![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneI saw some good indications about the US Ghosts, so I decided to give it a try even though generally, I find US sitcom genre/trope/style offputting.
It was enjoyable enough to watch. It recognizably took the idea and some of the plots, while still having plenty of original content and jokes. That was fun to see.
But.
It still sucked a lot more than the British one in several significant ways:
1. (I put this down to US studio show -itis): Central Casting Hair/Makeup, which for women right now is fat round curls but only at the bottom of the hair, going both directions but clearly artificial, and a full face of makeup at all times, including when going to bed or waking up. I can't stand this about US tv.
2. Everyone being attractive like from Central Casting, like even secondary and background characters for the most part. It's not like the leads are NOT attractive in the original BBC Ghosts, by the way, but they are allowed to be real people who still have the wardrobe, hair, and makeup of real people, not inexplicable and improbable neverending wardrobe of weird ~fashion shit... and also to be above-median-attractive people but not like, catalog model looks at minimum. They're less... average? And this isn't to say anything negative about the actors in the US Ghosts, all of whom give good performances. They seem to be pretty well cast. The problem is that as a whole, the ENTIRE principal cast was obviously cast from a pool that didn't contain anybody who COULDN'T be a catalog model. This is why lots of people switch to British TV when they discover it and find it hard to switch back. It's fucking creepy.
3. Every episode of the US Ghosts, even though most of them follow the plot outline of an episode of s1 BBC Ghosts, has multiple characters learn something, and that something is usually a moral lesson or message. It's like middle-grades television, but it doesn't otherwise give the impression that it isn't aimed at adults? And I know for a fact that this isn't standard for US sitcoms. I've never seen a US sitcom that does this, actually. It's not that they just learn the lesson, it's that at least two of them learn the lesson or mesage in related ways through initially separate plot threads, and the lesson is later explicitly articulated out loud and reinforced or discussed towards the end. It reminds me of nothing so much as the 1980s She-Ra cartoon that I loved as a kid, which had a weird little gnome creature who would come in its own scenes before and after the action specifically to have like a kindergarten circle-time talk about the Moral Lesson of Today's Episode. I know that was popular in the 80s - I saw it on other cartoons too, but just not ones I remember clearly. But anyway: it's bad even in cartoons for kindergarteners, IMO, but in this show it's awful. It's ham-handed and completely unnecessary for this to be going on at all but it's even worse that they then stop and discuss it, because by standard tv storytelling beats by the time of the recapitulating conversation it's all been clearly established by dint of having it mirrored in at least two major characters/plot threads. It actually sort of reads like ALL of those parts were added after the original scripts were written by someone else, but WHO? I mean, this is not at all the normal kind of after-the-fact studio interference one usually hears about.
It was enjoyable enough to watch. It recognizably took the idea and some of the plots, while still having plenty of original content and jokes. That was fun to see.
But.
It still sucked a lot more than the British one in several significant ways:
1. (I put this down to US studio show -itis): Central Casting Hair/Makeup, which for women right now is fat round curls but only at the bottom of the hair, going both directions but clearly artificial, and a full face of makeup at all times, including when going to bed or waking up. I can't stand this about US tv.
2. Everyone being attractive like from Central Casting, like even secondary and background characters for the most part. It's not like the leads are NOT attractive in the original BBC Ghosts, by the way, but they are allowed to be real people who still have the wardrobe, hair, and makeup of real people, not inexplicable and improbable neverending wardrobe of weird ~fashion shit... and also to be above-median-attractive people but not like, catalog model looks at minimum. They're less... average? And this isn't to say anything negative about the actors in the US Ghosts, all of whom give good performances. They seem to be pretty well cast. The problem is that as a whole, the ENTIRE principal cast was obviously cast from a pool that didn't contain anybody who COULDN'T be a catalog model. This is why lots of people switch to British TV when they discover it and find it hard to switch back. It's fucking creepy.
3. Every episode of the US Ghosts, even though most of them follow the plot outline of an episode of s1 BBC Ghosts, has multiple characters learn something, and that something is usually a moral lesson or message. It's like middle-grades television, but it doesn't otherwise give the impression that it isn't aimed at adults? And I know for a fact that this isn't standard for US sitcoms. I've never seen a US sitcom that does this, actually. It's not that they just learn the lesson, it's that at least two of them learn the lesson or mesage in related ways through initially separate plot threads, and the lesson is later explicitly articulated out loud and reinforced or discussed towards the end. It reminds me of nothing so much as the 1980s She-Ra cartoon that I loved as a kid, which had a weird little gnome creature who would come in its own scenes before and after the action specifically to have like a kindergarten circle-time talk about the Moral Lesson of Today's Episode. I know that was popular in the 80s - I saw it on other cartoons too, but just not ones I remember clearly. But anyway: it's bad even in cartoons for kindergarteners, IMO, but in this show it's awful. It's ham-handed and completely unnecessary for this to be going on at all but it's even worse that they then stop and discuss it, because by standard tv storytelling beats by the time of the recapitulating conversation it's all been clearly established by dint of having it mirrored in at least two major characters/plot threads. It actually sort of reads like ALL of those parts were added after the original scripts were written by someone else, but WHO? I mean, this is not at all the normal kind of after-the-fact studio interference one usually hears about.
(no subject)
Date: 28 Dec 2022 10:06 pm (UTC)Argh now I’m imagining the US one as a non-gloss version and it would be so much better.
(no subject)
Date: 29 Dec 2022 11:03 am (UTC)Actually the fact that they made the Wall Street bro turn out to actually be a good guy (who didn't die in flagrante, it was a lie he made up to cover for rescuing the other guy from hazing) who later apologizes sincerely after dating the husband's sister... like, before that, he would've been a much more similar character, although I think not quite as funny as the British version. But the Moral Lessons ruined it a bit.
On the subject of Hollywood polish again though, you're so right - in fact I bet if they just had the two actors come in their own clothes that they would wear IRL and their own makeup, it would work. Alternatively, they could just put her in the exact outfits and hairstyles used on the British show and it would be a substantial improvement. Even leaving the wardrobe and just fixing either her hair OR makeup would make a big difference: natural hair or a ponytail with too much makeup, or the over-styled constant ringlets with real person makeup.
But yeah, they are both really strongly characterized and well-acted and also not the same as their original counterparts, which helps a lot.