Talk:List of American television series based on British television series

Bias against USA needs to be fixed
Why are people trying to turn this into something against the US? The article says "the British television audience are very accepting of the American originals" seems very uppity. US culture is very universal and nearly every country in Europe is familiar with it. Thus they have no problem understanding our TV. Depending on the show, UK TV can be very hard to understand. British slang is not known in the US and the British accent is hard to understand for Americans. Depending on the actor, I sometimes even need subtitles to understand them. So now think, why would they remake the TV show? So we can understand them. DarkNiGHTs (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask, why *do* Americans do this? Are they really so xenophobic they can't watch something made in another country? Surely not! - Khendon

That's not it. Lots of us love to watch British shows, especially Dr. Who, Red Dwarf, and Fawlty Towers -- and don't even get me started on Monty Python. However, I think there are two overriding reasons for the changes: 1) Some of the cultural differences do not translate well, often due to language variations; and 2) Americans (especially TV producers) are used to more slickly-produced shows. I don't mean to offend, but British shows are often created with minimal budgets and this is glaringly obvious, especially when the shows are filmed on videotape (in the US, this is common only with soap operas, which opens up a whole other can o' worms).

As an example of #1, imagine a British woman saying to an American man, "Would you come over and knock me up in the morning?" He would likely be shocked. To you, "knock me up" means "wake me by knocking on the door." To us, it means "make me pregnant." Similarly, if an American man were to say to a British woman, "Hey, I'm Randy, wanna shag?" he might get slapped in the face, when all he's doing is introducing himself and inviting her to dance.

As an example of #2, one need only compare something like Dr. Who, where the budget was maybe five pounds a week, with a comparable American show, which we tend to shovel money at. This is because the money is available in large quantities due to annoying commercials, whereas (I believe) funding for most British TV is provided by individual TV licenses. Sure, the writing is often better in British shows, but the cinematograpy and production values are not. Our own Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which is supported by donations, is similarly limited with its productions. Stormwriter

Thanks, that's interesting :-) Well, number 2 is a fair point, but I don't really see your first point. After all, we learn to live with importing your stuff, and we're probably better off for the variety and broadened horizons. Why does it not work the other way? - Khendon 21:10 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Sometimes it does; we've seen this with rock and pop music, for example. What we call "the British Invasion" made bands and artists like the Beatles, the Stones, and David Bowie wildly popular in the US. Literature also tends to translate pretty well; witness the appeal of Lord of the Rings. I (like many fantasy fans) probably would die if I could have no more Terry Pratchett fiction, and I'm terribly saddened by Douglas Adams' passing. Similarly, I, and legions of other fans in the US, would really, really appreciate it if Dick Francis would start writing again.

And, of course, you're the world leaders as far as interesting and delicious beers are concerned, at least among those of us in the know (American beer bears similarities to having sex in a boat, you see).

Perhaps our lack of British shows is more due to lack of access than anything else. Most of what we get is shown only on PBS, which doesn't get the viewership our commercial networks do, and we often have to wait up late to see it. Even more likely is that it's due to a lack of imagination on the part of American producers. After all, they're well known for mimicking anything that works; they'd much rather do that than try a little originality. Maybe we're just cocky. In any case, there are plenty of Anglophiles here in the States, so it's not that we reject all British culture...apparently just TV shows.

In the long run, I suppose the answer to your question would be a resounding "I'm not sure." ;P Stormwriter

Another problem tends to be that American television producers expect a program to succeed right away, or they cut funding for it (it happens more often than you might think). Since the producers don't expect a British made program to catch on, they decide that they have to remake it. Basil Fawlty

I would suggest that an American Producer buying a British show makes very little money compared to one who buys the rights and remakes the show and can be involved in production for years and years. All other answers are the excuses they use to rationalize this. -- rjschwarz

