You had me until you said the British version didn’t have character growth. Those characters absolutely grow and change. Pat forgiving his killer, the Cap beginning to reckon with his queerness, Fanny recognizing her worth Mary finding a voice, etc
Robin is my favourite. UK is the best, but I do like the US one. Except for the prom ghost girl in the attic, didn’t like the character and the dumb girl that haunts and stays in a car from the car accident, glad she didn’t stay.
To me, a big part of BBC Ghosts is that the cast have known each other for years and it reflects on screen. There is also an element of nostalgia for the British as they were the cast of Horrible histories. I grew up watching Horrible Histories, their songs are iconic and a quintessential part of British culture. 😊 They also did Yonderland and Bill, so there is a somewhat familiarity with these characters as we know and love the actors. Alison’s actress, Charlotte Ritchie, is bloody brilliant. She may not be as well known as the others but she has been in other BBC shows. Most people will recognise her from Fresh Meat, Dead Pixels or Call the Midwife ❤ The American version lacks the charm and nostalgia. The simplicity of the plot is what makes ghosts enjoyable. I have enough drama in my life without a chaotic, jam packed tv show. The BBC episode where his family come to stay is beautiful. Mike resolves his issues and frustrations with his family, Julian bonds with Mike’s niece and looks up what became of his daughter. It’s a brilliant episode.
Mr. Shawn B. Ryan, I think this is a topic worth exploring more. How does the fact that for the British show they actors are the writers are a (comedy troupe?) who have been together for years affect the show? For that matter, is the proper terminology "comedy troupe", for groups such as Horrible History, Monty Python, French & Saunders, etc.?
I agree! I’m not even British but went to an international school that did the British syllabus so horrible histories became a huge part of my childhood so much that even I felt the sense of nostalgia
Charlotte Ritchie was also a main character in the 4th series of the US drama YOU, and was brilliant in that as well. I imagine that was when a a lot of American's first discovered her
@@ferretfriend5458I feel like the US version moves too quickly, I’ve watched all of it, and my favourite character is, somehow, Trevor, and I think that’s because of how consistent his character was with some exceptions with his centric episodes. In the UK version my favourite is Captain, and he is a lot more deep and realistic than most of the US versions. The thing the US version didn’t do is take into account that they’re real people, some of which would have trauma. The US version moves too quickly past these episodes where characters are meant to accept past. I do feel that in ‘Carpe Diém’ or however it’s spelled, did move too fast past Captains confession, but I think that’s because everyone already knew and it was more him coming to terms. Sorry about the rant it went rlly off topic, but in conclusion, the US version moves too fast and focuses more on comedy (that isn’t funny imo) than the story. Thats how it came across for me, anyway.
I think the ghosts’ slow character development is a deliberate choice. They’ve lived in a bubble for hundreds on years, unable to interact with the living world, learning of changes in the world second hand and being unable to ask their own questions. So they’ve had to rely on their observations with their own flawed interpretations or the interpretations of the living people they overhear. People require new information to challenge old thought patterns, and there has been a dearth of information here, so I find it very plausible that it takes a long time to develop their characters. Moreover, I feel it’s their change-averse personalities that has led them to being stuck as ghosts in the first place. Annie, the Puritan housemaid was “sucked off” when as she realised she was free in death more than in life. And Mary also said there had been other ghosts who had been “sucked off” in the past. These ones that stay are just the most stubborn and resistant to change.
They literally have very limited things they are exposed to! they cant travel beyond the grounds of the house and Im certain no one has been living in the space for many years - or at least a millennial.. Alot of the characters are also stubborn with their beliefs and cartoonishly are a product of their times which adds so much humour and also accounts for this slow pace which is more realistic.
ALL the ghosts in the UK version have character development and that is shown over the series, this is the whole point! Each week we get to know ALL about them, it may take 10 weeks but that's how life is... You don't meet someone in a pub and know everything about them by 11pm! It take time to find out who people are!
I probably could have been clearer about what I meant. I was trying to describe how much the characters changed as the series progressed. To me, the characters on the UK show are all pretty much the same at the end of season 4 as they were at the beginning of season 1. In the US show, the characters are much more dynamic and have changed quite a bit from where they began.
With the UK version we find out who they were in life and why they are there.....but “ you stay were you die” is a premise...Julian is without trousers and tipsy, and is a poltergeist....Thomas has a bullet wound and can’t get rid of the letter in his pocket....Fanny falls out of the window...
The only thing I prefer in the American version is the Jay character. I would have liked Mike to be more like that instead of the bumbling comedic role
@@lynnlee2282 I love Mike, and wouldn't want him to be any other way, but I do quite like Jay. In fact, he's the only character on the show that I like at all. I somewhat liked Pete at first, but then I saw a news story about how the actor who does him plays cruel pranks on the actor who plays Isaac because he enjoys seeing him jump, and now I can't understand him as anything other than a bully and a prankster. I loved the episode in which the ghosts played D&D with Jay, and would like to see more of that kind of interaction.
The character development of the uk ghosts is significant but subtle and set over the 4 series’ we currently have. They are not just caricatures of people from specific points in history, we learn (not only) about each characters death & the impact that has had on each ghost (leading to their acceptance, or not, of it) but also about significant points in their life that they learn from through the years of their afterlife. Please don’t confuse subtle long-arching character development as no character development. UK Ghosts is awesome (not that I’m biased 😁)
You're right, that's a really good point. I probably should have differentiated "character development" from "character changes" in the video. Though I'm not even sure I realized how much depth these characters had until series 4. That really brought home how much these characters weren't broad caricatures but specific people who I'd grown attached to.
To me this shows how different we are, culturally. For example, a British military officer of the Edwardian period would NEVER ever come out - not in a million years, even if he is around for that long. I find it awkward to think that a Revolutionary War officer would come out, too.
@@larading2914 Absolutely! I think it's also interesting in terms of the "reality" of the show's treatment of historical characters. I feel like the British show is much more interested in maintaining some historical plausibility in the way the characters act, while the US show is fine with the ghosts being a bit less accurate to their periods. There may also be something larger and more thematic at work, as the US characters can move beyond their historical periods but the UK ghosts are defined by them forever... but I may be overthinking it.
It’s entirely inaccurate to claim that Ghosts (UK) has no character growth. The Captain develops a father-daughter-like relationship with Kitty and learns to be more authentic to himself even though he has yet to admit his queerness, Mary found her voice and came to terms with her traumatic and unjust death, Pat learns to be more assertive, and even forgives his killer. Fanny loosens her corset (metaphorically), Julian becomes (slightly) more empathetic, Kitty gains confidence in her own worth &c. The group as a whole have a much closer dynamic now than at the beginning, as they have learned to more than merely tolerate each other, though not all of them would admit that. You make it sound so static and that’s just not the case at all?
Fun fact: the premise of Alison inheriting a big country house isn't only based on a real story, it's the real story of the house that they used as the filming location for the show! I don't know if they got the idea from the house, or if that was always the idea and it's just a crazy coincidence, but it's cool either way.
I think I enjoy the LGBTQ representation in the UK version. It's less blatant and more "show don't tell". I also enjoy how Humphrey changes Fanny's views on the whole gay marriage thing with his own take that "people should choose who they want to marry". I thought that was cute. Oh yeah the captain. It is h e a v i l y implied that he is not heterosexual but that's not his character. I like that. Also the sitting down in a circle episode I think the captain wanted to say he loved Havers lol
Yes exactly I LOVE that it’s not just a caricature of a gay person, he’s a clever and strategic WW2 army captain, who’s name we still don’t know(which personally makes me wanna watch more to find out), he likes to be in charge and is bias towards those who have served… who also happens to be gay and it adds to him as a person but isn’t all he is. It’s more realistic, but not so little enough of it is shown that it’s simply queerbaiting. It’s clear to the audience that he is gay (or at least lgbt) and we know about how his background makes it hard for him to come out (like he almost did in the therapy episode) AND to add to all that… he’s the character we probably know LEAST about The ‘show don’t tell’ of the uk version does enough with his facial expressions or small remarks than the US version ever could blatantly telling the audience
@@catherinerobilliard7662 this is the dumbest comment i have ever seen in my entire life, thanks for the laugh. the word gender originates from latin. Also it isnt just trans ppl that make up the rest of the lgbt community
I think you missed the plot of the British version of Ghosts. "A family comes to visit" isn't the plot. The A plot is about how Mike's family disrespects him and doesn't see him as a man, and how he tries to get respect in their eyes, and fails. The B plot is about Julian learning the importance of family, thereby advancing his character. The C plot is about Alison wanting to celebrate Christmas with her own traditions, and Mike and his family not being into those, but in the end, the Ghosts understand her. And she looks, very briefly, the part of the true lady of the hall. The UK plotting is there, it's just slower (they do have an hour of time compared to a 22 minutes in the US), and much more subtle (which is the main problem I have with the US version of ghosts). At this point, I'll vote that the UK version is better. Part of it is the hour long time to allow the characters to breathe. But much of it is just better characterization overall. Yes, I would like to see the Captain find happiness/come out as gay. But the social stigma was so bad in the UK that in his own time, he would have been castrated. He behaves as it makes sense that he should. Also he has more personality than just being gay. He's the group leader in a lot of respects. He displays loyalty to his country. He and Pat enjoy outdoors activities when given the opportunity. And there was storytelling hinting at a gay romance that fans of the series are waiting to see the outcome of. Meanwhile the US version ... doesn't behave right. He's like someone wore Hamilton cosplay to a Pride parade rather than a Revolutionary War soldier that also happens to be gay. Most of these I'll put down to the actor, but I'll add here that the posture bothers me, and that is all the actor's fault. People in that time did not slouch. Military men particularly do not slouch. but put him or his lover in a chair and they slouch all over the place like someone took the starch out of their clothes. It's really distracting, and does a wonderful job of ruining any hope of an illusion that these people might be from the time they claim. Then you look at his personality -- he's gay, gay, gay, gay, gay and ... well, I supposed I could add drama queen, but that's so associated with gay in television that they're practically the same thing. I can't really tell you anything else about him. They did show him inventing something once. I'd love to see him show interest in technology, but he doesn't other than that one time. He could talk about his wife and his children. Yes, I know he's very gay. Yes, he probably didn't love his wife. (Though that begs the question of why he picked her to marry out of everyone). But he doesn't show any interest or curiosity in what happened to his family at all, nor any fond memories. I mean, I don't expect her to be the love of his life given the circumstances, but do you really have no affectionate memories of your spouse? How about some regrets, considering you couldn't be the man she wanted, but you married her anyway? I do like the romance that they had brewing for Isaac. But I think they played their hand on the issue much too quickly. The romance is pretty much settled in one episode. We deserve better than that. They don't have to tease it out for ten seasons, but how about just a few episodes? Maybe two seasons? By two seasons everyone wants a couple to get together no matter what. I have other issues like that with the show. Isaac is really the most off character, but many of them just don't make sense: Trevor, why did you give the other man your underwear? Ick. Why do Thor and Sass not speak to each other in Sass's language? I mean, Thor was here for 500 years before the English came, and several of those centuries were spent with Sass. I would expect him to have picked up the language, and only switched over to English at a later point. Though, probably the worst part is that the ghosts only change because of Sam, as she teaches them lessons about modern morals. This was particularly disturbing to me when Hettie started going on about how Sam had changed her life, making her a more liberated woman. All I could think was that she'd spent a century with Alberta. Where's the things Alberta taught her? Why does only Sam have the power to improve lives? Why can't the ghosts improve their own lives? Or each others lives? Because in the UK version, the ghosts do care about each other, and improve each other's lives and Alison's life (as the Christmas song symbolically shows them supporting her). But in the US show, Sam is the only one with the power to teach.
@@richardgurney1844 The Christmas episodes are an hour long. A big difference if that in the UK as season is six episodes, not twenty. Also the Six who write and produce and play the ghosts, are troupe, The Six Idiots Or Them There. They are best friends who met and got together on Horrible Histories. They improvise in places...
@@emmyjo720 Both Christmas episodes are approximately 29 minutes each. So it would take about an hour to watch them back to back, and I'm assuming this year's will be the same. But yeah they're not an hour each. Would love it if they were.
In terms of BBC’s Ghosts you commented on the lack of character development from the Ghosts as a negative. But as is more evident in Season 4 with Mary’s passing. Character development leads to the characters getting “sucked off”. Over the first 3 episodes we saw Mary get her final development as a character until she was complete enough to get sucked off. But we also see how it took her many many years with the help of Annie to get to that place. It’s also specified that you stay how you die. That may also relate to character development. You see how these ghosts who’ve watched history pass by should have caught up a little more with current things. But they’re still steadfastly stuck in the past. Thinking back to their own time alive. So we do see some character development, but it’s slow. Robin’s development has been so slow that he’s seemingly been around for many aeons and is still yet to be sucked off. We saw in the Christmas episode when Mike’s family came how Julian adapted to being with the baby and how he thought back to his own child. He grew, if only a little, in that episode. These little things happen over time. And we get to see small developments over the course of the show. It seems much more real, these things take a lot of time. The Captain after so many years still struggles to share his own story from the lifetime of ingrained shame he accumulated. Mary took several more centuries than that to talk about her Witch burning. And soon after that, she got sucked off. I’m interested to see how the American show handles being sucked off. Because with the quick character development and story lines you pointed out by comparison. Then what reason will they have when the first of them is sucked off. Mary’s reasoning was obvious. So when one of them is finally sucked off, a massive thing would have to happen first to warrant it.
First of all, I just want you to know how much your casual use of the phrase "sucked off" made me laugh. Just one of the many gifts that Ghosts has given us! You're absolutely right about the characters in the UK show not being totally static, especially in series 4. (Though in my defense, I made the video before it was released.) And I agree that the UK show handles the subject in a much slower, more realistic way, where much of the change happens internally. Even the moment where Mary is sucked off is subtle, with Mary just giving a little "Oh!" before departing. The US series is definitely very American in how it handles character growth. The scene where Isaac comes out to the other ghosts is big and emotional, with teary eyes and dramatic music, serving as the climax of season 1. I can't imagine anything remotely similar happening in the UK show, where we don't even know the Captain's name! You make a really great point about how the US show may have written itself into a corner with the issue of the ghosts being sucked off. The US show established that being sucked off works in a similar way during an episode where the ghost of Sam's mother is sucked off. I'm curious how they'll cross that bridge if/when one of the main actors decides to leave the show. Anyway, I hope I wasn't being too critical of the UK show. I don't think it's wrong for making the creative choices that it's making, I just think it's interesting to compare two different approaches to the same concept. My goal wasn't to bash the original, but to stick up for the US adaptation.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos That’s all very fair. I know you weren’t intending to bash the UK show. Much like you wanted to stick up for the US show. I wanted to defend the reasoning behind the seemingly slow character developments in the UK show.
