Torchwood USA

[Jonathan Capps]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id183d5e80b48e57c2e6102a3f94da557

I was talking to Ian about how I’m a little worried that Torchwood and SJA sticking around during the Moffat era would seem a little wrong. This seems a *lot* wrong, especially given the network involved.

Topic

[Jonathan Capps]

I mean, if this gets made, will that mean Torchwood UK wont be produced anymore? And if it is, how will they co-exist together? And, more importantly, why the fucking fuck would ANY sci-fi writer/producer go anywhere near Fox?

Still, better than a Doctor Who movie with David Tennant, I guess.

[Andrew]

> why the fucking fuck would ANY sci-fi writer/producer go anywhere near Fox?

Because they’ll give a two-series run to a SF show even when it doesn’t really work…? (And, ahem, doesn’t that sound like the perfect home for Torchwood?)

It’s only development, anyway. A pilot hasn’t even been ordered. I’m only disappointed that THIS is what RTD and his peeps have elected to do in America.

I’d be more concerned by the very real possibility that, if made, it it might be BETTER than the UK version. Torchwood only works when Davies is at the helm, and one key issue – that the bombastic storytelling was ill-fitting to the Cardiff setting – would likely be solved. (Though Christ knows how Jack’s sexuality will make it through the process. That aspect of Davies’ writing is bound to be a sticking point when it comes to selling to the heartland.)

How would they exist together? Who cares. If Barrowman’s in, Jack continues. If he’s not, it’s just another brand of Torchwood. I’m kinda pleased that it puts some further distance between RTD Torchwood and Moffat Who – as you say, they don’t feel like they’d cohabit well.

[Mr-Stabby]

People do slate Fox, but shows like ‘House’ prove that Fox can handle really decently made drama, as long as you get the right people involved.

Much better a US Torchwood than a US Doctor Who. I see Torchwood as a show the US could probably do better anyway. But then they’ve done a lot more of these types of shows before. I’m not sure it would stand out massively if it was made.

RTD is going to have fun trying to get his gay references in though! In a TV landscape where you can’t even make jokes about toilets, try anal innuendo. The censors are gonna love you Russell :-D

[Dessie]

Sounds good to me. I just hope they use the current cast.

[Pete Part Three]

Yeah, don’t have a problem with this. I was never taken by the original format, and I don’t see why RTD couldn’t pop back to Cardiff and give us a five part mini-series every now and then.

Torchwood is a love-letter to US Drama. This is the next logical step.

[Phil1034]

As an actual proper fan of Torchwood, this sounds terribly exciting. Even if it goes arse up, it’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out – onscreen and off – the sexual fluidity of the principals IS Torchwood for many (a quick trip over to AfterElton proves this). Definitely a noble experiment.

[Muzzy]

Is this the ‘Torchwood series 4’ Davies was going on about the other month then, or do you reckon it’s a very recent development? I really hope this isn’t being treated as series 4.

[Blisschick]

The problem with the censors lies in where the program is going to be broadcast. Torchwood was shown over here on BBCA, which is only available on satellite or cable, hence it’s not subject to the same rules as broadcast TV. If it is shown on Fox, yes, they are going to have figure out what they can get past the censors. If they manage to go with FX, Fox’s cable network, they’ll get away with pretty much anything they want. If anyone’s watched Nip/Tuck or Rescue Me, you’ll understand.

[Andrew]

It’s not about censors, it’s about advertisers. You can legally show stuff, it’s that the networks fear losing revenue. The channels bow to the sponsors, the sponsors bow to the majority in middle America. Sadly it seems to be the case that an all-equal, liberal perspective is ghettoised to smaller channels. A narrower world view is more commercially viable…and so it looms largest.

[pfm]

> when it doesn?t really work??