I find it extremely offensive that they remake all of these shows for the indiscriminating American palate, as though my McDonald's - eating wife will start yelling at the TV as soon as she hears a British accent, leaving me to clean up the bits of hamburger flinging across the room. Oh and don't forget to mention my complete and utter lack of appreciation for nuance of any sort which will prevent me from finding humor in all but the most degrading slapstick. And, as for production, if it doesn't have flashy graphics moving at blinding speeds across the screen while some guy in a booming voice says (no no, yells) "extreeemmmee ______ (fill in anything you like, say.... extreeeeeme bananas)" I will be utterly stupefied, "Wait..." I will say to myself, "Is this a television show, or am I just looking out of a window, because I am so intolerably stupid that things only make sense to me when they beat me over my understimulated, vile, uncultured head with them." In the end, I have no recourse but go drink a full carton of RGBH-treated milk, belch, and then scratch myself. Obviously, my point is, that I think the reason the media change these shows is because they do not think we can appreciate any of the subtleties of British humor and have no desire to reach out and try to understand other cultures. -James

I always find it funny when Europeans bash Americans unrationally and just trying to use every stereotype they know. You know what it shows? How closed minded they are. I'm not going to put myself at the same low low level as you James, but I will say that there are a lot of closed-minded assholes from Europe who don't know shit about the USA, you included. DarkNiGHTs (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (I'm signing my name like a man, not a wuss like yourself)

"   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of British shows do make it to American television, but it is really rare for prime time network TV. In fact, other than "The Prisoner" in 1968, I am trying to remember another example of a major commercial network that has shown British TV shows in prime time. Most British shows end up either on PBS ("Monty Python", various British sitcoms), or some cable network like MTV ("The Young Ones", "Ab Fab") or Comedy Central (the original "Who's Line is it Anyway?"). But when does CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox ever show British shows? I actually do think there is some provincialism involved with this. Take a look at American cinema--foreign films from places like France only show up in the arthouses, while in France, American films make it to major cineplexes. Americans like to watch American movies and American TV shows. (It is true that some big budget British films make it to general distribution, but even there I wonder--movies like "The Full Monty", for example, started out in the arthouses and only because of major word of mouth action did it get any mass popularity). soulpatch

That's semi-true about Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars. The original show had Robert Llewellyn as a presenter and was called Scrapheap Challenge. When this was shown in the US it was called Scrapheap. When they started using American teams they called it Junkyard Wars and brought in an American presenter. But the one with British teams is still called Scrapheap Challenge.


 * TLC shows both under the Junkyard Wars banner. In fact, it shows UK eps with both US and UK teams, US-made eps with US teams and US hosts. In fact, for a while Tyler Harcott teamed with Cathy Rogers for the hosting duties, making it a multinational hosting job. Anyway, it's not a true "remake"; there's nothing to distinguish the two shows. It's exactly the same show with the same footage as the UK version, possibly re-edited for commercials with a different title. -- Gregory Pietsch


 * Ok I made the original note about Junkyard Wars shorter mainly because it was making the table look ugly, and now it's even more ugly so I've moved it outside of the table, and changed it to the following -The original show for Channel 4 was called "Scrapheap Challenge". When shown in the US this was re-titled "Scrapheap". When the program started to use US teams and a US presenter it was re-titled "Junkyard Wars" for both US and UK audiences. In the UK episodes involving UK teams remain under the title "Scrapheap Challenge". Ok so it's the same production company and setes etc.. so you might argue NOT a remake. However it has been remoulded or remade for American audiences in that they imported a US presenter, US teams and changed the title. The title of the UK version remains "Scrapheap Challenge".


 * Just to throw a spanner in the works, the very first series in the UK, when it was the same two teams every week, was called "Scrapheap", without the "Challenge". The current format, and the name "Scrapheap Challenge", date from the second series. Dunno if that ties in with the US showing it as "Scrapheap" or not. -Nommo


 * Just to throw another spanner in the works, the most recent run of Junkyard Wars (i.e. the US series) on C4 went out as Scrapheap Challenge USA. Despite all the Junkyard Wars logos around the set and the fact that it tended to start with the line "Welcome to Junkyard Wars!". And that the previous US series had indeed gone out as Junkyard Wars. Bonalaw 19:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Running List of reasons UK shows get remade for the American market:
 * 1) Cultural differences.
 * 2) Better production.
 * 3) To produce more shows -- some UK shows only had 6 or 13 episodes a season.
 * 4) Maybe American writers think they can do a better job with the source material.