In the post season 4 interview the cast & writers were pretty firm that there is no rhyme or reason to when they get sucked off. They intended it to be random & as the actress was leaving they wanted to make it as random as possible. They confirm this is why they have her go at the beginning of an episode rather than the climax. They wanted it random & not look like a culmination. The reason her character reveal comes in the episodes prior is because they were losing the actress so wanted to finish the storyline on screen before they did. Ghosts is an allegory for life. Noone knows why you are there, you end up with the ppl you come across, there's no instruction manual on what you should do to pass the time & ppl did/sucked off randomly.
"The comedy and drama comes from the characters just interacting with each other" THAT is what makes the BBC version peak comedy. Not only the fact that slap-stick is kept to a serious minimum, but the fact that they are also able to so eloquently include drama and tragedy through the ghosts' stories, memories, and mere interactions with each other is what makes this show so good. There ISN'T a need for a wild plot or impossible challenge. All that's necessary for the storytelling is the actor's ability and the reason for the story that is being told. This show makes me laugh out loud, and cry uncontrollably. There is so much emotion and STORY crammed into every moment of each episode, that it is nearly impossible to be bored with it. The CBS version, on the other hand, is unable to meet that same standard for depth and comedy. They cut characters, blur the lines of history, wave bad acting to final cuts, and when they can't get a laugh through a genuinely funny joke- they resort to smutty ones that just don't hit. I admit there are a few jokes in CBS Ghosts that I laughed at, but the overall feeling of the show is bland and severely lacking the chemistry that the original cast has.
The storytelling coming from characters interacting in BBC Ghosts is... exactly what they've all been experiencing. That IS their day-to-day. No big fancy effects, no massive changes, just day-to-day sameness that should drive them all mad but somehow doesn't and hasn't for decades if not centuries. They actually brought this up in a recent episode, where it's called out that if someone had to live in a house with everyone else there, he'd have gone out into the woods to live alone ages ago. They CHOOSE this death (afterlife? ghosthood?) together, doing the same bits ("If I could choose what to wear if I died today..." for the 14029th time) because to them... what's the alternative? Loneliness. Even when they don't see eye-to-eye, they always come back.
I just couldn't laugh at the CBS one, wasn't done well yet not alot of people in my country know the BBC one is a thing and is actually heaps better than the CBS version
@@ConspireTheMuse Yeah... Maddocks. It was kinda genius to have the Ghosts of Button House being reviewed by... another ghost, who isn't part of the "family", so to speak. The way that the Button House Ghosts interact with "Mads" tells us also what these Ghosts like. Thomas telling that "we worked it out", Fanny showing some unexpected humor with "Lord Ashtray", Pat going all "Yorkie", Kitty who's mostly interested in all the gory details of his death... and ultimately Robin, who helps Maddocks out and casually says "next Tuesday". Genius and hilarious. Yeah, I love the Button House Ghosts ❤
I’ve only seen the BBC version and it’s ability to turn a normal relatable event (eg. Family coming to visit) into a funny engaging story through only the use of its main premises (there are ghosts and one of the living people can see them) is great. It gets its drama from that premise. It doesn’t introduce elaborate plots for each episode it’s simple yet very effective.
My experience tends to show that American comedies don't do losers, non sequiteurs, sadness and poignancy or negativity very well. The clip of the American Tim is a good example of not 'getting it' as it was the chance happenstance of working in the same place that got him and Dawn together and his job was nothing to do with it never mind deserving of credit. The "character development" in the BBC Ghosts seems self-evident to me in the disclosure of their back stories. A prehistoric man has been on a long, long journey and can't expect to travel much further very fast whilst the relatively recently deceased corrupt politician moves, before our eyes, from completely self-serving to much more aware of and sympathetic to the worries of those around him. In real life the characters of people change slowly and sometimes not at all and what we call character development is just us gettng to know them better. I personally hnk the BBC Ghosts does this beautifully.
I'm a big fan of Ghosts, both UK and US versions. What is interesting, in real life, is the history of the location used for Button House. Despite Ghosts being devised and written prior to finding a location it turns out the actual history of Button House mirrors, almost exactly, the premise of the show. Amazing.
Wow, I didn't know that! I feel like I've got to look into the behind-the-scenes stuff now, because I'd just assumed that it was all being shot in a studio somewhere made up to look like an old house!
@@ShawnBRyanVideos Button House is actually called West Horsley Place in Surrey. Interior shots are done in a studio, but the history of the exterior property is interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Horsley_Place.
@@the-flatulator all interior shots are actually also taken in the house. I visited it last year and it all looked almost exactly how it does in the show :)
I totally disagree that the UK Ghosts are just caricatures, as each of them has an episode dedicated to them to show their back story and that fleshes their characters out a great deal
Short answer: yes. Long answer, the US cast was thrown together via a casting agent, whereas, the original was written collaboratively, by a group with a long history of performing together. This group, while talented, falls short of the mark. It's like the vanilla icemilk version. I can rewatch the UK version over and over. Meanwhile, I struggled to get through the first season of the US version, like I struggled to get through my grandmother's meatloaf. But we all have an opinion and at the end of the day, you like what you like.
@@013aanikhfds The beauty of the BBC series is that the core of the "ghost" actors are an ensemble that worked together for years on the Horrible Histories series. They also wrote and stared in another comedy series on Sky TV. This core team are also the main writers for Ghosts. A great episode was when a film crew came to do some filming at the manor house. Trying to work out who can see and speak to who, when they are all in the same room, almost makes your head ache.
I think if it was the same premise but Unique and very AMERICAN instead on a rehash and remake of the BBC ghosts it would be actually great just like the original but instead of treating it like a spin off which is what they should have don’t they just decided to remake it. I don’t think it’s horrible I just think it could be better like the original. Make it American not British with American accents.
4:19 The UK certainly has more documented history, but in my opinion the show doesn't tap into it. Robin is a caveman and the second oldest ghost is a Tudor nobleman, which is a huge gap. No one from the Celtic or Roman or Medieval periods. Yes, there are the Black Death victims, but they are side characters.
I dont know if me being a Brit has anything to do with this opinion, but Fanny being Fanny, the Captain being the Captain ect makes a lot of sense is totally beoivable to me. The captain would never come out, Fanny will never stop being blunt and disrespectful, Pat will forever be a beacon of optimism. That is just fact to me and makes complete sense for their charcters
Quality tv materiel does not require fast pacing, flashy plots or over the top acting. The U.S version is drowning in all of that, while the BBC version is simple, hilarious, and authentic all on its own. -opinion from an american fan of BBC ghosts :)
I hated the flamboyance and exaggeration of the US Office. It became unbearable. UK comedy is less showy and understated and I love it! Check out Peep Show or People Just Do Nothing. Both brilliant!
I think the main thing is just looking at who the show was made for. BBC Ghosts was generally speaking made for the British public when the American one was for, well, Americans. BBC Ghosts works because it works with our British humour and how we generally act as people. We're used to slower paced telly that builds up the characters over time, even if it is really slow. It's all very British with the humour and the emotions. People react to certain situations in almost a very British way like with the weird awkward smile thing we do. BBC Ghosts works because it works with our culture along with it having the iconic British cast. I think that's probably one of the main things about the series is just the actors alone. We all know them as kids or as parents seeing then on HH, Bill and Yonderland so this series is just another one of their funny sketches. Then im saying this with the fact the same would apply for American Ghosts. Its made for American viewers so appeals to their humour and life more. Also I see alot of things such as we don't know anything about the captain or that he shows no signs coming out but realistically it would've never been something that anyone of then would have discussed, even Julian who was the most recent Ghosts. Its realistic that the captain wouldn't be rushing to the idea of coming out. This was really long Jesus christ
British humor is a dry wit, and usually based in Brit-specific cultural referents that an American audience simply wouldn't get. If they'd simply ported UK "Ghosts" to the US, the result would have been disaster. It's not a question of whether "the Americans" translated things "correctly" -- b/c if translation were to be done at all (HINT: The BBC wanted the $$$ that comes with licensing products in a TV market several times its own size), Hollywood had to do it, with British help. And that's just what happened.
Aside from the bigger plot structure differences, I think the US version ( maybe US sitcoms in general?) feels more stagey- there is a clearer rhythm of set-up, punchline, set-up, punchline. Even though all the UK ghosts are caricatures as you say, there's a naturalism to how they interact- in fact I think a lot of humour comes directly from how these wild historical characters bicker and chat in a very normal everyday way.
While I agree with you there are some American sitcoms where the staginess and broad strokes don’t ruin the character interaction and development - I loved Community and The Good Place.
I also noticed the difference in character development. However, I think it was a very deliberate decision on the part of the UK team to keep the characters stuck in their ways- it's kind of the point, as they have died, they just can't change. I think it's also partly because UK shows aren't written to go on and on forever, whereas US shows seem to look to continue their lifespan wherever possible.
I believe the fact that the characters in the British Ghost don't change is that their development is stopped when they die. How can you develop if you are no longer interacting with the outside world. They can't have any interaction that is their problem because nobody can see them, only other ghosts! In the American Ghosts (though I have never seen it) character development may be necessary as they don't have the vast historical background upon which to anchor the character in.
I personally find that the American version explains everything too soon, rather than showing it and/or letting the audience figure it out. Like, they say Thor (essentially Robin) got struck by lightning within the first 10 mins. It was season 4 before we found that out in UK version. Why did the audience need to be TOLD rather than SHOWN? I found myself wanting to watch further with the UK version because I wanted to find out more about the characters. It’s a character piece, really. But with the US version, they just immediately state exactly what we could have found out. Like Flower stating she’s a polyamorous hippie druggie (nice stereotype there) within the first few minutes - for literally no reason. Why would an old lady want to know that much detail about your life? Essentially, SHOW don’t TELL :’) that’s the issue imo
I stopped watching the American version because they explained everything in like the first episode. Even though they were trying to haunt the new people out, in the UK version the ghosts could just do these things and it wasn't really explained why, whilst in the American version there was no finding out they just told us which totally ruined it.
The way they have the captain thirst over jay immediately too... i thought it was so well done how they revealed the captains sexuality and his struggle with it in the UK version and it's all very subtle and makes sense with what he would've been socialised to believe about gay people. In the US version they have to spell it out immediately.
I'm glad to hear that somebody else likes the uk Ghosts, I came to it as the cast of this show came from the three series of my favorite uk show Yonderland
I've been meaning to give Yonderland a shot, I'm glad to hear it's good! I discovered Ghosts by way of Horrible Histories, another one of the cast's shows.
It's like watching a 70's sitcom when the actors just read the script with no emotion and wait for the canned laughter, also zero connection between the two main characters, nicely ruined USA
TLDR, I do not agree with UK Ghosts not making any character development, they're subtle because they do not need to be in your face all the time like the US Ghosts. The US Ghosts are shallow. The portrayal of Isaac infuriates me. Sam has questionable IQ. I find US ghosts too busy and IN YOUR FACE with literally everything. Like the Isaac vs The Captain - Isaac was from the get go just living up to a stereotype of what a closeted gay man is like, while the captain had a long story arch where he came to term with himself and had a period of accepting himself. (The Isaac arch is what drives me most mad ngl). What I love about UK Ghosts is that the character arches are slow and more realistic and you can watch for years without being tired of them. Someone who does not develop at all throughout the entire show is the lead Sam (US version). She literally never learns anything and they're doing the same joke over and over again (*ghost says something shocking* "oh my goodness... oh sorry ehm that was not for you ... "). And the Ghosts never really learn either do they? They're all just talking over Sam and are so disrespectful an unlikeable. I don't agree with you that there are a limited amount of historical periods in US history (and that is strong coming from an European). They definitively could have spread it out more, and some how I feel like there are too many Ghosts that we are supposed to have an emotional attachment to (I don't, I instead find them all highly annoying). The US version also has a desire for all the characters to be highly likeable. They are so incredibly shallow that it could not even be called a kiddy pool. Like Trevor and Julian. Julian was a tory who died in a sex scandal and is absolutely disgusting really and does not have any redeemable features, but he is still likeable because he what .. GROWS. Trevor on the other hand, because it is US television, you can't make a political statement without blowing up the country (sorry irrelevant, but also relevant). They just have to make him redeemable by giving him a questionable death story "oh i gave my trousers to a friend who needed them"??????? Like... what?
Yeah, that's an interesting observation. The US show definitely feels less like a labor of love than a corporate product. There isn't that same handmade sincerity that you get in the original.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos the hand made feeling is something that definitely carried over with the cast of Horrible Histories, if you were ever to see an episode of that, you would definitely feel more of that same sincere feeling.
@@choppers9909 Well, thanks to you, I've spent my Saturday binging Horrible Histories clips and songs. Absolutely fantastic! Though I get the feeling I'm going to have some of these songs in my head for a loooong time. "Born to ruuuule ooooover youuuuuu....."
Tbh I think this is somewhat due to the fact that you can tell the uk versions cast are long time real life friends from back when they did horrible histories on cbbc and it comes across on screen
a bit about character development id like to add is that in BBC ghosts, some of them have kinda already had their character development. for example mary, if youve seen the newest series theres an episode all about her and a ghost called annie, who helped her loosen up and speak her mind on things. then you have robin, who doesnt really change much mindset-wise or in personality but you can tell over the course of his stay as a ghost he has learnt a lot of things from popular culture etc
I completely agree, especially the UK series being a classic. But I also think it's interesting to see where the US show has gone, and how its decision to let characters develop has allowed it tell some stories that the UK series couldn't.
I love both the British and American versions of GHOSTS....why does it have to be a competition. Each have wonderful characters and plots. One of my favourite moments ..the line dancing sequence ....brilliant!!!
You make some interesting points about the character development in the US version. British comedy mainly uses the set character traits to find humour. Just think about the best around: Father Ted, The IT Crowd, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder, The characters come in fully formed and change very little. British series are much shorter per series/season. All of the above are 6-8 each so would not need characters to develop that much.
That's a great point! And even when a show like Red Dwarf lasts for 12 series and a TV film, the characters are pretty much where they were when they were first introduced. It's probably no wonder that Father Ted, the IT Crowd, and Fawlty Towers all struggled to get their American adaptations off the ground. I can't imagine how they'd adapt to the demands of American television.
