on it better to sell it. I understand that Josh wast o go to Med school, and yet, I see hm as the roommate who is smart, but only while in context, and his not that naive as George is. Nina and Sally are I think an anchor to the trio. She has the hardest time with being dead, b/c she\'s stuck. The two guys, Aidan(Mitchell) being undead as a vampire, and Josh(George) being a lycanthropic creature, their somewhat still capable of passing off as human and more believable. Sally, not so much as a ghost. Out of the three Josh is the most human, due to the condition, yet something from the first few ep. of the U.K. version tells me otherwise. Mitchell, said narrating while George changed, that for the werewolf to form, the heart needs to shrink down, and his body needs to die and break down, before it can be repaired and regrow to form the wolf, or something like that. I hope that SyFy renews, and keeps Being Human on for a long time. I also hope that they get the rights to do Misfits, or somebody does. Great show.moreless
I myself would never watch the original although I'm really interested in the plot. But only because I don't like the look and feel of UK shows. Same with Shameless and Skins. That's why I'm very happy about those American adaptions!
I like them equally. There are some things that are better and some things that are not. I certainly don't miss Tovey's girlish screaming in the USA episodes.
@Greenyfool: Supernatural actually got better, because it has an incredibly detailed storyarc and mythology that you just can't cram into 13 episodes, and that show is better for it. But that's my opinion, and I do agree with you on Chuck and other series that they have been forced to be longer than they ought to be for the storyline to work. I love the US version, but I've never seen the UK-original. I'm not from either of those countries, and American tv is easier to get access to, so I don't think I'll be comparing much. But I like the fact that the US version is not about hacking off heads or violent sex scenes. Most of these stories (as books) originally were about being human in increasingly different circumstances and surroundings and I like it that they are trying to get back to that.moreless
I watched the first UK episode and the first 2 US episodes and I enjoyed both versions.
not bad, quite impressed, but original is still better
like i said before i hated the uk version it dragged on and their accents were so strong i couldnt seat through it but i love this version.it gets to the point and i can understand wat they are saying:)
I am loving this show already! Thanks SyFy!
Another example is Supernatural, first two seasons, AWESOME. After that, meh...
@buildam2005 I did not say Americans are ignorant, I stated that the networks in America seem to think they are. It isn't just Being Human, countless shows have been pointlessly remade.@hellwantshim have you ever stopped to think that maybe the 6-12 episode thing is the reason so many British shows become popular? It's the main problem I'm beginning to have with American shows that go on for more then 13 episodes per season, the story drags on to an unwatchable state, just look at Chuck, what was originally a great show has turned downhill because there are so many episodes, it has to radically push the story forward which ends up completely changing the show (usually for the worst.)
greeny the difference is that the british make 6-12 episodes of any of there shows a yearin the rest of the world most stations plain don't pick them up because of it,there not around long enough to make good money off of the advertisingi mean even the IT crowd which is an awesome show, only has what equates to a single season in american TV and it's a 20 minute comedyi believe that the 6-12 normally mean a more story driven show and not full of filler that some US shows suffer fromthe 12 episode season's are more acceptable to pull straight accross, yet the difference is with something like merlin, the story is rooted in britain kinda like Robin Hood was
I decided against my own advise, to watch the US version and give it a shot. And I thought it was great. The actors, the script and everything works really well. However, episode 2 kind of bored me - I've seen this before, and because it's sticking to the original story, I think it will probably work better for those who haven't seen the UK version.
the thing people have to remember is that while it's following the UK series atmonce it actually gets up in the episode count it's going to have to beat it's own path anyways, since im guessing they have more than a 6 episodes per season order like the UK one doesso it's better to see them try and get the groundwork laid well so they can prepare to make there own pathway when the time comesi mean if they get a full 24 episode season order, technically they could cover all established UK material and have a completely new second season if they were to get that far
Haven't seen a single episode of the UK version (yet) and loving the US version!
@buildam2005, you seem to forget that SyFy airs another show, Merlin, that's ripped straight from across the pond. There's nothing stopping them from doing the same with BH. Aside from that, upon seeing the second episode, I feel much less contempt for it than I did last week. They remained pretty true to the original characters in essence, but I still get rubbed the wrong way by the vampires thing and, like you said, the ridiculous similarity to the source material. I think I can get into it, given time.
Im hooked on the US version. I live in Ireland have never watched the UK version, i just never got around to it and i dont want to now because i started watchin the US and dont want to spoil anything that is going to happen.
I am loving what SyFy is doing with Being Human. First of all, the premise for the show itself is fantastic. Its about three people trying to adjust to live like humans even though they're monsters themselves. Each has his/her own demons to deal with, and the HUMAN emotions that come with these problems creates great drama, and therefore a great show. SyFy keeping to the UK version was smart, like you said, because diverting from it would make this new version look like a complete sell-out. I actually like the SyFy version better because it has a little more humor to it (emphasis on little because this show is still dark at its core).
Wow, GreenyFool. Have you considered the possibility that most of us don't have a cable subscription that has BBC or BBC America? I don't have easy access to the original in any way, so getting to see this version of the series is a plus for me, because I like the concept. Claiming that people are ignorant and making such a sweeping generalization about the entirety of an American audience isn't entirely fair.
"I think Syfy made the right decision in staying close to the original. It still works, and it works well." - Are you kidding me? If you're going to make everything the same, why even remake a show? Why not just air the original? Over in England we watch/watched Heroes, 24, CSI, Dexter, The Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Friends, Cheers, Frasier, etc. We don't feel the need to remake them because they aren't set in our country. It's ridiculous, is the American audience so ignorant that they will only watch a show based in the US? The networks certainly seem to think so.