I am a big fan of Being Human, the US version, that recently appeared on SyFy.
It’s a wonderful “what if.”
What if there was a vampire, werewolf, and a ghost living in a house together? I have to say that my initial response was puzzlement. As in, “um, er, I don’t know. What would happen if they lived together?”
Some part of the show comes from how well the producers work out the “what if” in a manner that satisfies my sense of the plausible and takes me places I never would have guessed. Being Human works a productive balance between “oh, that makes sense to me” and “wow, how interesting!”
The new media consumer is especially fond of things that satisfy a sense of the plausible and the possible. (We get to keep a foot in the familiar and one in the new.) Managing both is key…and difficult. (I was able to predict the death of The Good Guys early because it was clear it could not find this balance.)
When Pam got me Apple TV for my recent birthday, I was thrilled to see that it contained BBC America and that this contained Being Human, the UK version.
What a delicious opportunity to consume what Henry Jenkins calls “transmedia,” one story told in more than a single form. (I know someone is going to object that both shows are TV and this is not transmedia. Saying that British and American TV are the same medium is like saying British and American football are the same game.) This transmedia opportunity is sweetened by the fact that the media in question are transatlantic. With their special relationship, the UK and US continue to be, for certain purposes, variations on a theme. How interesting then to see what these two cultures would do with the same cultural artifact.
The first thing to notice is a bit stunning. In the old regime, the American version of a transatlantic exercise would feature actors who were more beautiful and less talented. This is NOT what is happened in the case of Being Human. The UK actors are better looking and the US actors might actually be the better actors. (They may be tied on the acting question.)
This tells us that American TV is getting better or at least ballsier. Not to lead with beauty, or (to think of this as the trade-off it probably it was) to go with talent even when it costs you beauty, that’s a big shift for an American culture producer.
The second point is harder to assess. Being Human uses diversity to propel itself out of genre. By this time, we have a pretty good idea of what and who vampires are. Indeed, the genre is starting to congeal and now takes quite deliberate innovations (True Blood) to sustain life (all puns intended). Ghosts too. As a culture we have gone from having no idea what a ghost is to having a pretty clear script. (Blame Whoopi) Goldberg. Werewolves, not so much.
So Being Human has a built-in “refresh” feature. Just as we are beginning to think “been there, done that” about any one of the subgenres, we are obliged to follow the story line as it crosses these subgenres. Or, less abstractly, just as we are thinking “vampires, yawn” we are obliged to watch a vampire interact with a werewolf and then a ghost. New life returns to the vampire. (ditto). And definition comes to the werewolf.
In effect, Being Human is an interesting and successful TV series because it is not the product of the grammar that comes from genre. It is interesting and successful because it contains a grammar that helps it escape genre. It is not generated but generative. Being Human contains the secret that characterizes all the culture we care about these days. It is both familiar and unpredictable, both from genre and beyond genre.
I know from previous discussions here your take on “authenticity” but I was struck by the differences between the US and UK versions of “Life on Mars.” Now, since I did not grow up in Manchester, my sense of their 70s aesthetic is nil, but despite that, I feel like the production design in the UK version seemed “real” whereas the US version seemed Harvey Keitel and Michael Imperioli in wigs. I could absolutely not see through the story or the world being depicted. Sure, factor in that I know who those acors are (and at that point I knew who none of the British actors were). But still. The American version was totally fake and the UK version was just-enough-tongue-in-cheek real-esque.
I guess the grammar was the same but the accent was completely different.
It seems like “Being Human” is following a new trend in American trend; they are taking UK versions of these shows and revitalizing them (or at least reintroducing them) to American audiences. I’m definitely glad to hear that the US version is good; I have talked to other peole who are die-hard fans of the UK versions of The Office and Skins and believe that the US have done just what you suggest that Being Human has not; replaced talent with eye candy.
TV, in general, unfortunately, have resorted to a main script– crime shows turn to CSI and Law and Order and do not deviate. It’s very brave for the writers to create a show that has new ideas– and one would hope pulls focus into thought provoking plots.
Mitchell was hellava eye candy!
Yes, but eye candy with talent.
The UK version of Being Human is great, the US version is terrible. The US version has reduced every theme to two: sex and violence.
The UK version is subtle, funny and deep, dealing with complex issues.
The US version strips away those subtleties, rendering just two ideas:
Vampires – metaphor for sex.
Werewolves – metaphor for violence.
In the UK version Vampires are a metaphor for drug addiction.
Werewolves are a metaphor for alcoholism and Ghosts for depression.
Deep issues are focused on and explored.
The US version: sex and violence. That’s all.
The chart below shows the complexity of themes in the first three years of the UK version:
Plot Theme
First year: Introduction of characters Being Human is being mortal
Second year: They all slip Being Human is being moral
Third year: It gets dark Being Human is going to hell and back
Also the UK actors are sensational. The US actors — hum-drum.
The US actors mumble over and bust their lines left and right losing the emotional subtlety of the UK version.
An overriding idea is repeated again and again in the UK version:
“We’re monsters, Annie. Immersing ourselves in humanity is deceptive and dangerous and the sooner we’re away from other people, the better.”
AND THAT’S THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE UK VERSION.
Are they going to overcome their addictions? As long as they are trapped by their addictions, they remain monsters. Time and time again, it’s a struggle between humanity and being a monster.
And in every episode, you never know which one will win.
The US version: (promiscuous) sex and violence win all the time.
No suspense.
You see, in the UK version, they will always be monsters, but if they rein in their addictions, they can live a human life. It’s a struggle.
That’s what the very first episode in each version was about. Beautifully delivered in a line by George, and busted by the George character in the US version.
The US version is a waste, the UK version a wonder.
Have to say I haven’t seen the UK version but everything you detailed about it seems to fit the US version as well…
I think you are just biased somehow. The US version holds me captivated with it’s depth and twists. The only thing I have an issue with is the timeline. It seems like Josh changes every episode yet everything in Aiden and Sally’s world is happening daily…
Mark you are so wrong.
I’ve watched every episode of the US version and I have seen many more themes than sex and violence! Every episode equally grapples with the line between human and monster. Josh even gives a moving monologue about how HE is now the thing that goes bump in the night. The US actors are absolutely amazing, capturing every nuance of American culture and norms throughout even the most unexpected and extraordinary situations. Adan is much more than a symbol for “sex”… he’s a symbol for addiction as well. In the US, Vampires are everything that’s beautiful about death and Werewolves are everything that’s beautiful about life. While Vampires hide in the shadows, taking in human life to keep themselves awake, Werewolves lead full lives, hiding themselves during the fool moon to preserve the lives of others that they love dearly. It is much more than sex and violence! And Ghosts represent the state between living and death (duh), but instead of stealing or preserving life itself, they are more complex in the sense that they focus on the physical and the non-physical… meaning life beyond the “real world”. I find every bit of complexity in the US series as you have described in the UK, except that the US actors do a better job of being real and present.
Charity,
Look at the date of my publication. I was commenting on
the show as it was over a year ago.
I have given up on the US version an can no longer comment
on it.
All I can state is:
1) “Vampires are everything that’s beautiful about death.”?
You’ve got to be kidding. There is nothing beautiful
about death. You seem to be romanticizing death.
IN THE US EPISODES I VIEWED, Vampires fornicated with harmfully
violent abandon.
2) Werewolves do not leave full lives! “We’re monsters, Annie. Immersing ourselves in humanity is deceptive and dangerous and the sooner we’re away from other people, the better.”
This theme was just reechoed in the original.
3) “Ghosts represent the state between living and death”?
That’s unresolved issues, namely depression.
4) I am a professional director. The US actors are pathetic
COMPARED to the UK actors. That’s why Mitchell, George,
and Annie have left the series. They are in high demand
for other projects. Aiden (Mitchell) is in the upcoming
production of the Hobbit.
5) Charity, you seem to have this romantic fantasy about
fornication and death. Sad.
I will add comment about the end of the fourth season soon.
Oh, Charity, if the US version is so grappling, then why in every US episode, that I saw, do the three submit to their temptations and fail at BEING HUMAN. And isn’t that the title of the series?
Look at what was said in episode 47 by Hal:
“We can raid the dressing up box and pretend to be human, but ultimately what’s the point. Sooner or later we all go back to being the monsters we truly are.”
You need to remember what Leo said: “we are on hte outside of humanity so we might guard it.”
How does that happend in the US series?
How? Please tell me and provide examples.
The UK version is awkward and trite at best. Especially in correlation with the US version. Sec and violence are what monsters are all about! Even the UK has that. Hell, especially the UK version. The US has better production, better actors, and better writing. I would be bored if they didn’t give in to their temptations.
Sex (not Sec) and violence is not what monsters are all about. You have clearly given into your lowest and least human qualities.
The series is titled: Being Human, it’s about rising above our temptations. You have some (or a lot) of growing up to do.
Oh, and the production values and actors are vastly superior in the UK version, see episode one of both series for an illustration. The actors are so good in the UK version that the originals have left for greener pastures. No such happening for the US actors.
I totally agree. The UK version is just awkward. The actors are okay but the writers..my god they’re awful. Like in S01E02 when the wolf tried to rape the ghost , squeezed the ghosts arm and it hurt !!! Helloooooo… i know its fiction/fantasy but you dont see that kinda of weirdness in the US version. I like how the ghost sally develops from not being able to do or touch anything…And of course the US version actors are way hotter as usual…cant complain about that, not that theres anything wrong using not so attractive actors especially is horror shows lol
Let’s get some things straight Polk. First the UK actors are excellent and the writing is even better. What is so keen about the UK writing is the humor. BH-UK is incredibly funny, but not BH-US.
Now, if you had watched the UK series you would have noticed the development of the theme that Annie was becoming more physical. So that concept not only made sense, but was fully developed.
Finally, no werewolf ever tried to rape a ghost in the UK series. If you are going to lie, make sure the person you are lying to hasn’t watched the series.
Replying to this one because there was no button on your last comment on this thread, but you are wrong. A werewolf (Tully) in season 1, tries to rape Annie. The weird arm squeezing deal did happen. And it was really awkward. UK shows do have that weird air of awkwardness. It’s always there, no denying it. I’m not a fan of the stereotypical american casting jobs either though. They all look like hollywood stereotypes with their wide faces and symmetry. Less real, but much higher production usually. You have to remember that your opinion is your opinion, it is in no way a fact, ever.
Also, I should probably say that I haven’t watched the US version yet, but I do plan to after I finish the UK one. I don’t judge shows negatively without fully watching what they have to offer. That seems ignorant to me. Try to stay a bit more open-minded. Or at least don’t attack people with differing opinions because you think it’s the “one truth”, reminds me of crazy extremist monotheists.
FYI, you are wrong. Tully did not try to rape Annie. She is a ghost and cannot be raped. This is evident when she witnesses George transforming. She says to George since she is not coporeal, she can’t be hurt.
Tully (epsiode 7) does not try to rape Annie. He presses himself against her. That is not rape and I suggest you learn definions. That’s seem a bit judgmental of your and ignorant that you don’t know what words mean and use them anyway.
I have seem what US has to offer and I don’t like it.
You don’t seem to be very open-minded, especially when you judge men without knowing what you are talking about.
There is only one side of the truth.
But I am not ignorant or judgmental.
You are incredibly wrong, sir..
What Arthur said.
Thanks, man – I think Sam Huntington is the best-never-cast Peter Parker ever.
Cheers, A.
About what? The UK series is so far superior to the US series for the reasons I’ve indicated, you might try to assemble an argument.
Sam Huntington is a poor actor, his performance on Sumallville is an illustration.
Your spelling reflects your argument ..weak.
I feel no desire to shit on the UK version – I simply enjoy the North American one.
A.
My spelling and agruments are fine.
I don’t have to result to personal attacks.
I do make some typos.
Learn the difference.
Or were you educated in Arkansas?
I don’t use profanity.
The ‘m’ and ‘a’ of Smallville are transposed.
That’s a typo, not a misspelling.
No “u” in Smallville, limey.
John, that another typographical error.
Seconds, I am not a limey.
Third, your term limey is a bigoted and disrespectful term.
Fourth, you are a faggot.
Can I just say that I’m really uncomfortable about the language being used in this thread. By all means, let fly. But could we avoid terms like “limey” and “faggot,” please. Thanks, Grant
Grant,
You have a good point and I would have not responded if I had not been provoked.
I was provoked for the sake of a typographical error.
I consider the matter closed until I am provoked again.
I would prefer to deal with issues and facts about the program, not personal attacks.
SYFY made their own BH because the British series, in general, vary how many episodes in a season. SSYFY has about 12 or 13 per season. As with Primeval, a Brit show (excellent) some seasons 6 episodes, some 7 – it’s just not stable and SYFY and American TV needs stable, not erratic. The two shows are VERY MUCH alike, even the same at first – but so far I think the US show has diverged a bit from the Brit version and perhaps it’s a bit better. I think you are seriously biased, and I can’t see why. The werewolf characters in both are just about identical, but in the US version, there is no prior history of being brutalized by vamps. So far, in the US version, there is no werewolf cure done by insane christians, which kills werewolves. They diverge after awile, but at first they are the same. And to disagree, the UK version has WAY more overt sexuality with the vamps than does the US version (which is PG, btw).
As to the article, I fail to agree with the article regarding werewolves. WHO in the US has not heard of a werewolf? Lon Chaney anyone? and vampires were drastically changed from the Dracula/Stoker mold when Anne Rice wrote books about their culture and shows like Forever Night came on the air (excellent show!). Everyone in the world knows what a ghost is, ghosts exist in ALL cultures. Shape shifter are already in many cultures. Vampires are just too famous from all those Dracula movies, but I don’t think vamps are in as many cultures in the world as shape shifting humans and ghosts.
Also the writer of the article seems to be unaware of the genre called Urban Fantasy. That’s what ethese shows all are, including True Blood. Urban Fantasy – and that’s some of the best selling stuff out there these days 🙂
Mark, I could not agree with you more and it drives me insane when I hear people defend the quality of the US series against the UK series.
I dont mind if people find it more enjoyable (however I don’t understand it). The uk version is wittier, sweeter, and deeper than the American version which is dark, dull and the same as every other paranormal based drama on the planet. The great thing about being human is the characters and the US version fails to spot this. They seem to latch on tithe killing and sex (as you say) and tbh it’s boring! I watched the first series but it made me so angry to see my favourite show turned into that!!!!
I do like some US versions of UK shows such as the office (I prefer the American version). But I think that was done a lot better.
And one thing that I find astounding about being human is the way they went about an entire cast change whilst keeping the show perfect! I admit that I cried constantly through series 4 (partly out of love for the show, and sadness for the characters). That’s what I never had in the US version. A connection to the characters! It’s so important and such a shame they missed it. I can’t get enough of being human but I cannot watch the us version, however much I’d like to. I can’t put myself through the bad acting and uninteresting characters (not including the unbearable disappointment of what could have been a great tv programme!)
Another fine example of a UK masterpiece vs US piece is FEARLESS.
Justjohn, apologies for the delay! Best (and thanks) Grant
Please forgive me, I meant the series SHAMELESS.
I have been hooked on the UK version since the first ep. I tried to remain objective and give the US one a go, but after the first double ep, and a few other clips, i give up.
The acting &/or writing just falls so short of the UK version in terms of emotion and realism.
And i keep hearing that it diverges from the UK storyline…when? all the clips ive seen from various US eps have very close parrallels – but far more cheesy and tame – to the Brit version.
I will never understand why the Americans feel the need to remake British shows, rather than just learn to deal with different accents and cultural references. The rest of the world has to deal with american accents and culture.
From an Aussie UK BH fan
Agree 100%
I can’t believe you said the US version hasn’t gone for good-looking actors.The US vampire looks like an Edward Cullen clone. The US version just seems so glammed-up to me and this is after watching a couple of episodes, definitely prefer the UK version.
Jen, I guess this is a matter of taste, but I guess I would argue that a few years ago, the difference btw uk and us shows would have been light years. Even if you are right (at the uk show is better) the difference is much smaller and that’s telling. Thanks! Grant
After watching the First few Episodes, I realized that the story was flat and lifeless — lacking both the heart and the briliant sarcasm/self-deprecation that made the UK Version so wonderful.
I am a born and raised American (but with Irish roots from my grandparents on back)
, and I have found all the US versions “wanting” compared to the UK originals they
are copying. Notably in recent years are the Skins and Being Human. The only show
that the US has done a nice job and customized for the American experiences
is Shameless. I really enjoyed the UK version, but damn if the US version hasn’t
pretty much have it right. A few minor changes and cultural differences taken
into account accordingly, but the US version of Shameless on Showtime is pretty
much the equal of it’s inspiration. It probably helped a great deal that it’s on
a premium cable channel so they can push the boundaries of reality a lot more
than on regular cable.
JC, what a great comment, thank you. I haven’t seen Shameless, UK or US but I will have a look. Thanks again. Grant
Shamless uk is great, I could not get into shamless America. The actors don’t compare! No one can play shelia like the actress that plays her in the UK version
This is a constant debate between my friend and I. He is die hard for the UK version where as I love the US version of the show. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder because we take the same stance when it comes to the look of the actors. He doesn’t give the US version a chance and I won’t give the British version a chance and the battle among us continue. So who cares which one is ultimately better than the other. Overall I just enjoy the premise behind the show and their struggle to try to find a balance between their monstrosity and their humanity. The mix of the different horror genres is what makes this show most appealing.
The argument that because there isn’t a huge difference in looks between the UK and US versions is flawed. For me the reason for this does not fall as a positive for the casting of the US version but the fact that the UK actors have good natural attractiveness and charisma that is hard to better. The production of the US version seems too polished for me.
Agree
I personally like both and after seeing all of both series so far I feel as though both versions are great for very different reasons. Also I feel as though these two shows (though while not expressly said in either) are part of the same continuity. I enjoy how they start quite similarly then
splinter off into their own stories as it make it feel as if, while circumstances may be quite different the end product of being a monster is always ultimately the same, giving to a very real feeling of the hopelessness of being a monster and what it takes to even attempt to survive such a fate. So as I said I feel as though both are good for very different reasons and that is that they are very much so different sides of the same coin, so to speak.
I started watching Being Human UK today and I thought it was not better than the US version. It might be that I began watching the US version before the UK. The thing is that I enjoy watching the US version much much better. BTW The American vampire is super way hotter than the UK one and Josh (werewolf) is also hotter than the UK one. Even Sally is much better looking than the Brittish one. Anyways that’s just my opinion, I enjoy watching the British version either way. I guess it’s just different. As far as American TV copying British t.v., well more power to you Brits you should be happy that you guys have cool shows that other countries want to mimmic. 🙂 Thanks for reading.
I’ve had the same experience as you but in reverse.
I’ve watched the UK version since it started in 2009 and only recently found out there was a US version. I watched one episode and a few clips and I can’t stand it. It shows how american programs try to make them selves more popular by casting hot actors who overact. It’s just so fake. On the attractiveness of the UK werewolf I completely agree, as I’m sure many people would, he’s also very irritating at times. However, his character isn’t supposed to be an attractive man with an active love life, it goes deeper than that where the audience is supposed to sympathise with him.
Anyway, sorry for being so critical, just my opinion 🙂
Hannah
Hannah, great comment, and please no apologies. being critical is what blogging’s for. Maybe this is finally an aesthetics thing. I don’t find anyone on the US version especially attractive. Indeed, all of this is sufficiently unattractive, by conventional readings, that they simply could not have worked in TV or movies just as few years ago. Anyhow, thanks a million. Please drop by again. Best, Grant
I personally feel that all the characters in both series are very attractive (except the American vampire). But what I like about the UK characters is the natural and scruffy everyday type of attractiveness they have. I’m a big russell tovey fan, and although he’s a slightly odd looking chap, he’s charming and lovely and so great for the part of George because despite the werewolfiness, he wouldn’t hurt a soul! Mitchell is incredibly attractive but the sort of attractive person you would see on a train or on the street – the American version just looks like somebody has taken him and gone “let’s throw makeup at him until he looks like a vampire!!”. And both ghosts are beautiful, I have no problem with Annie or (is it Sally?). I have up on the US version after series one. It drove me insane to see such a good show get wrecked like that, so I saved myself the annoyance and stopped watching.
I just spent a weekend watching the entire first season of both series. I truly enjoyed both, but I have to say that the american (really, Canadian) version is indisputably better. The acting is better. The characters are more complex. The altered reality is more believable. It is simply a more well told story. The people who are saying the British version most likely saw that version first and became accustomed to it before they saw the American version. Or perhaps they are enamored of the accents.
LD, what a beautifully put comment, thank you. Your Canadian reference makes me think that the US version adds a new character to the mix, Montreal, which is IMHO the most resonant city on the continent. Thanks! Grant
Amen!!
I’m certainly not enamered with the accents. But I guess if you like every episode to end in a sexual act, then the US version is for you.
I actually like good acting, writing and theme.
Wow, I am really surprised to find so much support for the US version here!
Other sites are definitely majority for the UK version, so I find this interesting.
I have tried on several occasions to “get into” the US version and can not. I don’t care for the actors, and their characters pail in comparison to their UK counterparts to me. The UK actors are
better looking (the only exception is the Nina/Nora character) and seem more authentic to me.Even with such a far fetched storyline, they have convinced me that they are genuine. And Lenora Crichlow
is amazing. She has great screen presence and early on, became the heart and moral compass of the show. Good news for fans of the UK version, we will get the new season, series 4 right here
on BBC America starting February 25th, just a few weeks behind our friends across the pond. As I’ve said previously, I’m not anti-US versions, but truly find the UK versions just better, on every level. The only exception is Shameless, which I enjoy the US version as well, if not better than the UK version, and I saw the UK version first. I find it fascinating that many here find the US cast to be more attractive and more believable. But, those things are very subjective.
Cheers.
JC, thanks for the report on how opinion is tracking on other sites. I am in the minority obviously. As you say in the second post, this is an interesting exercise in separating sheep and goats. Not sure which group gets which name. Perhaps this could become a diagnostic questions for organizations, “Being Human, UK, US?” A new tribal distinction.
Just a heads up, Series 4 starts in the thick of things. Wouldn’t say it’s one of my favourites but so much happens, you don’t want to miss it 🙂
Thanks Hanna…even though series 3 finale was a shocker
(no spoilers here), I am looking forward to see where the
story line is headed in series 4!
sorry…I meant Hannah!…..and I am with you almost 100%
…I think that George (UK werewolf) kind of grows on you after a few eps
..whereas Josh in US version..not so much…and I think the
producers know they are lucky to have had actors the caliber
of Aidan Turner and Lenora Crichlow…
It’s amazing that we can all look at the same things and see them so
differently. For example, LD, I read your post and agree with what
you’ve said 100%, but in reverse, switching US and UK versions. I like
getting other perspectives, as it doesn’t take away my joy from viewing
the shows, and sometimes it encourages me to give something that I’ve
given up on, yet another try. While waiting for the next season of the
UK version, I did a marathon of the US version and it’s difficult not to
constantly compare. For me, that comparision did not bode well for the US
version. Maybe taking some time away from it and trying to see it as something
completely different. Like James Bond, I had to watch Casino Royale a couple
of times before I started to accept Daniel Craig as the new Bond. lol…
It seems that in some way, the preference between the UK vs US version is affected by which version you see first. It would be really interesting to know how many people liked the version they saw first — my guess is most people liked the version they saw 1st.
This makes sense bec you get to know the characters, get to like them, and become quite invested in the outcome of the story. It’s harder to get attached to the second version, which is whatever version you saw second.
Here’s my opinion of the two versions, The UK series is more gritty, unpredictable and more layered with metaphors. It made me think, but made me really sad. The US series is more entertaining, escapist, and flashy. I am not saying that is necessarily bad. I watch TV shows to lift my mood and make me want to go out and live my life. I like both series — when I want to be deep and brooding, the UK series does that for me. When I need a break from real life and just want to chill, I watch the US series.
Here’s another interesting question — how well do these two series in their similarities and differences reflect the difference in culture and world view between the US and the UK?
Thank you, Lani. Ok, I am now prepared to rush to a conclusion of a more global kind. Whatever we think about the UK / US versions, we can say this with some confidence: that people who watch the two together are smart, thoughtful, articulate, observant and EXACTLY the kinds of viewers any show would kill for. These comments have been a real pleasure. Oh, and another thing, one of the great things about the show for me is the way it asks us to hold three realities in mind at once: vampire, werewolf and ghost and then watch as they try to negotiate a life together, work out their extraordinary differences. Wonderful metaphor there, but it is the different realities that really gets to me. When we add the UK / US issue we get two different realities of these three different realities, as it were. This is transmedia complexity of the chewiest kind (some puns intended) and a theme that Henry Jenkins has written about so well. For more from Prof. Jenkins on same, have a look at http://henryjenkins.org/2011/08/defining_transmedia_further_re.html.
It all has to do with cultural background. I’m american and went to school in the UK. As much as i love the US and the UK, it all comes down to the society in which the individual watching identifies with. I love the sarcasm in the US version, as well as Josh being the comic relief of the show. Sam Huntington (josh) is a brilliant actor, and he’s very quirky…in my opinion, he’s the best out of the bunch. I do find the US show to be a combination of Twilight (an R rated version) meets Grey’s Anatomy. The US show is definitely a monster soap opera…LOL =0). The Uk version is really good, but as it is, it doesnt cater to the american audience because americans don’t live in british society, and even though it’s the same language, there are huge differences in word terminology (american slang vs. british slang). Also, the UK characters are way more complex than the US characters, the average american is not complex at all (just look at all the hideous reality shows america is known for- ex. Jersey shore, american idol, xfactor US, jerry springer..the list goes on and on) in part, i do blame simon cowell and simon fuller for this! Unfortunately,it’s all about the ratings, here in America sex and violence sells, so the executive producers remake or create shows with that specific intent. All in all, both versions are great, as long as you keep in mind that each one is targeted for a specific audience and region. Great blog, btw. =0)
Melanie, very apt. And yes Sam Huntington is a wonderful actor. This week he did a little thing when standing up from the dining room table. He is explaining why he has to answer the door. It is schtick but ever so artfully executed. Way beyond what American actors used to be able to deliver. Thanks for a great comment, and the kind words. Best, Grant
i reject the notion that americans are not deep, nor that they dont
have the ability to comprehend complex thoughts. We dont wall watch
that crappy reality tv. its quite offensive that you believe in such wide
generalizations.
I think the right notion would be American TV doesn’t like to get too deep into the complex stuff,
saying ” the average american is not complex at all” isn’t accurate, in every society there is the complex and the simple, and sometimes it is hard for someone who is stranger to a certain culture to understand the complexity of another.
Great blog! I too, am a fan of the series (both US and UK). I have to say that as an American, it really bothers me to see MOST television shows and movies here in the US bastardize our knowledge for the English language. For example, I choose shows that make me think rather than shows that spoon feed the information to me.
The UK version is much more dramatic and involved, character wise, than the US version. Ergo, using metaphors and great acting ability to achieve the end result. The US version takes the UK version and “General Hospitalizes” it for the average American to understand. The actors are great in the US version, which helps the show and their delivery of the pithy and sarcastic dialog is what, in my opinion, sells it. There are, of course, examples of American shows that deliver great script writing, story line and character development such as; House MD and Supernatural.