Adding to cultural differences would be the accents. Some Americans have trouble understanding regional accents that they don't often hear. For example, at least one person (American) I know said that they couldn't understand Craig Charles when he presented Robot Wars. --Mrwojo

A question about this page: Did Beanes of Boston ever actually air? As far as I know, Beanes is in the same boat as Red Dwarf on this. --Mrwojo 14:35 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
 * I just checked and you're right. I'll change the list to include failed pilots and put a note in accordingly. There may be one or two more in the same boat.

Did "The Grubbs" ever air? I thought the show was going to be called "The Kennedys". Another remake coming -- "Get Me Out of Here, I'm a Celebrity", or whatever the title of the thing is. Unless CBS wins their lawsuit claiming it copies "Survivor". -- Zoe


 * It did air, but I'm pretty sure it was a remake of The Grimleys. Reading a synopsis of the show makes me more sure and I'm off to change it.Bagpuss


 * Before reading this I changed the entry on the Grubbs. IMDB say it's a remake of The Royle Family, but looking on the BBC archives they say it's a remake of The Grimleys. Well I've not seen it but if it's a family say infront of the TV it's the The Royle Family, and it it's a family and a school in the 70's it's The Grimleys. But I'm guessing Bagpuss and the BBC are right, so I'll change it back. Mintguy


 * Good as the IMDB is, the "references" list is frequently crap. For example, check Fellowship of the Ring's list - X-Men my arse.  Weren't they in production at the same time? Bagpuss

I'm pretty sure that the American version of Big Brother was shown before the British version, unless anyone can find evidence to the contarty it should be removed from this list.

According the IMDB the UK version was first broadcast an 5 May 2001 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257295/releaseinfo

And the USA version on 5 July 2000 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251497/releaseinfo Saul Taylor 00:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

IMDB is incorrect. It was first shown in the summer of 2000 and won by Craig Phillips. Mintguy 00:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * If they both aired the same summer, the US one must be a copy of the Dutch one, not the British. I removed it from the list. Rmhermen 15:42, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 1900 House/Frontier House belongs on the list. IIRC, 1900 House was co-produced by the BBC and PBS. Frontier House would be considered to be more of a spin-off or sequel, I think. It seems they've got a series of them going, 1940s House, Manor House, Colonial House, though I guess the countries seem to be trading off for each one... &mdash;Mulad 06:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The House series were made by Channel 4 not BBC, don't know if PBS had any involvement or not in the Brittish based ones, although I think Frontier House was made by Channel 4 and an American partner (possibly PBS, I dunno). So I don't think it should be classed as a remake. Btw, In the UK Manor House was called The Edwardian Country House, I don't remember anything called Colonial House, I only remember 1990 House, 1940s House, the Edwarian Country House and The Frontier House. Saul Taylor 03:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Colonial House" is coming out on PBS in May. It's a group of people recreating life in colonial Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are both American and British participants. I don't know if it's just a PBS production or not, though. RickK 03:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

Is there any consensus for changing the title of this entry and its counterpart? It's my impression that the word "show" isn't used much to describe television series or programs in the UK. Moreover, the entry title should probably include the word "television" spelled out and not abbreviated to "TV." I think "series" is a pretty good neutral term for "show," and it avoids the "program/programme" spelling distinction. So I propose the titles be changed to "List of British television series remade for the American market" and "List of American television series remade for the British market." Thoughts? Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004

Edit: Perhaps even the "US market" or, if we want to go over the top a bit, "the United States market" is better than the "American market." It doesn't really bother me, but there are people who get their knickers in a knot over the use of "American" to describe just the US (when the whole two continents have "America" in their names). Just a thought... Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the person who started this article I prefered the original title. Firstly while it is true that in Britain "TV show" is less common than in the US it is clearly understood on both sides of the Atlantic. Secondly, it formerly said American market. Thus inclusive of "Yes, Prime Minister" -> Not My Department" which was a Canadian remake. Thirdly the word "series" is not so clearly understood in the US and excludes one off programmes or serials And finally Whilst in Britain we would write US in America they would genreally write U.S. Mintguy (T) 09:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~