The biggest issue between the US and UK versions of shows (Red dwarf, Inbetweeners, and god forbid Only fools and Horses to name a few, along with Ghosts) is best summed up by Stephen Fry, the average American usually wants these three part set ups, where as us Brits tend to have a more pessimistic mindset that leads into the characters often failing. We love to see ourselves, where as American tv caters more to the ideals of the American dream. At the end of the day, American and British humour is different, we're more self depricating, where as Americans tend to be more optimistic. Theres a reason why i can't watch more than 2 episodes of most US shows, because it comes across as cringey, and too optimisitic, where as British shows often have more subtle plots that are easy to relate to, take Fanny for instance, we see her as the overbearing out of touch, from a different time kind of character, but as we slowly learn of her backstory through the show, we learn that everything we see her as was imposed on her due to her own parents failing her. Or Julian, who we only view as the slimy politician and womaniser, but over time we learn he actually has a heart of gold and does genuinely care like when he helped calm down Mike's niece, and how he regrets never being there to see his daughter grow up.
I think this isn't necessarily an audience thing but more down to how these things are put together in corporate board rooms. The US Office was hugely successful by largely sticking to grounded, less than perfect people. Michael was very much like the Ghosts act, he never really developed but we saw bits of the real him here & there. Americans do like the UK Ghosts & other UK shows hence the frequent attempts to port them over & there are plenty of dark US humour shows. The US version could have gone down a US dark sitcom route but instead they've gone with turning jokes upto 11 rather than subtly & pushed excess exposition & over acting.
@@christophermcmanus5103 US networks don't port a show because they like it, they port it to see if it works and can make them money. If they liked the original they would just show the original, as PBS did with British shows up until the 90's.
I love both the shows and can't get enough of it. But I will say the BBC version gives more in 6 episodes a season than the American version which does in I think 12 or so episodes a season. Mind you the American version is only on season two. Also the American version led me to the British version so it does have it's benefits. The BBC version does have flashbacks detailing the characters deaths and shows the different ideas Allison and Mike have for the house opposed to just weekly goofy scenarios the cast gets into in the American version.
Why do Americans have to make American versions of everything, in England I’ve grown up with American shows and stuff, it didn’t bother me. Unless it’s just a culture thing but I dunno. I absolutely LOVE BBC Ghosts it’s my favourite show! I love the complex characters and the story it’s SO GOOOD!!
The Brits have remade American television shows, but, I am sure, not as often. Years ago, there was a show called " Brighton Belles", which was supposed to be the British version of Golden Girls. It wasn't that good and it didn't last that long.
The characters in the UK version do change throughout the series, they're just more subtle, but they are noticeable. Ultimately, these people are hundreds of years old and change is hard. But it's more about how you see the characters. You understand them and why they are the way they are. It's you getting to know them more than them adapting to your values and outlook. The are who they are. The us version is set in new York, which has enough history to pull out eight unique characters, similar to the UK version. You've the native americans, the English settlers and those who wanted independence, which could have provided some humour on its own, you could have had a Canadian from 1812, a blues or jazz musician, you had the hippy, someone from an '80s Hair Band, an Irishman. Unfortunately, american sitcoms stick to a 'formula', like you said, where British sitcoms just focus on the jokes and the 'lessons' or 'growth' the characters get isn't sort of, in your face moralising.
Well, you lost me with your statement about characterization. One of the things I dislike about the US knockoff is that there's virtually no character development, while the BBC ghosts constantly grow and reveal more about themselves over the series.
A friend of mine told me how, watching the US Ghosts, is like watching your kid's school play.... "Okay, it's my line now," "And next I'll come in with what I'm going to say," "Must be me next," "Oh, and what you've just said means I can make this really funny comment..." I'm afraid once you see it like that, you can't un-see it.
I love both versions for what they both have. I can’t even compare as they are both so different. I would LOVE to have a full on crossover so Alison and Sam could have an episode or 2 together working with Ghosts!
Yes, America ruined Ghosts. I only watch the BBC version. It has characters and character development. Each one we learn a little more about a character. And they infused actual history into the story.
They haven't given the ghosts charecter development as the whole point of them being ghosts, is that there still holding onto there old life, with them needing to grow as charecters and leave there old life behind them for them to move onto the next stage of the afterlife.
This was my thought as well! The fact is they haven't "moved on" because they are static characters, steadfastly sticking to their old habits, opinions and behaviours. :P
Ha! Well, I appreciate your comment anyway! 😁 Ultimately, I think that the US show has become enough of its own thing that it's no longer really competing with the original. Though yeah, some of America's more obnoxious sitcom clichés are present in our adaptation. (It's not a subtle show...)
@@ShawnBRyanVideos Dang it. I had to watch the video since you commented. While I agree the American version is not subtle, I disagree with the original being static with it's character development. I feel it is just taking a more layered onion peeling approach vs the procedural start to finish approach of the U.S. style. The American translation of this rapid storytelling (re:character development) makes you feel that their issues were superficial and easily resolved; one note songs. Comparatively, they feel more human to take small steps toward those changes in the original, and you do see development, although it is more subtle. Unfortunately, after watching your video, I'm afraid I'm going to have to subscribe so I can see more of your opinions.
I watched the bbc version first. When I first began the US version, I honestly didn’t like it. Especially the first two eps which were frame to frame similar and it seemed like they spoon-fed audiences, not trusting them to come to conclusions themselves. Also maybe because I absolutely adored the bbc cast. But then as I continued watching, once the plot was established they branched into their own worlds and the characters became their own , no longer shadowed by their counterparts. I genuinely enjoyed it. The stories delved deeper into each ghost’s backstories and the connections bt the ghosts themselves were explored further. I also like the couple here better. The husband is actually helpful and doesn’t let her do all the work. He gets things done and is also great at being a partner she could rely on. I loved that he had some connections n interactions with the ghosts too n not completely sidelined. And the protagonist is genuinely nice to the ghost. She doesnt always use the ghosts for her benefits unlike the BBC one. Honestly that couple was too selfish and dumb for me. They couldn’t have anything done without the help of the ghost. They almost died multiple times if not for the ghosts. I love this couple sm better. Though I love the ghosts in both versions very much. So I hope you all could also give it a try and judge for yourselves .
"Half of the main ghosts characters end up being from the 20th century" Just like half of the main ghosts characters in the BBC version of the show: Julian, Pat, Captain, and Lady Button.
Yeah, but Lady Button is from earlier *18th* and different time eras in history... The British one has more verity than the American, plus it's more unlikely that a lot*and there is a lot* of te Ghosts died there in the American.
The claim that the US version of Ghosts is 'still finding itself' having just completed its first season, doesn't really carry much weight when you realise that the first season, which finished in April 2022, consisted of 18 episodes, (the second season being even longer at 22 episodes,) whereas by the end of Season 1 in the US, the UK version may well have then consisted of three seasons, but that consisted of only 20 episodes (including 2 Christmas specials.) Not a lot in it when you look at it that way, is there?
So weird. Why don’t they just play the British version here in the US? Like Top Gear? I do like the US version. But I’ve never seen the UK version and don’t know how to even see it. 😮
As a Brit I have to say I really like the US version of ghosts and it's properly lol funny in places which I'm afraid to say most US comedies aren't . My only complaint is the British revolutionary soldier doesn't sound that British
I do disagree that there's no change in the characters in British ghosts. When you look at the Captain in S1 Ep6 of BBC Ghosts, he is a lot more manipulative and opportunistic in how he interacts with Kitty compared to the latest Christmas epidose or the seaosn 3 episode where he helps her get through the struggle of never being able to have a picture with Alison. You can tell his demeanour is a lot softer and sympathetic compared to how he was scheming to stop them selling the house in season 1. I do agree that in a show that is much more focused on the characters than the plot, it can start to grate, but I think the way they deal with this (exposing new sides to the characters instead of having fulfilling arcs) is pretty good and true to format. I mean, we only learned Fanny had a whole menagerie in the latest season, when we find out she still visits their graves. It does make sense for the American version to have more substantial arcs because of the structure of the episodes demanding a story with resolutions that would feel hollow without and arc to tie in.
I don’t dislike the CBS version, but I do still prefer the BBC version. It feels more refined, heartfelt and poignant. They’ve basically done more episodes of the Us version and I don’t actually care that much about any of the characters, they feel kind of cringe and overblown in a lot of ways. I love the most subtle humor of the BBC version, and typically British humor in general. US versions always feel dumbed down or that they have to basically say “GET IT” after every joke or story point, watching it after seeing the BBC version I just think… wow, American tv writers and networks think Americans are DUMB. Or that they’re targeting for the lowest common denominator which is not great. The biggest example of this is the Captain. Not only did they give him a “silly” name in the US version but they also Yassified him in a very modern way instead of how subtle the portrayal of the BBC captain is. We got a love story from both but the US version felt very forced and not nuanced at all. Instead of the viewer realizing the subtext in the Captains actions, the US version makes it a point to give him a whole coming out storyline right away while also giving him a very flamboyant portrayal. They didn’t even drag it out for a while to milk for story points later. US sitcoms can do this successfully (like in Always Sunny) but they have to be actually well written and deftly acted which I don’t think the US Ghosts is… tho I blame more of this in the writing. Why does Sasapiss speak perfect modern American English? I feel like they were too afraid to do something more realistic in case it came off as cartoonish or offensive but it’s just so strange in its actual execution. They could’ve done something more interesting and had him speak in his original language or something and have characters translate or just have subtitles and not explain why people understand him. SOMETHING besides sounding like a guy from 2022 The pacing to me is also insane in the US version; like why did we need to meet Fanny’s husband right away, AND have the captain get in a relationship, AND bury Thorfins bones, AND discover literally EVERY characters death story all in season 1?? Where does the writing room have to go after this? I also think it’s an interesting cultural study of Americans vs British in regards to what characters will play, or what the studios THINK will play. Allison and Mike are kind of aimless, don’t really have a direction or goal, they’re kind of fuck-ups in a lot of ways that were given a direction by inheriting the house. Samantha and Jay are both basically brilliant in their fields and have ambitions… it’s like US audiences won’t stand for main characters that aren’t good at their jobs or just aimless in general. They did the same to Michael Scott in the US office: he could be a bad boss but he has to be a good Salesman for us Americans to like him One thing I did find interesting in the US version was Samantha taking advantage of her powers outside her home, specifically to see if her mom was a ghost. The BBC version has kind of driven home that other ghosts are creepy and to be avoided but this kind of storyline fits with the US tone and is fun to explore. I think a big part of Ghosts is a theme of family and chosen family; Allison doesn’t have a family of her own except Mike and her in-laws, but the Ghosts become her family. Like, of course a character who has lost both parents might be curious to see if they could contact them again with this power.
Someone else in the comments also mentioned how the US versions of the characters don’t feel authentic and I 100% agree. Whether it’s modern affectation/accent/language choices or whatever, none of the characters actually feel like they’re ghosts from the time they came from. The closest is maybe Alberta. But the other characters kind of just feel like Halloween costumes
I don't think you get the characterisation of the British comedy as there as character development, which is happening, but it is taken over a longer path rather than giving everything at once as found in the US version. With the UK version instead of the character telling you something they show you a clip of the character's history. and often give subtle hints which can be more appropriate to the character. In the US version it seems to even out each character while the UK each character has distinctly different characteristics and styles of speech. The BBC are showing both versions of Ghosts and I quite like the US Ghosts, but the Original is a gem that is rewatchable as it packs so much more into each episode with its use of language and comedic timing. One gripe about the US version is the lack of use of the beheaded character. With regards to plot the original establishes the premise and each character better and makes you interested more and care more for each person. The US version simply races through things far too fast.
I think the back story of the British ghosts is better than the character development of the American version. Having said this, I have only just started watching with two episodes down. Each is bringing something but I think I will come down on the UK version in the end.
You are missing the elephant in the room regarding "character development". The show doesn't address it directly, but the huge question the show poses is "Why are these particular people stuck in essentially purgatory". Yes, it is funny as hell, but they don't shy away from showing the suffering of ghosts, their eternal life is a curse. That's why the characters don't change so quickly - if they did, they could be "sucked off" as Mary did. I hope they will develop this part of the lore further.
You're absolutely right that I didn't mention that aspect as much. To be fair, I made the video before the latest series of the UK show, so as far as I knew, none of the UK ghosts would ever be "sucked off." (I still feel very dirty writing that phrase in a TH-cam comment...) If I were to make the video today, I'd probably talk about that in more detail and give the UK show some more credit.
In the recent round of interviews the team have said that sucking off is random & not the result of character development. Mary got sucked off because the actress asked to be written out, for storytelling purposes they therefore wrapped up her storyline before she left. They said in the interview they made a deliberate choice to have her sucked off at the beginning of an episode to reinforce how random it was as opposed to it being the climax of an episode. They wanted to stick to what the Ghosts said in season 1 & have it completely random. So it isn't a case that character development would see them go.
I'm an American and I like both versions of Ghosts. However by far my favorite is the British version. I think it's allot more funny than the American version.
I recently binged the American version after I've been watching the og for years and it's good when you don't compare it to the UK version! I found myself getting frustrated with how much the US version dumbed down jokes and how things didn't have much build up to punchlines! There wasn't much struggle or build up, the house was clean and they magically had the money to fix it.. I'm definitely a fan of the actors but just frustrated with the writing! I think the British is more realistic and subtle especially in character traits. The captain being gay wasn't something that slapped you in the face as soon as he opened his mouth but it wasn't unbelievable he also grew a lot but it didn't completely cure the decades of him living with ww2 mindsets (it took Mary a long while to learn to speak out against men and she was having daily lessons from Anne)
I love the American version and have been watching the UK version recently. It started out slow for me but I am beginning to love those characters too. Why do we have to compare and make one better than the other? Two different countries and two different takes in comedy…Why not just sit back and enjoy the show?
I know that the US version is endorsed by the The Six but it is awful. I watched a few minutes of the first show and hared it. I watched the episode with the guest appearance of Matt Baynton and it still sucked. The cast of the BBC Ghosts have been creating and acting together so long that they create shows that are seamless. Lolly Adelope, Katy Wix, Charlotte Ritchie, and Kiell Smith-Bynoe were inspired choices for the additional characters. I just don’t “feel” the energy in the American version.
I never understand why people bring up 'But the creators like it!' as an argument for something you don’t like. Some or all of them have probably worked on something else before that I do like, but they were unhappy with. Should I take that into consideration when talking about how much I enjoyed the thing too? The US version is really bad, I agree. I persevered and sat through about a third of the first season before I let myself give up. People kept telling me to 'give it another episode' and I wish I hadn't listened. I will say the second episode is better than the first, but that's not really saying anything. I'm still a little bit curious to see the episode Mat is in, but other than that I'm more than happy to stick to the original!