But I digress, it’s sad to me that very few American producers/writers depend on their own material and have to go fishing elsewhere to get material for the US entertainment industry. The UK has always been the leader in being innovative in terms of television, acting and movies. America still has to grow up and learn that people aren’t that stupid and spoon feeding them everything just keeps the “dumbing of America” more and more of a reality.
Mark, I kind of agree, in that generally, the US versions of original
UK shows, seem more superficial, more sanitized and less gritty and
“real” than their UK counterparts. In fairness, some of that has to
do with the level of censorship the US has to deal with that doesn’t
really exist in Europe. To some degree, it prevents the same level of
realism in language, violence and sexual situations. Skins is a very
blatant example of how the level of realism differs between the US
and UK versions. The US version didn’t make it, not only because it
wasn’t very good, but because it wasn’t believeable, whereas, the UK
version was/is relatable. With Being Human, a series has finally gotten
closer to it’s goal of creating an “American Version” of an existing
and successful concept from UK. I have come to have an appreciation
for the US version, but still don’t find it as textured, complex or
gritty as the UK version. But as you suggest, that’s due in part to
the fact that is not what American audiences want.
I started writing a long, drawn out comment and bored myself. So, here is the concise version. I have watched both versions since they premiered. It took a while for me to warm to the American version, but I’m glad that I stayed with it. I feel that the acting and production are fine for what this show aims to be, escapism. I do not find that there is any less character development or the characters lack any less complexity than its British counterpart. With the unfortunate loss of three leads out of four in the British version, I am apprehensive about the direction of the British version after last night’s series four premiere. Conversely, the tonight’s American episode was dynamic and excellent. My hope is that the British version can regain its footing and the American version continues excelling. It’s really not about one over the other as they have become two different shows that share a basic idea.
T2, this is a more learned treatment than I am capable of, having seen only a couple of episodes of the UK version and none of the episodes that feature the new crew. But yes, I thought the most recent American episode was a stunner. The thing I like about this show is that I have no idea where it’s going next. We are well off the genre map. Thanks again for your comment.
I can agree that the US version(it is actually produced and filmed in
Canada, isn’t it?)has been and continues to get better, which is a good
thing. I still prefer the UK versions characters and felt they were
more interesting, but that could be in part just a personal
preference. However, I must also confess that I too am very concerned
about the direction of the UK version now as the fourth series gets
underway. It will be difficult to recover from the loss of three
primary characters and much of the appeal was the chemistry between
the core original three. What I liked so much was the bond
they shared and their inner stuggles to live as normal a life as
possible with each others help. I am not feeling this “Terminator-style” war themed arc
(vampires/humans)that seems to be brewing. I hope I’m wrong. Let’s
hope they can get back to the original direction.
JC, this will be a good test, won’t it. How much of the UK show was actor dependent, and how much was written into the script and coming out of producer and director decisions. And yes, the US version is shot in Montreal, with the city serving as a great 5th actor. But perhaps not for those who haven’t had a chance to get to know the city. Thanks. We shall see. Best, Grant
I am watching both versions right now, actually. I’m only a few episodes in. The one thing that caught me that made the US edge out for me so far has to do with the fact that, the Amnerican version deals with fact that the ghost…can’t actually touch things or been see at first. That, to me, added an aura of intrigue immediately. The UK version didn’t so much do that and with her able to touch things immediately killed some of the “realism” of a ghost for me. I like It so much better that she actually had to focus her attention to touch something.
Kim, agreed, it says how much of the success of a show like this turns on relatively small creative decisions. And in this case especially, it depends, for me anyhow, on watching to see how they will play out the proposition (fantastic creatures in the real world, creatures from different genres living together, monsters hoping to find out of their monstrosity, the huge “what if” on which the show turns. Thanks. Grant
I havent seen the us version but love the uk version. Annie does get more 3 dimensional and face more challenges as the series goes on. I definatatly think the episodes get better and better.
I didnt know that the us had a version till my auntie in the US mentioned different names.I have to admit that the comments on here have made me worry that the us version wont be as deep and soulfull as the uk version, which is exactly what i love so much about it. I love the way that Mitchell (vampire) has such lovely qualities and yet the audience can never quite understand him completely as he has such a dual personality- he is lovable but frightening too.
Annie is just great and the funny things she does like “haunting” her ex doing nice little things like cooking for him ect adds such a human element to it and is exactly what id probably do if i was dead! xx
Rachel, you’re ahead of me. I’ve seen the old UK version but not the present one. Yes, it’s the humanity of these non very or entirely human characters that’s so arresting, isn’t it? Thanks, Grant
It is said that to improve upon an idea is easier than developing a new one from scratch. That said (again), I like a few of the changes in the US version, such as Aidan as a nurse rather than an orderly (gives his character slightly more credibility and respect). Realistically, he’d probably be a doctor… having lived as long as he has. I wonder what the UK version would have done differently if they had a series to build upon, rather than create out of ether.
I started with the first episode of the US version and then immediately had a marathon of UK series 1-3 and US season 1, followed by weekly (wait for it to come on) similtatius UK series 4 (Is it already over?) and US season 2.
I love them both. Each, in my opinion (for what that’s worth) brings something to the table. My thoughts on what they have in common and a few of the differences:
Both US and UK dramas have charactors with depth and complexity (Dexter / Everyone on Downton Abbey). People are people are people all over the world. It is through our own filters that we see them as the same or different than us. It takes every show a while for the characters to develop and for us to love or hate them with any depth. And those that don’t get there, well, they go away.
Filtering… I thought, Mitchell had it all over Aiden – Character, looks, depth, believability, vulnerably, etc. Is it just me, or is Samuel Witwer slightly macrocephalic?
The character Aiden (as written) has a more believable job, is meant to have the confidence, and even the arrogance, you’d expect a powerful, older-wiser being to have. I wonder what Aidan Turner (Mitchell) would’ve done with the character given the same writing?
In general, but not always, the US characters have been given, by the writers, more life details and less emotional depth. Again, the US writers and actors didn’t start from scratch.
The US version has slightly more and better special affects – Important? Not particularly, if the story is good, but entertaining.
I love the wares on both shows. In fact, for different reasons, I can’t choose between them. Since I loved Russell Tovey first, and couldn’t imagine a better werewolf, Sam Huntington has amazed me by keeping some of the same endearing qualities of the character, while making it entirely his own with his quirky humor (just a look at times, and that’s rare) and a believable sweetness that doesn’t make him a simpering push over.
I liked (didn’t love) UK series 4, because I missed Russell Tovey and Aidan Turner. The werewolf Tom is growing on me, and though I love the reason for his accent, I found it hard to understand his every word. I wonder if those of you from the UK do as well.
If the US version hangs on to the original three, it will (by default) not follow the UK storyline, so it should be interesting to watch the separation, and how it will affect the story’s overall evolution.
Thanks for this comment. With the several comments on this post, it’s proof I think that BH may not have the most viewers but it has the most thoughtful ones. More when i get out of this airport. One question: what does “wares” mean? Best, Grant
TECHNETITGIRL…I agree with much of what you’ve said, but I do
see it a little differently regarding Michell’s job…I think it
speaks more to emotional inner struggle to maintain some shred of
humanity..he seemed to be on a emotional roller-coaster most of the
time, somewhat similar to what many bi-polar personalities experience
…because of this, I can understand why it’s been difficult for him
to hold any job very long, much less the discipline to get his degree
and become a nurse or doctor…For the longest time, he has been in
constant mental anguish, making even day to day routines difficult,
whereas for other vampires who not only accept, but embrace that
monster inside them, it’s easier to strategize and embark on careers
..etc….personally, I also prefer Mitchell to Aidan, but I’m not
sure if that’s not heavily based on the fact that I think Aiden
Tuner is a much better actor, who can display such a wide range
of emotions so believably well..and though a personal preference, I
thought the UK cast better looking overall, with the exception of
the Nora/Nina character, which I think Nora is much prettier..for
whatever that’s worth…I won’t go into details for those who plan
to watch the UK version, but I haven’t gotten completely onboard
with the radical changes for season (series) 4 so far….
There is an episode where Mitchell, on a date with Lucy, is asked why he doesn’t get a better job and he replies that he likes the anonymity. Of course he COULD be a doctor, but he is basically in hiding trying to reveal as little of himself to the world as possible. It is so much easier to hide with low profile jobs.
I also agree with most of what you said TECHNETITGIRL, except for Mitchell’s job. Many places throughout the 3 series they mention the reasons why he chose this kind of job. It was intentional that they gave him an unimportant job that doesn’t get ppl’s attention. It also says alot about Mitchell the fact that he chose this job, cuz like you said he could get a better job if he wanted to. However even if he DOES get a doctor’s degree, he can only keep it for so long until his non-aging start to show 😛 just saying…
Grant, I meant were, as in werewolf, oops. And, to your point re: the many thoughtful responses to the shows, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, this is the first and only time I’ve written about anything non-technical or business related on-line. So, for my part, it has me thinking. So much so that I went looking for other people’s thoughts and found yours.
JC, I like your take on the depth of Michell’s turmoil, i.e., how it manifests itself in his job, etc. There are other conflicted vamps (on other shows) with more human ambition(s), but then Mitchell is unique. Since series 4 has already completed, the departure of Mitchell and George seems (sadly) long ago. Their qualities have begun to fade for me.
Almost forgot, somewhere in this blog one or more people commented on the US copying the UKs programs and obviously that is true here, but to be fair to the US and the ingenuity/creativity of same, there are many instances where the UK has copied US “Tele”, e.g., Law and Order UK, to name but one. Again, I say both countries (and many others) have the same great qualities and the same bad qualities. When we stop comparing countries and people, and start expecting to understand each other, we will truly be one world. Ah, one can dream…
Thanks technetitgirl, and I get where you’re coming from…..in
some cases, the US was dealing with a disadvantage, trying to
capture the “essence” of some of the shows they have, because of
the limitations and censorship of US TV compared to the UK…I
previously gave examples of the UK version of “Skins” being so
much more realistic and relatable than the US version. The first
three series of UK Being Human were, IMHO, superior, but fell
behind the US version in series/season 4. The irony was that the
US version continued to get better every season, where argubly,
UK lost ground every series, though still good till the series
3 finale. Don’t know who may be familiar with “Shameless”, but this
is one series were I feel the US version was/is actually notable
better, from the get-go…at the end of day, the most important
thing any of these shows strive for is the human connection,
creating the chemistry and special dynamics between the characters,
and to make you care about them and their destiny…Mitchell,
George and Annie of BH UK had that, and the characters of Skins UK
had that, and US Shameless family of Gallaghers have that….IMHO
…btw, I understand and accept that this is very subjective view 🙂
Not kust UK and US copying each other. I watch a lot of asian shows, and every country remakes the story of the other, it was never a problem, ppl enjoy it and sometimes watch all versions, (not me 1 version is enough :P) They reason they do watch more than one version is because each country shows a different flavour to the same story, with the language, the cultural differences, and the acting. I’m guessing the same goes for the US & UK, I can’t tell for sure YET which version of being human is better, I’m done the first 3 series of the uk version, and I loved it (although I started watching the US version first I decided to watch the original before finishing it) I need to go back to watching the US version to make a decision of which is better. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what differentiate the 2 versions, is that the UK is more character driven while the US is more plot driven.
Well said technetitgirl.
I’m watching both versions right now and I also see faults in both of them – especially when it comes to dealing with the supernatural world. There are many inaccuracies about ghosts and vampires especially. I enjoy the American one better… I like the U.K version as well but I don’t get the same urge to move on to the next episode as I do with the American version. But, it’s so obvious to me why – I think both shows are created in such a way to attract their target audience. There are cultural differences that each show takes into consideration. For me the American version is more realistic because it takes place in American and I live in America… same goes for the U.K version.
I’ll say one thing about the U.K version that bothers me… It’s minor, but as a vampire junky, I can’t help but shake my head every time it’s mentioned. The fact a vampire’s image can’t be captured through any medium is ridiculous. It’s an ancient concept that came about with the first vampires, but modern vampire tales have excluded it because it doesn’t make any sense. The original idea was that since vampires don’t have a soul, they can’t be seen in the mirror, but having or not having a soul has nothing to do with capturing an image. It also had to do with the fact that mirrors and cameras had silver in them, but since modern equipment no longer use silver, the concept should just die. A ghost can’t be seen because it’s the soul that wanders the earth, but you can still see the dead body (although, a quick glance of a ghost can sometimes be captured in mirrors or you can see an “orb” in a picture—that’s something that has more leeway)… a vampire is the opposite, the soul clears out leaving a tangible body that should in theory have the ability to be captured. Now if the show used the old myth in a creative or satirical way, it’d be another thing—but when I watch it, it just feels like they didn’t do their research… if they were trying to be clever, it doesn’t feel that way to me. If someone knows why they chose to keep that old myth, I’d love to hear about it.
in the more recent episodes they explain that since the first vampires received immortality through a deal with the devil, he took their reflections as a constant reminder that they are soulless.
Personally, I find both versions quite entertaining. Looks? Both have attractive characters. Acting? Both are well-acted. Plots? Some parallels, yes, but some differences as well. Each version explores different ideas, and different themes. Addiction, attraction, secres, politics, misunderstandings, and so forth. The UK version is fun to watch, with all of the quite different slang, and the US version has its own special charm. Real fans should enjoy both.
Yawn..
American culture (almost an oxymoron) is obscenely insulated, to the point where yanks can’t relate to other cultures, countries or even identify with other accents.. I could site numerous studies here but again, most yanks don’t bother researching things anyway. The looks of the actors and the loss of accents seem more important to the viewing US public than the fresh taste of international film making.. Not surprising when you consider the statistics on cosmetic surgery in the US.. Experience some culture – not just the fur growing on the top of your fat free yoghurt, mixed with ‘erbs, NB- herbs has an H in it you muppets.. And watch some international film… Go the UK version!
Wow..Evolve, I guess you never learned how to express a difference
of opinion without being insulting…and spouting misconceptions..
first, American culture, as it is, is copied and appreciated all over the
world..our music, movies, actors/performers,sense of style,etc are
all popular across the globe….and researching?..are you kidding?
I can’t believe anyone researches things more than us..most everyone I
know is constantly on their laptop,ipad or smartphone researching
any and everything…and many of us “yanks” appreciate other cultures
as well…as I’ve said previously, I enjoy the UK versions better as
a rule, and I, along with most of my friends, appreciate music, movies
,foods, and everything else…FROM EVERYWHERE!!..we are one of the
most all-encompassing and diverse cultures anywhere…we love the food,
artists, films, artists of other countries all over the world. It
sounds a little like you’re making your assumptions of yanks and
American culture based on reality shows such as “Keeping up with the
Kardashians” and the like…..
Evolve likes the sound of his own typing a little too much, me thinks..
American culture is world culture. The whole world consumes it. Even people who say they hate it. Osama bin laden loved Doritos.
it seems that you lack the ability to relate to other cultures.
By the way..
the US version is mostly CANADIAN.
cheers, AC
How does that invalidate my argument? My argument contrasted the difference between the two series, regardless of their production location.
I had watched all of the UK series and then decided to watch the US series to see how they compared.
The most notable thing to me was that in the US version although the three main characters live together you never really get a sense that they care for each other. This is polar opposites to the UK version where you feel a clear connection and bond between the main three.
Also all the humour that made the Uk version so enjoyable has been sucked out of the US version and replaced with as many images of naked flesh as possible.
Watching Mitchell fight his vampire addiction in the UK version is difficult, it is so beautifully acted that would find yourself rooting for him to over come it all. However watching Aidan blunder around saying he wants to be ‘free’ and clean whilst simultaneously still doing everything he says he hates is just getting tedious.
There is so much potential for the US version but sadly it all seems to have been over looked in favour of fancy FX and lots of sex!
Sorry, I don’t know how to leave a comment without having to hit “Reply”…so this is not directed at your comment.
I am a HUGE fan of the US version and I find some of the comments on here about the US version hard to stomach. The 3 main characters, Aiden, Josh and Sally are great and their on screen presence and bond is undeniable. The only upper hand I have noticed in the UK version is their “Sally”. Annie is a way better ghost and is sort of the glue that holds them together, in the US version, Josh seems to be the one carrying this burden. What I am MOST interested in is how they are going to spin the show now, seeing as how in the UK version the werewolf and vampire characters were taken off. I TRULY hope we don’t lose them in the US version, Sally can’t hold the show by herself!
It’s all a matter of opinion! Thank goodness for Netflix…now you can watch whichever version you like best, no matter where you are from! But for all of you who are “hating” on the US version, give it more then a 2 episode shot, I PROMISE you will get into it. The characters are complex, despite what so many people are saying, and so are their individual stories and issues. The show is very deep and has a great “WOW” factor to it.
Veronica, your observation about Anne vs. Josh is brilliant. Their are the respective glues. Thanks, Grant
Yea I don’t Understand the “hating” either I haven’t seen much of the US to be sure but up to now I prefer the UK, but form what I’ve seen of the US version, I think its good too, its just a matter of taste I guess. What the US version represents is different from what the UK version represents 😉
Anne is gone too, if you are up to date on the Uk series. The new trio is an Elder, that yhounger guy (forgot his name) werewolf, and a newly made ghost! Anne got her door. So the UK series will either continue with a new trio, or that’s it. Brit Tv tends to do that, tho – also the Uk series got FAR out near the end, with time travel and such.
There were quite a few things that happened in the UK series that did not happen in the US series – and vice versa. I’ve seen the entire UK series – and if it ends, it will have ended on a good finish. The last of the US series ended on one heck of a cliffhanger, tho! PHEW.
Understand, it might cost a lot more to buy a series from the UK and present on SYFY – I’m not sure on this angle, but for the Stargate franchise, it was a proglem. The main thing is that SYFY US series have 12 or 13 (don’t remember) standard episodes each season. The UK series is just very erratic – and considering the very first epi of the UK series, different actors entirely, it was a long while before it became a series. US TV just can’t work that way.
Actaully the new trio is Hal, Tom and Alex.
The argument here is kind of silly. I’ve watched episodes from both versions, and both shows are good because of its strong premise and theme. I have to say that the concept of being human while living as monsters is what makes both shows captivating, because it translates to the human experience. The monsters serve as metaphors for our darkest side… that’s excellent. So which one you like is just a matter of preference, and not so much quality. For me the quality is similar even though they’re different. The U.K show created something with the audience in mind, so it makes sense that U.K fans are more loyal to that version, and the same goes to the American version.
However, as a show dealing with the supernatural— both versions are lacking. This is not the most compelling supernatural story in the history of vampires, werewolves and ghosts. Both shows are mostly character driven, which is not bad, but when it comes to this genre I usually prefer a good balance. The UK version has many errors in regards to what ghosts, vampires, and werewolves can and cannot do. A lot of shows will make up their own rules in order to give these mystical creatures a twist, but some logical explanation is required—or else, us supernatural freaks end up feeling like someone didn’t do their homework. For that reason alone, I prefer the American version because they’re a little more accurate, although their handling of the supernatural is not that much better.
Other differences – The U.K version is a lot more comedic and I’ve always felt that comedy is better there, but I prefer American dramas. I prefer the U.S version because of there more subtle approach to comedy… giving it a slightly more serious tone. I also prefer the pacing of the U.S version. These are all things that have to do with my personal preference and I can easily see how someone might want to see something a little funnier and faster.
As far as casting go—I use to work in casting, and I would say that the main actors’ looks are pretty interchangeable, with the exception of the werewolf. Both ghosts have the same amount of cuteness going for them, both vampires have that dark mysterious thing happening, and both werewolves have that puppy-eyed, awkward thing established. Overall the cast of both are attractive enough, but they’re not bombshells like you see on Vampire Diaries, or True Blood.
The UK version is a lot funnier.
That maybe so, but there are a lot of goofy moments, and that takes away from some of emotional in-depth themes that the show tries to convey. I like the way the U.S version has intertwined the comedy within the drama in a more natural and realistic way. They don’t set up scenes solely for the comedy…. When that’s done, it takes away from drama. For example, I was watching a U.K episode today when the two male characters were at a club, and the werewolf guy said something silly to the vampire—the music stopped and everyone at the club stopped dancing to stare at the guy. That moment played like a sketch comedy and the U.K version has many moments like that, which is mixed in with some really dramatic well performed scenes— but those sketch comedy moments takes away from the really good stuff. For my personal taste, I find the combination to be emotionally jarring and not in a good way. Either you have something that’s realistic or you don’t… the U.K version walks the line, one scene will be incredibly realistic and the next will be completely absurd.
You’ve got to be kididng. First, the humor adds to the emotional dept. And second, what is so lacking inthe American versionn is the lack of emotional depth replaced by naked flesh.
The title to the show is: BEING HUMAN,
not Being Naked.
Most of what is talked about here is very subjective. Things such as which cast is better looking, or which has more humor, or even which is more character or story driven, etc. can easily be discussed and debated until the end of time. But, that said, I find it silly to be offended by the lack of authenticity of how vampires, werewolves, etc are portrayed,since after all, they are mythical creatures along the same lines as dragons, fairies, unicorns & mermaids. It doesn’t make sense to critique how believable a creature is just because the writers take a little poetic license that doesn’t meet your strict interpretation of what a vampire (for example) can and can’t do. You must have been really offended with the “Twilight” vampires, whose only adverse reaction to the sun was to sparkle a little and/or risk being exposed as a vampire….now varied opinions are one thing, but specific expectations of an what an author’s “rules” should or shouldn’t be for a imaginary, fictitious creature seem a little ludicrous. It allows the writers to explore the characters a little differently as well. i.e. – I like that in the U.K. version, vampires can choose to live without blood, but it must be harder than resisting any alcohol or crystal meth is for an addict. Also they can’t live off of “old” blood, so stealing blood from a hospital or blood bank is not an option, like some of the more civilized vampires do in some tv/movies…..in the end, the point of both of these shows is to show their struggles to re-attain or maintain a shred of the humanity that they all once possessed and took for granite…..and to feel connected….
JC,
I agree with the first part of your statement, most of it is subjective. I’m not sure why you would be offended by something that bothers someone else. However, even within the mythical world there are rules. Rules can be broken, but there’s a way to do it… and it’s really not that hard. In this retrospect, it’s only about offering a logical explanation. However, to break a rule and not even acknowledge it, is offensive to people who follow this stuff. As a writer myself—the most important thing to me is usually character. However, the supernatural/fantasy world is a very special genre that requires a balance of elements: Character, action, fantasy, believability within the world created. Like I said, if the show had presented this reflection thing with some sort of logical explanation, then I would accept it—but right now, it feels like research wasn’t done. Not to mention the fact that if these creatures can’t be captured but live normal lives, how have they not been discovered yet? Creative Writing 101 – do your research. Improper information or inconsistencies can really pull someone out of a story, no matter how good the rest of the story may be.
To give you some examples of writers breaking the rules correctly and creatively: “Vampire Diaries” have vampires that walk in daylight, those vampires have rings that were created by witches. “True Blood’s” synthetic blood created by the Japanese has to be one of the most authentic twist in the realm of vampires… that’s the right way to have creative license. I also agree that vampires drinking old blood is not all that accurate either… but logically speaking if blood is good enough to transfuse into another being— it should be good enough for a vampire to drink, even if it doesn’t taste that good. It’s not that creative, but it’s also not an awful explanation.
If these genres didn’t have rules, it would be too easy and there’d be no room for art to thrive.
AN, perhaps you should re-read my post as I never said I was offended; on the contrary, I thought it silly for people to be offended if a story (that was basically about fantastical creatures anyway) didn’t seem to be authentic enough just because the author took a little creative license to alter the rules of their interpretation of that universe. However, you said, “…to break a rule and not even acknowledge it, is offensive to people who follow this stuff.” Acknowledge or explain? Besides, who are these people you speak of? Also, I’ve always thought the trait of a lack of a reflection for vampires goes back to whenever the stories originally began, along with holy water and a wooden stake, but it doesn’t advance or make the story more interesting to me for them to explain why vampires don’t cast a reflection or why it has to be wooden stake to kill them, etc, etc…I don’t care…..and of course you must be aware that the majority of the people watching are not aware or concerned about whether the “rules” are being acknowledged or explained adequately for those of you that it does seem to be of such great importance. I don’t really want to belabor this point, but there are a multitude of movies, tv series and books out there, that require you to suspend belief on many levels in order to accept and enjoy their premise and storytelling efforts. In the arena of fantasy, it’s just too easy, so I’ll give a non-fantasy example. There was a columnist who recently talked about how the historical inaccuracies and implausibility of the scenario that is used as the backdrop for the main storyline of the classic film “Casablanca”, ruined the film for him. Again, not offended, but thought it was silly and that he was missing the point, if he couldn’t suspend belief and sit back and enjoy the story, as millions of other fans of the classic have done. Whether through the written word (I write a little myself) or films or tv, the primary goal as I see it, is to entertain. If you also want to try and educate or teach the audience something they didn’t know or enlighten them about a subject as well, that’s fine, but without the entertainment value attached it misses the primary point and fails miserably. Being historical accurate, technically and/or scientifically correct doesn’t normally in itself help make something more entertaining for the majority of the public, but, movies, books, TV, etc can however, be very popular & successful without any real consideration of those things. Finally, you also say:
“However, the supernatural/fantasy world is a very special genre that requires a balance of elements: Character, action, fantasy, believability within the world created. Like I said, if the show had presented this reflection thing with some sort of logical explanation, then I would accept it—but right now, it feels like research wasn’t done. Not to mention the fact that if these creatures can’t be captured but live normal lives, how have they not been discovered yet? Creative Writing 101 – do your research. Improper information or inconsistencies can really pull someone out of a story, no matter how good the rest of the story may be.”
I agree with the first sentence, and believe any good story does that, including the U.K. version of Being Human. But that said, there could be no “logical” explanation for the “reflection thing”, so it doesn’t matter to me that they don’t try to come up with one, but then that goes for most of the “rules” that you consider so important to this or any other fantasy world. What research would help Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series seem more plausible or George R.R. Martin’s a “Song of Ice and Fire” series come across more believable? You always have to suspend belief and accept things in the world that an author has created in order to fully enjoy the story and then, of course, they can be beautiful stories….. I couldn’t disagree more regarding your last sentence of your paragraph above……especially regarding fantasy, where I believe that the story and development of the characters is almost all that truly matters, and being that it’s only the author who defines the rules (whatever they may be) of their given universe, only he or she could genuinely determine what is or isn’t “improper information”……
JC,
I think you’ve misunderstood a great deal of what I’m trying to say.
FYI, I don’t believe in vampires, but I love stories about them so I’m pretty good at suspending belief. This is about following rules of a genre… everything has rules.
In creative writing, the rule is to either make up something completely new or else be accurate. We’re just discussing things, so there’s no need to be cold– but to be clearer for your liking: If the writers are going to break the rules they should acknowledge established rules by offering an explanation. As far as the reflection stuff goes, I already explained where it comes from, you can scroll up and read that.