 * I like the new title better, but if there is consensus to change it back or to another variation, of course I'll go along with it. I moved it because no one had responded in almost two days (actually, I think it was almost exactly two days).  I understand your concern about the Canadaian series, but in that case we should say "North American market," as "American" is generally understood as the adjectival form of "United States" (much to some people's chagrin).  As an American (US-ian), I do want to say that "series" is absolutely, universally understood in the US.  The difference is that we say "season" when referring to a particular run of a program (as in, the "2003-04 season"), whereas the British are more likely to say the "third series" of the program when referring to roughly the same thing.  But as to what's relevant here, using "television series" as a direct synonym for "television show," it's absolutely understood in the US.  I also think you're right about Americans generally spelling it as "U.S." but "US" is definitely understood too and to me it looks cleaner and more encyclopedic.


 * OK, other people weigh in on this please! Moncrief, 09:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Mintguy. I prefer "TV" to television (why make it longer than you have to) I think "show" is better than "series" because aswell as beeing shorter its also more inclusive, many of the shows on this list only had pilot episisodes made. I also dont really like "US" because British people would talk about "American television" never "US television". Saul Taylor 14:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Several months since this page was moved and the above discussion. Any new opinions. For the unititiated I created the page as "List of British TV shows remade for the American market" - I've no strong opinion other than the fact that it now says "series" which is exclusive of one-off programmes. Which reminds me I'd rather not settle for something that uses either program or programme. I think it's better to use something mid-Atlantic. Mintguy (T)

Doctor Who
Should Doctor Who be on here? The 1996 TV movie wasn't an "American remake" in the strictest sense but an official continuation that was co-produced by the BBC and Universal. Besides, a one-off TV movie can't really be classified as a "series".
 * I was thinking the same thing myself. As it was co-produced by the Beeb and intended for UK as well as US Audiences it probably should be removed. JW 11:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is really tricky. There are indeed arguments on both sides, but I tend to take the view that, at the time, it was very much a case of an attempt to tweak a British show for an American audience.  Yes, it officially continued the show.  Yes, the events of that movie have been now confirmed as relevant to both the 1963 and 2005 programmes.  Yes, in the end, it was just a single movie.


 * However, there is a significant difference between how it was viewed at the time of transmission, and how it's considered today.


 * The production intent, as judged at least by Paul McGann's five year contract, was that it would have gone to series. While I've never seen a scrap of evidence to suggest the Fox network's intent was that it be viewed as a pilot, that's clearly what the BBC/Universal were thinking it would be.  I could dig up 100 references in an hour for the number of viewers who thought it was a pilot as well.  And DWM certainly still refer to it as "the doomed 1996 pilot".  So it wasn't just a one-off TV movie to a lot of people.


 * The real nub of the question is therefore whether it should be adjudged an American remake. And here again I think the answer is yes.  There are many elements to the movie which caused long-term viewers of the program to go ballistic.  The Doctor's "half-human"-ness is the chief one.  That's such a break in continuity for a lot of people that it's still discussed today as a reason to disqualify the movie with the same force as they exclude the two Dalek movies of the 1960s.  Many take issue with the way the Eye of Harmony is portrayed as being at the center of the TARDIS, which is quite at variance with what the 1963 series had previously said.  Also, the TARDIS had never, to that point, been shown to have the power of life and death over individuals.  The whole nature of the TARDIS interior has very little commonality with past TARDIS interiors.  It essentially retains only the basic shape of the central column itself; otherwise it's a hard break.


 * Another significant element is its post-transmission fate. It's the one Doctor Who story that has had no North American DVD or VHS release, because its rights in the region are handled quite apart from the rest of the Doctor Who back-catalogue.  It's judged on the American side of the pond to have a proprietary value (though God knows what it is) to someone other than the BBC (namely, Universal).