That’s funny. I was about to say the same about the UK version. I don’t like it at all and feel the American version is better but it’s what ever you like yours I like mine
Watched 5 minutes of the US version and it was garbage. Over the top, not subtle at all. The original played out from start to finish perfectly. With so many laughs. Not one boring episode.
One of the special things about the UK version is the cast. Particularly the Six Idiots who have been together since working on the BBC children’s history show Horrible Histories. They are also the writers and the their chemistry is brilliant
I think some of your points focus on the difference between UK & US comedies: in the US, the humour tends to be action-based, whereas in the UK it's less about action & more about the interaction between the characters. The US seems to value how the characters ACT, whereas in the UK it's more how the characters ARE. This is why some of the best British comedies have bombed in the US version, especially Coupling, one of the best British comedies ever imo which flopped very badly in the US. Most of the time in UK Coupling, the 6 characters are simply sitting in a pub or one of their houses talking. That doesn't really work in the US. Another factor is that US sitcoms seem to need a hero or someone who has a character arc, learning until he wins over everyone else or until he conquers something. In the UK, it's the character's weakness or flaws that provide the comedy, so these negative attributes are celebrated. Look at some of the greats in British comedy & they all have failings: Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers is inept, slightly deranged, angry all the time, & that's the cause of the humour; Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em, similar to Basil Fawlty, is inept & basically a complete idiot, but he's also very innocent & sweet-natured & adores his wife &, in later episodes, baby daughter, so we cannot help but love him; in Blackadder, Edmund Blackadder is selfish, mean, nasty, devious & full of unlikeable qualities, whereas his manservant Baldrick is the epitome of stupidity, yet we cannot help but love them. Blackadder is also one of the most unlucky men in British comedy as, no matter how grand his schemes, he always loses out; similarly in Only Fools & Horses, one of the UK's most loved sitcoms, Del Boy is a working class man with delusions of grandeur. He's a market trader, selling poor quality or illegal things & is full of dodgy deals, who dreams of being a rich man. In the US, the last episode would be him fulfilling all his dreams & becoming rich & set up for life. In the UK, he finally becomes a millionaire but then almost immediately loses most of his money, so he's nearly back to square one. The US would never have such losers as as Basil Fawlty, Frank Spencer, Blackadder & Del Boy & their heroes because that's not the American idea of a hero. The US prefers stories of hope, even in their comedies, whereas here in the UK our humour tends to be bleaker & blacker. Personally I feel that the US sitcom that came closest to the UK style was also one of their best: M*A*S*H. The characters all had positive & negative characteristics & they weren't always the heroes as they had significant flaws & sometimes lost. I've always been surprised that M*A*S*H was as popular as it was in the US but even then the sitcom was not as dark as the film version. Just my brief thoughts on the comparison between US & UK comedy.
i watched the American show, and if I hadn’t seen the British version I would have no clue what was happening, it moves too fast with too little explanation, I had to watch it a second time to fully understand the premise and if it was different to the uk one. It just doesn’t give off the same vibes :/
I don't believe that the American version works out. The characters don't have the comfortable chemistry that the UK cast has. I know it has a fan base but I don't believe they are comparable.
First, let me admit I'm someone who, if the American "Ghosts" came out first, I would have said it's stupid. But if the British made a TV show (which they did with "Ghosts"), I immedately would call it clever, witty and intelligently written. That being said, the American Ghosts grew on me, and they do deserve to be at ComicCon conventions. It's hard to adapt something to another country's sensibilities, but CBS/Paramount did it. Kudos to them. It's not, as you said, "I don't not like it", or something to that affect. But at the same time, I know I still would have glossed over it if there wasn't a British one first.
So glad you did this video - just finished the BBC version last night and thought for sure I wouldnt find any good (or any at all) videos about it. Loved it, loved all the characters, and thought I'd just kept forgetting the captains name until they made that joke about it and I realized no one knew his name :p
I don't think US Ghosts is that good. It has its moments, but otherwise...meh. I think Alison and Mike are a better couple. I will admit I'm a big Jim Howick fan. The BBC doesn't seem so bent on inclusion, more on laughs. Laughs are what comedy is about.
Very interesting. Hadn’t thought about the vast size of the US being an issue for the concept before. It’s easy enough for a single location to represent the whole of British (or, at least, English) history - not so much for America I guess. You’re quite right that whilst the UK version has character revelation, the US show has the bigger number of potential episodes that it allows for character development to occur - or maybe the structure dictates that the development is necessary. And class issues are so pervasive here that I hadn’t really thought of them being at the forefront of the UK series - but, of course, they’re really at the centre of it. I like the US version, lots of good stuff in there - but it lacks the ensemble spirit of the original and kind of feels like what it is, a corporate venture making a competent copy of something personal and innovative.
The US version should have had a coastal location. that allows pirate and maritime ghosts and stories. Do not blandly copy another TV shows characters and plots, be inventive.
I rolled my eyes when I heard about the Ameican version, but it really hooked me during season 2. At this point, I quit comparing them. I hope BOTH series continue on for a while. I hope they do more cross-over episodes with the casts.
Same. I came across the U.K. version a few months before they announced there was going to be an American version. Naturally, I cringed at the idea and how they were going to botch it but I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Not great mind you but still not bad.
US leave the comedy to the professionals Also I think Britain’s comedic style is cultural. It’s straightforward, witty and yeah. Compare motherland and modern family, one of them uses obvious yet clever humor, and the other is people being annoying to each other. It’s the same with outnumbered
Considering how bad US adaptions of British comedy shows usually are, I think Ghosts US is one of the better ones. I just wanna talk about the best moment in the UK show, which was Julian putting a kiss on the end of Mike's email to his boss just before he pressed send. Even thinking about it makes me laugh.
Fantastic food for thought. I very much like both versions and I believe I like the US version specifically because it is starting to find another path. If they had just gone for a straight up retelling with watered down characters I don't think I would have enjoyed it at all.
Yeah, I definitely came into the US version with a chip on my shoulder and got won over as it started to do its own thing. I'm very excited to see where it ends up going.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos I don't blame you, there is definitely a precedence set for MOST adaptations. Heck, some of them don't make it past pilot. (I'm looking at YOU IT Crowd...which is odd because I like most of the cast in that). I think I first realized the US version was adding new potential when she began encountering Ghosts in other places outside of the house.
I tried watching the US version after I watched the UK version and I honestly had to turn it off after 1 episode. Its so loud and fast moving it almost gave me a headache.
The American remake was wholly unnecessary. The best thing about the UK version is the cast: the six idiots are a creative force to be reckoned with, change that and you've ruined the show.
I have been watching both, and I think the US version has a lot of potential, but it definitely made some choices to start itself at a disadvantage. Doing some of the early stuff as a shot-for-shot remake, but in a different context and with different characters was a choice to take advantage of neither the characters nor the context. The pick-n-mix approach to making the American characters out of some of the British ones was also pretty odd. And there's tons of American history that could have been taken advantage of. New York has been inhabited for thousands and thousands of years, but there's only one native American character, and he's fairly modern. No pirates from the 1600's, Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam, French fur trappers, etc. Almost all the ghosts are from after the Revolutionary war. Could have spread things out a bit more. The Viking seems to be written entirely by people who aren't terribly interested in Vikings. If history is your main comedic tool, you want to have some history in your back pocket to use. Also, the revolutionary war guy is in the closet? Having started the US series, I had no idea there was a closet for him to come out of. Guy is played so broad you don't need to speak English to understand the character archetype. "The Captain" is way more interesting in that portrayal because men of his generation just didn't talk about feelings and things, so the joke isn't just "the gay" but rather that he's letting any sort of feelings for somebody slip out. Wildly improper for an officer to have a feeling in front of the men! Tut tut!
the us version doesnt have "more growth" the growth just happens faster, which id argue feels cheaper. when i tried watching the us version it irritated me because it was like you had to completely understand all of the characters within their first sentence. if the issac was really closeted and scared of ppl finding out his queerness then why the fuck would he act like that? and this is coming from a gay person. though i admit the uk version is incredibly slow, the development is STILL THERE, the main difference being that these moments of development actually feel earned bc of how long weve spent with the characters.
I was never a fan of the original The office, so had no interest in the American remake. I've only just started watching the American remake and so far, not bad. However, the concept of developing the characters of dead people is a bit strange. How can there be continuation? I'm not sure the American version has legs. Studios have a history of cancelling shows that do not get the required audience viewing.
Yeah, I don't really get that point about development either. There's only so far someone who can't interact (or who has limited interaction) with the living world can change. They can learn new things and see things from more modern perspectives, but how are they supposed to do anything with that beyond how they talk to and act around others? They've not come back to life and getting a second chance to do things right this time around, they are still dead.
I don't think the lack of character development in the British version is a negative especially given how deliberate that is. The whole Captain Project William episode was teasing the obvious character developments you get in shows but then pulls the rug & reveals it as a blind. Character development is in most shows & ppl forget once you develop a character, say have the Captain come out & be more comfortable with himself then you have lost something from his character & essentially have to write him differently. What it does do in the US version is allows those characters to become different from the British versions though via on screen developments which can only be good for it, but it's not a negative that the British version doesn't have it.
Plot vs “hanging out”… interesting observation, and I think a big part is in the uk we love word play, and humour through language so you don’t need a lot of’drama’ to make a good show. Also the nature of uk culture is more about not having conflict broadly.
I prefer the British originals having just watched the American version of ghosts it's okay. I like American Great aunt Hetty and I like the Viking. The cast in general are good. However I'm fond of our original. They are both watchable and fine. I'll watch both quite happily.
Is this a current or older show? It sounds so interesting, I need to check it out. Edit: I found the british version and am on the 3rd episode. Think I'm hooked already.
I'm glad you found it and are enjoying it! The British original is a ton of fun. If you end up checking out the American remake, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of that!
@@ShawnBRyanVideos I binged watched all 3 seasons of the British version I was able to find, and have just started on the American version. I like both, but think I like the British version a little better. I'm hoping there'll be a 4th season of the original.
@@LOAblue There is a fourth season! It was already released in the UK, and it's pretty fantastic! (Warning: Don't look up spoilers...) I'm not sure why it's not available here yet, but I suspect it will come to HBO Max after this year's Christmas special airs on the BBC. I'm glad you're having some fun with the American version too!
Character changes did occurred in BBC's version of Ghosts, in just did not happened dramatically and forcefully like the CBS's version, but very subtle and organic that when you realized it, it'll make you wonder when the did all the characters became a tight knit and loyally loving with each others sort of family that will teared your eyes when they decide to sell the house and helped Alison with her situation.
Ghosts follow a comedy style of resetting at the start of each new episode which is why the characters don't develop. Essentially it's a case of we have these caricature, now how will they react if this situation happened. An American example would be M.A.S.H which did it to an extent that although the war continued there was still Burms and Hulahan trying to instil disaplin but never managing it with the other undisaplined doctors- the characters didn't change or develope with the war, they reacted to situations. It sounds like there is more development with the American Ghosts and the story is more of a soap format?
I love the BBC show and as a European, who happens to be a historian, I was a tad scared when an American version was announced, but I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. It really is an adaption this time, not an americanised copy. The biggest difference is a viking instead of a caveman, which makes perfect sense. They could of written a Tudor character, for there were quite a lot of colonists in New England back then, but that would of looked a tad forced. The class system in the UK is very different and based on a variety of reasons, yet there is a class system in the US as well, albeit far simpler and less of a concern to people. I've heard that the French are going to make their own version, so I'm quite sure we will see ghosts from the french revolution, the 100 year war and probably inhabitants of the Lascaux cave, mais on verra bien. But apart from that I sadly have to agree on the main point, namely that US adaptations of European shows usually vacate the main premise of these shows by turning it into something more palatable for a US audience - which usually fails miserably. Anyway, I found this channel through that show and I will explore it more. Thanks for uploading.
You had me until you said the British version didn’t have character growth. Those characters absolutely grow and change. Pat forgiving his killer, the Cap beginning to reckon with his queerness, Fanny recognizing her worth Mary finding a voice, etc
This !! thank you
I still miss Mary. Shes was ones of the bests. ❤️
Robin is my favourite. UK is the best, but I do like the US one. Except for the prom ghost girl in the attic, didn’t like the character and the dumb girl that haunts and stays in a car from the car accident, glad she didn’t stay.
@@ruthyvonne5240 What about the two Luftwaffe aircrew sitting in midair outside that tower block. very funny but also very sad if you think about it.
Yup I prefer Americans version, didn't want to... But it is way better.
To me, a big part of BBC Ghosts is that the cast have known each other for years and it reflects on screen. There is also an element of nostalgia for the British as they were the cast of Horrible histories. I grew up watching Horrible Histories, their songs are iconic and a quintessential part of British culture. 😊 They also did Yonderland and Bill, so there is a somewhat familiarity with these characters as we know and love the actors.
Alison’s actress, Charlotte Ritchie, is bloody brilliant. She may not be as well known as the others but she has been in other BBC shows. Most people will recognise her from Fresh Meat, Dead Pixels or Call the Midwife ❤ The American version lacks the charm and nostalgia.
The simplicity of the plot is what makes ghosts enjoyable. I have enough drama in my life without a chaotic, jam packed tv show. The BBC episode where his family come to stay is beautiful. Mike resolves his issues and frustrations with his family, Julian bonds with Mike’s niece and looks up what became of his daughter. It’s a brilliant episode.
I agree!
Mr. Shawn B. Ryan, I think this is a topic worth exploring more. How does the fact that for the British show they actors are the writers are a (comedy troupe?) who have been together for years affect the show? For that matter, is the proper terminology "comedy troupe", for groups such as Horrible History, Monty Python, French & Saunders, etc.?
Yeah
I agree! I’m not even British but went to an international school that did the British syllabus so horrible histories became a huge part of my childhood so much that even I felt the sense of nostalgia
Charlotte Ritchie was also a main character in the 4th series of the US drama YOU, and was brilliant in that as well. I imagine that was when a a lot of American's first discovered her
NOTHING about the UK version or its characters is "wearing thin." Every episode is exceptional.
Yes it is good but so is the American version.
@@ferretfriend5458as a Brit I cannot stand how fast ghosts US is.
@@ferretfriend5458I feel like the US version moves too quickly, I’ve watched all of it, and my favourite character is, somehow, Trevor, and I think that’s because of how consistent his character was with some exceptions with his centric episodes. In the UK version my favourite is Captain, and he is a lot more deep and realistic than most of the US versions. The thing the US version didn’t do is take into account that they’re real people, some of which would have trauma. The US version moves too quickly past these episodes where characters are meant to accept past. I do feel that in ‘Carpe Diém’ or however it’s spelled, did move too fast past Captains confession, but I think that’s because everyone already knew and it was more him coming to terms. Sorry about the rant it went rlly off topic, but in conclusion, the US version moves too fast and focuses more on comedy (that isn’t funny imo) than the story.