You say that others don’t care about inaccuracies—you’re wrong about that. Just because you don’t care, doesn’t mean others do not. How good something is has to do with whether or not it will pass the test of time. There are the Harry Potters of the world, and there are the Twilights of the world (Harry Potter being genius and Twilight being fluff that was entertaining and did well, but in the long run, people will forget about it). Let’s talk about Harry Potter for a second… I don’t know if you’ve read the books, but what makes that series absolutely genius is the fact that J.K Rowlings, created her own world with her own rules and then stuck by them. Meaning, she was consistent. Her story is everlasting. If in time, another were to continue with the series or continue with the world she has established… that person would have to be consistent with what Rowlings’s has established, or else offer satisfying explanation as to why he or she is breaking the rules.
You kept giving me non-fantasy examples, again missing my point. The fantasy world is almost like a character in a story, it’s not just there for glamour. The rules established is for the purpose of making the conflict greater… for example, if the show wants to run with the idea that vampires can’t be seen, it should be treated like conflict for Mitchell. There are cameras everywhere these days, how in the world is a vampire not captured on video, but all his actions like- opening a door or holding a cigarette can be seen and no one notices this? Not a security person, not someone looking through their rearview mirror, or at a traffic stoplight? Again, when it comes to this genre, these things need to make sense… in fact, I would say that these things need to make more sense than if you’re using something realistic. If you have a show about hospitals, all you really need is the feel of a hospital and most will get it and move on… but when you’re asking a person to believe in something that’s impossible, you have to make it real by appealing to the senses. If you then knock them out by having something that isn’t even consistent with the world you’ve already established— you knock people out, it’s jarring.
Here’s an example, there’s this pretty little interesting movie called “Waitress.” It’s actually decent. I was watching it with a couple of doctors, and they were actually into it, until the doctor was introduced and it completely pulled them out. I was shocked, I kept looking at them like “seriously,” the movie is not about the medical field, it’s about this waitress and how she’s going to use her pies to get away from her abusive husband. This happens all the time. It’s not always important; with this movie I don’t think it’s important but it was to the doctors. Again, these things matter even more in the fantasy genre because you’re asking people to believe the impossible.
I never said that I couldn’t watch the U.K version because of this mishap… if you read my posts, I said that I enjoy the U.K version as well but I was simply stating this one thing that bothered me.
AN, I’ve re-read much of your previous posts and I don’t believe I’ve misunderstood anything that you’ve said regarding this subject. At this point, I will, however say that we must just agree to disagree.
I also understand your point about the Harry Potter series as compared to something like Twilight as well. Harry Potter is excellent writing, but that doesn’t change the fact that I could
tear it to shreds for the number of implausible, inexplicable things that populate the books and movies. Yes, the author is consistent in the world she created, but much of the goings on, defy
logical explanation, requiring more than just suspending belief once again. You say, “In creative writing, the rule is to either make up something completely new or else be accurate.” I say, Accurate to what established standards? “The Official Book of Secrets and Explanations” that details all of the established and governing rules regarding vampire behavior? Truly, it’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s just I’m not buying it. No offense. People view and enjoy many things, including books and movies on different levels and for different reasons. A few years back I took my son to a Star Trek Convention (at his request). I had enjoyed most of the series over the years, but was by no means a “trekkie”. While waiting in line for photos and autographs, I overheard serious in-depth conversations and debates regarding the Klingon language, and also detailed discussions of the schematics for the Starship Enterprise. This is the kind of stuff where I draw the line, and when I say I don’t care, especially when it’s about these kinds of intricate details. I will concede that there most certainly are people who care about those kind of things, whether it’s regarding Star Trek, Harry Potter or Spiderman. And I’ll also say that success at the theater often has nothing to do with good writing; take something like the last Transformers movie (that made a fortune) that my wife and I thought was incredibly boring, even though my son loved it. Then there are indie films that tell interesting and absorbing stories that can really draw you in, but often don’t make a dime. As P.T. Barnum said, “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” If I get interested in watching a medical, courtroom or police drama, I am happily ignorant as to how accurate the conditions in those scenarios are being represented in most of those situations and it doesn’t diminish whatever enjoyment I may be getting out of the story (though I guess the same couldn’t be said for your doctor or lawyer friends). I also believe your example about the film, “Waitress” further proves my point. Those doctors who were “put off” by whatever they found inaccurate or offensive were definitely in the minority and there isn’t a film ever made or story ever told that doesn’t have it’s share of critics. The more you try to please everyone, the more you “water down” the art or substance of the story you’re trying to tell. It may surprise you to find that there are many folks who are fans of both the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises, as differently as those two pieces of fantasy/fiction approach their storytelling. Back to one of your points, which is, that many people do care about the details and the following of certain rules that I often consider insignificant. You’re able to suspend belief for the basics like the fact that you don’t believe in vampires for example, but can’t for things that you consider the existing rules that, if broken, must be explained to yours (or others) satisfaction. This is one of the core differences that we have. I need to suspend belief for all of it, because there is no valid explanation, and nothing they can say that will logically convince me that vampires don’t have reflections or any other of the rules (for that matter) that you believe are needed to govern their world. So, when enjoying pure fantasy, whether medieval, sci-fi, vampire/werewolf, etc. I am not only able to suspend belief completely, but I have to in order to fully appreciate it. This goes for LoTR, Harry Potter, and many others as well. None of these types of fantasy can withstand the scrutiny of cold hard logic and dissection of the facts unless you’re sort of “drinking the kool-aid” regarding what the rules are supposed to be. I think it’s safe to say that many (I won’t venture a guess how many) can enjoy fantasy on a level that requires little in the way of explanation of those certain rules that provide most of the structure that ultimately defines their universe, either because it’s not important to them or they are willing to accept that is the way it is, on faith alone. AN, I agree with much of what you’ve discussed on other posts, but regarding the significance of what you may consider the inherent rules of a genre, I think we’ve reached an impasse. Again, I think we should respectfully agree to disagree. Cheers.
No problem, agree to disagree.
One last thing, I also don’t care how well a law, medical or cop show gets things right. Medical shows are usually about the impact that long hours of dealing with death can crush the spirit and hinder one from leading a normal life. Inaccuracies might irritate a doctor but it won’t ruin the experience for most of the intended audience. I’m not a big fan of the star trek stuff, but you have to consider the target audience. Sure a number of people will go see those movies and enjoy it, but who will continue to bring the film money years and years after it’s been produced? Star Trek freaks, the ones who are obsessed with the story, who will also turn their friends into loving it, who will pass their devotion to their kids and who will purchase anything Star Trek… Star Trek freaks are the reason these film continue. So yes, in that scenario it’s important for the filmmakers to be consistent with the storytelling or else offer compelling arguments for going against the grain.
Also one last thing—I know that both the U.K and American version of Being Human are trying to do something different with the genre. They use these mystical “monsters” as a metaphor for the darkest side of humans, so in essence the supernatural became less important to them. The concept is awesome and I can’t say I hate the delivery because I’m watching both show, but neither shows are brilliant in my opinion. As far as which is better, I agree with what you’ve said. To me, both of them are decent… I’m enjoying the American one a little better because I relate with the characters a tiny bit more…and yes, because they’ve done more research on these mystical creatures, although not much more than the U.K version.
Oooh, and I just remembered… have you seen the show Big Love? If you haven’t, I urge you to watch it from beginning to end. The show is brilliant. It’s about fundamentalist Mormons trying to lead a “normal” life as polygamists. The creators of that show spent three years researching Mormons, fundamentalists (there’s a difference), compounds, cases involving prophets and more. You don’t need to know a thing about this stuff to know that when you’re watching this, that the writers of the show have taken the issues a step further because they know they know the issues and therefore able to use it to their advantage. There are many who have attempted this issue and its mostly fluff because it’s based on stereotypes and judgment rather than what’s really going on. Check it out if you have time.
I’ve been watching supernatural stuff on TV since the 1950s where many of the movies still showing on TV were made in the 1930s! Nosteratu was the first vamp story on screen. I’ve read stuff written long prior to that, even in the 1800s. I was also familoiar with the Slavic tales of Vampyr and Dhampir at the time. I think the “rules” for vamps on screen and in print were originally made up by either Polidori or Stoker – and it kept up even in Dark Shadows with Barnabas. And werewolves started with Lon Chaney in the west, as far as I know – tho there is universal folklore about shape shifters and the tales and rules vary.
Since Urban Fantasy has become a BIG best selling market (yay) with books by 100s of authors, the rules for supernatural creatures of ALL kinds (including pixies and faefies, 4 or 6 inches hich or tall human-like or distorted?) vary with each single author. Kim Harrison even has two kinds of vamps and they are born vampires for the most part. Her witches are an entirely different species, too. Pixies and faeries in KH’s world are 6 and 4 inches high. This is miles different from the fae in Moning’s Fever Series (where they are horrifying). There are hundreds of authors out there, and the rules for these creatures are vastly different to just a little different.
As for ghosts, universally known in all cultures, I’d say there are almost no rules – some ghosts can be as pernicious and dangerous as demons. Tanya Huff’s werewolves are very different from Susan Krinard’s, or LK Hamilton’s and you get the idea.
what rules? The only thing I find different is that in the past literature and media supernatural or religious explanations wewre relied upon. In today’s Urban Fantasy, they tip toward science fiction, something scientifically or biologically plausible, to explain a lot of things.
Even in Dreams of the Dark, a Dark Shadows book, when Angelique is thinking of says to stir up new trouble, she realizes that there are many kinds of vampires, some with more or less restrictions and powers than Barnabas – and she finds one. And speaking of rules, Angelique is a witch right out of Christian Inquisition mythology – she is certainly not a peacenik Wiccan!
Comedy CAN add to in-depth emotional moments, but it has to come naturally. Scenes or dialogue that is setup for the sole purpose of serving a punch line will take away from the drama. Since the show is not simply a comedy, I find the random over the top sketch moments emotionally jarring.
Again, I like the U.K version but I’m just stating the few things that I don’t like. There are also things I don’t like about the American version as well. I’m watching both of them right now, and to be honest it’s only because my favorite shows have just ended their season and I have to wait another month for my other favs to come back. In general, both versions are not the most brilliant I’ve ever seen. They’re both good, but not brilliant. The concept is more brilliant than the actual delivery for both versions. The concept is the only reason I watch. I’m generally a character above-all type person but the supernatural/fantasy genre requires a good balance of action, fantasy, emotion, and character— the whole nine yards, which neither version goes the distance. I won’t get into whether or not the American has emotional depth because that’s just your opinion. I also understand that part of the show’s concept is to explore the emotional side of things and not so much the supernatural side, but I guess I don’t fully buy into that– because at that point, why make it a show about vampires, werewolves and ghosts? Why not simply make it a show about the average person battling their monstrous side, trying to be human?
Now I’ve only watched season 1 of both versions, but season 1 of the American version doesn’t have any nudity in it…but the U.K version has some nudity. In fact, I’m pretty sure nudity is not allowed on the syfy channel (the channel that the U.S version is aired on)… although I’m not a hundred percent sure because I don’t watch that network often. However, nudity is not allowed on most American channels, except for a few prime cable networks and even with that there are strict regulations. You keep reinforcing this very inaccurate misconception. A lot of American programs have a lot of sexual connotation, but very few have actual nudity or sex because America is still fairly conservative when it comes to sex. Violence, yes, we have a lot of violence. However, European programs have way more sex and nudity than majority of our programs. I can’t speak specifically about the U.K, but I’ve lived in France, Italy and Portugal and even some of the commercials that are aired in those countries have more nudity than majority of our programs. Our broadcast channels can’t have a lick of nudity—you might have heard of the debacle surrounding Justin Timberlake when he accidently pulled a part of Janet’s costume off, exposing her breast on broadcast television? FYI, this is coming from a person who has worked in the industry and went to school for this stuff… I think you’d be shocked to learn how absurdly rigid Americans can be about actual sex. Not to mention how much it costs production for nude scenes—that alone is incentive to keep nudity at a minimum for most networks.
I never said it had nudity in it. BTW, I’ve worked in the industry and and too went to school in this field.
Just watch the parallel dialogue in both series and observe how the American actors continually don’t take the moment and bust the lines compared to the British actors.
Here are your words: “And second, what is so lacking inthe American versionn is the lack of emotional depth replaced by naked flesh…. The title to the show is: BEING HUMAN,
not Being Naked.”
The only reason I mentioned working in the industry is to point out that I have firsthand experience with how American television regulations go… not to brag about it. Having worked in the American industry doesn’t give me a clue in on how things work in the U.K.
I think the girl on the British show is better, but I like the werewolf in the American version – this is all subjective. However, I don’t think the American nor the British actors suck… they’re just different because the tone is different. I think you’re just mad that there’s an American version and hey, I sympathize with that. There was no need to make an American version when the original is still in syndication. But it doesn’t mean the American one sucks.
In case someone doesn’t see what I previously mentioned – the UK series is erratic as to numbers of episodes – and almost none have 12 per season. the US version is 12 or 13 per season, regular. It’s also a lot more predictable as to when it coming back on TV – some UK series, BH one of them, Primeval another one that SYFY tried to air (they had to air two seasons of it to make 13 episodes, and Dr. Who – these are just too erratic. US SYFY channel shows one HOUR LONG epi per week, usually 12 or 13 standard.
I think this had a LOT to do with remaking it.
It’s quality not quantity which defines how good a t.v series is.
Does anyone know how someone in Canada can watch the exclusive mini online episodes of Shameless that are available on Channel 4’s web site? Support staff there told me you must be in UK/Ireland to be able to view these on their web site. We need tome fans from there to copy/upload these somewhere for us global fans to access.
http://www.thepiratebay.org Go there.
Also, very few vampire fans are fans of the twilight—I would guess very few READERS of the Harry Potter fans are fans of the twilight— Although, people who only watched the Harry Potter movies might have liked twilight movies. Twilight’s target audience of young teeny boppers and their parents, and a few female young adults had nothing to do with reeling in supernatural fans.
I also have been watching both the US and UK versions and
have to say I love them both as well as the insightful comments
that have been posted here. That said, even though I may be an
anomaly, there are a few of us out there who have read the Harry
Potter books and still enjoyed the Twilight series. Not arguing at
all about the quality of either….Harry Potter is far superior, but
sometimes a little fluff is still enjoyable to read.
I enjoyed the UK version more than the US. Love the cast and chemistry. Sadly, the monsters are no longer monsters. I’ve never once looked at vampires as a metaphor for sex. To me, they are the ultimate defiance to God. Obtaining immortality out side of Him. Each breath they take is an insult, a slap to his face. Being Human nails the werewolf. A cursed man forced to live a half life, always on the edge of society. No way can a man cursed to turn into a beast lead a full life. He is just as damned as the vampire. They are creatures of the night. Demons and monsters that prey on the humans for food. For life.
Take away Religion from these creatures and you kill their mystique. Being Human is a great show, but I just don’t like the US version. But to each their own.
Your review/analysis is very insightful and sincere.
Jason,
I’ve so far enjoyed the two seasons of the USA version immensely,
but I’ve been looking forward to someday seeing the UK version.
Your comments have gotten me intrigued – leaving religion out of
the vampire/werewolf stories is too frequent a choice for American
shows, it’s like the third rail of fiction. We’re much more
comfortable with themes of family (a key ingredient to the USA show)
and violence. I have checked out the UK version, but the two
episodes I watched didn’t quite pull me in. I don’t want to make the
mistake some of those commenting have made and denigrate one to lift
up their favorite version, especially since I haven’t given it a full
sample. But I will say that there is much to recommend the USA
version, subtlety and finely-crafted drama.
While I enjoy both versions of the show I much prefer the UK based original. The show is supposed to be a comedy drama and all the glossyness of the US version kind of ruins that for me but then again I know the US version is just based around the same original premise and is not intended as a direct remake.
I have to laugh also at the typical “beautifull people” aproach of the US version, for example, firstly the George/Josh character, in both versions of the show they are socialy awkward and a little bumbling but the UK version George is far more average and plain looking in comparison with Josh in the US version. Secondly the Herrick/Bishop characters, the UK’s Herrick is a middle aged, slightly overweight character in stark comparisson to the US’s much younger and slimmer looking Bishop. Thirdly we have the Mitchell/Aiden characters, while the UK’s Mitchell is certainly a good looking guy he also has the appearance of your average guy in the street, the US’s Aiden just seems far too chiseled and “hunky” (R.Patz in Twiglight/Angel from Buffy???). Lastly we have the Annie/Sally characters, while both are very attractive women Annie has a much more natural, wholesome look about her in comparison with Sally’s more glammed up beauty, she looks like so many other US starlets with perfect teeth and looking like she could use a good meal (same could be said for the Nina/Nora characters too).
Production values and casting of actors aside, another glaring difference in my opinion is the US versions apparent need to make the story have a much grander and wider reaching global scale which to me seems to indicate the US writers inability to create the story more around the central characters and their need to pad things out to fill up screen time.
So there we go, my humble opinions on both versions of the show and just to reiterate what I said at the start, I really do enjoy both versions of the show but the UK version just edges out into the lead for me.
its almost laughable that most claimed the uk version has better acting. There is a recurrence in uk shows and it seems to be an epidemic. They’re very cheesy,i have to say us version does have better looking people, is that a bad thing? you all must be ugly or something. Part of “being human” is fornicating nightly, i don’t get how that is bad either. I don’t know what it is about uk shows but the props seem under developed as well. Lack of funding maybe? i dunno, skins was actually good i’ll give uk that one,i also enjoy misfits, but as far as this particular argument goes. US version tops the uk by far, its not even a question for me. I watched both simply because i like supernatural type stop but when i watch the uk version i really want to call up the writers and be like where is the sarcasm that the world has become so accustomed too? Where is the sexiness which most adults are fond of. I guess “you lot” are a bunch of virgins.How can you even say the show was copied forgive if im wrong but didn’t this side of the world start the vampire/werewolf buzz. So in all actuality your english writer just took an overplayed subject and made it slightly different. i ask though did he/she even do that? there are ghosts in true blood,so yea only barely different. atlas though i still enjoy both simply because i like anything supernatural, so we’ll agree to disagree and keep watching.
stuff^ not stop slight typo though and for those extra critical type people. i fixed it don’t die of a heart attack on me.
there^ wow i swear must be an auto correct thing.
Phillip, yu’ve got a lot to learn.
First the UK acting is far superior and that is why the original three have moved on the other roles, because they are superior actors.
Aiden turner is in the Hobbit, for example.
Also the US actors are simplyterrible; busting lines, not taking moments and completely misinterpreting the text in their presentation.
I understand that you may not know much about acting, but when to accent a line is as important as the line itself.
The accent can change the entire meaning, but you probably don’t know what I am talking about.
Second, you don’t see how fornicating is bad? Fornication is a mortal sin and all those who engage in it are hated by God.
The title of the show is Being Human, not Being a Sinner.
Maybe you would like to have your daughter used as a human semen receptacle every night by someone different, but that is not human behavior. It’s sub-human behavior.
The number of people whose lifes are destroyed by fornication is in the tens of millions. But you don’t care about that, that would be human.
Furthermore, the continuous fornication of the US series promotes this immoral behavior to the public. That’s wrong,
Finally continuous fornication is inhuman because it draws one from a mature relationship based on commitment which is the basis of a strong and healthy society.
As a post script, you seem to need to grow up. I don’t think you will ever make it.
Hi, there ..
I have seen both the UK version and the US version, so far, and i guess, i ll give my point of few as hounest as possible, I kind of found out of “Being Human” through the IMBD, by accident, so .. when i got into this i didnt know about the Uk or US version, but i ended up seeing the US version first without knowing about the UK version .. I belive, the US version is certainly flashy, maybe better effects in certain episodes, i did not have any problem with the acting, it was OK, i liked that Mark Pellegrino was in it 🙂 Great actor. I also liked how it devolped, through flasbacks, into the story with the Suren character. Now, So, i finished watching the US version, on break, i tought why not check out the UK version, its based on. The UK version, for me personaly, the acting is somehow more beliveable, more grounded, less staged, less flashy, if you will. Aidan Turner .. the guy .. acting wise, both Turner and Witver are solid, but, as pure acting goes, and sexyness, you can not beat Turners eyes and beauty, hands down. That is a one good looking man. Overall, when i was watching the UK version, i got the sense of somehow better acting, more beliveable, it just, it just looked more real, someway, more natural? less flashy? it just somehow works better then the US version, the actors seem more real .. its hard to explain comparing the two versions .. The only thing realy, that botherd me about the UK version is the fact, that, Russel Tovey, playing the werewolf, his screams before transforming into a werefolf were realy annoying, i mean realy, he sounds like a girl everytime, its distracting, it sounds staged, that is not how a man about too turn into a wolf sounds, he sounds like a 10 year old girl, its bad .. other then that, keeping it short, haven seen both versions, for me, UK version hands down. For the fans, its a win win anyways, of you have only seen the US version, you can also watch the UK version, they split up after Season 1, they are both good, both go different paths/stories/ideas. Its a win win if you cant wait.
This argument is getting so silly. In regards to the quality of the show— they’re about the same with each version having their own strengths and weaknesses. Which one you like is purely about taste and doesn’t have anything to do with quality. Those who prefer the British version keep mentioning the humor—I personally don’t like that kind of over the top goofy humor (for the most part). Since the British show has so many serious elements, I find it jarring when they setup a nonsensical scenes or bits purely for comedy and disregarding story for the sake of the punch line. I’m more about sarcasm, irony and comedy that’s interwoven into a good story without sacrificing the drama— that’s just me and I don’t expect everyone to feel the same.
The argument about which is sexier or bloodier is also a taste preference. I don’t really see how the American version has more sex– There’s nudity in the British version and none in the American version, but regardless, who cares? Some people like to watch sexy shows and which has more sex is also a matter of opinion. Same as far as which characters are more attractive—I personally think the looks of the characters are interchangeable for the most part.
I happened upon the BBC version of Being Human on Netflix. As a Canadian, most of my TV viewing has been either American or CBC programs. Seeing BBC’s Being Human has made me realize how truly awful most mainstream American TV and film actually is. It is formulaic, boring, poorly acted, poorly written and beats the same themes of racism, sexual repression and violence to death over and over again.
Now, I have NOT seen any HBO programs and I suspect there may be some very good shows on HBO.
What I love about Being Human is that the program is courageous. Nothing happens that is not fully considered – thought through all the way. If there is violence, it has a purpose, one that the actors, the writers, the set designers – everyone involved – seems to be aware of.
The show is a compassionate, funny, well thought-out exploration of the dark side of being human through the lives of people who are no longer human. The only American program that I can think of that reminds me of BH is Joan of Arcadia, which also seemed to move beyond unreflected violence and formulaic script writing to explore the depths of human life. But of course it was cancelled after two years!
As far as American TV is concerned, I have gone on strike; called a boycott. I have decided that there is just so much wonderful programming to be found elsewhere that it will take me the rest of my life just to scratch the surface.
Jennifer, I suspect you will rouse the folks around here with your
glowing praise of the UK version of BH and disdain for the US version
as there are fans of both here…I too prefer the UK version and
agree with much of what you’ve said. However, there are a few
exceptions for me; with “Shameless” being one that I like both,
but prefer the US version. I’d even give you a pass on your
comments about “most” American TV and films. But there is quality
programming,particularly on both basic cable and premium channels
like Showtime and HBO. In past years we’ve had shows like Lost,
The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, etc…and even
currently, we still have Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones,
The Newsroom, Sons of Anarchy, Boardwalk Empire, etc…even some
newer network shows have reviewed well, but not my favorites are:
Nashville, Revenge, Revolution, & Arrow are well done for what they
are. My personal favorite is “Homeland”, which is breaking new ground
in regards to TV drama and how it’s conceived and presented. Amazing
show with amazing performances, and character development. All that
said, I still believe in many cases, the preferences of a UK
version versus a US version (actually Canadian ironically), can be
at least partially based on cultural differences and perceptions. In
other words, it is also somewhat subjective, and with the preference
for either being pretty evenly split, the debate over which version
is better is a moot point and a just a matter of individual opinion.
As a big fan of BH UK version, I do have a question for you..were you
largely disappointed after the season/series 3 finale?…did it even
seem like the same show from series 4 on?..or do you think they lost
their way?…
JC,
Thanks for your comment. I was going to say something, but decided not to because much of this is subjective. While I can understand why someone would prefer the UK version—I really think it’s unfair to say that American T.V is bad. We’ve been breaking a lot of new ground lately and television is actually the best it has ever been (at least cable television is). Many of these shows are actually being written similar to how they write features, which means that the shows have in-depth character development and better structure. I personally think structure is good and it is not the same thing as formulaic…making that distinction because some people confuse those two ideas. Along with what you’ve added on your list (I haven’t seen all of them, but I also love Homeland) I would add American Horror Story, Modern Family, Weeds, Big Love (one of my all-time favorites, Treme, True Blood (although that’s not a show everyone will like). Most of the good stuff is actually not even accessible to people in the U.S— so I wonder how much of the cable stuff is broadcast abroad.
I agree with JC’s assessment about cultural differences influencing our taste. For example in regards to Jennifer’s comments about the race theme, race is a big issue in the U.S that’s not often discussed among most, and I think television, film and comedy are one of the only outlets that allows people to be open about it—without it turning into a huge fight. I personally think Americans do a great job with Drama while I prefer more UK comedies, although I need to watch some more UK dramas.
I enjoy UK shows—recently I’ve been watching Misfits and I love it. I don’t want Americans to remake it because there is a something very organic about the show and I do think it’s a waste of money to remake a show that’s still in syndication. However, as much as I love Misfits and I do—there are a few things about it that bothers me. For one thing, I don’t understand the age of the characters. None of them seem to go to school (high school nor college) but they’re drinking and clubbing without a problem (I realize this is a cultural thing since drinking age in the U.S is 21). Although, you see teens drinking in American shows, it’s done so in a furtive way. They’ve hinted across having been to school but the timing is not specific. Besides their required community service, you never see or hear the characters talk about having a job which further makes their age ambiguous. Most of the characters seem to be living alone, and one character was kicked out of his house by his mother so that she could keep her boyfriend. That part is very confusing in the sense that he doesn’t seem all that upset with his mother—is it because he is an adult who needs to get his own life? Or is he really okay being a teen that’s been kicked out of his mother’s house? Then there’s the community center—EVERYTHING seems to happen at the community center. This would be okay if the storyline were all realistic things that happen at community centers, but sometimes it’s hard for me to swallow some of the coincidental things that go on—like random mother with no purpose walking around with her son who she loses twice.
These kinds of holes in storytelling is something I’ve seen often on U.K shows, including Being Human—in which there are inconsistencies and continuity errors which stick out to me. This might be a cultural thing, because this might not bother many viewers in the U.K but that’s the sort of thing that U.S fans will be the first to point out.
One other thing I’d like to add– I keep hearing that American shows have all this sex that UK shows supposedly don’t have. And shows like Skins, Misfits and even Being Human seem to have plenty of sex and even more nudity than most American networks allow—just saying.