 * That the 2005 series has now taken some of the elements of 1996 onboard have forced viewers to re-evaluate Paul McGann's "run". However grudgingly, viewers who dismissed the movie before have had to allow the movie back into a line of continuity with 1963 more or less solely because of RTD's references to things that happened in 1996.  At the time, though, it made enough deliberate breaks with the past about things that were central to the 1963 series that it was quite possible, and has been quite popular,  to dismiss the movie as "the Americanization of Doctor Who".


 * So I'd personally put it down as an American remake, albeit a quite exceptional one that has direct relevance to the the UK show that spawned it. CzechOut 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Shows
Alot of the time Americans cannot accept English accents and culture due to a clash and feelings unestablished. For this reason the shows are re-made with americanisms.

Due to america's size, american gains much more budget and so won the war of Hollywood Vs English Cinema, if England had the budget i believe we would see america > english cross overs.

Whose Line Is It Anyway?
"UK version hosted by Clive Anderson as were initial episodes of the US version before Drew Carey became the permanent host" I disagree. The episodes I've seen have the UK version with only Clive as the host and the US version only has Drew as the host. The episodes "inbetween" that I disagree on are the season 10 UK episodes: The US Whose Line set is used (or rather, the set that WILL be used for the US version at that point), the word Hollywood is used in the opening graphic montage and Clive announces the shows verbally as "Whose Line Is It Anyway in America". IMDB listings back what I feel to be true. If the poster of that line still disagrees, please cite your source. I'm open to be proven wrong, especially as I'm writing this somewhere where I cannot check my recordings.

Many of these are not remakes
M*A*S*H is definitely not a remake of Dad's Army. It's a spinoff of the movie MASH, based on the book MASH, which was written before Dad's Army. There's no citation, and no mention in the articles for either series, and no evidence that I've ever heard of for any relationship between the shows.

Welcome Back, Kotter is not a remake of Please Sir! (and note the correct punctuation for both). Kotter was created by Gabriel Kaplan, based on his standup routine, which was in turn based on slightly-disguised actual people Kaplan knew in high school.

Max Headroom was not a remake of a UK show. It's a bit confusing, but bear with me.
 * "The Max Headroom Show" was Channel 4's video show, shown in the US as just "Max Headroom."
 * This show was later "remade" as "The Max Talking Headroom Show" as a US/UK coproduction. So, it might be accurate to say that The Max Talking Headroom Show was a US remake of The Max Headroom Show, but given that both of these were shown in both countries, that's a bit misleading.
 * Meanwhile, the US show called "Max Headroom" is in no way a remake; it's a sci-fi drama, rather than a video show, and is a spinoff from the UK movie sci-fi movie called "20 Minutes into the Future," which was a sort-of-spinoff of the original show.

Trading Spouses is not a remake of Wife Swap, but either an unlicensed ripoff (according to ABC and RDF) or a completely unrelated show (according to FOX), depending on the results of still-ongoing (as far as I know) legal action. Neither side is likely to be happy with Wikipedia calling it a remake as if this were a statement of established fact.

I haven't gone through all of the rest of these, but here are some quick errors: The US remake of Never Mind the Buzzcocks was called "Happy Hour." The show based on Home to Roost is not "You Again", but "You Again?" (which would be less significant if the former didn't link to a completely unrelated article). I can't find any evidence of a US remake of Porridge called "On the Rocks" (or anything else); the linked article is about an album, and the article about Porridge makes no mention of a US remake.

Even for those that are clearly remakes, in most cases there's no evidence given anywhere on Wikipedia. This may not be necessary for, say, Distraction, but in other cases some explanation and/or evidence is needed, and is not available.

To take one example: Amanda's was not officially credited as a remake (and was in fact at one point advertised as a complete new show with John Cleese as a writer!), but ABC already owned the rights to remake Fawlty Towers (from the Chateau Snavely debacle), and, while the characters are all different, they are given dialogue (and monologues) lifted directly from the original Cleese/Booth scripts. This is all relatively easy to establish. However, neither this article nor the Amanda's article has any citations at all, while the Fawlty Towers article gives only a reference to a BBC page that says, "Overseas companies have sought to remake the show countless times, but frankly, such imitations have only looked pale in comparison to the original," without any mention of any specific show.