Thats how it came across for me, anyway.
@@rfurthegamer3412 That's funny. I'm American and I can't stand how slow the UK version is. lol. Honestly. Maybe its just a culture thing.
@@DaxKilo that’s what I’m implying
I think the ghosts’ slow character development is a deliberate choice. They’ve lived in a bubble for hundreds on years, unable to interact with the living world, learning of changes in the world second hand and being unable to ask their own questions. So they’ve had to rely on their observations with their own flawed interpretations or the interpretations of the living people they overhear. People require new information to challenge old thought patterns, and there has been a dearth of information here, so I find it very plausible that it takes a long time to develop their characters.
Moreover, I feel it’s their change-averse personalities that has led them to being stuck as ghosts in the first place. Annie, the Puritan housemaid was “sucked off” when as she realised she was free in death more than in life. And Mary also said there had been other ghosts who had been “sucked off” in the past. These ones that stay are just the most stubborn and resistant to change.
They literally have very limited things they are exposed to! they cant travel beyond the grounds of the house and Im certain no one has been living in the space for many years - or at least a millennial.. Alot of the characters are also stubborn with their beliefs and cartoonishly are a product of their times which adds so much humour and also accounts for this slow pace which is more realistic.
ALL the ghosts in the UK version have character development and that is shown over the series, this is the whole point! Each week we get to know ALL about them, it may take 10 weeks but that's how life is... You don't meet someone in a pub and know everything about them by 11pm! It take time to find out who people are!
I probably could have been clearer about what I meant. I was trying to describe how much the characters changed as the series progressed. To me, the characters on the UK show are all pretty much the same at the end of season 4 as they were at the beginning of season 1.
In the US show, the characters are much more dynamic and have changed quite a bit from where they began.
With the UK version we find out who they were in life and why they are there.....but “ you stay were you die” is a premise...Julian is without trousers and tipsy, and is a poltergeist....Thomas has a bullet wound and can’t get rid of the letter in his pocket....Fanny falls out of the window...
The only thing I prefer in the American version is the Jay character. I would have liked Mike to be more like that instead of the bumbling comedic role
@@lynnlee2282 I love Mike, and wouldn't want him to be any other way, but I do quite like Jay. In fact, he's the only character on the show that I like at all. I somewhat liked Pete at first, but then I saw a news story about how the actor who does him plays cruel pranks on the actor who plays Isaac because he enjoys seeing him jump, and now I can't understand him as anything other than a bully and a prankster. I loved the episode in which the ghosts played D&D with Jay, and would like to see more of that kind of interaction.
The character development of the uk ghosts is significant but subtle and set over the 4 series’ we currently have. They are not just caricatures of people from specific points in history, we learn (not only) about each characters death & the impact that has had on each ghost (leading to their acceptance, or not, of it) but also about significant points in their life that they learn from through the years of their afterlife. Please don’t confuse subtle long-arching character development as no character development. UK Ghosts is awesome (not that I’m biased 😁)
You're right, that's a really good point. I probably should have differentiated "character development" from "character changes" in the video.
Though I'm not even sure I realized how much depth these characters had until series 4. That really brought home how much these characters weren't broad caricatures but specific people who I'd grown attached to.
To me this shows how different we are, culturally. For example, a British military officer of the Edwardian period would NEVER ever come out - not in a million years, even if he is around for that long. I find it awkward to think that a Revolutionary War officer would come out, too.
@@larading2914 Absolutely! I think it's also interesting in terms of the "reality" of the show's treatment of historical characters. I feel like the British show is much more interested in maintaining some historical plausibility in the way the characters act, while the US show is fine with the ghosts being a bit less accurate to their periods.
There may also be something larger and more thematic at work, as the US characters can move beyond their historical periods but the UK ghosts are defined by them forever... but I may be overthinking it.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos 'Over thinking ' is good! It makes life way more interesting!
@@larading2914 Absolutely! 😁
It’s entirely inaccurate to claim that Ghosts (UK) has no character growth.
The Captain develops a father-daughter-like relationship with Kitty and learns to be more authentic to himself even though he has yet to admit his queerness, Mary found her voice and came to terms with her traumatic and unjust death, Pat learns to be more assertive, and even forgives his killer. Fanny loosens her corset (metaphorically), Julian becomes (slightly) more empathetic, Kitty gains confidence in her own worth &c. The group as a whole have a much closer dynamic now than at the beginning, as they have learned to more than merely tolerate each other, though not all of them would admit that. You make it sound so static and that’s just not the case at all?
Fun fact: the premise of Alison inheriting a big country house isn't only based on a real story, it's the real story of the house that they used as the filming location for the show! I don't know if they got the idea from the house, or if that was always the idea and it's just a crazy coincidence, but it's cool either way.
I believe it was a coincidence… from interviews I’ve seen anyway.
Bamber Gascoigne isn't exactly lower class though lol
@@xBoringPerfectionxhahaha exactly! He's the grandson of a Marquess for goodness sake.
I love the UK GHOSTS much more (sorry, but nope... not sorry actually). Even love Button House!
I think I enjoy the LGBTQ representation in the UK version. It's less blatant and more "show don't tell". I also enjoy how Humphrey changes Fanny's views on the whole gay marriage thing with his own take that "people should choose who they want to marry". I thought that was cute.
Oh yeah the captain. It is h e a v i l y implied that he is not heterosexual but that's not his character. I like that. Also the sitting down in a circle episode I think the captain wanted to say he loved Havers lol
Yes exactly I LOVE that it’s not just a caricature of a gay person, he’s a clever and strategic WW2 army captain, who’s name we still don’t know(which personally makes me wanna watch more to find out), he likes to be in charge and is bias towards those who have served… who also happens to be gay and it adds to him as a person but isn’t all he is. It’s more realistic, but not so little enough of it is shown that it’s simply queerbaiting. It’s clear to the audience that he is gay (or at least lgbt) and we know about how his background makes it hard for him to come out (like he almost did in the therapy episode) AND to add to all that… he’s the character we probably know LEAST about
The ‘show don’t tell’ of the uk version does enough with his facial expressions or small remarks than the US version ever could blatantly telling the audience
Stick to LGB, the rest of the alphabet is a recent US import, including the word gender, which is a wholly American word
@@catherinerobilliard7662 this is the dumbest comment i have ever seen in my entire life, thanks for the laugh. the word gender originates from latin. Also it isnt just trans ppl that make up the rest of the lgbt community
@@catherinerobilliard7662 Ok karen
Yeah it's implied in the show and I'm pretty sure, during an interview, Ben Willbond confirmed it which makes me so happy!!
Thank god I found the original Ghosts first. Always loved Horrible Histories so it was nice to see the cast again
I never saw horrible histories, was living overseas, but home now 🇬🇧👍 both English and American versions are very good.
I think you missed the plot of the British version of Ghosts. "A family comes to visit" isn't the plot. The A plot is about how Mike's family disrespects him and doesn't see him as a man, and how he tries to get respect in their eyes, and fails. The B plot is about Julian learning the importance of family, thereby advancing his character. The C plot is about Alison wanting to celebrate Christmas with her own traditions, and Mike and his family not being into those, but in the end, the Ghosts understand her. And she looks, very briefly, the part of the true lady of the hall.
The UK plotting is there, it's just slower (they do have an hour of time compared to a 22 minutes in the US), and much more subtle (which is the main problem I have with the US version of ghosts).
At this point, I'll vote that the UK version is better. Part of it is the hour long time to allow the characters to breathe. But much of it is just better characterization overall. Yes, I would like to see the Captain find happiness/come out as gay. But the social stigma was so bad in the UK that in his own time, he would have been castrated. He behaves as it makes sense that he should. Also he has more personality than just being gay. He's the group leader in a lot of respects. He displays loyalty to his country. He and Pat enjoy outdoors activities when given the opportunity. And there was storytelling hinting at a gay romance that fans of the series are waiting to see the outcome of.
Meanwhile the US version ... doesn't behave right. He's like someone wore Hamilton cosplay to a Pride parade rather than a Revolutionary War soldier that also happens to be gay. Most of these I'll put down to the actor, but I'll add here that the posture bothers me, and that is all the actor's fault. People in that time did not slouch. Military men particularly do not slouch. but put him or his lover in a chair and they slouch all over the place like someone took the starch out of their clothes. It's really distracting, and does a wonderful job of ruining any hope of an illusion that these people might be from the time they claim. Then you look at his personality -- he's gay, gay, gay, gay, gay and ... well, I supposed I could add drama queen, but that's so associated with gay in television that they're practically the same thing. I can't really tell you anything else about him.
They did show him inventing something once. I'd love to see him show interest in technology, but he doesn't other than that one time. He could talk about his wife and his children. Yes, I know he's very gay. Yes, he probably didn't love his wife. (Though that begs the question of why he picked her to marry out of everyone). But he doesn't show any interest or curiosity in what happened to his family at all, nor any fond memories. I mean, I don't expect her to be the love of his life given the circumstances, but do you really have no affectionate memories of your spouse? How about some regrets, considering you couldn't be the man she wanted, but you married her anyway?
I do like the romance that they had brewing for Isaac. But I think they played their hand on the issue much too quickly. The romance is pretty much settled in one episode. We deserve better than that. They don't have to tease it out for ten seasons, but how about just a few episodes? Maybe two seasons? By two seasons everyone wants a couple to get together no matter what.
I have other issues like that with the show. Isaac is really the most off character, but many of them just don't make sense: Trevor, why did you give the other man your underwear? Ick. Why do Thor and Sass not speak to each other in Sass's language? I mean, Thor was here for 500 years before the English came, and several of those centuries were spent with Sass. I would expect him to have picked up the language, and only switched over to English at a later point.
Though, probably the worst part is that the ghosts only change because of Sam, as she teaches them lessons about modern morals. This was particularly disturbing to me when Hettie started going on about how Sam had changed her life, making her a more liberated woman. All I could think was that she'd spent a century with Alberta. Where's the things Alberta taught her? Why does only Sam have the power to improve lives? Why can't the ghosts improve their own lives? Or each others lives? Because in the UK version, the ghosts do care about each other, and improve each other's lives and Alison's life (as the Christmas song symbolically shows them supporting her). But in the US show, Sam is the only one with the power to teach.
Pretty sure the British version is 30mins an episode, not an hour
@@richardgurney1844 The Christmas episodes are an hour long. A big difference if that in the UK as season is six episodes, not twenty. Also the Six who write and produce and play the ghosts, are troupe, The Six Idiots Or Them There. They are best friends who met and got together on Horrible Histories. They improvise in places...
@@emmyjo720 I love Horrible Histories! Childhood memories:)
@@emmyjo720 Both Christmas episodes are approximately 29 minutes each. So it would take about an hour to watch them back to back, and I'm assuming this year's will be the same. But yeah they're not an hour each. Would love it if they were.
Well said!
In terms of BBC’s Ghosts you commented on the lack of character development from the Ghosts as a negative. But as is more evident in Season 4 with Mary’s passing. Character development leads to the characters getting “sucked off”. Over the first 3 episodes we saw Mary get her final development as a character until she was complete enough to get sucked off. But we also see how it took her many many years with the help of Annie to get to that place.
It’s also specified that you stay how you die. That may also relate to character development. You see how these ghosts who’ve watched history pass by should have caught up a little more with current things. But they’re still steadfastly stuck in the past. Thinking back to their own time alive.
So we do see some character development, but it’s slow. Robin’s development has been so slow that he’s seemingly been around for many aeons and is still yet to be sucked off. We saw in the Christmas episode when Mike’s family came how Julian adapted to being with the baby and how he thought back to his own child. He grew, if only a little, in that episode. These little things happen over time. And we get to see small developments over the course of the show. It seems much more real, these things take a lot of time. The Captain after so many years still struggles to share his own story from the lifetime of ingrained shame he accumulated. Mary took several more centuries than that to talk about her Witch burning. And soon after that, she got sucked off.
I’m interested to see how the American show handles being sucked off. Because with the quick character development and story lines you pointed out by comparison. Then what reason will they have when the first of them is sucked off. Mary’s reasoning was obvious. So when one of them is finally sucked off, a massive thing would have to happen first to warrant it.
First of all, I just want you to know how much your casual use of the phrase "sucked off" made me laugh. Just one of the many gifts that Ghosts has given us!
You're absolutely right about the characters in the UK show not being totally static, especially in series 4. (Though in my defense, I made the video before it was released.) And I agree that the UK show handles the subject in a much slower, more realistic way, where much of the change happens internally. Even the moment where Mary is sucked off is subtle, with Mary just giving a little "Oh!" before departing.
The US series is definitely very American in how it handles character growth. The scene where Isaac comes out to the other ghosts is big and emotional, with teary eyes and dramatic music, serving as the climax of season 1. I can't imagine anything remotely similar happening in the UK show, where we don't even know the Captain's name!
You make a really great point about how the US show may have written itself into a corner with the issue of the ghosts being sucked off. The US show established that being sucked off works in a similar way during an episode where the ghost of Sam's mother is sucked off. I'm curious how they'll cross that bridge if/when one of the main actors decides to leave the show.
Anyway, I hope I wasn't being too critical of the UK show. I don't think it's wrong for making the creative choices that it's making, I just think it's interesting to compare two different approaches to the same concept. My goal wasn't to bash the original, but to stick up for the US adaptation.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos That’s all very fair. I know you weren’t intending to bash the UK show. Much like you wanted to stick up for the US show. I wanted to defend the reasoning behind the seemingly slow character developments in the UK show.
In the post season 4 interview the cast & writers were pretty firm that there is no rhyme or reason to when they get sucked off. They intended it to be random & as the actress was leaving they wanted to make it as random as possible. They confirm this is why they have her go at the beginning of an episode rather than the climax. They wanted it random & not look like a culmination.
The reason her character reveal comes in the episodes prior is because they were losing the actress so wanted to finish the storyline on screen before they did.
Ghosts is an allegory for life. Noone knows why you are there, you end up with the ppl you come across, there's no instruction manual on what you should do to pass the time & ppl did/sucked off randomly.
On my God I was watching it in my room and my Mum walked in on the phrase "sucked off"💀💀💀
@@Leavemealoneheh My Mum can't say passed away the same since Mary stated "sucked off."
"The comedy and drama comes from the characters just interacting with each other"
THAT is what makes the BBC version peak comedy. Not only the fact that slap-stick is kept to a serious minimum, but the fact that they are also able to so eloquently include drama and tragedy through the ghosts' stories, memories, and mere interactions with each other is what makes this show so good. There ISN'T a need for a wild plot or impossible challenge. All that's necessary for the storytelling is the actor's ability and the reason for the story that is being told.