I have seen all episodes of both versions starting with the UK version I saw on Netflix. I like both shows and will continue to watch them both. Doesn’t the creator (Toby Whithouse) also work with the US show??? Yes he doesssss. Silly people. I can’t even read some of these narrow minded comments
Toby Whithouse working on both project is not the issue. The issue is the inferior acting, theme realization and obsession with nudity of the American version which makes it a subordinate product. It’s the difference between cheddar cheese and American cheese. They are both versions of cheddar cheese, but they are of radically different quality.
You think the British actors are more attractive? That’s fine but very subjective and really it doesn’t matter much at all. The key point with the choice of actors is that they are good honest representations of normal people in the British public. We have the Eastern Indian guy, the inner city lad and the girl with a touch of African. Throw in some eater. Europeans and that’s Britain today. I thought the US actors were very bland and didn’t have any interesting points at all so I wasn’t gripped long enough to get interested in the show. I felt their George was just pretending to be a nerd and they had exaggerated his failure with women too much and I didn’t buy that their vamp was a sex god. He looks more like the annoying jerk at the office. And the ghost was just bland. So again just Hollywood stereotypes, this time done badly. What worked for me best about the original is that it was a gritty and real setting that threw in the supernatural elements. The US one is just another fantasy with little base in reality for me and so it doesn’t work.
Matt, thanks!, Grant
Hi Grant, Thanks for skyping in on our USC class with Prof. Jenkins last
week! Checking out the blog after reading your “Self-Sustaining Anthropology”
piece. WOW I’m loving all the comments on this thread – it’s really great
to see people get super passionate about TV (being a TV ultra-fan myself).
Just finished UK Being Human, started the US version a week ago…One thing
I think is really interesting is the way Sally/Annie characters are different
in the series. I feel like Aidan and werewolf are pretty similar
but the ghost character is completely different per US/UK culture. Sally
is raunchier; Annie is wholesome sweetheart. Makes me
wonder what the producers/writers we’re thinking when adapting to the US!
Thanks again!
(Also US/UK The Office are amazing…will defend both to the death!)
I saw commercials about being human (US) when it was 3 episodes into it’s third season. I watched them all in two days. When I was watching the first episode I had planned on not liking the show, but it totally captured me. While I wait for new episodes I decided to check out the UK version, because I’ve always been one to thing why can’t I have both instead of picking sides.
Annie/Sally
THe way she is introduced into the show in the US version is amazing. Josh freaks out about her and she lights up with a dazzling smile when she realizes they can hear her.
In the UK version Annie is already present in the house and can appear to anyone, hold objects without effort, and she makes tea, A lot of tea. Which of course causes George to whine in a really high pitched horrible voice.
This leads to the following question. Does the UK not know how to tell a story? How much more interesting is Sally when we get to learn about her right along with Josh and Aiden. About how her powers progressively grow as she learns about herself.
Anyway I did my best. I tried to watch the UK version, but I could only get as far as Annie TEXTING her ex to come fix the pipes with George’s phone.
..I find it interesting how differently people can see not only these two
versions of Being Human, but all the other UK/US versions of mostly
original UK shows; Skins, Shameless, The Office, etc, etc…..this site
is unique in providing a place for fans of both or either version of BH,
to discuss their opinions and draw comparisons between the two…personally
I think the UK version of the story was better written, acted and overall
more entertaining than the US version that followed. That said, I know many
will disagree, and that’s ok, that’s why we’re all here. I won’t make any
efforts to change your mind, as it’s not possible anyway. I would only like
say that I find both Aidan Turner and Lenora Crichlow (from the original
UK cast), particularly compelling actors and would watch them in anything.
I also will add that I was disappointed in the direction of BH UK during
the fourth season/series, but stuck with it. I couldn’t get past the first
season of of the US version, and I believe it was the actors as much as
anything else that disturbed me. I am curious how many believe it’s the
subjective preference of one set of actors over another that help determine
our favorites between the two versions?..
Hi JC,
I think preference has more to do with:
1 )whichever you saw first. People tend to favor whichever version they saw first even if it’s not any better than what followed, and even if what followed happens to better. This has to do with being a loyal fan.
2) Some has to do with minor cultural differences
3) Taste, which is purely subjective.
*I also think there’s a slight need to hate anything American, especially if it’s a remake of an U.K show. I can understand people being annoyed about a show which is still in syndication being made into an American version, but I simply wish people would admit this rather than make it into others things I don’t really buy into.
As I’ve said before, I think the overall quality of the two shows are similar.
A.N.:
Nice insights, however I do not implicitly hate things American.
I am not familiar with those who do.
Hi A.N,
We’ve been down this path before haven’t we?…lol..
I must say that I don’t disagree with the three reasons
generally, that you’ve given for determining preference.
Often our ideas of what a given version is supposed to be
like is based off our first exposure. Cultural differences
can make the way certain scenes play as awkward or
unfamiliar to us. And of course our individual
interpretation of production values, acting styles,
writing, story lines,etc are very personal and subjective.
I am curious however how you came to the conclusion that
there was “slight need to hate anything American” though.
Who is it that you think feels this way? I don’t think
I’ve ever come to that conclusion about anybody in general
or on this site in particular. I believe I for example
honesty view all shows pretty open-minded in that regard.
I enjoy a lot UK shows, but some, like Shameless, I
actually like the US version better. I enjoyed watching
“The Office” here, before I even knew there was a UK
version first. Most of my favorite shows are American,
though few are network. Most are basic cable or premium
cable shows, without the censorship and endless
commercials. Also,I believe the US version of “Skins” was
trying to find it’s way and was canceled before it could
do just that. Again, if you could elaborate, why you
believe there is a need to hate anything American?
Hi JC,
Of course I’m not talking about you or anyone in particular. Having traveled quite a bit, and having studied film and television, it’s just a feeling that I get at times. I find that the reason for hating American shows is often based on perceived notions rather than facts. For example, there’s this idea that there’s all this sex on American shows including on Being Human. In reality there are sexual nuances on several shows, but most of our networks which most people have access to, do not allow nudity. The few networks that allow nudity are cable networks like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz and so on, but those channels are considered luxury channels which majority of people either do not have access to because they cost more, or they may have one or two of those channels but very few actually have all of the premium channels. While I was in Europe (Paris, London, Rome, Portugal) I saw more nudity on regular, primetime T.V than you would ever see on one of our regular networks which DO NOT allow it. The Sci-fi channel, which is the channel that Being Human is aired on—does not allow nudity. Yet, I’ve seen a couple people here claim that the American version of BH has more nudity–What? However, I do recall seeing boobs in the U.K version of BH more than once. Now if you say that our shows have too much violence, that’s something completely different. In fact, those who pay attention would note the hypocrisy with how we get worked up over sexual content, but don’t seem to mind the abundance of violence, even in programs meant for even children. Sundance has caused a stir in Utah due to a couple of films that have sexual content, but no one seems to mind the violence in Django Unchained ( awsome movie by the way).
Above is one example. I’m always willing to listen and consider comments that have to do with preferences, style, structure, format, storytelling, quality, consistency and so on. However, when the opinions are not based on facts or something as superficial as looks rather than talent, my conclusion is that there’s a SLIGHT need by some or even a few, to hate anything American. I love shows and movies from all over the world, but I also think Americans have some strong programming with great actors and writing, and to deny that seems a bit unfair to me. All that being said, I do think it’s a waste of money and resources for Americans to remake shows that are currently running in the U.K. and elsewhere. With Hulu, Amazon and Netflix, people can watch all sorts of things from all over the world so there’s really no reason to remake these shows. Not to mention how annoying it is for writers who are looking and are eager to sell their original ideas.
I disagree with your comments for the following reasons. First American television is loaded with people having sex, especially fornicating and committing adultery. Nudity and sex are not the same thing. A woman could be standing naked in front of the camera and that is not sex. The word ‘sex’ as used by Americans means sexual intercourse. American television and especially the American version of Being Human uses sex in an epidemic proportion. The two main themes of Being Human-American are vampires as a metaphor for sex and werewolves as a metaphor for violence. The UK version actually avoids these theme. Every episode of BH-US that I saw ended in the vampire fornicating and the end or near the end of the episode. And he never had the ability for avoid fornicating.
As for your claim that the US channels do not allow nudity, you seem to mean by nudity — genitals and female mammary glands. Nudity is a far broader subject than that. Frequently, while the vampire is fornicating a full length naked shot of his side, from head to toe will be shown. To add the that degeneracy there is the full ventral nudity and butt shots that are so prevalent in US television. Also, as mentioned by another poster, the amount of flesh displayed in BH-US far exceed that in BH-UK. It gets annoying and is ultimately boring.
Your comment about “Django Unchained” and violence is not relevant. There are different types of violence and it’s not the violence, it’s what the violence says. Just as there are different types of sex and it’s what the sex says. Also romance is not sex. This topic is one American audiences are extremely naïve about.
As for the “boobs” you mentioned in BH-UK, please tell me what episode so I can re-screen. 😉
YoYou know Mark– I would have loved to discuss some of the things you brought up here, but when you make a statement like “Also romance is not sex. This topic is one American audience are extremely naïve about,” I omit myself from the discussion with you. It’s one thing if you want to exchange thoughts and have a debate, but I refuse to try and prove to you that I’m not naïve just because I happen to be American which by the way is only a part of my nationality since I’m first generation American and everyone in my family including my siblings are from a different country. I refuse to prove to you that I’m smart enough to have the ability to assess something and come up with my own intelligent opinions even if they are different from what you believe. However—I’ll point out that comments like yours is the reason I believe there’s a slight need to hate anything American. The comment itself is so flippant and immature, that if you took a moment to examine it, you would realize that it adds absolutely no value in this debate—since you’re so smart and all.
Well, that was disrespectful. I’m glad you have chosen to omit yourself from the discussion. However I never said you were naïve because you were an American. My comments were directed to Americans in general. But then any sixth grade graduate should have been able to figure that out.
After all your I’ll’s and I’s, it’s interesting that I never directed my comments to you personally. I would be nice if you could reciprocate. My comment was neither flippant nor immature, but in fact very deep. Romance is not sex. Sex, for your erudite information, is the zeal of the sex organs to unite with each other. People have sex with people all over America and don’t even know their names. Romance is the spontaneous act of a noble heart whose impulse to action is not that of ego, but of love, and a love that is not lust, but a deeply personal love in term of compassion, with-suffering. Willing to share and suffering of another with you. You see, there is a difference. And when is romance, not lust expressed in BH-US or any other American series? When? Whenever?
Maybe your first generation Americanisms can answer that. Maybe not. Until then, please deal with the topic at hand and stop making personal attacks because you do not have a viable argument.
Or maybe, as a first generation American you will go out tonight and fornicate with someone whose name you do not even know. It’s your choice.
I omit myself from the discussion with YOU. Meaning, I’m willing to talk to others here who are not as ill-mannered as you. And if I, as a first generation American feel like I would like to “fornicate” with someone I do not know the name of, tonight—that sir, would not be any of your business. It sounds like you’re someone who needs to get laid really bad, if I may s
ay so myself.
Let’s get some things straight. You are the ill-mannered one. You attacked me personally with extremely logically flawed arguments. You did not show a command of the English language. You were the disrespectful one. I dealt with the topic.
“not be any of your business” — That’s not the issue. I notice that when you don’t have an argument, you change the subject. The issue is that Americans don’t know the difference between romance and sex. American television is filled with sex and nudity, including BH-US. That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.
Stick to the topic. In addition to you not knowing how to analyze, you don’t know basic English and misuse words.
“It sounds like you’re someone who needs to get laid really bad,” again, that’s not germane to the topic.
Again, BH-US is filled with sex, nudity and banal themes. BH-UK is a psychologically layered program with excellent actors. The fact that the original three have moved on to other projects shows how in-demand they are. For example, Aiden Turner is in the Hobbit and has significant screen time.
As a first generation American you seem to have integrated the worst of American culture into your life without sublimation. Get an education and stick to the topic.
Tonight you might consider comparing the integration of themes in both series and how effectively they are realized while you are making false assumptions that people implicitly hate things American, as you perform sexual intercourse with a stranger. That fact that you consider such behavior speaks to your character. In America it’s called “trash.”
You’ll have to excuse me for not taking offense to your snobbery. Do you have to be a walking stereotype? Don’t answer that. I don’t care.
Again, yours is the snobbery. I deal with subjects, you deal with personal attacks.
The issue here is BH-UK vs. BH-US! Perhaps you have forgotten that, but I have not. You made the unqualified statement that: “I also think there’s a slight need to hate anything American.” You have offered no proof of your statement whatsoever.
You continue to engage in personal attacks rather than facts. You Americans (although, first generation is not much of an American, it’s kind of like a dentist calling himself a doctor) are so naïve, you think everyone is like you. You think the only people who are people are the ones who think and act like you. There is a whole world that is not American. Just because it is American doesn’t make is good or bad, right or wrong. So stop assuming that you are in the right because you partake in illegal drugs as a prelude to sexual intercourse with a stranger. There are plenty of American who reject your lack of values.
Honestly, do you have any morals? What do you think the show BH is all about? Here are the themes of the show by season.
Season 1: Being human is being mortal.
Season 2: Being human is being moral.
Season 3: Being human is going to hell and back.
Season 4: Being human is paying for our sins.
What do you think the Box Tunnel 20 massacre was about? What the whole show is about is the choices between living a human live or a sub-human life.
The setting is: A guy-his girlfriend-and his best friend. It’s a really simple story placed in a super-natural setting to make it more interesting. What don’t you get?
So stop making personal attacks, deal with the subject at hand, and support your suppositions with facts.
Also, for your information, your claim that: “The few networks that allow nudity are cable networks like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz,” is completely false. I was watching TBS and a program began with a disclaimer that there would be nudity in it. Check your facts. Also, your claim that nudity is limited to genitalia and mammary glands is also completely false.
Your actions are like someone who doesn’t realize that one of the major themes of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is McCarthyism. Dolores Umbridge is Joseph McCarthy. The Chronicles of Narnia series is an allegory for Christianity. There is something there below the surface that requires inspection.
Do I have to spell out everything for you?
Gosh, Mark – I have browsed through these comments from these comments from the beginning, and you know what, you’re rude! Rude by anyone’s standards, no matter where they live or come from. It’s ok that you think the U.K. version is superior to the U.S. one. Just as it’s ok for other folks to think the U.S. version is superior. As many have already said here, it’s a matter of personal preference. So I don’t see where that entitles, you, or anyone else for that matter, to make sweeping, wild, disgusting generalizations about a whole nation of people. I mean, have you personally met EVERY single person in the U.S.? If not, how can you claim to know what we ALL do or do not like; if our preferences reflect temperament; etc? Until you can truly say that yes, you HAVE in fact met every single U.S. citizen, I think you should refrain from making such rude, disrespectful, sweeping generalizations. It makes you look like a boob, detracts from anything meaningful that you might have said, and makes it harder to simply communicate. The differences that separate people of all nations are obviously difficult, so it boggle the mind as to why you think you need to exacerbate problems rather than seeking to bridge the gap, so to speak.
And to the moderator of this blog: I think it would be prudent to either censure Mark, as he is being disruptive and rude; or simply block his access.
Just a fan,
FYI, I am not rude, I tell the truth, frankly. You, however are ill-mannered. By my standards, I am not rude, so by anyone’s standards I am not rude.
That’s called logic. You might want to try it someday instead of judging people and not using facts to influence your opinion.
I address the issues. You seem to be interested in personal attacks, rather than facts.
FYI, I have never objected to someone “thinking” the BH-US is superior. They, however, have to justify it with facts, not with ill-mannered commentary as yours and personal attacks.
I never made and sweeping, wild or disgusting generalizations about a whole nation of people. I notice you don’t give an example.
Your inability to reason is profound. I don’t have to meet every person in America to know what American culture is about or what it promotes. See Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. That is if you read books. Tocqueville did not meet everyone in American as a prerequisite to writing Democracy in America. (Democracy in America is a landmark manuscript; but you may not know that).
I don’t have to meet everyone in America to know what American culture is about and I have not presented any rude, disrespectful and sweeping generalization. I notice you cannot list even one example.
This is my point. I deal with facts. Present some. You deal with personal attacks.
Your problem, one of your problems for there are many, one of your many major problems is that 1) You are uneducated, 2) You assume your personal opinion is fact (your lack of the use of facts, your use of personal attacks, and assumption that you are right are illustrations) 3) Your lack of vocabulary (use of the term: boob) are EXAMPLES that you think the only people who are people are the people who think and act like you.
(You see how I support my position with FACTS).
If you are so knowledgeable, what was the meaning of the Box-car 20 massacre? Don’t know? Pitty.
By reading who can discern facts and reason, agrees with the assessments I have presented. But you are so ill-mannered, all you do is present your personal opinion and wave your arms in apoplexy as proof.
The FACT that you express the need to censure my presentation of facts and reason, two articles that elude you, is an indication that you are in the wrong and cannot support your case.
The next time you respond, please present some fact rather than your opinion as fact (for example, your contention that I have to meets everyone in a country to know what that country’s culture is. That proposition is absurd and clearly false).
Geez. Look man. Personal preference. You’re a director. Cool. You know acting. Nice. But here’s the thing about a “Forum” and “Discussion”. We’re here to debate, heck, even argue about differences, agree to disagree. But what’s important is to respect others’ opinions.
We get it. You hate the US version. You say things like “don’t personally attack me”. Man, all I’ve seen is YOU doing the actual personal attacks. The mere moment someone disagrees with your opinion, even RESPECTIVELY, you act rude about it. When they call you on it, THAT’S when you start calling people “rug rats”, throw insulting comments implying that they are stupid like “get an education”, “a sixth grader can comprehend better than you” AND you even goes as far as to question someone’s heritage? Practically disrespect a man’s ancestors, and you play victim to “Personal Attacks”?? C’mon, man. Then mask it all with your so-called “logic”. News flash, just because you know how to throw big words around, doesn’t mean you proved your point. Especially since it has nothing to do with the topic here…which brings up another funny thing:
You tell people to stay on topic, but yet here you go bringing up stuff like the Box-20, and other people’s family history? People respond to you in short sentences (because quite frankly that’s all that is needed to respond to a hater such as yourself), and you respond in PARAGRAPHS. That just leads me to believe that you’re pretty oversensitive. And the fact that I see you say “your personal opinion doesn’t make it a fact”, but YOU doing EXACTLY that pretty much in this whole forum, makes me suspect that you’re quite the hypocrite (gasp. was that a personal attack? Shucks, I’ll try to tone it down). Hey that’s just my observation, but you’re probably going to take it as a “personal attack” and throw insults my way (I’d honestly be surprised if you didn’t).
Stop acting like a keyboard psychic and presume to automatically know the person you are arguing with personally and question their intelligence just because they DISAGREE with you and/or defend themselves from YOUR personal attacks.
Now with that out of the way…
Dude. The US version is not as bad as you say it is (my opinion…calm down). After finishing the latest season, I don’t know where you’re getting the whole “EVERY episode involves fornication” bit and the fact that you “gave up” on the series a long time ago leads me to believe that you didn’t see enough to change your mind on it, let alone give it a fair chance. The actors do just fine, they don’t devalue the show or its plot and they keep me interested and compelled to watch more, and I am not alone in this. No disrespect to the UK version. I love it as well. It’s the two styles and takes of the US and UK versions that make me love them differently but equally. I must say I like Josh a little better than George though (again…my opinion…calm down).
And cool. You’re a director, know the biz, nice. Kudos. But I’m sure not EVERY big time to small-time director/producer/screen-writer/etc. will agree on your OPINION on the US version. So calm down, “smart guy”.
This post is a reply to:
That Guy from April 12, 2013 3:52 am
That Guy,
Talk about writing paragraphs, isn’t that what you just did!? That’s called hypocrisy. You accuse me of what you are guilty.
I do stay on topic, reread my posts. First I mentioned I was a director in reference to AN claiming to work professionally in film. It was a response. AN was claiming to be the only poster who had professional experience and hence was superior in the posted comments. Read the context.
I am debating. Read the comments: use FACTS and reasoning to support your position. For your information people have attacked me personally because of my supported positions. See: Charity says: April 17, 2012 at 12:56 am.
Also, terms like “rug rags” are applied with their correct dictionary definition. Look it up. It’s not a personal attack. When you write: “The mere moment someone disagrees with your opinion, even RESPECTIVELY, you act rude about it,” that statement is clearly false. When I write respectfully, others are rude. You need to learn what the definition of rude is, and stop attacking me personally.
“Get and education,” is used when it applies. When people don’t understand the theme of the program, they then ignore it, and ignore events that take place in the series (like you do, I will specify later in this post), they need to get and education and let the facts influence their opinion. When people can’t reason like a sixth grader, and I do teach sixth graders, they need to know it. Have you ever heard of REASON? Well? Do facts mean anything rather than the personal attacks you are slaying at me? Why don’t you stick to the topic and stop attacking me and try to attack my assessment of the program? Why?
Also, the Box Tunnel 20 massacre IS on topic. It is a major event in the history of the series the most important event and plot device of the third season as commented on by the creator of the series. So it IS on topic. Also I am not the hater as you claim, I actually love the series. And since you’re getting extremely personal, you in fact are the HATER since you have been attacking me entirely through your post. I notice how hypocrites like you try to bully and batter anyone by calling them a HATER (it’s seems to be the go to word or your generation). I present facts (like the Box Tunnel 20 massacre and the themes of the seasons) combined with reason that is clearly beyond your intelligence and you present your opinion and personal attacks against me as if they are fact. Your definition of rude is neither mine nor the dictionary’s so, here it comes: GET AND EDUCATION. Learn how to reason, learn the correct definitions of words, and despite you interpretation of my writings, STOP making personal attacks at me.
“Stop acting like a keyboard psychic and presume to automatically know the person you are arguing with personally and question their intelligence just because they DISAGREE with you and/or defend themselves from YOUR personal attacks.” – Well, I never did this – I notice you don’t provide an example.
Also, MY NAME IS NOT DUDE. You sound like an illiterate American from the South with a Jethro Bodine 6th grade education. “Dude,” is an informal term in English, inappropriate to address to me. BKUS is as bad as I say it is, because of the REASONS I have listed. You don’t need you to tell me anything, especially to calm down. You Americans are ALL alike. You think the only people who are people are the people who think and act like you. You’re not superior because you think you are. You have to make an argument based on facts and reasoning. So far your post has been nothing but opinion, personal attacks and the inability to use a words correctly. I get my statement that: “EVERY episode involves fornication,” from every episode that I have observed involving fornication. See? I presented a fact! I certainly haven’t seen enough to change my mind. BHUS has established what it is. I’ve given it a fair chance and am tired of the characters ALWAYS choosing to be monsters as opposed to Being Human. Hey! Did you notice that? Being Human, that’s the title of the series. Wow! Maybe it’s not a coincidence. Maybe that’s why the series has the name: Being Human, because it’s about Being Human, not being a monster. That’s called reasoning, you might want to try it.
“I must say I like Josh a little better than George though,” – again you present not facts and reasoning, just your opinion.
“So calm down, ‘smart guy’,” – you know the personal attacks from you never stop.
You remind me of the poster who claimed that American’s were superior by her commitment to: “use illegal drugs as a prelude to sexual intercourse with a stranger.” Unbelievable.
That Guy¬— if I were you, I would do what many posters before you did and ignore Mark. There’s nothing you can say to him that will pierce through his inflated ego. Whenever a new poster comes around to comment, he goes on another attack—so this won’t be last of it. I never said I was the only one with t.v/film experience, and I certainly didn’t use it as a way to say that others cannot have opinions. Since films and shows are made for an audience to watch, it means that everyone capable of watching has the credentials to comment.
So let him go on about “fornication” on American t.v shows and so on.
I’m really curious to learn if English folks really use the word fornication in regular day-to-day conversations? Anyone?
AN,
Let’s get a few things straight —
I have no inflated ego, I have no ego at all. All I ask is that you support your claims with facts and logic.
“Whenever a new poster comes around to comment, he goes on another attack” – totally untrue. When someone personally attacks me, I respond. If someone puts forth an unsupported claim, I respond. If someone has a position, I analyze it. You simple do not respond to logic.
You may have never stated that you were the only one with t.v./entertainment experience, but you implied and used your claimed experience to attempt to invalidate other people’s observations.
I NEVER stated that you stated that others cannot have opinions.
The issue of morality is CENTRAL to BH. You ignore that. So the issue of fornication, which your have proclaimed a right to engage in and base your moral values on, is relevant.
Whether English folks use the word fornication or not is irrelevant. That’s what it is. Do you know anything about your own history? When the Declaration of Independence was being debated, Jefferson had termed the King of England a “tyrant.” John Dickinson of Pennsylvania objected. Jefferson replied: “The King is a tyrant whether we say so or not; we might as well say it.”
The action is fornication, whether you acknowledge it or not.
The whole point of the series BH is about behaving morally (which you have indicated that you have no interest of incorporating into your personal life). That is why in the fifth and final season of BH, the devil will appear.
Oh, blah blah blah. I’ve moved on from your rants, stereotypes, and weird conclusions you’ve made about me based on absolutely nothing… oh yeah, according to your t.v, all we do is have sex with random strangers. I don’t feel the need to justify, or explain my perspective to someone like you. Debate is about respectful discourse, not proving that one is worthy to someone who has an ego the size of a continent. It’s so big you can’t even see it. You have absolutely no self-awareness. If you dare, reread all the comments and the many awful and unwarranted things you’ve said to people. Making statements about people’s personal lives as if you know them, mentioning my supposed sex habits as if you know me…who does that? And now you’re acting like a victim…give me a break old man and step away from your keyboard.
To AN:
First of all, I have no rants, stereotype (not that you know what this word means, since you use it incorrectly) or weird conclusions. You stated that it is your choice to fornicate. I never stated that all you (plural) do fornicate with strangers; I stated explicitly that not all Americans accept your immoral standards.
Debate is about presenting FACTS along with PREMISE and connecting them with LOGIC.
I have no ego. Please learn what the word ego means and then use it correctly.
Do you have an argument about BH?
I do have self-awareness, but no ego.
Do you have an argument about BH?
I have said nothing awful.
Do you have an argument about BH?
You declared about wanting to have sex with strangers after partaking in illegal drugs.
Do you have an argument about BH?
I am not an old man.
Blah, blah, blah is not an argument.
Do you have an argument about BH?
To That Guy:
I don’t rant and I don’t argue pointlessly.
I never called her “sad,” I called her viewpoint about fornication and death sad.
“You said exactly, “That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.” So you pretty much called the guy an immature child in an insulting context.” – not I didn’t called him an immature child in an insulting context. Learn the definitions of the words and then apply the definitions correctly.
I didn’t insult anyone.
Yes, I am a teacher.
“Get an education” DOES mean “get an education” and “learn how to reason” does mean learn HOW to reason.
Your entire 5th paragraph makes no sense and my name is not Dude. I’m sorry you do not know the meaning of words. I have provided them for you. Please learn them. My name is not Dude.
Being a teacher does not state nor imply that I am superior.
