In watching the new version of "Skins," I was wondering, why it was necessary to remake it? Is it that Americans can't relate to anyone who is not American? —V. Tucci, via the Inbox
You mean you prefer British possible-child-porn to American possible-child-porn? If so, I'll try not to rub in the Yankee-izing of other English faves, such as "The Office" and "Being Human," plus the upcoming "Torchwood." There's a reason why the original Ricky Gervais "Office"—and the original "Skins"—would never work with a broad American audience, and it ain't bollocks...
Do you know what "bollocks" means? How about "bollocky wanks----"? Unless you—and every other person you've ever met—can answer yes, well, you can begin to see why not using adaptations is problematic, innit?
There are other reasons for American adaptations, too, among them, money.
"The potential for back-end revenue is substantially greater with new episodes than with licensed foreign ones," says former TV exec Marrissa O'Leary.
Creators of original British series also have financial reasons to go along with American adaptations: They get money by licensing their ideas to other countries.
But, really, in the end, it's about the foreignness.
"We all asked the same thing when Ben Silverman convinced NBC to try 'The Office,' " O'Leary notes. "How could they create anything better than 'David Brent'? But the truth is, just like many Americans won't go to subtitled films, they also don't want to watch anything with a 'foreign' accent."
And when teenage characters are taking their clothes off, it is at least semi-important to understand what all the bollocks is about.