This show makes me laugh out loud, and cry uncontrollably. There is so much emotion and STORY crammed into every moment of each episode, that it is nearly impossible to be bored with it.
The CBS version, on the other hand, is unable to meet that same standard for depth and comedy. They cut characters, blur the lines of history, wave bad acting to final cuts, and when they can't get a laugh through a genuinely funny joke- they resort to smutty ones that just don't hit. I admit there are a few jokes in CBS Ghosts that I laughed at, but the overall feeling of the show is bland and severely lacking the chemistry that the original cast has.
The storytelling coming from characters interacting in BBC Ghosts is... exactly what they've all been experiencing. That IS their day-to-day. No big fancy effects, no massive changes, just day-to-day sameness that should drive them all mad but somehow doesn't and hasn't for decades if not centuries. They actually brought this up in a recent episode, where it's called out that if someone had to live in a house with everyone else there, he'd have gone out into the woods to live alone ages ago. They CHOOSE this death (afterlife? ghosthood?) together, doing the same bits ("If I could choose what to wear if I died today..." for the 14029th time) because to them... what's the alternative? Loneliness. Even when they don't see eye-to-eye, they always come back.
I just couldn't laugh at the CBS one, wasn't done well yet not alot of people in my country know the BBC one is a thing and is actually heaps better than the CBS version
@@ConspireTheMuse
Yeah... Maddocks. It was kinda genius to have the Ghosts of Button House being reviewed by... another ghost, who isn't part of the "family", so to speak.
The way that the Button House Ghosts interact with "Mads" tells us also what these Ghosts like. Thomas telling that "we worked it out", Fanny showing some unexpected humor with "Lord Ashtray", Pat going all "Yorkie", Kitty who's mostly interested in all the gory details of his death... and ultimately Robin, who helps Maddocks out and casually says "next Tuesday".
Genius and hilarious.
Yeah, I love the Button House Ghosts ❤
I’ve only seen the BBC version and it’s ability to turn a normal relatable event (eg. Family coming to visit) into a funny engaging story through only the use of its main premises (there are ghosts and one of the living people can see them) is great. It gets its drama from that premise. It doesn’t introduce elaborate plots for each episode it’s simple yet very effective.
My experience tends to show that American comedies don't do losers, non sequiteurs, sadness and poignancy or negativity very well. The clip of the American Tim is a good example of not 'getting it' as it was the chance happenstance of working in the same place that got him and Dawn together and his job was nothing to do with it never mind deserving of credit.
The "character development" in the BBC Ghosts seems self-evident to me in the disclosure of their back stories. A prehistoric man has been on a long, long journey and can't expect to travel much further very fast whilst the relatively recently deceased corrupt politician moves, before our eyes, from completely self-serving to much more aware of and sympathetic to the worries of those around him. In real life the characters of people change slowly and sometimes not at all and what we call character development is just us gettng to know them better. I personally hnk the BBC Ghosts does this beautifully.
I'm a big fan of Ghosts, both UK and US versions. What is interesting, in real life, is the history of the location used for Button House. Despite Ghosts being devised and written prior to finding a location it turns out the actual history of Button House mirrors, almost exactly, the premise of the show. Amazing.
Wow, I didn't know that! I feel like I've got to look into the behind-the-scenes stuff now, because I'd just assumed that it was all being shot in a studio somewhere made up to look like an old house!
@@ShawnBRyanVideos Button House is actually called West Horsley Place in Surrey. Interior shots are done in a studio, but the history of the exterior property is interesting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Horsley_Place.
@@the-flatulator Interesting, thanks for the link!
@@the-flatulator all interior shots are actually also taken in the house. I visited it last year and it all looked almost exactly how it does in the show :)
I totally disagree that the UK Ghosts are just caricatures, as each of them has an episode dedicated to them to show their back story and that fleshes their characters out a great deal
Short answer: yes. Long answer, the US cast was thrown together via a casting agent, whereas, the original was written collaboratively, by a group with a long history of performing together. This group, while talented, falls short of the mark. It's like the vanilla icemilk version. I can rewatch the UK version over and over. Meanwhile, I struggled to get through the first season of the US version, like I struggled to get through my grandmother's meatloaf. But we all have an opinion and at the end of the day, you like what you like.
Yes. BBC ghosts is genius. Unique and very BRITISH. It wont be able to have been copied ever. Copied well that is
Not copied to be fair. It’s just the same concept but hippies, Vikings and Natives aren’t around. It’s a different show.
@@013aanikhfds The beauty of the BBC series is that the core of the "ghost" actors are an ensemble that worked together for years on the Horrible Histories series. They also wrote and stared in another comedy series on Sky TV. This core team are also the main writers for Ghosts. A great episode was when a film crew came to do some filming at the manor house. Trying to work out who can see and speak to who, when they are all in the same room, almost makes your head ache.
@@paulhooton6261 I disagree. The cast of ghosts has a lot of chemistry in my opinion.
I think if it was the same premise but Unique and very AMERICAN instead on a rehash and remake of the BBC ghosts it would be actually great just like the original but instead of treating it like a spin off which is what they should have don’t they just decided to remake it. I don’t think it’s horrible I just think it could be better like the original. Make it American not British with American accents.
4:19 The UK certainly has more documented history, but in my opinion the show doesn't tap into it. Robin is a caveman and the second oldest ghost is a Tudor nobleman, which is a huge gap. No one from the Celtic or Roman or Medieval periods.
Yes, there are the Black Death victims, but they are side characters.
I dont know if me being a Brit has anything to do with this opinion, but Fanny being Fanny, the Captain being the Captain ect makes a lot of sense is totally beoivable to me. The captain would never come out, Fanny will never stop being blunt and disrespectful, Pat will forever be a beacon of optimism. That is just fact to me and makes complete sense for their charcters
Quality tv materiel does not require fast pacing, flashy plots or over the top acting. The U.S version is drowning in all of that, while the BBC version is simple, hilarious, and authentic all on its own. -opinion from an american fan of BBC ghosts :)
I hated the flamboyance and exaggeration of the US Office. It became unbearable. UK comedy is less showy and understated and I love it! Check out Peep Show or People Just Do Nothing. Both brilliant!
I think the main thing is just looking at who the show was made for. BBC Ghosts was generally speaking made for the British public when the American one was for, well, Americans.
BBC Ghosts works because it works with our British humour and how we generally act as people. We're used to slower paced telly that builds up the characters over time, even if it is really slow. It's all very British with the humour and the emotions. People react to certain situations in almost a very British way like with the weird awkward smile thing we do. BBC Ghosts works because it works with our culture along with it having the iconic British cast.
I think that's probably one of the main things about the series is just the actors alone. We all know them as kids or as parents seeing then on HH, Bill and Yonderland so this series is just another one of their funny sketches.
Then im saying this with the fact the same would apply for American Ghosts. Its made for American viewers so appeals to their humour and life more.
Also I see alot of things such as we don't know anything about the captain or that he shows no signs coming out but realistically it would've never been something that anyone of then would have discussed, even Julian who was the most recent Ghosts. Its realistic that the captain wouldn't be rushing to the idea of coming out.
This was really long Jesus christ
British humor is a dry wit, and usually based in Brit-specific cultural referents that an American audience simply wouldn't get. If they'd simply ported UK "Ghosts" to the US, the result would have been disaster. It's not a question of whether "the Americans" translated things "correctly" -- b/c if translation were to be done at all (HINT: The BBC wanted the $$$ that comes with licensing products in a TV market several times its own size), Hollywood had to do it, with British help. And that's just what happened.
Both of these shows were extremely well done and entertaining. If you cannot enjoy both series, I really feel sorry for you.
Aside from the bigger plot structure differences, I think the US version ( maybe US sitcoms in general?) feels more stagey- there is a clearer rhythm of set-up, punchline, set-up, punchline. Even though all the UK ghosts are caricatures as you say, there's a naturalism to how they interact- in fact I think a lot of humour comes directly from how these wild historical characters bicker and chat in a very normal everyday way.
While I agree with you there are some American sitcoms where the staginess and broad strokes don’t ruin the character interaction and development - I loved Community and The Good Place.
@@MrPotatoemouse The Good Place is simply in a league of its own.
I also noticed the difference in character development. However, I think it was a very deliberate decision on the part of the UK team to keep the characters stuck in their ways- it's kind of the point, as they have died, they just can't change.
I think it's also partly because UK shows aren't written to go on and on forever, whereas US shows seem to look to continue their lifespan wherever possible.
I believe the fact that the characters in the British Ghost don't change is that their development is stopped when they die. How can you develop if you are no longer interacting with the outside world. They can't have any interaction that is their problem because nobody can see them, only other ghosts! In the American Ghosts (though I have never seen it) character development may be necessary as they don't have the vast historical background upon which to anchor the character in.
Similar to the Captain trying to improve his running time. He can't improve because he's dead....not that it stops him trying 😂
I personally find that the American version explains everything too soon, rather than showing it and/or letting the audience figure it out. Like, they say Thor (essentially Robin) got struck by lightning within the first 10 mins. It was season 4 before we found that out in UK version. Why did the audience need to be TOLD rather than SHOWN?
I found myself wanting to watch further with the UK version because I wanted to find out more about the characters. It’s a character piece, really. But with the US version, they just immediately state exactly what we could have found out. Like Flower stating she’s a polyamorous hippie druggie (nice stereotype there) within the first few minutes - for literally no reason. Why would an old lady want to know that much detail about your life?
Essentially, SHOW don’t TELL :’) that’s the issue imo
I stopped watching the American version because they explained everything in like the first episode. Even though they were trying to haunt the new people out, in the UK version the ghosts could just do these things and it wasn't really explained why, whilst in the American version there was no finding out they just told us which totally ruined it.
The way they have the captain thirst over jay immediately too... i thought it was so well done how they revealed the captains sexuality and his struggle with it in the UK version and it's all very subtle and makes sense with what he would've been socialised to believe about gay people. In the US version they have to spell it out immediately.
I'm glad to hear that somebody else likes the uk Ghosts, I came to it as the cast of this show came from the three series of my favorite uk show Yonderland
I've been meaning to give Yonderland a shot, I'm glad to hear it's good! I discovered Ghosts by way of Horrible Histories, another one of the cast's shows.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos your cool, I enjoy being a friend of your channel
@@bryandawkins Thanks! I'm glad to have you as a friend!
Why do you think there's a millennium-old Viking and a First Nation rep on U.S. Version?
@@kengreene5196 they are the american version of chatacters in the uk show representing their closes match
Perhaps the difference is British culture versus American culture. Each is suited best for its own.
No, I enjoy them both 😊
It's like watching a 70's sitcom when the actors just read the script with no emotion and wait for the canned laughter, also zero connection between the two main characters, nicely ruined USA
TLDR, I do not agree with UK Ghosts not making any character development, they're subtle because they do not need to be in your face all the time like the US Ghosts. The US Ghosts are shallow. The portrayal of Isaac infuriates me. Sam has questionable IQ.
I find US ghosts too busy and IN YOUR FACE with literally everything. Like the Isaac vs The Captain - Isaac was from the get go just living up to a stereotype of what a closeted gay man is like, while the captain had a long story arch where he came to term with himself and had a period of accepting himself. (The Isaac arch is what drives me most mad ngl). What I love about UK Ghosts is that the character arches are slow and more realistic and you can watch for years without being tired of them. Someone who does not develop at all throughout the entire show is the lead Sam (US version). She literally never learns anything and they're doing the same joke over and over again (*ghost says something shocking* "oh my goodness... oh sorry ehm that was not for you ... "). And the Ghosts never really learn either do they? They're all just talking over Sam and are so disrespectful an unlikeable.
I don't agree with you that there are a limited amount of historical periods in US history (and that is strong coming from an European). They definitively could have spread it out more, and some how I feel like there are too many Ghosts that we are supposed to have an emotional attachment to (I don't, I instead find them all highly annoying).
The US version also has a desire for all the characters to be highly likeable. They are so incredibly shallow that it could not even be called a kiddy pool. Like Trevor and Julian. Julian was a tory who died in a sex scandal and is absolutely disgusting really and does not have any redeemable features, but he is still likeable because he what .. GROWS. Trevor on the other hand, because it is US television, you can't make a political statement without blowing up the country (sorry irrelevant, but also relevant). They just have to make him redeemable by giving him a questionable death story "oh i gave my trousers to a friend who needed them"??????? Like... what?
There’s something about the American show that feels insincere, the location feels false. It feels like later seasons of community
Yeah, that's an interesting observation. The US show definitely feels less like a labor of love than a corporate product. There isn't that same handmade sincerity that you get in the original.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos the hand made feeling is something that definitely carried over with the cast of Horrible Histories, if you were ever to see an episode of that, you would definitely feel more of that same sincere feeling.
@@choppers9909 Well, thanks to you, I've spent my Saturday binging Horrible Histories clips and songs. Absolutely fantastic! Though I get the feeling I'm going to have some of these songs in my head for a loooong time. "Born to ruuuule ooooover youuuuuu....."
@@ShawnBRyanVideos it does seem to have that effect
Tbh I think this is somewhat due to the fact that you can tell the uk versions cast are long time real life friends from back when they did horrible histories on cbbc and it comes across on screen
The difference between British English and American English is fascinating.
When the Brits say "ruin" in American it means to "improve".
a bit about character development id like to add is that in BBC ghosts, some of them have kinda already had their character development. for example mary, if youve seen the newest series theres an episode all about her and a ghost called annie, who helped her loosen up and speak her mind on things. then you have robin, who doesnt really change much mindset-wise or in personality but you can tell over the course of his stay as a ghost he has learnt a lot of things from popular culture etc
Characters do not develop because they are ghosts. They died and death cut their personal development. That is the point of the UK version. A classic.
I completely agree, especially the UK series being a classic. But I also think it's interesting to see where the US show has gone, and how its decision to let characters develop has allowed it tell some stories that the UK series couldn't.
Because of CBS guidelines 😊
I love both the British and American versions of GHOSTS....why does it have to be a competition. Each have wonderful characters and plots. One of my favourite moments ..the line dancing sequence ....brilliant!!!
You make some interesting points about the character development in the US version. British comedy mainly uses the set character traits to find humour. Just think about the best around: Father Ted, The IT Crowd, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder, The characters come in fully formed and change very little. British series are much shorter per series/season. All of the above are 6-8 each so would not need characters to develop that much.
That's a great point! And even when a show like Red Dwarf lasts for 12 series and a TV film, the characters are pretty much where they were when they were first introduced.