There is no such thing as “Your personal fact”. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you view BH-US from its inception?
“Highly debatable?” Really? Based on what? What does a program being on Syfy instead of HBO or Showtime have to do with characters engaging in fornication. “Anger Management” on TBS has characters engaging in fornication in every episode. Really, you do need to learn how to reason. You premises are fallacious.
I never stated it was low-budget soft-core porn. I’m not in to that. I’ve never seen it. You would be the expert on the quality of low-budget soft-core porn.
What does Star Wars have to do with this topic of conversation? What fornication happens in Star Wars. I am not aware of any. Perhaps you can illuminate me, since you claim to be so superior to me. Your being a connoisseur is low-budget soft-core being your reference.
I think Aiden is fornicating every time he isn’t murdering someone. Josh? Well the actor is so bad and busts so many lines, it’s hard to determine what he’s even saying.
I know the vampire’s best friend is a werewolf. I’ve watched the British series. And how does Josh attempt to cure himself? I gave the US series a valid chance. After all the busted lines, terrible acting, murder and fornication that occurred in every episode I saw that completely violated the spirit of the original, I gave up. Why don’t you read other critiques of the US series. Especially the one that writes about the prodigious amount of flesh shown on the US series (Sarah says: May 14, 2012 at 5:58 pm ).
I can understand that you like Josh better than George. Here’s a line by George from the third season that is characteristic of his values:
“I’m doing this for us. Herick is a vampire, but he doesn’t know he’s one, he doesn’t remember all the things he’s done. When he did remember, he was punished. Now he doesn’t. Now he’s just ordinary. … You are asking me to look away and I can’t look away anymore because I have looked away with you. But that has to end now, because I have to stop you, because you can’t stop yourself. … You’re like a drug addict. ‘One more hit and then I’ll be done.’ No. No. It’s now. … I’m going to be a father soon, I have to teach my child the right way to live. I have to teach my son or daughter about humanity and that someone is worthy of redemption no matter what they’ve done. That someone can be forgiven their sins, no mater how unforgivable. That is the ultimate test.”
This passage that I’ve just written out, details everyone of the four themes that I’ve outline in a previous post. Everyone.
I can understand how you prefer Josh over George because that passage is the definition of George and not Josh.
My name is not “Captain Obvious,”
“Facts are fine and all, but why are you so much into it? This is all comments and opinions and DISCUSSION.” – Your argument is: I like it because I like it because I like it. That’s all.
Is that all there is to you? No reason, no value, no principle, no ethic, nor moral, no nothing why you like it. Just you like it?
“How is that statement any less of an opinion than mine” – because I’m presenting REASONS why.
I am a teacher, not matter how much you try to degrade me because of it.
“No need to keep flaunting your Film credentials” – again I never did this. And don’t quote my post OUT OF CONTEXT. It was AN who present as a film professionals fist and above others. I was just showing that AN was not unique.
Wow. A N is right. Talking to you is pointless. That is why I have a hard time believing you’re a teacher. Because you react to things like a child (what you CLAIM to teach). You may throw big words around, but you overreact.
So what then? You called him actual rat? That’s worse than a child. So regardless, you were STILL insulting. Whether you called him a “child” or an actual “rat”, it’s the CONTEXT you used it. Why are you trying to justify yourself? Stop it. What are you not getting?
I know the meaning of words, and HOW you used them is the reason people are on you. So please. Stop acting like you were never rude.
And I never said being a teacher means you are superior. So where you got that, I have no idea. Pulled it out of your rear end probably.
“What does Star Wars have to do with this topic of conversation? What fornication happens in Star Wars. I am not aware of any. Perhaps you can illuminate me, since you claim to be so superior to me. Your being a connoisseur is low-budget soft-core being your reference.” – Haha! Wow AND you can’t distinguish sarcasm either? Do you read other people’s comments and only hear what you want to hear? And never did I imply that I was superior to you. There you go again assuming things and talking out of your rear end (and not reading clearly obviously).
“I think Aiden fornicates when he’s not murdering”, “How does Josh attempt to cure himself”, “After all the busted lines, terrible acting, murder and fornication that occurred in every episode I saw that completely violated the spirit of the original, I gave up.” And you ask me why I think your view on giving it a valid chance is debatable? Asking what I base it on? Need a say any further than those three things ALONG with your other rants on here?
“Why don’t you read other critiques of the US series. Especially the one that writes about the prodigious amount of flesh shown on the US series .“ Why? Will that dictate why I should dislike the US version? Will that convince me? Spare me, Mark. Opinions. Period. Different people see things different ways.
And what does the George quote have to do with my character preference? I never argued about the themes in the US and UK versions? Each have their own takes on the series. Plus you didn’t even explain how you understand why I prefer Josh over George. I don’t hate George if that’s what you’re implying (though I wouldn’t be surprised if you did assume that).
Yes…I know your name is not actually Captain Obvious. I have no comment on that. If you can’t understand why I said that in the first place, then I don’t know what else to tell you.
“Your argument is: I like it because I like it because I like it. That’s all.”
“Is that all there is to you? No reason, no value, no principle, no ethic, nor moral, no nothing why you like it. Just you like it?”
“’How is that statement any less of an opinion than mine’ – because I’m presenting REASONS why.”
Your argument is “I don’t like it, and if you do, you’re dumb, sad, and need an education”. Give you a reason for why I like Josh? Why so you be even more rude? Were you offended that I like Josh’s character? Your problem is you shoot everybody down because they don’t agree with you. I never once insulted your on view why you like the UK version better. Unlike you I respect your opinion, while you bomb everybody else’s. Then there you go again: “No reason, no value, no principle—” blah blah blah. Again, your question of my character (and everybody else’s for that matter), based on nothing. Is that all there is to you? Self-righteousness and arrogance?
I don’t care if you believe I am a teacher. Stop attacking me personally and deal with the topic of the forum.
I am now going to address your personal attacks on me. So don’t claim that I’m not addressing the topic. I react to things appropriately and not like a child. Your personal attacks are irrelevant and show you do not know how to reason. Learn!
I never called anyone an actual rat. Rug rat is descriptive term and should not be interpreted literally. Only a stupid moron would do so. You choose to interpret “rug rat” as insulting. Stop interpreting my comments out of context. “Rug rat” was in response to the previous post. Read it in that context.
You clearly do not know the meaning of certain words and you use them incorrectly (multiple examples will come afterward). Here is comes again: GET AND EDUCATION!
Here is another example of how you do not know the meaning of words. I was never rude. Look up the definition.
“And I never said being a teacher means you are superior.” — I never said you did.
“Wow AND you can’t distinguish sarcasm either?” – No, I can. That’s the point. I threw it right back in your face and you missed the point.
“And never did I imply that I was superior to you.” — I never said that you said that. I didn’t assume anything and I don’t talk out of my rear. You are incorrectly using the word “obvious.” Look it up.
“And you ask me why I think your view on giving it a valid chance is debatable?” – No, I didn’t ask you that. Honestly, can you read, Mr. Crabbe? (that a reference to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – let’s see if you can figure out what reference.)
I’ve also never ranted. You are using the word ‘rant” incorrectly. Look it up.
“Why don’t you read other critiques of the US series. Especially the one that writes about the prodigious amount of flesh shown on the US series .“ Why? — Because it shows that others have noticed what I have mentioned and are commenting on it too — and you are wrong. That’s why.
“And what does the George quote have to do with my character preference?” – It has everything to do with what the series are about. It has to do with values. Which is what the series is all about. THAT’S MY POINT WHICH YOU ALWAYS MISS. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
Theme is what triggered this entire exchange. The contended point is BH-UK has themes that BH-US has betrayed.
“Plus you didn’t even explain how you understand why I prefer Josh over George.” — You never explained why you prefer Josh over George. This is my whole point. You have to make an argument, not a statement of opinion. Facts, values and logic; let me see them.
“I don’t hate George if that’s what you’re implying (though I wouldn’t be surprised if you did assume that).” – You are so far off the target, it’s like you are a little child who does not know how to reason. Just throw out insulting names. Did you see 42? You remind me of the Phillies manager.
“Captain Obvious. I have no comment on that.” – I wonder why?
“Your argument is “I don’t like it,” – NO, my argument is not “I don’t like it.’ My argument is: the BH-US betrays the values of the original series, with the values of fornication, murder, bad acting, bad writing and so on, and so on, and so on. It (BH-US) takes complex themes and reduces them to Chakra two levels. It smoothes out subtleties and nuances and a delicate balance of humor with ethical choices between being human and being a monster and replaces them with a narcissist unilateral choice of evil. That’s my point. Even when it repeats the themes of BH-UK, BK-US glosses over those nuances to the point where they are completely submerged in the betrayal of the portrayal of the characters.
Again, I haven’t been rude. And you calling me rude, after throwing disrespectful name after disrespectful name at me; to use and Americanism; is like the pot calling the kettle black. Which is hypocrisy (you might want to look up the definition of that word, as well).
“Were you offended that I like Josh’s character?”, No, I asked you why? And for more than: it’s my opinion.
“Your problem is you shoot everybody down because they don’t agree with you.” — Totally untrue. I have accepted the reasoned arguments of those who prefer BH-US, although I don’t agree with them. I shoot down people who present their opinion as fact and don’t support their arguments with reasons, examples, facts and logic.
I’m not self-righteous. Again you are using that term incorrectly.
So tell me, why do you like Josh?
Boo-hoo, “Stop attacking me personally”. Sure. But let you go ahead and do all that right? Please. Again, YOU learn. The CONTEXT you used “rug rat”.
“That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.” –Your response to a post that was a response to your judgment on a man’s family, heritage, and a nationality as a whole based on stereotypes. That’s not insulting? Really? You say only a moron would take it literally, yet you’re telling me to look up the definition of the word itself.
Mr. Crabbe. Yeah. Cute. Can YOU read?
ME: “No one is trying to change your mind (at least, not me). But you giving it a fair chance? Highly debatable.”
YOU: “Highly debatable? Really? Based on what?”
ME: “And you ask me why I think your view on giving it a valid chance is debatable?”
YOU: “No, I didn’t ask you that.”
HAHA, come on, Mark!
Here. You like playing the “look up words and learn meanings and definitions” game right? Ok ay.
Hypocrisy: CONTRADICTICTING a stated value or principle (just one definition of it).
Examples:
“You Americans (although, first generation is not much of an American, it’s kind of like a dentist calling himself a doctor) are so naïve, you think everyone is like you. You think the only people who are people are the ones who think and act like you. There is a whole world that is not American. Just because it is American doesn’t make is good or bad, right or wrong. So stop assuming that you are in the right because you partake in illegal drugs as a prelude to sexual intercourse with a stranger.”
“Or maybe, as a first generation American you will go out tonight and fornicate with someone whose name you do not even know. It’s your choice.” –You say things like that, then turn around and say “I’m not being insulting or stereotypical.” I have yet to see someone on here attack your nationality, Mark, so that leaves your insults unprovoked and your defense CONTRADICTORY.
—
YOU:
“You’re not superior because you think you are.”
“Perhaps you can illuminate me, since you claim to be so superior to me.”
ME: “Never did I imply that I was superior to you.”
YOU: “I never said that you said that.” – How quick you are to contradict yourself.
—
YOU: “Being a teacher does not state nor imply that I am superior.”
ME: “I never said being a teacher means you are superior.”
YOU: “I never said you did.” -Then why did you even bring that irrelevant tidbit up in the first place?
Stop. You seriously were asking about Star Wars. We both know there was no “fornication” in Star Wars. Why you even brought that up was beyond me. I sarcastically bring up Stars Wars, you think fornication.
I used “obvious” just fine (oh NOW you want to act like you know what “obvious” is).
“Because it shows that others have noticed what I have mentioned and are commenting on it too.” — Well good for you.
“and you are wrong. That’s why.” –There you go shooting down opinions again. No surprise.
“’I don’t hate George if that’s what you’re implying (though I wouldn’t be surprised if you did assume that).”’– You are so far off the target” –Not like you gave a clear target. Just say the same nonsense over and over “Get an education, learn to reason, stop personal attacking,” Fact of the matter is you STILL haven’t explained why you THINK you understand why I like Josh’s character. That was what I was referring to, yet you feign ignorance and tell me I’m off target. I merely reached out for something because you gave me nothing. Yet you stand the man who tells me to learn how to reason. Ridiculous.
“it’s like you are a little child who does not know how to reason. Just throw out insulting names. Did you see 42? You remind me of the Phillies manager.” –Says the one who reacts like a child. Seriously? “Insulting names”? “Dude”? “Captain Obvious”? Which one of those did it for you? And no. I haven’t watched it yet. But hey when I do, I’ll keep an eye out for him.
“’Captain Obvious. I have no comment on that.’ – I wonder why?” –Don’t wonder. Because if you didn’t get it the first time, you’re not going to from here on out.
Back to the show. You have to understand, the characters are not going to be portrayed EXACTLY like their predecessors. Interpretations are going to be different. I knew that going in and kept an open mind. You like one over the other, news flash, that’s absolutely fine, Mark. Bad acting, bad writing, all opinions. Not everybody feels that way. As far as the themes go, I don’t think it strays far at all. Which brings me to Josh. He and George struggle with the same problem. They want to deny their wolves, fight it. What makes George any less determined than Josh? Josh researches and researches. Yeah purebloods tempt him to give into his wolf, but he never considers it. He does not stop until he finds a cure, to stop turning and live a normal life. Return to …wait for it….BEING HUMAN.
Why I like Josh? He’s an interesting character. An independent character who shows his determination to fight his inner demons, dealing with them and at the same time displaying undying loyalty to his loved ones. Also, protecting his family from the “truth”, so he doesn’t hurt them (morally pleasing enough for you?). A man with a heavy burden on his shoulders. He knows he doesn’t have all the answers, so we watch him struggle to find them, going through painful trials in the process. He makes some mistakes and then some wonder, man, will this guy ever catch a break? Then there’s the humorous scenes, where he can act normal. How’s his struggles any more grueling than George’s? They both go through their same trials. Why I slightly like Josh better? He’s not whiny (seriously George can shriek). Josh’s awkwardness also tends to be funnier to me where George can come off as pathetic at times. But hey, that’s just me.
“I have accepted the reasoned arguments of those who prefer BH-US, although I don’t agree with them. I shoot down people who present their opinion as fact and don’t support their arguments with reasons, examples, facts and logic.” –Your first response to Charity contradicts this whole paragraph. I don’t know who else you talked to, but as for ME, as far as the show goes, I NEVER stated my opinion as a fact, staying open-minded and even accepting your opinions on the show, but disagreeing with your opinion on the BH-US being only about SEX and VIOLENCE and giving into their monsters. Yet you agree it does and letting it out as a FACT yourself. Arguing with people who have seen the US one through , while being the guy who gave up and knows next to nothing about the US-BH, makes it even funnier. Disagreeing is fine, but telling them they’re wrong (condescendingly might I add) is another thing.
“I’m not self-righteous. Again you are using that term incorrectly.” –Hm. You babble about morals and principles. Question others’ on here. Talk about how BH-US promotes immoral behavior (I disagree), being overly bothered by it. Judge Americans on that stereotype, arrogantly. No I used the term just fine, thank you very much.
“Sure. But let you go ahead and do all that right?” – Gosh, as I stated in my last post: I will now address your personal attacks against me. You stop attacking me personally and start addressing the issue of BH and I will stop addressing the topic of you attacking me personally. Get it?
You are a literal fundamentalist. You know nothing about poetry. Everything is literal to you. I don’t live on that dull level of existence.
Do you even know what a “rug rat” is? I never judged anyone or anyone’s family. Again you are using words incorrectly. And I never judge anything based on stereotypes, not that you know what that word means. You are also using the word “stereotype” incorrectly. Whether you choose the term to be insulting, is your choice.
Your second paragraph make no sense.
“I have yet to see someone on here attack your nationality,” – you don’t even know what my nationality is. And where did I contradict a stated value or principle? You are the one who chooses to interpret my characterization of some Americans as insulting.
ME: “Never did I imply that I was superior to you.” – I got the impression that you think yourself superior to me, SINCE you use words without knowing their definition, and you continually use degrading names directed at me. That’s just the impression I got.
BUT, I never stated that you stated you were superior to me. What is stated was: you THINK you’re superior to me and you CLAIM to be superior to me. Now, unless you’re going to admit you’re in the wrong – it think this issue is closed.
“Then why did you even bring that irrelevant tidbit up in the first place?” – You don’t know? A superior person would. [In case you haven’t figured it out – I am so flattered that you are now reading my posts so diligently.] Thank you.
“–There you go shooting down opinions again. No surprise.” Oh, and you misused the meaning of the word “obvious.”
“–Says the one who reacts like a child.” That comment is a non sequitur in the location it appears.
“Insulting names”? “Dude”? “Captain Obvious”? – They are disrespectful. Neither is my name. I don’t call you: “Captain Ahab,” do I?
“Don’t wonder. Because if you didn’t get it the first time, you’re not going to from here on out.” – Again you missed the point.
“You have to understand, the characters are not going to be portrayed EXACTLY like their predecessors.” – Really? Why not? And even if they are different, it doesn’t mean they have to betray the essential character of both who they are and of the show.
“Bad acting, bad writing, all opinions.” WRONG – Remember, I am a professional director. One of the first things one is taught in directing class is to direct the actors to “take the moment.” This quality is not an opinion, but is fundamental to acting. BH-US actors frequently miss the moments and bust lines. Not an opinion.
Your point on Josh is well taken. My main objection to the Josh character is not in the manner he is written, but in the terrible acting, not of the character, but of the actor.
“Why I like Josh? He’s an interesting character. An independent character who shows his determination to fight his inner demons, dealing with them and at the same time displaying undying loyalty to his loved ones.” — Look, you made an argument. AWESOME! And you didn’t have to associate insulting names directed at me. GREAT!
“How’s his struggles any more grueling than George’s?” – Has Josh sacrificed his life for something other or greater than himself, as George did? If he has, bingo, you’ve made your point. And you did it with facts, values and reasoning.
“George can come off as pathetic at times.”— he does, but that’s part of his humor.
“Your first response to Charity contradicts this whole paragraph.”— No it doesn’t. She never made her point. “Vampires are what’s beautiful about death.” Sorry, death is not the answer. How morbid.
“while being the guy who gave up and knows next to nothing about the US-BH, makes it even funnier.” – And again you go back to the degradation. You have shown you have the ability to reason, at times. Don’t blow it. I did watch a series of episodes of US-BH. I watched a year of Sam on Smallville as Dooms Day and he is a bad actor.
“I’m not self-righteous. Again you are using that term incorrectly.” – You don’t know what the term “self-righteous” means. I understand, but this passive-aggressive interleaving of paragraphs is getting boring, quick.
And I never judged Americans on any stereotypes – I never judged Americans.
Personal attacks. Again. I was merely commenting on your insults to other people and your stereotypical judgment on American culture (which I still can’t comprehend why you continue to deny. One but has to scroll up and find them and see that I am not lying or making it up. As a matter of fact others here can vouch). My main purpose here was to address the topic of BH. I admit, I’m not big on poetry (again you bring up something off topic, but hey I’ll bite), but I don’t disrespect it (I’m not saying you said I did. I’m just throwing it out there) and that doesn’t mean everything has to be literal to me. You tell me I’m on a “Being Human” discussion (“Hey! Did you notice that? Being Human, that’s the title of the series.”). What, did you think I forgot? So yeah I threw a sarcastic “Nooo, really??”-type comment back (I’ll get into the “”Captain Obvious bit in a minute). Picked “Star Wars” out of the hat. But then you come and ask “what’s Star Wars have to do with this?” and “I don’t remember fornication” yada yada (yet you say I take things literally. Also funny).
My second paragraph? I said the fact that gave BH-US a fair chance was debatable. You asked “How?”. I gave you obvious reasons why, wondering how you could even ask that. Then you turn around and say you never asked me in the first place. I found your denial laughable.
Yes. I don’t know what your nationality is. That’s beside the point. Whether anybody knew it or not, the fact still remains, you’ve thrown judgments on American culture based on stereotypes (again, not lying. Scroll up). Where did you contradict? Again. Scroll up. Your contradictions are all over the place, Mark. I don’t have to type it out here.
“Captain Obvious” is a sarcastic name used when a person states an obvious fact when he or she doesn’t need to because everyone knows that (so no. I used the word “obvious” just fine). “Dude” is just a word when people talk to each other. It’s like “bro” or “mate”. One may even say a less proper way of saying “sir”. Hardly degrading or disrespectful. As far as “Captain Obvious” goes, it all depends on how one takes sarcasm. Regardless, these names are also hardly tools to imply superiority….speaking of which…
“BUT, I never stated that you stated you were superior to me. What is stated was: you THINK you’re superior to me and you CLAIM to be superior to me. Now, unless you’re going to admit you’re in the wrong – it think this issue is closed.” –Did you even think before you typed this? No. I’m not going to admit I was the wrong, because I’m NOT. I never THOUGHT nor STATED/CLAIMED that I was superior to you. Whatever impression you chose to have is your problem, because I guarantee you, that was not my intention, and I’m confident that I gave you no reason to think as such. And another thing: YOU were the one who brought up the subject of “superiority” in the first place. You want this issue closed now? Fine by me. You opened it, feel free to close it. But I won’t admit to being wrong.
“Why not? And even if they are different, it doesn’t mean they have to betray the essential character of both who they are and of the show.” –I meant in terms of interpretation. And I disagree the US completely betrayed the essential character of the show. They are still “monsters” striving to live a normal life and they are still holding those values true. Of course there’s the temptations and the fear of Human reaction and possible non-acceptance. There are the trials that weigh so heavy that they begin to question their capability of actually living normal. Another reason I like Aiden’s character as well. On top of what I just explained, he’s also on a road to redeem himself, to live above the evil life he once lived., carrying a heavy burden, but yet still finds time to smile and show his humorous side and at the same time become an essential piece of the puzzle that is the Bond between he, Josh, and Sally.
“WRONG – Remember, I am a professional director. One of the first things one is taught in directing class is to direct the actors to “take the moment.” This quality is not an opinion, but is fundamental to acting. BH-US actors frequently miss the moments and bust lines. Not an opinion.” –I haven’t forgotten you are a professional director. I say opinions, because not everybody is going to believe their acting is bad. Where you don’t enjoy, someone will. Where some will critique and see it as a negative, some will applaud it as they have taken it in differently, I don’t doubt your view on the missed moments, but moments I do see (along with many others), are done just right and keep up entertained. I’m not expecting these guys to win Emmy’s or move onto Oscar-worthy roles, but as far as this TV series goes, they complement the characters well and people love them. You being a director, I see where you’re coming from on your point of view on the acting, and I respect that just as much as other directors’ who actually like the acting (after all, the director of BH-US is a “director” too). But if you ask me, I say the show, it’s theme, characters and chemistry and the vibe make this show one to love, or at least possible to love. The characters don’t annoy me, they display their emotions in their lines and define their characters. Your point is well taken on Sam as Doomsday though. Although I was indifferent about his role, I see where you did not enjoy him haha. He’s cool as Aiden, but that’s just me.
“Has Josh sacrificed his life for something other or greater than himself, as George did?” –Yes. So has Aiden for that matter. But for the respect of anyone here that didn’t go that far yet, and is reading this, I’ll go no further than that.
“No it doesn’t. She never made her point. ‘Vampires are what’s beautiful about death.’ Sorry, death is not the answer. How morbid.” –That’s not what I got from her. She was merely explaining that the Vampires were not (or at least not only) symbolic for Sex. I saw it as her saying that Vampires represented the temptations of Vampirism by portraying Death as a beautiful thing with immortality and power. No one said Death was the answer. Aiden knows, that’s why he fights against his urges to kill innocent life and turn any more people. Therefore its not JUST about Sex. She made her point well (even if I was way off about it) and you still shot her down. You don’t like when people state their opinion as a fact. When you state that BH-US is ONLY about Sex and Violence, aren’t you doing the same?
“I’m not self-righteous. Again you are using that term incorrectly. You don’t know what the term “self-righteous” means. I understand, but this passive-aggressive interleaving of paragraphs is getting boring, quick.” –Yes I do. I’ve said all I needed to say about it in my last reply. Feel free to re-read it. Because I agree, the paragraphs are getting boring, so I won’t bother to copy and paste it.
“And I never judged Americans on any stereotypes. I never judged Americans.” –(revert back to the top of this reply. There’s my response to that…
You are so loquacious.
“Personal attacks. Again. I was merely commenting on your insults to other people and your stereotypical judgment” – Yes, you make many personal attacks and I noted some. I made no stereotypical statements. You are using that word incorrectly, again.
I have never judged anyone in my life. You are using that word incorrectly. Please learn the correct definition before you use it again. Others can’t vouch. Would you like to stop the personal attacks and stick to BH?
[On the side, you like to write early in the morning.]
“My main purpose here was to address the topic of BH.” – Then why don’t you do that and stop the personal attacks and misuse of English?
“I’m not big on poetry (again you bring up something off topic” – again poetry is on topic if I am writing poetry and you are attacking it. That’s called logic.
2nd half of your 1st paragraph is incoherent.
“I gave you obvious reasons why”—again you are not using that word correctly.
“I found your denial laughable.”—I find your arguments incoherent.
You really like to write a lot, and I would write 2/3 less if you would stick to BH.
“Yes. I don’t know what your nationality is. That’s beside the point.” – Then why did you bring it up?
“you’ve thrown judgments on American culture based on stereotypes”—I’ve never judged and I don’t use stereotypes. Again you are using both of those words incorrectly. Do you go to Elementary school?
“Your contradictions are all over the place,” – then present some examples.
““Captain Obvious” is a sarcastic name used when a person states an obvious” – For the umpteenth time – you are using words incorrectly. You may want to gloss over your misuse of language, but you direct very disrespectful names at me continuously. You attempt to argue very disrespectfully which is what you accuse me of. That’s very hypocritical. It also completely invalidates your argument.
Can we get to BH? Some day?
“Did you even think before you typed this?”—yes, that’s why I used language correctly.
“Whatever impression you chose to have is your problem,” – Whatever impression I have are mine, but it’s not a problem. Again you are using language incorrectly. As I wrote that after your extremely denigrating language, disrespectful speech, and inability to use words correctly, you left me with the impression that you think you are superior. That is, you don’t grant me the common courtesy of humanity. Much like American slave owners treated their slaves, or the manager of the Phillies in 1947 treated Jackie Robinson.
“YOU were the one who brought up the subject of “superiority” in the first place” — yes, I did bring up the issue of superiority, because of the aforementioned reasons.
I understand that slave-owner-types like you never admit their wrong. Hey! That was a great American institution — SLAVERY – I bet you’re really sad it’s gone. When it was in effect, people like you could oppress people like me, the way you’re trying to do now, by not having to put together a coherent argument.
“And I disagree the US completely betrayed the essential character of the show.”—Okay, you disagree. You’re wrong. See the themes I annotated in a previous post. But it is interesting that you have acquiesced to my annotation of the major themes of BH. Thank you.
