Comments | queengreen: Alright bbs-- chill out! It could be okay... maybe.

queengreen

Alright bbs-- chill out! It could be okay... maybe.

Aug 24, 2009 21:41

Fair warning: you may not agree with a lot of this. Bitch at me as you will, just don't be surprised if I call you a cunt right back. It's just my opinion, but I don't presume or assume I'm winning any hearts or minds with this post. Just thought I'd say that upfront. Also, sorry about any spelling or grammar errors. this was typed in a flourish.

Ok ( Read more... )

skins, moments of meta, media majors do it better!, fan geekery, calming the masses, adaptations are wonky, rants, nerd moments

Comments 32

immortality August 25 2009, 02:59:46 UTC

Honestly, I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is it's being set in Baltimore. Which may sound weird, but when I think Skins, I do not think Baltimore. I think places like Seattle or Boston. I just . . . no. I can't see it in Baltimore; it just doesn't sell for me.

I know it's like, the most cuntish thing to say, but whatever.

I just . . . don't even know. I figured there was going to be a remake, but IMHO, it won't really be all that entertaining without all the sex and swearing which you know won' be in the MTV!Skins like it is in the E4!Skins. And whatever, I think those are two of the things I like best in Skins, the fact that there basically is no censorship; it's so refreshing.

And we all know we won't see that. We wouldn't see it on CW or ABC either, but the fact is, we won't see it on MTV either.

queengreen August 25 2009, 03:16:20 UTC

Well I will say we're opposed on the whole Baltimore thing, but hey, to each their own right. : )

I'm actually really surprised that people think the whole sex thing will be different on MTV. I mean a lot of the swearing will be gone, but this is the network that brought you such classics as Undresses and A Shot At Love. I'm more worried about the whole sex thing deriding into trashy territory, but I don't think the network has ever shied away from the outright sex topic. Now how they'll handle the whole orientation components, well that I don't have a lot of confidence in.

And yeah, it's definitely not going to be the same on any network, but I think in some ways, we've got to move away from the expectation that is should even be the same. If I'm ever going to watch an adaptation, I want it to be in the same vein and spirit of the original, but distinctively its own as well. The only other series that I can think of that's done that so far is The Office and Battlestar Galactica (the new one is an adaptation in its on right). IDK, ( ... )

immortality August 25 2009, 03:22:56 UTC

You brought up a Shot at Love and yeah, it was about 70% hetero and 30% homo, and that was on a good day. So, okay, maybe they're not so shy about heterosexual sex, but . . . yeah.

I don't expect it to be the same. I've never labored under the disillusion that the US!Skins will = UK!Skins. But let's face it, there are much better stations than MTV.

queengreen August 25 2009, 03:29:56 UTC

Lol, yeah. Hence the lack of confidence about the homo content. (More important, I can't believe I even admitted to have watching that show... damn! There's no taking it back now.) Oh, Dani, how I loved you!

And yeah, I know that you've never been under that misapprehension. I honestly thought back on a brief convo we previously had on the topic when writing this, and I was kind of surprised by how much my stance has changed since then. I do think there are other networks that could do it better (chiefly FX and HBO), but most of them have never ventured into the young adult demographic, so I just figure MTV is the next best option (or at least not the worst).

Thread 5

(The comment has been removed)

queengreen August 25 2009, 03:31:35 UTC

Seriously?! Holy cripes, Batman! This is kind of an awesome moment IMHO. I shall celebrate by going to eat greasy food in the late night grille in the campus center! Thanks for the excuse! ^_^

doreah August 25 2009, 03:04:43 UTC

I think it's stupid cos MTV now is a lot different than MTV Daria-era. But it really doesn't matter to me since I'm not going to watch it anyway, lol. I never expected it to be great in the first place. I just detest MTV. It's pseudo-reality-TV obsessed shit.

(Totally using a Hills icon! Cos, hypocritical bitching @ MTV comment is hypocritical lol. But in my defense, The Hills is totally half-scripted).

queengreen August 25 2009, 03:20:35 UTC

LMAO!!! I don't even know how to respond to this, if only for the fact that I'm still lol'n from the icon. I say it at least deserves an episode to win over a few people, yeah?

doreah August 25 2009, 03:32:41 UTC

HAHAHA!!! HEIDI RULES ( ... )

heart1e55m00mba August 25 2009, 03:10:42 UTC

You actually bring up a fair number of good selling points. I cringe when I think of what Fox or the CW would have done with it. I love me some Gossip Girl, but Skins is an entirely different kind of show.

It's not going to be the same as UK Skins, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. So long as MTV does their own spin on it I'd be willing to watch.

(The comment has been removed)

queengreen August 25 2009, 03:38:15 UTC

Yeah, I'm still much more heavily in the camp that they should just air the original, uncensored, on MTV, but I'm resolved to the fact that it's not what's happening at this point. I think if it's actually done right (low probability, it'll actually be pretty revolutionary for American TV. IDK, I was just so opposed to it a few months ago, and now I'm at least willing to give it a couple of episodes to win me over. And lol, MTV has a fairly decent history of over-the-top, it just borders on offensive in a way that Skins doesn't (MTV Spring Break anybody). But perhaps if it can avoid some of its common pratfalls of exploitation the network seems to infuse into many of its series, Skins could prove a decent fit.