It's probably no wonder that Father Ted, the IT Crowd, and Fawlty Towers all struggled to get their American adaptations off the ground. I can't imagine how they'd adapt to the demands of American television.
The biggest issue between the US and UK versions of shows (Red dwarf, Inbetweeners, and god forbid Only fools and Horses to name a few, along with Ghosts) is best summed up by Stephen Fry, the average American usually wants these three part set ups, where as us Brits tend to have a more pessimistic mindset that leads into the characters often failing. We love to see ourselves, where as American tv caters more to the ideals of the American dream. At the end of the day, American and British humour is different, we're more self depricating, where as Americans tend to be more optimistic.
Theres a reason why i can't watch more than 2 episodes of most US shows, because it comes across as cringey, and too optimisitic, where as British shows often have more subtle plots that are easy to relate to, take Fanny for instance, we see her as the overbearing out of touch, from a different time kind of character, but as we slowly learn of her backstory through the show, we learn that everything we see her as was imposed on her due to her own parents failing her. Or Julian, who we only view as the slimy politician and womaniser, but over time we learn he actually has a heart of gold and does genuinely care like when he helped calm down Mike's niece, and how he regrets never being there to see his daughter grow up.
Good Job you haven't seen uk shameless and shameless usa then lol
I think this isn't necessarily an audience thing but more down to how these things are put together in corporate board rooms. The US Office was hugely successful by largely sticking to grounded, less than perfect people. Michael was very much like the Ghosts act, he never really developed but we saw bits of the real him here & there. Americans do like the UK Ghosts & other UK shows hence the frequent attempts to port them over & there are plenty of dark US humour shows.
The US version could have gone down a US dark sitcom route but instead they've gone with turning jokes upto 11 rather than subtly & pushed excess exposition & over acting.
@@christophermcmanus5103 US networks don't port a show because they like it, they port it to see if it works and can make them money. If they liked the original they would just show the original, as PBS did with British shows up until the 90's.
Me from U.K: UGH! American version? Do me a favour.
Me from UK two seasons later: wonder when season 3 is coming out?
People who agree the BBC version is better
⬇️
I love both the shows and can't get enough of it. But I will say the BBC version gives more in 6 episodes a season than the American version which does in I think 12 or so episodes a season. Mind you the American version is only on season two. Also the American version led me to the British version so it does have it's benefits. The BBC version does have flashbacks detailing the characters deaths and shows the different ideas Allison and Mike have for the house opposed to just weekly goofy scenarios the cast gets into in the American version.
I like both versions also! But the UK is my favourite, and all of the characters are better. xx from Canada 🇨🇦
Why do Americans have to make American versions of everything, in England I’ve grown up with American shows and stuff, it didn’t bother me. Unless it’s just a culture thing but I dunno. I absolutely LOVE BBC Ghosts it’s my favourite show! I love the complex characters and the story it’s SO GOOOD!!
Americans also remake older American series. New Night Court this season.
The Brits have remade American television shows, but, I am sure, not as often.
Years ago, there was a show called " Brighton Belles", which was supposed to be the British version of Golden Girls. It wasn't that good and it didn't last that long.
The characters in the UK version do change throughout the series, they're just more subtle, but they are noticeable. Ultimately, these people are hundreds of years old and change is hard.
But it's more about how you see the characters. You understand them and why they are the way they are. It's you getting to know them more than them adapting to your values and outlook. The are who they are.
The us version is set in new York, which has enough history to pull out eight unique characters, similar to the UK version. You've the native americans, the English settlers and those who wanted independence, which could have provided some humour on its own, you could have had a Canadian from 1812, a blues or jazz musician, you had the hippy, someone from an '80s Hair Band, an Irishman.
Unfortunately, american sitcoms stick to a 'formula', like you said, where British sitcoms just focus on the jokes and the 'lessons' or 'growth' the characters get isn't sort of, in your face moralising.
Well, you lost me with your statement about characterization. One of the things I dislike about the US knockoff is that there's virtually no character development, while the BBC ghosts constantly grow and reveal more about themselves over the series.
A friend of mine told me how, watching the US Ghosts, is like watching your kid's school play....
"Okay, it's my line now,"
"And next I'll come in with what I'm going to say,"
"Must be me next,"
"Oh, and what you've just said means I can make this really funny comment..."
I'm afraid once you see it like that, you can't un-see it.
You just learn what acting is?
@@nickmickky2714 The spectrum that ranges from Kids School Play to British Ghosts
I love both versions for what they both have. I can’t even compare as they are both so different. I would LOVE to have a full on crossover so Alison and Sam could have an episode or 2 together working with Ghosts!
Totally agree with you.
Yes, America ruined Ghosts. I only watch the BBC version. It has characters and character development. Each one we learn a little more about a character. And they infused actual history into the story.
They haven't given the ghosts charecter development as the whole point of them being ghosts, is that there still holding onto there old life, with them needing to grow as charecters and leave there old life behind them for them to move onto the next stage of the afterlife.
This was my thought as well! The fact is they haven't "moved on" because they are static characters, steadfastly sticking to their old habits, opinions and behaviours. :P
9 out of 10 times we try to bring Brit shows as an american version sucks a big one.
Yeah, our track record isn't the best. But like Charlie Brown and the football, we keep trying... whether or not it's a good idea.
I didn't watch the video because I already know the answer.
The answer is yes. Yes, they did ruin Ghosts.
Ha! Well, I appreciate your comment anyway! 😁
Ultimately, I think that the US show has become enough of its own thing that it's no longer really competing with the original. Though yeah, some of America's more obnoxious sitcom clichés are present in our adaptation. (It's not a subtle show...)
@@ShawnBRyanVideos Dang it. I had to watch the video since you commented.
While I agree the American version is not subtle, I disagree with the original being static with it's character development. I feel it is just taking a more layered onion peeling approach vs the procedural start to finish approach of the U.S. style. The American translation of this rapid storytelling (re:character development) makes you feel that their issues were superficial and easily resolved; one note songs. Comparatively, they feel more human to take small steps toward those changes in the original, and you do see development, although it is more subtle.
Unfortunately, after watching your video, I'm afraid I'm going to have to subscribe so I can see more of your opinions.
No they didn't, it is slightly better...
I watched the bbc version first. When I first began the US version, I honestly didn’t like it. Especially the first two eps which were frame to frame similar and it seemed like they spoon-fed audiences, not trusting them to come to conclusions themselves. Also maybe because I absolutely adored the bbc cast. But then as I continued watching, once the plot was established they branched into their own worlds and the characters became their own , no longer shadowed by their counterparts. I genuinely enjoyed it. The stories delved deeper into each ghost’s backstories and the connections bt the ghosts themselves were explored further.
I also like the couple here better. The husband is actually helpful and doesn’t let her do all the work. He gets things done and is also great at being a partner she could rely on. I loved that he had some connections n interactions with the ghosts too n not completely sidelined.
And the protagonist is genuinely nice to the ghost. She doesnt always use the ghosts for her benefits unlike the BBC one. Honestly that couple was too selfish and dumb for me. They couldn’t have anything done without the help of the ghost. They almost died multiple times if not for the ghosts. I love this couple sm better. Though I love the ghosts in both versions very much.
So I hope you all could also give it a try and judge for yourselves .
"Half of the main ghosts characters end up being from the 20th century" Just like half of the main ghosts characters in the BBC version of the show: Julian, Pat, Captain, and Lady Button.
Yeah, but Lady Button is from earlier *18th* and different time eras in history...
The British one has more verity than the American, plus it's more unlikely that a lot*and there is a lot* of te Ghosts died there in the American.
@@marionbaggins No, Lady Button was born in the mid-19th century, and died in the early 20th. So she is a ghost from the 20th century, like I said.
I don't think I'll ever get over the US version of Kath & Kim, or the atrocious US Being Human.
The claim that the US version of Ghosts is 'still finding itself' having just completed its first season, doesn't really carry much weight when you realise that the first season, which finished in April 2022, consisted of 18 episodes, (the second season being even longer at 22 episodes,) whereas by the end of Season 1 in the US, the UK version may well have then consisted of three seasons, but that consisted of only 20 episodes (including 2 Christmas specials.) Not a lot in it when you look at it that way, is there?
So weird. Why don’t they just play the British version here in the US? Like Top Gear? I do like the US version. But I’ve never seen the UK version and don’t know how to even see it. 😮
I found it on Amazon and ended up buying each season for $9.99.
Sign up for paramount plus
BBC iPlayer
As a Brit I have to say I really like the US version of ghosts and it's properly lol funny in places which I'm afraid to say most US comedies aren't .
My only complaint is the British revolutionary soldier doesn't sound that British
Agree
I do disagree that there's no change in the characters in British ghosts. When you look at the Captain in S1 Ep6 of BBC Ghosts, he is a lot more manipulative and opportunistic in how he interacts with Kitty compared to the latest Christmas epidose or the seaosn 3 episode where he helps her get through the struggle of never being able to have a picture with Alison. You can tell his demeanour is a lot softer and sympathetic compared to how he was scheming to stop them selling the house in season 1.
I do agree that in a show that is much more focused on the characters than the plot, it can start to grate, but I think the way they deal with this (exposing new sides to the characters instead of having fulfilling arcs) is pretty good and true to format. I mean, we only learned Fanny had a whole menagerie in the latest season, when we find out she still visits their graves. It does make sense for the American version to have more substantial arcs because of the structure of the episodes demanding a story with resolutions that would feel hollow without and arc to tie in.
I don’t dislike the CBS version, but I do still prefer the BBC version. It feels more refined, heartfelt and poignant. They’ve basically done more episodes of the Us version and I don’t actually care that much about any of the characters, they feel kind of cringe and overblown in a lot of ways. I love the most subtle humor of the BBC version, and typically British humor in general. US versions always feel dumbed down or that they have to basically say “GET IT” after every joke or story point, watching it after seeing the BBC version I just think… wow, American tv writers and networks think Americans are DUMB. Or that they’re targeting for the lowest common denominator which is not great.
The biggest example of this is the Captain. Not only did they give him a “silly” name in the US version but they also Yassified him in a very modern way instead of how subtle the portrayal of the BBC captain is. We got a love story from both but the US version felt very forced and not nuanced at all. Instead of the viewer realizing the subtext in the Captains actions, the US version makes it a point to give him a whole coming out storyline right away while also giving him a very flamboyant portrayal. They didn’t even drag it out for a while to milk for story points later. US sitcoms can do this successfully (like in Always Sunny) but they have to be actually well written and deftly acted which I don’t think the US Ghosts is… tho I blame more of this in the writing.
Why does Sasapiss speak perfect modern American English? I feel like they were too afraid to do something more realistic in case it came off as cartoonish or offensive but it’s just so strange in its actual execution. They could’ve done something more interesting and had him speak in his original language or something and have characters translate or just have subtitles and not explain why people understand him. SOMETHING besides sounding like a guy from 2022
The pacing to me is also insane in the US version; like why did we need to meet Fanny’s husband right away, AND have the captain get in a relationship, AND bury Thorfins bones, AND discover literally EVERY characters death story all in season 1?? Where does the writing room have to go after this?
I also think it’s an interesting cultural study of Americans vs British in regards to what characters will play, or what the studios THINK will play. Allison and Mike are kind of aimless, don’t really have a direction or goal, they’re kind of fuck-ups in a lot of ways that were given a direction by inheriting the house. Samantha and Jay are both basically brilliant in their fields and have ambitions… it’s like US audiences won’t stand for main characters that aren’t good at their jobs or just aimless in general. They did the same to Michael Scott in the US office: he could be a bad boss but he has to be a good Salesman for us Americans to like him
One thing I did find interesting in the US version was Samantha taking advantage of her powers outside her home, specifically to see if her mom was a ghost. The BBC version has kind of driven home that other ghosts are creepy and to be avoided but this kind of storyline fits with the US tone and is fun to explore. I think a big part of Ghosts is a theme of family and chosen family; Allison doesn’t have a family of her own except Mike and her in-laws, but the Ghosts become her family. Like, of course a character who has lost both parents might be curious to see if they could contact them again with this power.
Someone else in the comments also mentioned how the US versions of the characters don’t feel authentic and I 100% agree. Whether it’s modern affectation/accent/language choices or whatever, none of the characters actually feel like they’re ghosts from the time they came from. The closest is maybe Alberta. But the other characters kind of just feel like Halloween costumes
I don't think you get the characterisation of the British comedy as there as character development, which is happening, but it is taken over a longer path rather than giving everything at once as found in the US version. With the UK version instead of the character telling you something they show you a clip of the character's history. and often give subtle hints which can be more appropriate to the character. In the US version it seems to even out each character while the UK each character has distinctly different characteristics and styles of speech. The BBC are showing both versions of Ghosts and I quite like the US Ghosts, but the Original is a gem that is rewatchable as it packs so much more into each episode with its use of language and comedic timing. One gripe about the US version is the lack of use of the beheaded character. With regards to plot the original establishes the premise and each character better and makes you interested more and care more for each person. The US version simply races through things far too fast.
I think the back story of the British ghosts is better than the character development of the American version. Having said this, I have only just started watching with two episodes down. Each is bringing something but I think I will come down on the UK version in the end.
You are missing the elephant in the room regarding "character development". The show doesn't address it directly, but the huge question the show poses is "Why are these particular people stuck in essentially purgatory". Yes, it is funny as hell, but they don't shy away from showing the suffering of ghosts, their eternal life is a curse. That's why the characters don't change so quickly - if they did, they could be "sucked off" as Mary did. I hope they will develop this part of the lore further.
You're absolutely right that I didn't mention that aspect as much. To be fair, I made the video before the latest series of the UK show, so as far as I knew, none of the UK ghosts would ever be "sucked off." (I still feel very dirty writing that phrase in a TH-cam comment...)
If I were to make the video today, I'd probably talk about that in more detail and give the UK show some more credit.
In the recent round of interviews the team have said that sucking off is random & not the result of character development. Mary got sucked off because the actress asked to be written out, for storytelling purposes they therefore wrapped up her storyline before she left. They said in the interview they made a deliberate choice to have her sucked off at the beginning of an episode to reinforce how random it was as opposed to it being the climax of an episode. They wanted to stick to what the Ghosts said in season 1 & have it completely random. So it isn't a case that character development would see them go.
@@christophermcmanus5103 that's interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. I guess I went a little too far in my interpretation. 😄
One of the ghosts in the American version just got sucked off on this season’s cliffhanger. Jay says “I hope it’s Trevor” hilarious
I'm an American and I like both versions of Ghosts. However by far my favorite is the British version. I think it's allot more funny than the American version.