“Aiden’s character as well” – I’m glad you like that character centered on the values of fornication and murder. Impressive.
“They are still “monsters” striving to live a normal life and they are still holding those values true” – Wrong! They are torn between the worlds of begin human and being monsters. That’s basic. So basic let me elaborate. In literature all around the world such as Star Wars and the Bible the same themes are present. In Star Wars, the good side and dark side are in all of us. It’s that choice we make. In the Bible, sin (or the possibility to sin) and grace are in everyone, even Jesus. And in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, remember what Dumbledore said at the end to Harry: “It is not our abilities that determine who we are, but our choices.” This is a basic Buddhist theme. We are what we do. The same themes are being presented in BH. It’s not about monsters striving to live a normal life. It has to do with the powers of life and death and their interaction though the actions of mankind.
“he also on a road to redeem himself” — Please tell me, how many people does he have to murder or fornicate with to redeem himself. Because he always fornicates and always murders. When ever he’s faced with the choice of either, he always succumbs to them.
““Has Josh sacrificed his life for something other or greater than himself, as George did?” –Yes” – can you give me an example? If you can, bully for you!
“Therefore its not JUST about Sex.” — I hear what you’re saying, but when both of our comments were posted, and both she and I had seen the same number of episodes (based on date of post), I see no valid conclusion in her statement based on the content of the shows. At that point, I had seen every one of the BH-US episodes, and what she claimed was simply not in those episodes.
“and you still shot her down.”—Yes, I shot her down, because she was wrong in her claim. She claimed something that did not exist.
“When you state that BH-US is ONLY about Sex and Violence, aren’t you doing the same?”—No, because given the date of the post, I had seen every BH-US to date. And based on all those episodes, sex and murder was what it was all about. Also, I had seen all the source material that it was based on (namely BH-UK). I saw where they changed subtlety into being overt, where they changed kindness into impersonal fornication and where they changed redemption into murder. I could see every nuance, almost second-by-second where they made the changes, and in every case where they made a change, it was always to the dark side.
In conclusion, if you want to discuss BH, fine. But to continue misunderstand the use of words, especially, “stereotype”, “judge”, “self-righteous” and “obvious’ is getting tedious.
Stick to BH. I’m going to sleep.
Loquacious? I like to write a lot? Yours are just as long and your last one was quite a scroll down. So stop it. You want short? Okay. Let me condense as much as I can. I’m starting to think a long read for you means you skim and misinterpret things or just get too lazy to comprehend.
Stop being sensitive. They weren’t personal attacks. I commented on your insults to others and explained why people were rubbed the wrong way by you. You came in with the personal attacks, I just rebutted. Then you added more and more, don’t kid yourself.
Keep denying you were stereotypical. I’ve given more than enough examples. Again. SCROLL UP. Still ridiculous on how you still deny it.
“’Your contradictions are all over the place,’ – then present some examples.” –I have in posts past. You either can’t or refuse to comprehend that. It’s as plain as day. I will not re-post them here to spare you any more reading (SCROLL UP).
“Again poetry is on topic if I am writing poetry and you are attacking it. That’s called logic.“ –I didn’t attack poetry. You didn’t write any. Therefore, not on topic.
“’Yes. I don’t know what your nationality is. That’s beside the point.’ – Then why did you bring it up?” –NOT KNOWING your nationality was beside the point. You threw stereotypes when no one did it to you, leaving your insults unprovoked. READ.
(On “Captain Obvious”) – For the “umpteenth time”, I used it just fine. Seriously, the way you look at a simple name as “Captain Obvious” as so “degrading” and “disrespectful” is quite humorous. It hints at how over-sensitive you may be.
“Whatever impression I have are mine, but it’s not a problem. Again you are using language incorrectly—(blah blah blah)” –That’s exactly what I meant. They’re yours. I didn’t mean that it was an actual problem. You know for someone who calls me a “Literal Fundamentalist”, (oh, look. Another contradiction) you sure take things too literally. Still gave you no reason to bring up superiority.
I wouldn’t type as much paragraphs if I didn’t have to clarify things for you since you can’t seem to get what I’m saying (or maybe you just choose how you want to interpret them).
Now one more thing before I get back into Being Human. Your utterly stupid (yes, stupid) and farfetched (can’t even begin to explain how farfetched it is) assumption of me being a “slave-owner-type” has NO merit and you CANNOT base that on ANYTHING. Your assumption just proves that you are, have always been, the disrespectful one between us, throw judgment based on NOTHING, have been the one throwing the “personal attacks”, and pulling comments AND talking out of your rear end, Oppress people like you? Really? Please explain. Just for entertainment though. I’m already expecting an uneducated response to that as it lacks merit. Because seriously, you assuming that is BEYOND asinine. Go ahead. Keep contradicting yourself and acting like I’M the bully, Mark.
As for BH: There isn’t ONE post where I have not commented on BH. I’ve stayed on topic. With that said…
“I’m glad you like that character centered on the values of fornication and murder. Impressive.” –And I like how you prove my point about you in arguments/discussions. Funny. (I know we’ve had our banter about each other, but as far as the Being Human discussions go, I’ve been nothing but respectful.)
And isn’t that not what I meant? To “live a normal life”, to not “give in” to the dark side of their monsters. To not live the dark toils of their beasts. Aidan/Mitchell killing innocents, breeding an army of vampires to take over, that contradicts the “normal life” they are trying to live. That is the “good choice” they are making as opposed to the “evil choice” of doing the opposite. How was that any different than what you said? Not wrong.
I’m starting to think Fornification and Murder is all you chose to see in BH-US. I’ve enjoyed the different takes and routes the UK and US have taken with their storylines. It makes it interesting so I can watch both and see the different interpretations. The BH-US series has only been for about three seasons so far. There is yet more to see where Aiden, Josh, and Sally go with their choices and lives and how they overcome their personal demons. Will what you’re looking for happen or appear in seasons forthcoming? I don’t know. Maybe it’s going to take a little longer for them to satisfy what you’re looking for in the theme of the show and its moral compass. It probably never will. And that’s fine too. I see more than just what you see about the BH-US and that’s why I enjoy it, at the same time take nothing away from BH-UK.
In conclusion, there hasn’t been a post where I have not discussed BH. I use the words just fine and having to explain because you cannot comprehend and deal with your asinine assumptions is getting tedious as well.
“Stick to BH.” –Gladly. Never strayed.
““Stick to BH.” –Gladly. Never strayed.” — Really? 2/3 of your post are personal attacks against me.
“Yours are just as long ” — I addressed this issue in my previous post. If you would stop the personal attacks, my post would be 2/3 shorter.
” I commented on your insults” — really? When everything that comes out of your keyboard is filled with disdain. I didn’t personal attack, you did. With the continuous renaming, and degrading names that you have spewed at me since the beginning. Again, I am dealing with your personal attacks against me right now, instead of commenting on BH.
Again, you don’t know the meaning of the word: “stereotype” and you use it incorrectly. Accusing me of using stereotypes is a personal attack and a false one. I did scroll up; found nothing to support your claim. Could you deal with BH instead of misusing the words “stereotype”, “self-righteous”, “obvious” and so on. You use of those words has nothing to do with commenting on BH.
“I have in posts past.” — You haven’t presented anything. Anything at all, which is why you don’t present your claimed contradictions now. Again, personal attacks instead of commenting on BH. This topic is taking up the majority of the post, because you insist on it rather than commenting on BH.
“I didn’t attack poetry. You didn’t write any. ” — I never said you attacked poetry, I wrote it’s on topic because you attack my poetic words. And I did write poetry. This is the point here. You are making personal attacks, using words incorrectly and making basic mistakes in reasoning. You attacked my written poetic words — just because you don’t have the insight to see the poetry does not entitle you to make personal attacks. Wanna talk about BH? It’s up to you.
“You threw stereotypes when no one did it to you, leaving your insults unprovoked.”– I never used any stereotypes — learn what that word means, you are misusing it.
As for insults — your comments have been laden with insults from the very beginning. You are a hypocrite which invalidates your argument. If you want to prove I slung insults, then provide documentation WITHOUT throwing insults. Everyone of your posts contains lewd, degrading, insulting, defaming, and derogatory names directed at me. To use an Americanism: The pot is calling the kettle black. (do you know what this aphorism means?)
““Captain Obvious” as so “degrading” and “disrespectful” ” — is degrading and disrespectful — look at the definitions of degrading and disrespectful. You just don’t seem to know what words mean. The fact that you find it humorous is a comment on your character.
“—(blah blah blah)” “– Again this commenting is extremely disrespectful. It indicates I have made my point logically and you can’t acknowledge it. If you are going to challenge me about being insulting, then your cannot be derogatory in any manner including the extremely disrespectful phrase: “blah, blah, blah.” Learn how to construct an argument.
““Literal Fundamentalist”, (oh, look. Another contradiction) you sure take things too literally” — where’s the contradiction? Where? This is my point. You claim a contradiction and have no example. Just because you don’t know how to use language and have used it incorrectly, does not make me the literal fundamentalist. Please go back to elementary school and learn the difference between an adverb and a noun. Your entire post shows an inability to reason and use language correctly. As for the contradictions you claim, there are none. I might as well add that word to the list of words you use incorrectly.
“Still gave you no reason to bring up superiority.” — Yes you did and I iterated it in the last two post. So here goes a third time: Your constant use of disrespectful terms directed at me, the misuse of words and the degrading of my personal being gives me the reason to bring up the topic of superiority.
“I wouldn’t type as much paragraphs”– why don’t you just drop it, because you don’t know how to use words correctly, you don’t know how to reason and you insist on engaging in personal attacks. Look here over 700 words addressing only your personal attacks at me. You do this. If you stop the personal attacks, I would have no attacks to address. You do this.
“assumption of me being ” –Got YOU! That’s exactly what an ignorantly foolish person like you is. You are always trying to degrade me and insult me and then chastise me, accusing me falsely of doing the same. You are a sadist. Are you from the South? Got You! It is based on something. You continual degradation of me on these posts proves my characterization of you correct. Got you! Also I never judged you. You don’t know the meaning of that word. Stop using it incorrectly. Honestly, you do attend elementary school? Everything you have said supports the statement that you are a slave-owner-type. Everything. The insults, the degradation and the hypocrisy. You think you have the right to denigrate another human being to a sub-human level. That’s a slave-owner-type. We are talking about you now. You. You are the topic. You use of the words such as stupid, stereotype, judge, self-righteous are an attempt to rob me of my humanity. Exactly what a slave-owner-type would do.
“Oppress people like you? Really? Please explain.” — The continue barrage of insults and degradation. Go see 42. You will see yourself in the Phillies’ manager. There’s the proof. The proof is in your own words, Mr. Slave-owner-type. Also I have never contradicted myself and you, Mr. Slave-owner-type, don’t use that word correctly.
“I’ve stayed on topic. “– Stay on topic mean only address BH and stop the personal attacks. Honestly you reason like a four year old.
“as far as the Being Human discussions go, I’ve been nothing but respectful.” — and in everything else you been Mr. Slave-owner-type.
“I’m starting to think Fornification and Murder is all you chose to see in BH-US.” — not choose, it’s all I did see.
” I use the words just fine “– you use words incorrectly; among them are stereotype, judge, contradict, self-righteous, stupid and obvious. You do not know what these words mean and you use them incorrectly.
“Never strayed” — All you did was strayed. I had to write over 1,000 addressing your personal attacks against me which I have documented and you have too, Mr. Slave-owner-type.
All the personal attacks you made against me are the type of what the Phillies manager did to Jackie Robinson. Stop the personal attacks and learn the difference between an adverb and a noun.
2/3 of those paragraphs are quotes from you proving my points. Read. Again you started the personal attacks. Even when I commented on your insults the first time, the topic of BH was tied into it. Then you went on an condescending insult spree. You’re dealing with “my” personal attacks? Don’t mind if I deal with yours. I know the meaning of stereotype just fine (again yours are all over the place, and I’m not the only one who thought so). In posts past, I have presented enough. Again. Read. No personal attacks, no poetry. I didn’t attack ANY poetic word you threw. You have examples to prove me otherwise?
“If you want to prove I slung insults, then provide documentation WITHOUT throwing insults.” – I HAVE. SCROLL UP. READ. COMPREHEND. I’m not going to re-post them. You want short, right? What’s the matter with you?
I know what “disrespectful” and “degrading” is. Still laughing about you taking “Captain Obvious” so much to the heart. Lighten up. Got any other names so “degrading” that I have thrown at you? But please don’t make up any. AND don’t say “Dude” is one of them. Just don’t.
“Again this commenting is extremely disrespectful. It indicates I have made my point logically and you can’t acknowledge it.” –No it doesn’t. The “(blah-blah)” just indicates me shortening it to keep you from more reading. I’m helping YOU out. After all, you know what you said right? Again, overthinking things. Sensitive, yet ready to shoot other people down.
“Got YOU! That’s exactly what an ignorantly foolish person like you is. You are always trying to degrade me and insult me and then chastise me, accusing me falsely of doing the same.” – You “GOT” nothing. Degrading? Foolish? Insulting? WRONG. All YOU from the get go. Towards posters from Charity, A N, to anyone who doesn’t see things the way you do (hence “arrogant”. Look it up).
“You think you have the right to denigrate another human being to a sub-human level. That’s a slave-owner-type. We are talking about you now. You. You are the topic. You use of the words such as stupid, stereotype, judge, self-righteous are an attempt to rob me of my humanity. Exactly what a slave-owner-type would do.” –WRONG. All you. Fine you want to use “slave-owning” in that context? Let’s see, you tell people they are wrong about opinions, about characters, tell people to get an education because their answers don’t satisfy or contradict yours, people give valid reasons yet you shoot them down and imply you have the superior thinking. No, Mark. YOU are the “slave-owner”. The “oppressive” one. Hypocrite (apparently YOU need to look that word up).
“’I’m starting to think Fornification and Murder is all you chose to see in BH-US.’ — not choose, it’s all I did see.” –With that logic, you might as well go ahead and see George “sticking” it to Nina from behind as BH-UK being “ONLY about sex”. At least it took Josh a full season and an episode or two before he slept with Nora. And even THAT was only implied, rather than showing the raunchy details.
Well, I’d like to reply more about BH, but it seems you didn’t leave much for me to reply to, seeing as 2/3 of your post was personal attacks filled with contradictions, hypocrisy and asinine assumptions with no merit (yet you say I stray…contradiction number….too much to count).
Drop it? You first.
“Again you started the personal attacks.” – It doesn’t matter that you feel I started the personal attacks. You have continued them. It’s your entire argument that I’m wrong because of what you believe to be personal attacks and that YOU continue to attack me personally. That’s hypocrisy. That invalidates your entire position. If my using what you view as personal attacks is wrong, they why do you attack me personally?
“the topic of BH was tied into it.” – It doesn’t matter if you tack on a comment about BH after the majority of your post is a personal attack. They are two separate issues. You are still a hypocrite, a phony and a liar.
“Then you went on an condescending insult spree.” – When everything YOU write is filled with disdain? That’s hypocrisy. If personal attacks are wrong, then you are not allowed to do them. If they are okay, then you have no argument.
“You’re dealing with “my” personal attacks?”—I respond to your personal attacks, you initiated personal attacks. There is a difference. You are the aggressor in every post.
You started this with a post referencing me. I never knew you existed. When are you going to deal with ONLY BH and nothing else? Every sentence proves you to be a hypocrite.
You generated 575 words in your post I’m responding to.
“I know the meaning of stereotype” – No! You don’t know the definition of the word stereotype and you don’t use it correctly. I don’t know where you were educated, maybe MTV, but I have never used any stereotype in my posts.
Here is a list of words you commonly misuse and do not know the definitions of: contradict, judge, obvious, self-righteous and stereotype. Honestly have you bothered to look up the definitions for these words? I have three university degrees. I am a published author. I am a teacher. I know what words mean. You should learn.
Also, you seem to argue that personal attacks are okay, so you then can’t object to me using stereotypes as part of a personal attack, not that I ever have.
“I’m not the only one who thought so” – consistency does not imply validity. If everybody thinks it’s okay to rape your spouse, it’s still not right.
“I have presented enough.”—you have presented no examples. I did read.
“No personal attacks, no poetry” – that’s not even a literate sentence.
“I didn’t attack ANY poetic word you threw.”—how about “rugrat”?
“I HAVE. SCROLL UP.” – I did scroll up; saw nothing.
“Still laughing about you taking “Captain Obvious”” – You just did it again. Every name you direct toward me is demeaning, disrespectful and attempts to dehumanize. Let me ask you a question: Would you call your mother “Captain Obvious”? See?
“Lighten up.” – I don’t have to lighten up. You’re the one slinging insults and not addressing the topic of the forum. Also, apply you medicine to yourself. Why don’t you lighten up and drop the personal attacks? Why don’t you lighten up and let what you consider to be personal attacks by me, slide by? Well? You see, it works both ways.
“AND don’t say “Dude” is one of them.” – Why not? It is disrespectful. I am not a dude, I am a human being. I guess I can add “dude” to the list of words you don’t know how to use correctly. Would you call your mother “dude”?
“I’m helping YOU out.” – Oh thank you, so much. I am so flattered.
“Sensitive, yet ready to shoot other people down.” – This is a poorly constructed sentence. When people make incorrect connections, I will shoot them down.
“You “GOT” nothing.” – I got you, Mr. Slave-owner-type. Go see 42. Mid-movie there is a scene between Jackie Robinson and the Phillies manager. You will see yourself. It’s not pretty.
Arrogance is not a sin.
“All you.” – this sentence makes no sense. You have used the words stupid, stereotype, judge, self-righteous, contradict, dude, and obvious all in an attempt to dehumanize me. And if you attack me personally, then how can you deny me retaliating? It seems to you, personal attacks are okay when you flail them, but not okay when in your mind I retaliate.
“you tell people they are wrong about opinions, about characters, tell people to get an education” – I tell them they are wrong because they are wrong. When I give a quiz in class, there are right and wrong answers. If I taught a class on BH, there would be right and wrong answers. I have no problem telling someone who is wrong, that they are wrong. Look at your argument. I told someone who was wrong, that they were wrong. How terrible.
“you shoot them down” – I shoot them down when they are wrong. We’ve covered this territory before.
“Hypocrite (apparently YOU need to look that word up).” – I do know what it means, apparently I have to add it to the list of words you don’t know.
Hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
“–With that logic, you might as well go ahead and see George “sticking” it to Nina from behind as BH-UK being “ONLY about sex”.” – If you read my post carefully, it’s Aiden that I was talking about with respect to fornication.
And this is the rub. I always only wrote about Aiden fornicating and murdering. You know that. So you take what I say out of context and apply it to a character I never associated it with. That behavior is unethical.
“Well, I’d like to reply more about BH” – More? You had one statement about BH. One and you unethically referred to it out of context and applied it to a character I NEVER associated with it.
“seeing as 2/3 of your post was personal attacks filled with contradictions, hypocrisy and asinine assumptions with no merit” – Man, you lie more than Tokyo Rose.
2/3 of my post dealt with YOUR personal attacks against me. I didn’t attack your person once. I refuted your attacks against me. There were no contradictions and you can’t list even one, which shows you don’t know what the word means. There was no hypocrisy, because I did not profess a belief that I do not hold. (See definition, previous). I see I must also add the word asinine to your vocabulary of words you don’t understand.
Now, here’s a question to you, and try to answer it with something like than; “Can You?“ This question is about you, not me. Get it? You.
Can you make a post without any personal attacks directed towards me, and ONLY referring to questions about BH?
I don’t think you can. Prove me wrong.
“It doesn’t matter that you feel I started the personal attacks. You have continued them.” –OOOH. I see. You can throw personal attacks from the get-go. But I’M wrong if I continue them? Nice.
“You are still a hypocrite, a phony and a liar.” –You know, with the exception of Captain Obvious and Dude (that are not even dehumanizing), I’ve haven’t even called you a degrading name. I refrained as much as I could from doing that, yet here you are. Then turn around and I say I throw personal attacks. Such a contradiction that you call ME the hypocrite.
“You are the aggressor in every post.” –Wrong. Again.
“You don’t know the definition of the word stereotype and you don’t use it correctly. “ – Hmm.
YOU:
“Or maybe, as a first generation American you will go out tonight and fornicate with someone whose name you do not even know.” –No. You didn’t scroll up. Otherwise you would’ve seen that already.
You know what? It seems that when you say “You haven’t provided anything”. “that sentence didn’t make sense” or that it wasn’t literate, you just see what you want to see, interpret it in your own arrogant way, and at the same time go into denial. Really? You didn’t get “All you”? Did you not read before that? I think you have ignored everything around it and just saw “All you” as one lone sentence. It’s no wonder you didn’t’ get it. It’s not the first time you pulled that kind of thinking. Read AND comprehend. And while you’re at it, re-evaluate who between us needs to “get an education” because quite frankly so many things I have said just zipped past you and you are acting like a sensitive child who only sees insults, throws them and then wonders why he gets more back.
Would I call my mother “Captain Obvious”? Haha! Sure. And when I do, she won’t think it “degrading”, you know why? Because she’s not an oversensitive whiner, knows I mean no ill will, and actually has a sense of humor. Was your question supposed to prove something?
“Why don’t you lighten up and let what you consider to be personal attacks by me, slide by? Well? You see, it works both ways.” –“Lighten up” in reference to your stance on “Captain Obvious”. That name PALES in comparison to the insults you throw at me. READ. And sure, it works both ways. Which means you could’ve let it slide, too. You’re no better.
“It is disrespectful. I am not a dude, I am a human being. I guess I can add “dude” to the list of words you don’t know how to use correctly. Would you call your mother ‘dude’?” –So when friends call each other “dude”, it’s dehumanizing? If that were the case, so would “mate”, “pal”, “friend”, “lad”, etc. My mother is my mother. Not my friend, not my peer. So no, I wouldn’t call her “dude”, but me not doing so doesn’t prove your idiotic point either.
I kept the above short and simple. Because quite frankly when you say things like, “I refuted your attacks against me”, “Can you make a post without any personal attacks directed towards me, and ONLY referring to questions about BH? I don’t think you can. Prove me wrong”, and so forth, I can say and ask the same things. What will you do? Say “No, it’s you” and bounce it right back and we’d have a never-ending see-saw. You tell me to document proof and contradictions, I say I have, you refuse to acknowledge them. If you’re going to stay stubborn and arrogant, then there is no hope.
A N said it best: “if I were you, I would do what many posters before you did and ignore Mark. There’s nothing you can say to him that will pierce through his inflated ego. Whenever a new poster comes around to comment, he goes on another attack—so this won’t be last of it.”
You sir have a massive ego and I thank the stars you do NOT actually teach a BH class with your closed mind. You’re the closest to a slave-owner type than anyone here. And another thing, stop associating “slave-owning” to the movie 42. Slavery was abolished 50+ years before Jackie Robinson was even born!
Back to BH
“If you read my post carefully, it’s Aiden that I was talking about with respect to fornication.” – If YOU read carefully I commented on you only choosing to see US-BEING HUMAN (NOT just Aidan) being about Fornication AND Murder, to which YOU replied “it’s all I did see”.
Again. Not much BH to reply on due to your overwhelming attack on my character.
Man, you like to write a lot. 773 words. Do you have a job? Really, you must put a lot of effort into these posts.
“You can throw personal attacks from the get-go” – FYI I did not throw personal attacks at you from the get-go. You started the post with a personal attack at me. At which I did not personally attack you, but addressed your personal attack at me. Like I am doing right now. I have already written this commentary several times and each and every time you fail to pick it up. I notice you don’t address the issue and that you continue every post to personally attack me while maintain that personal attacks are wrong.
In my last post, I challenged you to write a post with ONLY taking on issues germane BH. I didn’t think you could do it. I was right.
“ I’ve haven’t even called you a degrading name.” – Wrong! You have called me “stupid” many times. More degrading names followed and are detailed later.
“Such a contradiction that you call ME the hypocrite’ This is where you make a lot of your mistakes. First you don’t know what the word contradiction means and you use it improperly again. Second, you are a hypocrite based not on your person, but your behavior. What I am doing is not a personal attack, because it’s based on the fact that you applied your values in a double standard. You see? I don’t call you “Captain Obvious,” or “Dude” or other insulting terms which aren’t based on facts, but are attempts at dehumanizing insults. Hypocrisy is based on the definition I provided and your behavior which corresponds to hypocrisy. There is a difference.
“You are the aggressor in every post.”—You are the aggressor. You started the post against me; I never knew you existed and never addressed you before you started your personal attacks. You see, that’s evidence.
““Or maybe, as a first generation American you will go out tonight and fornicate with someone whose name you do not even know.”” – How is this stereotype?
“your own arrogant way,” – you use the word arrogance like it’s a bad thing.
“Read AND comprehend” – I do know how to read and comprehend. Again you never stop with the personal attacks. If personal attacks are bad, then why do you use them? If they aren’t bad (since you engage in them so numerously), then why do you find a problem with me, in your mind, engaging in them? Why?
“re-evaluate who between us needs to “get an education” — I have three university degrees from the finest universities.
“you are acting like a sensitive child” – I need some clarity here. If I am too sensitive for you, then why can’t those people who you claim I’ve personally attacked, toughen up? Why? You can’t have it both ways. You’re insisting on a double standard.
“Would I call my mother “Captain Obvious”? Haha! Sure” – Well, then you have even less manners than I gave your credit for. Pity.
“Was your question supposed to prove something?” – It did. And you walked right into it.
–“Lighten up” in reference to your stance on “Captain Obvious”. – Oh, so lighten up is a selective in reference to what you call me and not what I write. Hypocrisy.
“That name PALES in comparison to the insults you throw at me.” – It’s all or nothing.
“Which means you could’ve let it slide, too. You’re no better.” — Lowest common denominator?
“–So when friends call each other “dude”, it’s dehumanizing” – I have already told you, that is not my name and I do not want to be addressed as such. Remember?
“My mother is my mother. Not my friend” – Pity.
“your idiotic point either” – another one of your personal attacks attempt to dehumanize me. Maybe you should lighten up. Would you agree that “idiot” is a lot more serious than “Captain Obvious,” so in the name of human respect one should lighten up on “idiot” before “Captain Obvious”? — Do you know what the central principle behind slavery is? Because you are tapping into it on every post. Have you seen “42,” I really wish you would. It might be an eye opener.
“I can say and ask the same things” – I knew you would do this, I knew you would do this! I addressed this in my previous post. The mark of a lair. No simple yes or no. Can’t answer a straight question straightly.
“I say I have, you refuse to acknowledge them” – You‘ve never given me a concrete example, as I have given you. For example, I explained what “rugrats” was and you did not have the open mindedness to accept it. I’m saving a trump card on that one for you, because it shows how you jump to conclusions without the facts. How you work on the principle of: “proof by assumption.”
“If you’re going to stay stubborn and arrogant, then there is no hope” – Arrogance is not a sin and I will acquiesce to your point as soon as you provide concrete information; which so far you haven’t. For example, you claimed Josh sacrificed his life for something other or greater than himself and provided no illustration. Do it and I said the point would be yours. See? Look at the series four summary of BH-UK here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Human_(TV_series).