Anyway, this list needs dramatic cleanup. --76.200.103.220 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one: Cybill was not a remake of Absolutely Fabulous. The Cybill article claims it was, but gives no citation--likely because there is no citation to give. At the time both Cybill and High Society (which isn't listed here, even though it owes far more to AbFab) came out, Roseanne Barr owned the rights to remake AbFab in the US (even though she'd already dropped her remake, cannibalized plot elements for her own show, and done a crossover with the original). Note also that IMDB doesn't call it a remake/adaptation (and they usually go overboard with even tenuous connections), and that nobody involved in AbFab is credited in any way.


 * According to the AbFab page (which is at least somewhat referenced):
 * An American sitcom called High Society was not a direct remake of Absolutely Fabulous but was clearly inspired by it. This toned-down adaptation starred Jean Smart and Mary McDonnell and lasted only a shortened single season, but did garner an Emmy nomination for Jayne Meadows in the role of McDonnell's character's mother.
 * The American sitcom Cybill, which was not directly intended as a remake, shared some elements of Ab Fab's comedic style, particularly in the boozy, campy antics of Christine Baranski's Maryanne.


 * Hope Island links to a disambiguation page, because there is no article about this show. The article on Ballykissangel makes no mention of a US remake.


 * As far as I can tell, there is no US remake of Cash in the Attic; the show that appears on BBC America is just the BBC/Leopard show. Both supposed versions on the list link to the same page, which makes no mention of any remakes.


 * The link for the US "Love Thy Neighbor" is a redirect to the UK "Love Thy Neighbour," which makes no reference to any US remake. There was a much later failed US pilot with the same name, but a completely different concept.


 * I don't know that "What a Country" was actually a remake of "Mind Your Language." I can't find any evidence of that, short of an IMDB "remake" link (which is presumably about as reliable as their "spinoff" link). Sure, it had the same setting, but frankly it's a rather obvious idea for a Yakov Smirnoff vehicle. And note that, while the UK show was obviously focused on the teacher, the US show centered on Yakov Smirnoff's taxi driver.


 * The article on the 2008 American Gladiators says, "It is a revival of the original American Gladiators which ran from 1989-1996, with elements of the UK version of the 1990s." And note that the creators and developers are the same people as the creators of the original US show. So, it's not a remake of the UK remake.


 * Holding the Baby has no article for either the UK or US versions.


 * Robot Wars Extreme Warriors was not a remake. It was part of the same overall series, created by the same production company, with the same presenters as the previous (UK) season. The actual US remake was called Nickelodeon Robot Wars. Battlebots might also be considered a remake, although considering that it was developed at around the same time, by the original creator of the format, it's arguable that Robot Wars (despite airing earlier) is actually the remake.


 * Whose Line is only arguably a remake; it was more of a gradual morphing. Yes, the 1998-99 season was a Hat Trick/ABC production instead of Hat Trick/Channel 4, had Drew Carey as a host instead of Clive Anderson, and had a new intro. However, the fixed Hollywood studio location, a (different) new intro, replacing two of the rotating slots with Ryan and Colin, Laura Hall replacing Richard Vranch, and initial broadcast on a US network (initially Comedy Central) all came with the previous season. What exactly makes 1998-99 a remake, but not 1998 (or 2003-04, when ABC dropped back out of co-production, and the show moved from an ABC exclusive licensed for UK broadcast to simultaneous ABC Family/Five release)?


 * D.C. Follies was not a remake of Spitting Image, but an uncredited ripoff. The US remake of Spitting Image (a handful of unrelated specials, but never an actual series pilot) was known as "Spitting Image." --76.200.103.220 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Two's Company & The Two of Us
I believe the British "Two's Company" was remade in America as "The Two of Us" with PEter Cook as the butler. Jimtrue (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)