I recently binged the American version after I've been watching the og for years and it's good when you don't compare it to the UK version! I found myself getting frustrated with how much the US version dumbed down jokes and how things didn't have much build up to punchlines! There wasn't much struggle or build up, the house was clean and they magically had the money to fix it.. I'm definitely a fan of the actors but just frustrated with the writing!
I think the British is more realistic and subtle especially in character traits. The captain being gay wasn't something that slapped you in the face as soon as he opened his mouth but it wasn't unbelievable he also grew a lot but it didn't completely cure the decades of him living with ww2 mindsets (it took Mary a long while to learn to speak out against men and she was having daily lessons from Anne)
I love the American version and have been watching the UK version recently. It started out slow for me but I am beginning to love those characters too. Why do we have to compare and make one better than the other? Two different countries and two different takes in comedy…Why not just sit back and enjoy the show?
I know that the US version is endorsed by the The Six but it is awful. I watched a few minutes of the first show and hared it. I watched the episode with the guest appearance of Matt Baynton and it still sucked.
The cast of the BBC Ghosts have been creating and acting together so long that they create shows that are seamless. Lolly Adelope, Katy Wix, Charlotte Ritchie, and Kiell Smith-Bynoe were inspired choices for the additional characters.
I just don’t “feel” the energy in the American version.
I never understand why people bring up 'But the creators like it!' as an argument for something you don’t like. Some or all of them have probably worked on something else before that I do like, but they were unhappy with. Should I take that into consideration when talking about how much I enjoyed the thing too?
The US version is really bad, I agree. I persevered and sat through about a third of the first season before I let myself give up. People kept telling me to 'give it another episode' and I wish I hadn't listened. I will say the second episode is better than the first, but that's not really saying anything. I'm still a little bit curious to see the episode Mat is in, but other than that I'm more than happy to stick to the original!
Katy was in HH originally and Lolly is from it's remake, it's incredible they got some other cast from Hh.
That’s funny. I was about to say the same about the UK version. I don’t like it at all and feel the American version is better but it’s what ever you like yours I like mine
Watched 5 minutes of the US version and it was garbage. Over the top, not subtle at all. The original played out from start to finish perfectly. With so many laughs. Not one boring episode.
One of the special things about the UK version is the cast. Particularly the Six Idiots who have been together since working on the BBC children’s history show Horrible Histories. They are also the writers and the their chemistry is brilliant
How does this man have under 10k subs, I thought I misread 2.86k as 28.6k. You deserve way more, man.
Over 14 minutes to say : Yes...
I think some of your points focus on the difference between UK & US comedies: in the US, the humour tends to be action-based, whereas in the UK it's less about action & more about the interaction between the characters. The US seems to value how the characters ACT, whereas in the UK it's more how the characters ARE. This is why some of the best British comedies have bombed in the US version, especially Coupling, one of the best British comedies ever imo which flopped very badly in the US. Most of the time in UK Coupling, the 6 characters are simply sitting in a pub or one of their houses talking. That doesn't really work in the US.
Another factor is that US sitcoms seem to need a hero or someone who has a character arc, learning until he wins over everyone else or until he conquers something. In the UK, it's the character's weakness or flaws that provide the comedy, so these negative attributes are celebrated.
Look at some of the greats in British comedy & they all have failings: Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers is inept, slightly deranged, angry all the time, & that's the cause of the humour; Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em, similar to Basil Fawlty, is inept & basically a complete idiot, but he's also very innocent & sweet-natured & adores his wife &, in later episodes, baby daughter, so we cannot help but love him; in Blackadder, Edmund Blackadder is selfish, mean, nasty, devious & full of unlikeable qualities, whereas his manservant Baldrick is the epitome of stupidity, yet we cannot help but love them. Blackadder is also one of the most unlucky men in British comedy as, no matter how grand his schemes, he always loses out; similarly in Only Fools & Horses, one of the UK's most loved sitcoms, Del Boy is a working class man with delusions of grandeur. He's a market trader, selling poor quality or illegal things & is full of dodgy deals, who dreams of being a rich man. In the US, the last episode would be him fulfilling all his dreams & becoming rich & set up for life. In the UK, he finally becomes a millionaire but then almost immediately loses most of his money, so he's nearly back to square one.
The US would never have such losers as as Basil Fawlty, Frank Spencer, Blackadder & Del Boy & their heroes because that's not the American idea of a hero. The US prefers stories of hope, even in their comedies, whereas here in the UK our humour tends to be bleaker & blacker.
Personally I feel that the US sitcom that came closest to the UK style was also one of their best: M*A*S*H. The characters all had positive & negative characteristics & they weren't always the heroes as they had significant flaws & sometimes lost. I've always been surprised that M*A*S*H was as popular as it was in the US but even then the sitcom was not as dark as the film version.
Just my brief thoughts on the comparison between US & UK comedy.
BBC ghosts is obviously superior to the US version
i watched the American show, and if I hadn’t seen the British version I would have no clue what was happening, it moves too fast with too little explanation, I had to watch it a second time to fully understand the premise and if it was different to the uk one. It just doesn’t give off the same vibes :/
I don't believe that the American version works out. The characters don't have the comfortable chemistry that the UK cast has. I know it has a fan base but I don't believe they are comparable.
One year later, and it's still not forgotten.
First, let me admit I'm someone who, if the American "Ghosts" came out first, I would have said it's stupid. But if the British made a TV show (which they did with "Ghosts"), I immedately would call it clever, witty and intelligently written. That being said, the American Ghosts grew on me, and they do deserve to be at ComicCon conventions. It's hard to adapt something to another country's sensibilities, but CBS/Paramount did it. Kudos to them. It's not, as you said, "I don't not like it", or something to that affect. But at the same time, I know I still would have glossed over it if there wasn't a British one first.
The British version is my favorite. I prefer it over the American version.
So glad you did this video - just finished the BBC version last night and thought for sure I wouldnt find any good (or any at all) videos about it. Loved it, loved all the characters, and thought I'd just kept forgetting the captains name until they made that joke about it and I realized no one knew his name :p
I don't think US Ghosts is that good. It has its moments, but otherwise...meh. I think Alison and Mike are a better couple. I will admit I'm a big Jim Howick fan. The BBC doesn't seem so bent on inclusion, more on laughs. Laughs are what comedy is about.
Very interesting. Hadn’t thought about the vast size of the US being an issue for the concept before. It’s easy enough for a single location to represent the whole of British (or, at least, English) history - not so much for America I guess. You’re quite right that whilst the UK version has character revelation, the US show has the bigger number of potential episodes that it allows for character development to occur - or maybe the structure dictates that the development is necessary. And class issues are so pervasive here that I hadn’t really thought of them being at the forefront of the UK series - but, of course, they’re really at the centre of it. I like the US version, lots of good stuff in there - but it lacks the ensemble spirit of the original and kind of feels like what it is, a corporate venture making a competent copy of something personal and innovative.
The US version should have had a coastal location. that allows pirate and maritime ghosts and stories.
Do not blandly copy another TV shows characters and plots, be inventive.
I rolled my eyes when I heard about the Ameican version, but it really hooked me during season 2. At this point, I quit comparing them. I hope BOTH series continue on for a while. I hope they do more cross-over episodes with the casts.
Same. I came across the U.K. version a few months before they announced there was going to be an American version. Naturally, I cringed at the idea and how they were going to botch it but I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Not great mind you but still not bad.
US leave the comedy to the professionals
Also I think Britain’s comedic style is cultural. It’s straightforward, witty and yeah.
Compare motherland and modern family, one of them uses obvious yet clever humor, and the other is people being annoying to each other. It’s the same with outnumbered
Considering how bad US adaptions of British comedy shows usually are, I think Ghosts US is one of the better ones. I just wanna talk about the best moment in the UK show, which was Julian putting a kiss on the end of Mike's email to his boss just before he pressed send. Even thinking about it makes me laugh.
Sometimes America needs to know that if its British it STAYS british ;_;
Fantastic food for thought. I very much like both versions and I believe I like the US version specifically because it is starting to find another path. If they had just gone for a straight up retelling with watered down characters I don't think I would have enjoyed it at all.
Yeah, I definitely came into the US version with a chip on my shoulder and got won over as it started to do its own thing. I'm very excited to see where it ends up going.
@@ShawnBRyanVideos I don't blame you, there is definitely a precedence set for MOST adaptations. Heck, some of them don't make it past pilot. (I'm looking at YOU IT Crowd...which is odd because I like most of the cast in that). I think I first realized the US version was adding new potential when she began encountering Ghosts in other places outside of the house.
Frankly, both shows are tailored for their respective audiences and humor so enough with the brickbats; after all, to each is own.
I tried watching the US version after I watched the UK version and I honestly had to turn it off after 1 episode. Its so loud and fast moving it almost gave me a headache.
The American remake was wholly unnecessary. The best thing about the UK version is the cast: the six idiots are a creative force to be reckoned with, change that and you've ruined the show.
I have been watching both, and I think the US version has a lot of potential, but it definitely made some choices to start itself at a disadvantage. Doing some of the early stuff as a shot-for-shot remake, but in a different context and with different characters was a choice to take advantage of neither the characters nor the context.
The pick-n-mix approach to making the American characters out of some of the British ones was also pretty odd.
And there's tons of American history that could have been taken advantage of. New York has been inhabited for thousands and thousands of years, but there's only one native American character, and he's fairly modern. No pirates from the 1600's, Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam, French fur trappers, etc. Almost all the ghosts are from after the Revolutionary war. Could have spread things out a bit more. The Viking seems to be written entirely by people who aren't terribly interested in Vikings. If history is your main comedic tool, you want to have some history in your back pocket to use.
Also, the revolutionary war guy is in the closet? Having started the US series, I had no idea there was a closet for him to come out of. Guy is played so broad you don't need to speak English to understand the character archetype. "The Captain" is way more interesting in that portrayal because men of his generation just didn't talk about feelings and things, so the joke isn't just "the gay" but rather that he's letting any sort of feelings for somebody slip out. Wildly improper for an officer to have a feeling in front of the men! Tut tut!
the us version doesnt have "more growth" the growth just happens faster, which id argue feels cheaper. when i tried watching the us version it irritated me because it was like you had to completely understand all of the characters within their first sentence. if the issac was really closeted and scared of ppl finding out his queerness then why the fuck would he act like that? and this is coming from a gay person. though i admit the uk version is incredibly slow, the development is STILL THERE, the main difference being that these moments of development actually feel earned bc of how long weve spent with the characters.
Love the American Ghosts so much that I am trying to figure out how to watch the British series. Can’t get enough of the comedy and wild story lines.
It is on Paramount plus
HBO Max has the bbc ghosts. But only 3 seasons
I was never a fan of the original The office, so had no interest in the American remake. I've only just started watching the American remake and so far, not bad. However, the concept of developing the characters of dead people is a bit strange. How can there be continuation? I'm not sure the American version has legs. Studios have a history of cancelling shows that do not get the required audience viewing.
Yeah, I don't really get that point about development either. There's only so far someone who can't interact (or who has limited interaction) with the living world can change. They can learn new things and see things from more modern perspectives, but how are they supposed to do anything with that beyond how they talk to and act around others? They've not come back to life and getting a second chance to do things right this time around, they are still dead.
I don't think the lack of character development in the British version is a negative especially given how deliberate that is. The whole Captain Project William episode was teasing the obvious character developments you get in shows but then pulls the rug & reveals it as a blind. Character development is in most shows & ppl forget once you develop a character, say have the Captain come out & be more comfortable with himself then you have lost something from his character & essentially have to write him differently.
What it does do in the US version is allows those characters to become different from the British versions though via on screen developments which can only be good for it, but it's not a negative that the British version doesn't have it.
Plot vs “hanging out”… interesting observation, and I think a big part is in the uk we love word play, and humour through language so you don’t need a lot of’drama’ to make a good show. Also the nature of uk culture is more about not having conflict broadly.
I prefer the British originals having just watched the American version of ghosts it's okay. I like American Great aunt Hetty and I like the Viking. The cast in general are good. However I'm fond of our original. They are both watchable and fine. I'll watch both quite happily.
Is this a current or older show? It sounds so interesting, I need to check it out. Edit: I found the british version and am on the 3rd episode. Think I'm hooked already.
I'm glad you found it and are enjoying it! The British original is a ton of fun. If you end up checking out the American remake, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of that!
@@ShawnBRyanVideos I also plan to check out the american version, I'll let you know what I think.
@@LOAblue Awesome!
@@ShawnBRyanVideos I binged watched all 3 seasons of the British version I was able to find, and have just started on the American version. I like both, but think I like the British version a little better. I'm hoping there'll be a 4th season of the original.
@@LOAblue There is a fourth season! It was already released in the UK, and it's pretty fantastic! (Warning: Don't look up spoilers...)
I'm not sure why it's not available here yet, but I suspect it will come to HBO Max after this year's Christmas special airs on the BBC.
I'm glad you're having some fun with the American version too!
I disagree…. I love the Original and feel the same about it’s American cousin! The characters are different enough to love em both!
Character changes did occurred in BBC's version of Ghosts, in just did not happened dramatically and forcefully like the CBS's version, but very subtle and organic that when you realized it, it'll make you wonder when the did all the characters became a tight knit and loyally loving with each others sort of family that will teared your eyes when they decide to sell the house and helped Alison with her situation.
Ghosts follow a comedy style of resetting at the start of each new episode which is why the characters don't develop. Essentially it's a case of we have these caricature, now how will they react if this situation happened. An American example would be M.A.S.H which did it to an extent that although the war continued there was still Burms and Hulahan trying to instil disaplin but never managing it with the other undisaplined doctors- the characters didn't change or develope with the war, they reacted to situations. It sounds like there is more development with the American Ghosts and the story is more of a soap format?
I love the BBC show and as a European, who happens to be a historian, I was a tad scared when an American version was announced, but I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. It really is an adaption this time, not an americanised copy. The biggest difference is a viking instead of a caveman, which makes perfect sense. They could of written a Tudor character, for there were quite a lot of colonists in New England back then, but that would of looked a tad forced.
The class system in the UK is very different and based on a variety of reasons, yet there is a class system in the US as well, albeit far simpler and less of a concern to people.
I've heard that the French are going to make their own version, so I'm quite sure we will see ghosts from the french revolution, the 100 year war and probably inhabitants of the Lascaux cave, mais on verra bien.
But apart from that I sadly have to agree on the main point, namely that US adaptations of European shows usually vacate the main premise of these shows by turning it into something more palatable for a US audience - which usually fails miserably.
Anyway, I found this channel through that show and I will explore it more. Thanks for uploading.
We love the American version of Ghosts so much more then the British one.🇺🇸
the characters in the UK version of ghosts don't develop because they are ghosts.. they aren't supposed to develop..