It shows how George performed his sacrifice.
“You sir have a massive ego” – Again another personal attack which is a contradiction of your statement at the beginning of this post. FYI, I have no ego.
“and I thank the stars you do NOT actually teach a BH class” – Again another personal attack. If you took my course, you would learn what the series is actually about. You’re the one who is stubborn and insists on personal attacks. This last quoted statement of yours is gratuitous and self-serving. It isn’t necessary. It is put there for one and only one purpose, to be dehumanizing.
– If YOU read carefully I commented on you only choosing to see US-BEING HUMAN (NOT just Aidan) being about Fornication AND Murder, to which YOU replied “it’s all I did see”. – I’m sorry I did not use a copious amount of words. I guess I was asking too much of you. “it’s all I did see,” is a shorthand of describing that:
“When I watched BH-US, what was evident in comparison with BH-UK was the massive changing of theme to the point where virtually all there was, was fornication and murder that replaced the elegant, gentle and noble themes of BH-UK.”
I’m sorry I asked too much of you.
Now, my questions for you:
Did your mother raise you to be such a disrespectful, degrading, and dehumanizing person? When you insult me with terms such as “stupid,” “massive ego,” “stubborn,” “idiotic” and what you mean by “arrogant,” you also insult all those who maintain a standard of human dignity and decency.
Why don’t you show a little class, for once? And, I am asking this question of only you. You predictably answer questions like this with: “Why don’t you? “ In those cases, you’re not answering the question. This question requires only a simple yes or no.
You have taken from the beginning “school yard” logic to your aggressive posts which you initiated. I never address you, before you addressed me.
In closing: May our noses always meet in peace.
Funny. Your last replies have been twice as long as mine. I told you I’m keeping mine short. Yet you keep sending essay-like posts. You can call me Captain Obvious or Dude if you want. I won’t take it as bad as you. That’s all I’m going to say about that. It’s still funny it affects you like that, and you try so hard to justify their meanings to something of a dehumanizing effect. Even funnier is you calling me a Hypocrite for it for no reason. And asking me if I have a job (which I do have if you must know) is so irrelevant and pointless.
I addressed your comments (it’s not like I was the first one). Where was “stupid”? Where was slave owning? What did you come back with? Note that you have thrown rude comments and shot down valid reasons and personal opinions LONG before I got here. Posters didn’t know YOU existed until you replied to them when you didn’t like their thoughts on the series. But hey I address it along with my BH thoughts and all of a sudden it’s “Do you know what reason is?”, “get an education”, “You remind me of an American from the South” (which by the way is another stereotype. Not all people from the South are illiterate like you implied).
How was your comment a stereotype? It went along with your post about American TV only being about Sex. And FYI, people who have fornicated with strangers, weren’t all American.
FYI, something I forgot to mention in my last post: Even IF “rug rat” is a poetic word (which I highly doubt), the way you used it sure wasn’t.
“In my last post, I challenged you to write a post with ONLY taking on issues germane BH. I didn’t think you could do it. I was right.” –It’s called “refuting your personal attacks”. After all isn’t that what you said you do as well? Face it, if I threw that challenge, you’d lose it. Otherwise this wouldn’t have gone as long as it has.
“If I am too sensitive for you, then why can’t those people who you claim I’ve personally attacked, toughen up? Why? You can’t have it both ways. You’re insisting on a double standard.” –They didn’t react like you, Mark. Don’t kid yourself (your offenses to “Captain Obvious” and “Dude” are examples). Plus they’ve long ignored and written you off so toughen up for what?
“Would I call my mother “Captain Obvious”? Haha! Sure” – Well, then you have even less manners than I gave your credit for. Pity.”
“’My mother is my mother. Not my friend’ – Pity.” –Pity, huh? How so? Or did you pick just those certain parts of my sentences just to make it seem as bad as it really ISN’T? Your thought on my manners based on this is just another one of your asinine assumptions. I’ll add it next to your “Slave-Owning” one.
“It’s all or nothing.” –Coming from the guy who claims that he wants the personal attacks to stop.
“I have already told you, that is not my name and I do not want to be addressed as such. Remember?” –I know. “Dude” is no one’s name. Neither is “mate”, “pal”, or “friend”. I haven’t even called you “Dude” since that first and only time. What’s the matter with you?
“The mark of a lair. No simple yes or no. Can’t answer a straight question straightly.” –READ, Mark. There you go again. An explanation was in that whole paragraph. Stop nitpicking words instead of comprehending what I’m saying.
Never said Arrogance was a sin. But that that doesn’t rob from the fact that it describes your posts.
“’You sir have a massive ego’ – Again another personal attack which is a contradiction of your statement at the beginning of this post. FYI, I have no ego.
“If you took my course, you would learn what the series is actually about. You’re the one who is stubborn and insists on personal attacks. This last quoted statement of yours is gratuitous and self-serving. It isn’t necessary. It is put there for one and only one purpose, to be dehumanizing.” –That paragraph was due to an accumulation of all your unnecessary insults, absurd assumptions about me, and ridiculous judgments on my character from the Slave-owning bit, my supposed illiteracy and lack of knowledge, and now add the questioning of how my mother raised me. Don’t even act like it was unprovoked. You’ve asked for “massive ego” and “stubborn” at that point. “Stupid” and “idiotic” were towards your reasons and assumptions. Not to you in general. READ. My mother raised me just fine. Is that irrelevant question based on another one of your pointless assumptions? You shouldn’t bring up another person’s mother then turn around and tell said person to “have a little class”.
Josh sacrificed his HUMAN Life, in an attempt to save Aidan from Liam. A selfless act to help a friend (someone OTHER than HIMSELF). He cured himself of his wolf prior, but in the act of helping Aidan, he was turned into a wolf again when Liam scratched him.
“’it’s all I did see,’ is a shorthand” –Yeah. Said the guy who couldn’t comprehend “All you”.
“I’m sorry I did not use a copious amount of words. I guess I was asking too much of you. “ –What does the amount of words have to do with anything? I compared your assumption of BH-US only being about Sex and Murder to one who might as well do something similar if he or she saw George and Nina. Then you turn around and say you were only talking about Aidan and Sex. NOW you want to say you meant BH-US as a whole? Come on, Mark. Make up your mind.
This is great! I’ve got a pen pal. Everyday I can count on you to write me back. This is going to be awesome!
My replies aren’t twice as long as yours. You wrote 773 words, I wrote slightly under 1,100. There is a reason for it. I am quoting your text, more than you are quoting mine, but my last posts have been longer than yours.
“ told you I’m keeping mine short.” — Is 773 words short? “Yet you keep sending essay-like posts” – Unfortunately the data doesn’t support your claim. 1091 / 773 is 41% more.
“You can call me Captain Obvious or Dude if you want. I won’t take it as bad as you.” – I never will, I actually have class.
“you try so hard to justify their meanings to something of a dehumanizing effect.”—I don’t have to justify their meaning; I told you that is not my name and I don’t want to be addressed as such.
“Even funnier is you calling me a Hypocrite for it for no reason.” – I called you a hypocrite because your behavior corresponded to the definition. That’s a reason.
“so irrelevant and pointless” – No it isn’t and here is why. Many times reading your posts, I think I am interacting with a high scholer. You inability to use words correctly, like the word hypocrite, your inability to reason, like charging me with personal attacks while you make personal attacks.
“shot down valid reasons” – you haven’t presented any. That’s my point. You don’t know how to reason.
“You remind me of an American from the South”” — how is this a stereotype? And what’s wrong with using stereotypes? You’ve never stated the meaning of the word.
“Posters didn’t know YOU existed until you replied to them when you didn’t like their thoughts on the series” – What does this comment have to do with what I addressed?
“Not all people from the South are illiterate like you implied” – I never implied that all people from the south are illiterate. Tim Tebow is from the South. Hugo Black was from the state of Alabama, was a supreme court justice and a member of the KKK.
“How was your comment a stereotype? It went along with your post about American TV only being about Sex. And FYI, people who have fornicated with strangers, weren’t all American.” – How is that a stereotype? How?
“Even IF “rug rat” is a poetic word (which I highly doubt), the way you used it sure wasn’t.” – Why don’t you prove it?
““In my last post, I challenged you to write a post with ONLY taking on issues germane BH. I didn’t think you could do it. I was right.”” – I was right, you couldn’t do it.
“After all isn’t that what you said you do as well?” – Huh?
“Face it, if I threw that challenge, you’d lose it. Otherwise this wouldn’t have gone as long as it has.” – These sentences make no sense. Are you sure you’re not in high school?
“They didn’t react like you,” – That’s not an answer.
“Pity, huh? How so?” – Excellent. I’ve been bating you with that phrase and you are the only one with the intelligence to challenge me on it. Excellent! Most impressive. It is a line from a famous American film from 1992. Once you discover its source, you’ll know its meaning. It’s kind of my dig at some Americans challenging me that I don’t know American culture. Excellent! Good job.
“your asinine assumptions” – again, you are not using that word correctly.
““It’s all or nothing.” –Coming from the guy who claims that he wants the personal attacks to stop.” – Yes, absolutely.
“What’s the matter with you?” – Nothing. Some, not all, women do think I’m just too darn cute.
““The mark of a lair. No simple yes or no. Can’t answer a straight question straightly.” –READ, Mark. There you go again. An explanation was in that whole paragraph. Stop nitpicking words instead of comprehending what I’m saying.” – You didn’t answer the question.
“Never said Arrogance was a sin.” — I never said you said arrogance was a sin. Arrogance is a positive quality, so you admit that my posts are positive. Thank you.
““’You sir have a massive ego’ – Again another personal attack which is a contradiction of your statement at the beginning of this post. FYI, I have no ego.
“If you took my course, you would learn what the series is actually about. You’re the one who is stubborn and insists on personal attacks. This last quoted statement of yours is gratuitous and self-serving. It isn’t necessary. It is put there for one and only one purpose, to be dehumanizing.” –That paragraph was due to an accumulation of all your unnecessary insults, absurd assumptions about me, and ridiculous judgments on my character from the Slave-owning bit, my supposed illiteracy and lack of knowledge, and now add the questioning of how my mother raised me. Don’t even act like it was unprovoked. You’ve asked for “massive ego” and “stubborn” at that point. “Stupid” and “idiotic” were towards your reasons and assumptions. Not to you in general. READ. My mother raised me just fine. Is that irrelevant question based on another one of your pointless assumptions? You shouldn’t bring up another person’s mother then turn around and tell said person to “have a little class”. ”—Is this your attempt at an apology?
“Josh sacrificed his HUMAN Life, in an attempt to save Aidan from Liam” – But how? Details, details, details.
““’it’s all I did see,’ is a shorthand” –Yeah. Said the guy who couldn’t comprehend “All you”.” – Is this another attempt at an apology?
“What does the amount of words have to do with anything?” – You don’t know? Shall I spell it out to you?
“? I compared your assumption of BH-US of” – It’s not an assumption, it’s an observation – read fact!
“George and Nina” – George and Nina has sex once – and while George was transforming into a werewolf and did not have control over himself. Then they went there separate ways. When they re-united a year later they entered into a marital relationship. George referred to Nina as the love of his life.
“Then you turn around and say you were only talking about Aidan and Sex.” – I only commented on sex and murder in BH-US with respect to Aiden. I never observed Josh having sex with anyone. “As a whole,” means the theme as lived through Aiden. You show me where I ever commented on Josh fornicating, whether he has or not. I never observed it. Aiden is the central character. Be honest. I have been clear from day one.
Well, I look forward to conversing with you tomorrow. Nighty-night.
971 words for you and 1,131 words for me.
Pen pals indeed.
How nice of you to count. My point was, my posts were shorter.
“I don’t have to justify their meaning; I told you that is not my name and I don’t want to be addressed as such.” –You’ve justified them as “degrading”. And again, I only called you those once.
“I called you a hypocrite because your behavior corresponded to the definition. That’s a reason.” –And all I can do at this point is disagree with that once again.
“You’ve never stated the meaning of the word.” –Why? I thought you knew? You’re always saying how I don’t know the meaning of it (despite my examples that you refuse to comprehend it seems). Come on, Mark.
“’You remind me of an American from the South’ — how is this a stereotype?” –Again, I refer back to when I said “Not all people from the South are illiterate like you implied”. And yes you did imply that. How?
YOU: “You sound like an illiterate American from the South” –You didn’t have to say “from the South” you know.
Here let me help you:
Stereotype: A thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality.
Your view on American TV being only about Sex for example. Besides watching BH-US, have you any other points to prove that American TV is ONLY about Sex and violence? Or did you judge American TV as a WHOLE based on one (or a few) show(s)? Classifying something in its entirety unfairly based on a minimal amount of certain thoughts or actions is a common act of STEREOTYPING. Yes, Mark, I can reason. Yes, I know what a stereotype is, and now…you do, too.
“’Even IF “rug rat” is a poetic word (which I highly doubt), the way you used it sure wasn’t.’ – Why don’t you prove it?” –Certainly.
YOU: “That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.” –If that’s truly your idea of using the word in a poetic way, then I don’t what else to tell you, but that we clearly have different ideas on what “poetic” is and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
“’In my last post, I challenged you to write a post with ONLY taking on issues germane BH. I didn’t think you could do it. I was right.’ – I was right, you couldn’t do it.
‘After all isn’t that what you said you do as well?’ – Huh?
‘Face it, if I threw that challenge, you’d lose it. Otherwise this wouldn’t have gone as long as it has.’ – These sentences make no sense. Are you sure you’re not in high school?
‘They didn’t react like you,’ – That’s not an answer.
Is this an/another attempt at an apology?” –Your responses only prove my point that you nitpick certain parts of my words to benefit your arguments and refuse (or seemingly altogether lack the ability) to comprehend, which, in turn, makes you believe that I can’t reason, which I’ve clearly proven I can and hey, in one of your posts you’ve even agreed that I COULD (want me to prove that, too? Just ask and I’ll be more than willing).
Yes, I am sure I’m not in High School. A person (though not every person) in high school would’ve cursed at you and probably even threatened you. They would probably even throw “text talk” words (“u” instead of “you”, “l8er” instead of “later”, etc). I’ve done none of those and gave you no other reasons to think as such. I’ll dismiss that question as you just throwing pointless insults out of spite. And “apologies”? Far from it, sir. Read. Comprehend. The mere fact that you took anything as an “apology” is baffling. Are you sure YOU”RE not in high school (as a student rather than the “teacher” that you claimed to be)?
“Excellent. I’ve been bating you with that phrase and you are the only one with the intelligence to challenge me on it. Excellent! Most impressive.” –Why, thank you, sir.
“Nothing. Some, not all, women do think I’m just too darn cute.” –Don’t know what that has to do with anything, but hey good for you.
“Arrogance is a positive quality, so you admit that my posts are positive. Thank you.” –No, not at all. If you truly thought my posts were positive, you would not have responded so negatively up to this point. Don’t kid yourself.
“’Josh sacrificed his HUMAN Life, in an attempt to save Aidan from Liam’ – But how? Details, details, details.” –Are you nitpicking again? The details were there, Mark! READ. If you wanted me to go further to what brought it to that point, then say so. Although that would digress from the point I was trying to make (which is why I didn’t bother to type it the first time), I’ll be willing to tell you.
“It’s not an assumption, it’s an observation – read fact!” –Let’s see. In Season 1, Aidan only had one love interest (Rebecca) who he had sex with in the first episode. That’s ONE time in its 13 episodes. Aidan doesn’t kill any humans until ONE time midway through Season 2 (which was on instinct and panic, which he also REGRETTED). Then you say Aidan is only about Sex and Murder. Do you see where I took it as an “assumption” now? That one “observation” doesn’t make it any less so, especially when you have 12 other episodes (and that’s just Season ONE) disproving it (the first episode doesn’t even prove it for that matter).
“I never observed Josh having sex with anyone.” –Never said you did. That was an example to prove my point arguing with your notion about BH-US only being about Sex.
“I only commented on sex and murder in BH-US with respect to Aiden. “
“’As a whole,’ means the theme as lived through Aiden.”
“Aiden is the central character. Be honest. I have been clear from day one.
-WRONG
YOU:
“The US version has reduced every theme to two: sex and violence.”
“The US version: sex and violence. That’s all.
“The US version: (promiscuous) sex and violence win all the time.
No suspense.”
“I guess if you like every episode to end in a sexual act, then the US version is for you.”-Honest enough for you? Nice try, Mark.
I look forward to the continuation of our conversation as well. Good night.
(Do you count the words in relation to actual BH discussions as well?)
You’re up over a thousand words. Awesome!
“My point was, my posts were shorter” – And yes, you are correct, they are shorter, but not significantly.
““You’ve never stated the meaning of the word.” –Why? I thought you knew” – I do know it, that’s the point. How many times do I have to write: you are using that word incorrectly?
““You sound like an illiterate American from the South”” – thank you, you just proved me right. Not all southerners are illiterate! There are illiterates from the North, from the West and East and from the South. “An ILLITEATE from the South, as opposed to an illiterate from somewhere else.” There is no implication that all southerners are illiterate; you read that into it. Bingo!
“Stereotype: A thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality” GOT YOU!
Stereotype: One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
That is the definition of the term. It is a fixed form (period). It has nothing to do with thoughts, individuals, certain ways of doing things, beliefs or inaccuracy. You don’t know the meaning of the word.
Decades ago I was near a TV where MTV was playing. It inaccurately defined the word stereotype just as you have. At that time MTV represented the leftist movement of disinformation that attempted at supplanting truth with revisionist history. I don’t know if you are a product of that brain-washing program, but you have inherited some of its doctrine. You simply do not know what the word stereotype means and you have continued to use it incorrectly throughout these posts. A stereotype is a fixed form. That’s all. Neither positive nor negative.
“Yes, Mark, I can reason.” – no you can’t reason, because you don’t know definitions and you don’t know how to apply them. I gave you a long line and you hung yourself.
“YOU: “That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.”” – So it’s not a rug-rat that is negative; it’s ill-mannered. You didn’t prove anything other than you don’t know how to reason. Let’s me give you a parallel. “You disrespectful and ill-mannered President of the United States.” You see? It’s not the President that’s negative; it’s the disrespect and ill-manner. Got it?
“Your responses only prove my point that you nitpick certain parts” – that’s just another way of saying that you can’t construct a logical argument. Please. You can do better.
““text talk”—You have not used text talk, and I applaud you for that. That is wonderful. You show that you can write out full words; for which you should be acknowledged.
“The mere fact that you took anything as an “apology” is baffling” – I’ll explain. The sentences were so incoherent (even without the “text” talk) that if one of my 6th graders turned in an assignment to me like that, I would return it with the instructions to re-do.
““Nothing. Some, not all, women do think I’m just too darn cute.” –Don’t know what that has to do with anything, but hey good for you.” — You asked the question: “What’s wrong with you?”
““Arrogance is a positive quality, so you admit that my posts are positive. Thank you.” –No, not at all. If you truly thought my posts were positive, you would not have responded so negatively up to this point. Don’t kid yourself. “– I didn’t state your posts were arrogant, you stated my posts were arrogant.
“, Aidan only had one love interest (Rebecca) who he had sex with in the first episode.” – I’m not talking about love; I’m talking about sex. They have nothing to do with each other. In the episodes from season 1 that I watched; virtually every episode (I can’t state every, because it’s been a long time since I watched those episodes) he fornicated with someone. Also I witnessed him killing many. I remember.
““I never observed Josh having sex with anyone.” –Never said you did” — Never said you said I did. But you did say that I didn’t mention Josh with respect to the sex and murder theme. You see, this is how you twist the facts. You say: How is Josh related to the sex and murder theme. When I am clearly speaking of sex and murder theme in reference to the entire series as witnessed through the central character. And so on. I could right a lot more. I am writing clearly and you go off in tangents.
“YOU:
[1]“The US version has reduced every theme to two: sex and violence.”
[2]“The US version: sex and violence. That’s all.
[3]“The US version: (promiscuous) sex and violence win all the time.”
Which is: the sex and murder theme in reference to the entire series as witnessed through the central character. Don’t try to twist the facts. You either are lying or stupid. If you can’t understand the clear reasoning, then you are stupid. Points [1], [2], and [3] are statements about actions of the central character. It has to do with theme. Is theme another word that you do not understand? Shall I add it to the list?
Learn how to reason. If you read great literature, my analysis in well in line with those great works.
““I guess if you like every episode to end in a sexual act, then the US version is for you.”-Honest enough for you? Nice try, Mark.” – Thank you. I’m glad you have seen the light and realize you are wrong.
(Do you count the words in relation to actual BH discussions as well?) Haven’t done that yet.
1,090 words for you, 955 words for me.
“Not all southerners are illiterate! There are illiterates from the North, from the West and East and from the South. “An ILLITEATE from the South, as opposed to an illiterate from somewhere else.” There is no implication that all southerners are illiterate; you read that into it. Bingo!” –Again. You didn’t have to say “from the South”. You could’ve just stopped at illiterate. You’re just not getting it.
“GOT YOU!” – WRONG.
Stereotype: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment (ex: You thinking American TV as a whole is just about Sex and murder).
Mental as in “THOUGHT”. Okay. So if someone THINKS a certain RACE as a WHOLE is a certain way because one INDIVIDUAL, that’s not Stereotyping? The image or type is not true for an entire whole because of one conforming to it. Regardless of what you think the definition of Stereotyping is, you’ve used it. Learn.
I don’t watch MTV. I know what “stereotype” is. You just refuse to understand and deny that you threw an unfair judgment. Who’s the one lying now? You.
“So it’s not a rug-rat that is negative; it’s ill-mannered. You didn’t prove anything other than you don’t know how to reason. Let’s me give you a parallel. “You disrespectful and ill-mannered President of the United States.” You see? It’s not the President that’s negative; it’s the disrespect and ill-manner. Got it?” –So NOW you want to twist and say “rug rat” in itself being negative or not, is what’s being debated? Since the beginning I’ve said the CONTEXT you used it in was negative. Then we talked about the word “rug rat” being POETIC. Funny. You said the “disrespect” and “ill manner” were the negatives. Got you. Thanks for proving my point that you used it negatively to insult someone.
“No you can’t reason, because you don’t know definitions and you don’t know how to apply them. I gave you a long line and you hung yourself.” –Yes I can. The fact that you said I could in a past post, and then turned around and saying I can’t just proves my point on you twisting and contradicting and retracting.
“that’s just another way of saying that you can’t construct a logical argument.” –No. It’s saying instead of you actually reading and comprehending my posts the right way, you only pick a certain part of them, focus on it, and then twist it to a way where you make yourself seem right. You are the one twisting and lying, Mark.
“You asked the question: What’s wrong with you?” –Another example of your refusal to comprehend. That question was in regard to your problem of me supposedly continuing to call you “Captain Obvious” and “Dude”. To which you responded with some girls thinking you are cute. Twist much?
“I didn’t state your posts were arrogant, you stated my posts were arrogant.” –I never stated Arrogance in a positive light when I posted with you. In you choosing to take it positively and thanking me for it, you have proved my point (and hung yourself) about your posts being of an overbearing manner with presumptuous claims and ASSUMPTIONS.
Here’s another fun tidbit: You accepting me calling you arrogant, means you also accept that you have displayed an attitude of SUPERIORITY, one that you have continually denied to imply. Hence, that proves my point on your constant contradictions and hypocrisy. GOT YOU!
“I’m not talking about love; I’m talking about sex. They have nothing to do with each other. In the episodes from season 1 that I watched; virtually every episode (I can’t state every, because it’s been a long time since I watched those episodes) he fornicated with someone. Also I witnessed him killing many. I remember.” –I said “love interest” to further imply that Aidan having Rebecca would give him no reason to fornicate with anyone else, hence disproving your theory on Aidan (and the whole show for that matter) only being about Sex. And in case you try to be witty and say something along the lines of “well just because he has a steady girl, doesn’t mean he is incapable of cheating”, the fact remains, not every episode has Aidan having sex. Aidan barely (if it all) does any murdering as well. If you want to count Rebecca as kill, then go ahead. But Bishop brought her back as a vampire. How’s that any different from Mitchell and Lauren? That’s coming from someone who watched it more than once and recently. So your “observations” are fine, but they do not justify your claim.
“How is Josh related to the sex and murder theme. When I am clearly speaking of sex and murder theme in reference to the entire series as witnessed through the central character. And so on.” –There you go again. Then you lie and say I twist facts? Contradictory. I never asked how Josh is related to Sex and Murder. You take my examples and reasoning and twist them and put new words in my mouth. Stop it, Mark.
Points [1], [2], and [3] are statements about actions of the central character. It has to do with theme. Is theme another word that you do not understand? Shall I add it to the list? –You NEVER said that. Anyone who reads those statements would not see “Aidan” in there (literally as well because in case you can’t read, there was no “Aidan” in your quotes). It’s as PLAIN as day, Mark, yet you continue to deny and twist things yourself. It’s one thing to lie to me, but to lie to yourself is another. Pathetic.
“You either are lying or stupid” –Tsk tsk. See? You accuse me of calling you names, yet my last reply had none for you. Another contradiction on your part.
“I guess if you like every episode to end in a sexual act, then the US version is for you.” –That is YOUR quote (Point [4], in case you need a little help). This is hilarious. That was a BLATANT attempt to twist and nitpick just to formulate a lie and turn it on me. Did you honestly think after how long these posts together have gone, I would compromise my stance and admit that you were right about BH-US being ONLY about sex (a fact you have YET to prove) by saying “each episode ends in fornication”? READ. COMPREHEND. Stop TWISTING. Too funny, Mark. YOU can’t reason.
“Haven’t done that yet.” –I was just wondering. I assumed you wouldn’t count those.
“There is no implication that all southerners are illiterate; you read that into it. Bingo!” –Again” – No you read that into it. I wrote “An illiterate from the South.” I wrote nothing about all Southerners being illiterate. There are illiterate Southerners. Have you seen the literacy rates in Arkansas? 14%. No you’re not getting it. GOT YOU AGAIN, you do not know the definition of stereotype.
“Stereotype: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment” – that is the MTV definition.
A stereotype is a: fixed form; by definition. Your redefinition is revisionist. Again, you don’t know the definition of the word stereotype. GOT YOU. GOT YOU.
GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU!
ster•e•o•type/ˈstɛriəˌtaɪp, ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-] Show IPA noun, verb, ster•e•o•typed, ster•e•o•typ•ing.
noun
a set form; convention.
You definition is a sociological revisionist attempt to redefine the term based on your own prejudicial values. It’s like calling an illegal alien and undocumented immigrant or worker.
“I don’t watch MTV. “ I never said you did, but you have applied their leftist corrupted values very well. I’ve seem to have hit a nerve. You are responding like a racist. I am not saying you are a racist; what I am saying you are responding similar to individuals I know who are racists. Is that why you got all hot and bothered when you treated me like the Phillies manager treated Jackie Robinson? Have you seen “42’ yet? You know this reaction of yours explains a lot. The principle behind racism (not that I am calling your one, however) is degradation of another (in this case based on race). You have slung a lot of degradation at me. Something to consider.
In any case, you don’t know the meaning of the word: stereotype. Here it is again:
ster•e•o•type/ˈstɛriəˌtaɪp, ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [ster-ee-uh-tahyp, steer-] Show IPA noun, verb, ster•e•o•typed, ster•e•o•typ•ing.
noun
a set form; convention.
“So NOW you want to twist” – I didn’t twist anything. I provide a logical parallel to illustrate that, again, you are wrong. And again you can’t admit it.
“You said the “disrespect” and “ill manner” were the negatives. Got you.” – Of course those words provide a negative context. That’s why I was criticizing these people, because of their negative behavior towards me. GOT YOU AGAIN.
“–Yes I can. The fact that you said I could in a past post,” – What I am mentioning here is the difference between reasoning in general as opposed to a specific case. For example: Suppose I have a student and I give that student 100 arithmetic problems. The student gets 4 of the 100 problems correct. Now, the student has correctly performed arithmetic in 4 problems, so technically in 4 specific cases the student can perform arithmetic, but that result is not the whole picture. The student has failed a performing arithmetic proficiently. It’s analogous to literacy. Someone may be able to construct a sentence here and there, but not know the difference between an adverb and a noun. They do not know the meanings of words, because they have listened to MTV too much. They are functionally illiterate. The same is here, too. You have correctly performed a handful of reasoning process, but you are not proficient at the skill. You keep trying to weasel around words. You don’t know the difference between a subject and a predicate. And you are not proficient at reasoning. The fact that I have to explain all of these details to you, which should be understood and intuitive, speaks very poorly of you.
“You are the one twisting and lying,” – That what be you. You accuse me of personal attacks and you are relentless with personal attacks.
“–I never stated Arrogance in a positive light” — I never said you stated arrogance in a positive light. How many times do we have to go through this event? You say” “I never said X’” and I never said: “You said X.” This is a clear example of your inability to reason proficiently.
“You accepting me calling you arrogant, means you also accept that you have displayed an attitude of SUPERIORITY” – In your opinion, and it does indicate that you still can’t reason proficiently.
“to fornicate with anyone else” – so are you saying he did fornicate with Rebecca?
“There you go again. Then you lie and say I twist facts? Contradictory” – I didn’t lie or contradict myself at all. First, you don’t know what the word contradict mean and you are using it incorrectly. Second, you using a literalist extremeist form of reasoning, typical of racists (not that I am calling you one, though). This type of literalism is also prevalent in the South, among other places.
“Points [1], [2], and [3] are statements about actions of the central character. It has to do with theme. Is theme another word that you do not understand? Shall I add it to the list? –You NEVER said that” — yes I did, read my posts. In my post I stated my positions and gave examples only from Aiden, the central character.
“You either are lying or stupid” –Tsk tsk. See? You accuse me of calling you names, yet my last reply had none for you. Another contradiction on your part.” — I am not calling you names – I’m talking about your behavior based on your actions as opposed to you calling me stupid because I reason correctly and don’t agree with you. Again, you are not using the word contradiction correctly, similar to your misuse of the word stereotype.
““I guess if you like every episode to end in a sexual act, then the US version is for you.” –That is YOUR quote (Point [4], in case you need a little help). This is hilarious. That was a BLATANT attempt to twist and nitpick just to formulate a lie and turn it on me. Did you honestly think after how long these posts together have gone, I would compromise my stance and admit that you were right about BH-US being ONLY about sex (a fact you have YET to prove) by saying “each episode ends in fornication”? READ. COMPREHEND. Stop TWISTING. Too funny, Mark. YOU can’t reason.” — This entire part shows you inability to reason proficiently. You are such a literalist.
““Haven’t done that yet.” –I was just wondering. I assumed you wouldn’t count those.” – —– I spent the evening with a friend.
1,105 words for you; 1,105 words for me. I quoted you a lot.
“I wrote nothing about all Southerners being illiterate. There are illiterate Southerners. Have you seen the literacy rates in Arkansas? 14%. No you’re not getting it. GOT YOU AGAIN, you do not know the definition of stereotype.” –You keep throwing statistics and examples, yet I’m not even the one who said anything about Southerners being illiterate. Making your argument pointless.
“that is the MTV definition.
A stereotype is a: fixed form; by definition. Your redefinition is revisionist. Again, you don’t know the definition of the word stereotype.” –News flash: That meaning wasn’t from MTV. You can’t state your own opinion on the meaning of word and make it the only one just to solidify your stance. Regardless of the meaning you said : “An illiterate person from the South”. Stop denying it and throwing sentences and words that don’t help your argument.
“GOT YOU. GOT YOU.
GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU. GOT YOU!” –No. You didn’t. Calm down. You sound like a child consuming too much sugar.
“I never said you did [watch MTV]” – You said, “I don’t know where you were educated, maybe MTV”, to which I replied “No. Not MTV.” Come on, Mark. Focus.
“I’ve seem to have hit a nerve. You are responding like a racist. I am not saying you are a racist; what I am saying you are responding similar to individuals I know who are racists. Is that why you got all hot and bothered when you treated me like the Phillies manager treated Jackie Robinson? Have you seen “42’ yet? You know this reaction of yours explains a lot. The principle behind racism (not that I am calling your one, however) is degradation of another (in this case based on race). You have slung a lot of degradation at me. Something to consider.” –Hit a nerve? Please. Hot and bothered? Not even close. I found that assumption so spontaneous and without merit, that I was in utter disbelief and it proved my points easily. I found it amusing at the same time.. And “responding like a racist”? When I first posted on here, I never questioned your knowledge, called you a degrading name, but just comment on your insults and shooting down of others opinions. YOU respond with jabs at character, condescending notions, shoot down opinions, and overall act like an arrogant bully (there are quotes to prove it). BULLY. Bullies degrade others. Haha! Hence, Mark, YOU respond like a racist. GOT YOU!
“Of course those words provide a negative context. That’s why I was criticizing these people, because of their negative behavior towards me. GOT YOU AGAIN.” –Got me again?? Bull. You, again, proved my point in you using “rug rat” negatively (you throwing the negative behavior FIRST might I add), as I stated in my last post. You’ve just admitted (again) that it was in a negative context, which I’ve said from the beginning. No, sir, I got YOU.
“You keep trying to weasel around words.” –Coming from YOU, that is hilarious (and a contradiction). Throw scenarios and math all you want, but I’ve shown your past quotes, have gave you valid reasons that you refuse to comprehend and while you say I’m “too literal”, I’ve proven (and you have shown) that YOU are the one actually being so (refer back to the Star Wars bit). The fact that you don’t get that (or refuse to) speaks poorly of YOU, ESPECIALLY as a “teacher”. I am not the “literalist”. You are.
“You accuse me of personal attacks and you are relentless with personal attacks.” –Said the one judging my character, calling me a “slave-owning type”, and shooting down my (along with others) valid reasons and opinions. As I said, my previous post was practically just refuting your insults, yet you respond with more and new ones, piling them up.
“I never said you stated arrogance in a positive light. How many times do we have to go through this event? You say: “I never said X’” and I never said: ‘You said X.’ This is a clear example of your inability to reason proficiently.” –The inability to reason is yours.
YOU: “Arrogance is a positive quality, so you admit that my posts are positive.” –Unlike you, Mark, I have proof of your retractions and contradictions. You say you never said that I stated arrogance in a positive light. PLEASE enlighten me to what that sentence is then? How many times do we have to go through this, you ask? You’re the one actually bringing this around by continuing to deny what’s in front of your face, further proving my ability and your INability to reason. Got you. Again.
“’You accepting me calling you arrogant, means you also accept that you have displayed an attitude of SUPERIORITY’ – In your opinion, and it does indicate that you still can’t reason proficiently.” –Arrogance is a display of superiority and self-importance. Just because you accept it as a compliment, doesn’t mean it’s any less so. Don’t believe me on its meaning? Look it up. Learn. Another word you seem to fail to grasp.
“yes I did, read my posts. In my post I stated my positions and gave examples only from Aiden, the central character.” –I have. You’ve stated in many posts that the BH-US as a whole was about only sex and murder. Also, whenever anyone disagreed, you never once explained that you were ONLY talking about Aidan. But NOW when evidence is presented against you, you want to retract and say you were only talking about Aidan? Stop it. Again, you (and I, on many occasions) have proven that I DO know the meaning of “contradiction”.
“so are you saying he did fornicate with Rebecca?” – Uh yeah. Did you fail to get that, too? It was there in my posts. Why do you ask? Are you going to assume that THAT proves your point?
“This entire part shows you inability to reason proficiently. You are such a literalist.” –And this response shows you continue to deny and dodge obvious evidence, fail to comprehend, nitpick, and YOUR inability to reason. At least admit you failed to comprehend the sentence and tried to use YOUR own quote against me, trying to pass it off as MINE. “Literalist” had nothing to do with that part of my response. Got you.
“You keep throwing statistics and examples, yet I’m not even the one who said anything about Southerners being illiterate.” — Have you seen the literacy rates in Arkansas? 14%. That number says about Southerners being illiterate. This is what I’m talking about; you don’t know how to reason. Those numbers support my statement.
I have come to think that there may be a significant cultural difference between us. It is a truism that persons of different national temperaments express the same emotions in quite different ways. Thus, a person from southern Europe, looking at a masterpiece hanging in an art gallery, may say, “It’s magnificent; it’s truly grand, wonderful, utterly unsurpassed!” However, someone from northern Europe, wishing to express wholehearted appreciation of the same artistic masterpiece, may say simply, “Aye, it’s not bad.” And both persons will be expressing, in his own characteristic manner, a high approval of the art work. This might be what exists here. When I present the theme of the series, it means the primary theme and when I site examples from Aiden it is clear from my academic background that the central character is purveying those themes. However, from your background it may not be. For example: Star Wars consists of many themes combined with each other, however there are only two major-primary themes. And Harry Potter likewise has two major-primary themes. The first being ‘death” in that how each character reacts to death determines who they are. Voldemort is terribly afraid of death and will do anything to avoid it, including killing with reckless abandonment. Harry does not fear death and meets it as an old friend. The second major-primary theme is closely related and is: “The boy who lived, come to die.” This is a line Voldemort utters in the second half of the last book. And what is the title of the first chapter of the first book? “The boy who lived.”
“You sound like a child consuming too much sugar.” – Sugar is my drug of choice.
“I found that assumption” – I didn’t assume anything. Do I have to add ‘assume’ to the list of words you use improperly?
“You, again, proved my point in you using “rug rat”” – Again, I NEVER used “rugrat” negatively, Mr. President. You haven’t got me yet.
“Coming from YOU, that is hilarious” — Really, since I use words as they are defined. It still doesn’t change the fact that you keep trying to weasel around words.
“I am not the “literalist”. You are.” — See above on cultural difference. You’re wrong.
“Said the one judging my character, calling me a “slave-owning type”” – This statement doesn’t invalidate you making personal attacks and your mentality is that of a slave-owner-type. Fact.
“I have proof of your retractions and contradictions” – Again this is a word that you don’t know its meaning. I have never contradicted myself. Let me give you an example of a contradiction:
X = 3
X = 7 **** That’s a contradiction because 3 != 7. Now are you going to improperly define the word stereotype again? You still haven’t gotten me.
“Arrogance is a display of superiority and self-importance” – Wrong! This is another word that you do not know the definition of. I did look it up: “Making or disposed to make claims to unwarranted importance or consideration out of overbearing pride.” No mention of superiority there. You lose.
“that I DO know the meaning of “contradiction”.” – Then why don’t you use the word correctly?
For your information my profession is in logic and applied linguistics. If I couldn’t reason, I wouldn’t be employed with an obscenely large salary. So you still haven’t gotten me.
Note: Your last two posts have virtually abandoned BH. This forum is for BH discussion. I will only discuss non-BH issues, if they are a personal attack on me. The fact that you concentrate virtually all of your recent posts on non-BH issues, showing you have lost the argument. You are the aggressor; I only respond to your aggressive attacks.
1,073 words for you; 672 words for me.
“Have you seen the literacy rates in Arkansas? 14%. That number says about Southerners being illiterate. This is what I’m talking about; you don’t know how to reason. Those numbers support my statement.” –The issue was you using “you sound like an illiterate from the South” against me. YOU said it. You didn’t have to say “from the south”. Anyone from the South would’ve looked at you with raised eyebrows, first impression being you don’t think people from the South are very literate. Same as if you said “You sound like an illiterate from England” (this is an EXAMPLE so don’t say “what’s England have to do with this?”). Can you HONESTLY tell me, that there is a 0% possibility that an Englishman will look at you and take offense to that? If you can provide a VALID point that a certain group or demographic (in this case, The South) should not take offense to that sort of statement, then great! Nobody asked you the rates of illiteracy from Arkansas (or anywhere for that matter) so, no, your “fun fact” doesn’t support anything.
The “I have come to think that there may be a significant cultural difference between us. It is a truism that persons of different national temperaments express the same emotions in quite different ways” Paragraph. –This paragraph I like. I can respect what you are saying in here (from the cultural difference and your explanations on Star Wars and Harry Potter and your view on themes). Believe it or not, this is one of the things I meant from the beginning. I respect your view and your preference on the UK-BH over US. I’ve mentioned the different interpretations in a past post and how I enjoyed the different takes and directions. Everyone will have their own different way of looking at things.
“Do I have to add ‘assume’ to the list of words you use improperly?” –So you saying I have less manners just because I can have fun and call my mother “Captain Obvious” and betting I would be glad slavery is gone based on nothing (as I gave no prejudice or racist comments nor did I imply a support for it), both with no logical evidence are not assumptions on my character? If anyone doesn’t know what “assume” is, it’s you.
“Again, I NEVER used “rugrat” negatively, Mr. President. You haven’t got me yet.” –Stop. You’ve already proved my point when you admitted “disrespectful” and “ill-mannered” were negative. Move on.
“Again this is a word that you don’t know its meaning. I have never contradicted myself.” –Contradiction: to imply the opposite or a denial of (this is one meaning)
Example:
YOU: “so you admit that my posts are positive.”
ME: “I never stated Arrogance in a positive light”
YOU: “I never said you stated arrogance in a positive light.”
Contradiction = You said I admitted your posts were positive, then turned around (denial) and said you did not (opposite). Note: You still haven’t explained yourself on this, so again: Got you.
“Wrong! This is another word that you do not know the definition of. I did look it up: “Making or disposed to make claims to unwarranted importance or consideration out of overbearing pride.” No mention of superiority there. You lose.” –And what does an unwarranted importance and overbearing pride display? A: SUPERIORITY. Thanks for proving my point, Mark.
Arrogance: “An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions”. So even if you want to omit the word “superiority”, I still got self-importance and presumptuous right (I’m assuming you did not read my post clearly…again), which, in turn, both would still display…you guessed it…SUPERIORITY. Come on, Mark. I thought you said you could reason?
“Note: Your last two posts have virtually abandoned BH.” –You’re funny, Mark. As I’ve said before, there hasn’t been a post yet where I didn’t put a BH related bit in. Proof? REREAD my last two posts. Near the bottom of each one. Another thing right in your face that you fail to comprehend. I’m not going to copy and paste here, you should be smart enough to go back and read yourself. The fact that you missed them (or, I suspect, ignored) actually means I didn’t lose anything, especially since you had no rebuttals to the BH statements in my LAST post (REREAD, seriously). Again I’ve only replied to your insults of no merit that came unwarranted.
So for the sake keeping my streak of including a BH-related bit in my posts alive:
Not every episode in BH-US had sex in it.
Are you also counting the words when we quote each other?
Hey Grant,
I had a great weekend. Blue sky, 85 degrees and not a cloud to be seen. I lowered the top in my convertible. Hope you had just as good a weekend.
“The issue was you using “you sound like an illiterate from the South” against me. YOU said it.” – Now you’re getting it.
“You didn’t have to say “from the south”.” — Yes, I did. The illiterates from the South are different than the illiterates from the North.
“Anyone from the South would’ve looked at you with raised eyebrows” — Really? Name some?
“Can you HONESTLY tell me, that there is a 0% possibility that an Englishman will look at you and take offense to that?” — Why an Englishman? Are you some type of racist?
“Nobody asked you the rates of illiteracy from Arkansas” — No, but you did challenge that there were people from the South that were illiterate.
“your “fun fact” doesn’t support anything” — It supports the fact that there are illiterate people in the South and you still can’t reason.
“Stop. You’ve already proved my point when you admitted “disrespectful” and “ill-mannered” were negative.” — You comment proves my point. “Disrespectful” and “ill-mannered” are adjectives, while “rug-rat” is a noun. Completely different. The adjective refers to the behavior of the other, while as the noun deals with their personage. There is no disrespect to their personage.
I have a question: If I were to state to you: “such-and-such is my Achilles heal,” would you understand the reference or think I had a physical injury?
“Contradiction = You said I admitted your posts were positive” – Again, you are dealing with my words in an extremely literalist sense. I’m trying to probe what you mean. Still haven’t gotten me. As long as you read my words in an extreme literalist sense, you’re not going to get what I mean.
“And what does an unwarranted importance and overbearing pride display? A: SUPERIORITY.” – No, it doesn’t.
“I still got self-importance and presumptuous right” — Right. But it doesn’t necessitate superiority. See, I can reason.
“Note: Your last two posts have virtually abandoned BH.” –You’re funny, Mark. As I’ve said before, there hasn’t been a post yet where I didn’t put a BH related bit in.” This is the point I’m talking about. Why do you think I used the word VIRTUALLY in my statement? Because although in the last two posts you have had just one statement about BH in each, it totaled less than 5% of what you wrote. You then write: “there hasn’t been a post yet where I didn’t put a BH related bit in” Yes, but the attention to BH is statistically insignificant compared to other material.
I will make you an agreement. If you ONLY deal with BH, I will tell you what “rug-rags” means.
On a side note, a woman on-line has asked me out. I would like to send you her picture and profile to get your opinion. Interested?
“I will make you an agreement. If you ONLY deal with BH, I will tell you what “rug-rags” means.” –Even if you don’t give the meaning, the “dealing with only BH” route sounds good anyway. It’s clear were only going to go in circles and keep disagreeing with each other and throw point after point, argument after argument. If we’re going to do that, at least doing it with BH would be relevant.
A few things though:
-No I wasn’t being racist, I just told you it was an example (plus you totally dodged the question).
-I never challenged the fact of illiterates in the South.
-I’m familiar with adjectives and nouns. I never argued about “rug rat” the noun itself, but the adjectives used that gave the negative tone. If you replaced the word with “ox” instead (for example), and you call a person a “stupid and lazy ox”, people are not going to ignore the adjectives “stupid” and “lazy” and think “Oh. He called me an ox. They’re big and strong animals. Quite the compliment. Thank you.”
-As for arrogance, well if you combine a sense of self-importance and an overbearing (overbearing means tending to overwhelm, to dominate) attitude, then you have an act of superiority and even you have to admit “overwhelm” and “dominant” displays that.
(Just to respectively argue my points above)
“Because although in the last two posts you have had just one statement about BH in each, it totaled less than 5% of what you wrote.”
“…the attention to BH is statistically insignificant compared to other material.” –To be fair, you didn’t leave me much BH to reply to and I replied the best I could even while replying to your “non-BH” material, so at the same time I’m going to have to disagree with your “less than 5%” bit, because even my 2 posts in question had a decent amount of words in their respective paragraphs, especially for what little you left me to respond to.
“If I were to state to you: “such-and-such is my Achilles heal,” would you understand the reference or think I had a physical injury?” –I understand. My thought would be that “such-and-such” is your weakness. “Achilles Heel” derived from Achilles being a mighty warrior, but the key to his defeat (his weakness) was to attack his heel. But I guess if one wanted to, they could relate the “physical injury” part to your weakness being an attack on a certain part of your body as opposed to, say, a temptation. But I digress.
“On a side note, a woman on-line has asked me out. I would like to send you her picture and profile to get your opinion. Interested?” –Good for you. And I’m assuming when you say “profile” it’s somewhat meant to be of a public nature and I’m not invading her privacy haha. All jokes aside, send it if you’d like.
“you didn’t leave me much BH to reply” — That’s correct. I have made my point on BH. If you like BH-US, that’s your choice. I don’t.
“Achilles Heel” – Exactly right.
“All jokes aside, send it if you’d like.” — No invasion of privacy. It’s an on-line site. How do I get it to you?
“I have made my point on BH. If you like BH-US, that’s your choice. I don’t.” -Fair enough. As I’ve said before that’s totally fine.
“It’s an on-line site. How do I get it to you?” -Hm. Well if you don’t want to post the link here (and I don’t blame you at all if you don’t want to), and I don’t mean to be a pain when I ask, how would you like to send it? Or would you rather send me to the main site and I can look her up manually?
Haha! I meant you responding in over-detailed paragraphs for when others reply to you in small sentences. Me, I just wrote as much as I could to get out what I wanted to say, which is still not as much as your pointless rants.
And yes. I did read Charity’s comment to you. And wow, really? Is that what a “personal attack” on YOU is? Stating HER opinion that happens to not be in tune with yours? At worst she said “you are wrong”. Fine, I can agree, it’s a discussion. No one really has a right or wrong opinion. But for you to type in a condescending manner and then call her “sad”? Uncalled for.
You said exactly, “That’s the issue, you disrespectful, and ill-mannered rug rat.” So you pretty much called the guy an immature child in an insulting context. And that’s AFTER you disrespected him and practically insulted his heritage, family, and an entire nationality (which was also uncalled for). And you tell me “look up the definition. It wasn’t a personal attack”. Really?? But you’re the “victim” right? Sheesh and you’re a TEACHER??
“Get an education” means “get an education”. Not “I’m Mark and that term means what I say it means to benefit myself in an argument, like say, ‘Learn to reason’.”
‘“Stop acting like a keyboard psychic and presume to automatically know the person you are arguing with personally and question their intelligence just because they DISAGREE with you and/or defend themselves from YOUR personal attacks.” – Well, I never did this – I notice you don’t provide an example.” Seriously? You have examples ALL OVER this comment board. Even in my last reply (which apparently you either couldn’t or refused to comprehend). But hey, here let me help you: “You sound like an illiterate American from the South with a Jethro Bodine 6th grade education. “Dude,” is an informal term in English, inappropriate to address to me.” Wow, “smart guy”, did you come up with that ALL that by yourself from one typing? You know me so well don’t you? False. Again….you. Are. A. TEACHER??? “Dude” really did you in, huh? Haha. Way to nitpick. And “You Americans are ALL alike. You think the only people who are people are the people who think and act like you. You’re not superior because you think you are. You have to make an argument based on facts and reasoning. So far your post has been nothing but opinion, personal attacks and the inability to use a words correctly”? See there you go being oversensitive and assuming again (keyboard psychic. Keep the examples coming, Mark). No one implied any of that (I didn’t anyway). I never said nor implied I was superior. Gosh…”teacher”. Really?
Back to the show. You say every episode you’ve “observed” involved fornication. Fine. Your personal fact. Now other people (who actually went further than you) are telling you “No.” If you don’t like the US-BH, fine. You got tired of it, okay. Your preference. No one is trying to change your mind (at least, not me). But you giving it a fair chance? Highly debatable. Fact: NOT EVERY US-BH episode has had fornication (for crying out loud it’s on SYFY, not HBO or Showtime, so stop making it out to be some low budget softcore porn). “Being Human”? Get out of here! I could’ve sworn I was on a Star Wars Blog!…. Yes I did notice the series is called “Being Human”. What do you think Aiden and Josh are doing? They do a show a struggle. Whatever instances you saw that they “gave in”, just showed that “Hey. It’s not so easy to just up and quit, now is it?” Aiden goes against every code the ruling vampire family has, rebelling, believing he can change, and siding with his best friend, a WEREWOLF. And JOSH? That guy practically is ASHAMED of his wolf and practically goes on a crusade to cure himself and refuses to accept it. Wow. Seriously. How MUCH of a chance did you give it? Your short-term, “got tired of it quickly” argument has no weight against those who have actually seen the US-BH series all the way through to the most recent season. “’I must say I like Josh a little better than George though,’ – again you present not facts and reasoning, just your opinion.” Funny. I never presented it as a fact, “Captain Obvious”. I said it bluntly that it was MY OPINION. Facts are fine and all, but why are you so much into it? This is all comments and opinions and DISCUSSION. People have given theirs all over here. “The UK version of Being Human is great, the US version is terrible. The US version has reduced every theme to two: sex and violence.” That was you. How is that statement any less of an opinion than mine, “teacher”(using that term loosely)?
No need to keep flaunting your Film credentials okay. We get it. Whooptee-doo. You know who else has those? The people behind the US Being Human series.
-A N
Haha yeah I hear you. Just thought I’d give my opinions on the show and an internet bully.
“I never said I was the only one with t.v/film experience, and I certainly didn’t use it as a way to say that others cannot have opinions. Since films and shows are made for an audience to watch, it means that everyone capable of watching has the credentials to comment.” – Well said.
reply is above.
So is mine.
I find them both worth watching and am literally switching between the two. I see both as an intriguing dialog with each other. The UK version is about how monsters can be more human than huma monsterous ns – the reoccurring theme is that humans are often monsterous than actual monsters. And the more human you are, the more you may be.
What surprised me about the US version is it actually reverses a lot of the popular current themes around the supernatural. It’s theme is the inverse of the UK version —it’s about the monster’s failure to be human. Monsters are by their nature not humans, no matter how much their conscious may drive them to be otherwise.
I think this is why the plots diverged in season one. I find it a fascinating exchange and each equally valid and highly entertaining in their own way.
I will say the UK version has better music and a more realistic apartment.
I LOVE the US Being Human! I did not know there was a UK Being Human. Perhaps I will have to watch it. But after reading the post up there it seems you either love one and hate the other or the other way around.
I don’t hate the U.K one– I have a slight preference for the American one, but I think the quality of both is comparable. While people like to fight about which is better as if they have some superior taste– fact is, they were both created by the same guy. What we see is this one man’s vision executed two different ways in two different countries.
All that the US amplified was production spending. If you judge a show by the beauty of the cast then you’re reviewing of a show is off to a bad start! Can a show now have ugly people in it? You talk about its realism and authenticity?!!! At what point does a vampire or werewolf have to be good looking? As for acting; as a British person you need to know the accents to hear the sincerity in the acting and as (most) American’s seem to think our accents are just “cute” I doubt you hear the subtleties or nuances in their higher than average acting. I would, on first watch of the first 3 episodes of the US version, give the actors a general “yey” but also a yawn for the depth of any acting skills BUT with the shoe being on the other foot I understand I might not know what to listen out for or look for in a “good” American TV actor.
Set to see us version soon, I have been hooked on bh since it started and so sad it’s finished here in the UK.
I’m looking forward to seeing us version but I’m guessing its going to be shouty shouty dark twisted sex and violence with a twist of humour? I don’t mind this as our cultures are different but the UK version sweet, funny and well written (even though its very far fetched)
You won’t be disappointed.
The us version is one of the best programs I’ve ever watched.
I am certain that you will love it. 🙂