Is that…no wait, it can’t be…is that the sound of Ellard removing his lips from Whedon’s penis? Or am I reading too much into that…? :P

I think the ideal situation would be for the U.S. series to co-exist with the Jack/Gwen U.K. show and that they could potentially crossover. The U.S. pilot could be Jack putting together an American TW team then he leaves, making the odd appearance here and there, maybe shoot his stuff on the U.K. set.

If it’s a spinoff and the U.K. series is scrapped completely (i.e. Torchwood U.S. acts like the original doesn’t exist) I will be really annoyed, as will at least several others. Somehow I can’t see RTD doing this, especially after Children of Earth proved to be a success. Torchwood itself is a British operation. To keep calling the series Torchwood it has to remain essentially British, even with at least some American characters.

Besides, there’s no way the BBC won’t want more Torchwood for BBC1. I think we should expect a series 4 commission, or at the least another TW ‘event’, but perhaps not until this Fox deal is sorted.

It’s funny that someone on GB forum is saying ‘noooo they tried this before with Red Dwarf and it sucked, even with Robert Llewellyn in it!’ I STILL don’t think Red Dwarf USA would have sucked as hard as what people assume/think it did/would have. Just think how things could have turned out if Rob and Doug had ended up having the same role as what RTD’s having with TW USA… If they had shot that script that they worked their asses off on it could have been great. RTD is going to get that chance (maybe…)

[Muzzy]

> Is that?no wait, it can?t be?is that the sound of Ellard removing his lips from Whedon?s penis? Or am I reading too much into that?? :P

You clearly didn’t read Andrew’s articles about Dollhouse on NTS

http://www.noisetosignal.org/2009/11/put-away-the-dollhouse-part-one

:P

[Ben Paddon]

The assumption people are making is that this is a US remake, not a spin-off. With RTD at the helm I highly doubt it’d be a remake, because although Torchwood is his baby he’s still a Doctor Who fan at the end of the day.

American television networks have been uncharacteristically respectful of Doctor Who, and regardless of what you make of the 1996 TV movie it was at the least an attempt to continue and build upon the existing show rather than reinvent it.

[Muzzy]

Maybe we should think of it as Torchwood: New York (or wherever) in the same vain as the CSI series’.

[pfm]

Clearly. :)

I only mean this in a fun way, as well. Yeah I’ve slagged Whedon off a few times but I know he’s generally…OK. And I’ve only ever seen the first 2 episodes of Firefly so I can’t fully judge him. But Oh Em Gee Willow cheated on Oz with Xander and then turned into a lesbian, now THAT’s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!

I know I’m guilty of licking RTD’s arse on a number of occasions, just like in that scene from Queer As Folk that gets shown on Ch4 top 50/100/whatever clip shows. I’ll hold my hands up to that (I can because it’s only my tongue I’m using…). But let’s face it, Children of Earth, Waters of Mars and (much of) TEOT prove he still has the ways and means. The true test is post-Who. Then you’ve got the Grand Moff, who’s last properly successful series was Press Gang. We wait…

[Phil1034]

> With RTD at the helm I highly doubt it?d be a remake

I agree. Lest we not forget that Doctor Who had 26 years of history and Russell T. still chose not to reboot. In the same way that your Rose, Everything Changes, Invasion of The Bane’s weren’t overly reliant on continuity, I’m sure Torchwood: Stateside could easily service new and old viewers alike. In fact, after reading ‘The Writer’s Tale’ I can imagine RTD obsessing over minutiae in to the small hours just to make it work as a continuation.

[pfm]

> I can imagine RTD obsessing over minutiae in to the small hours just to make it work as a continuation.

A spinoff of a spinoff and canon has to be followed to the letter!

[Phil1034]

> A spinoff of a spinoff and canon has to be followed to the letter!

Just to clarify, my own personal attitude is bollocks to canonicity. But as RTD is the man who had Davros recognise Sarah Jane in Journey’s End (for lack of a better example), I’d imagine that the inevitable panic sweeping Gallifrey Base about their beloved canon being maintained is unwaranted – since Davies seems to get a genuine kick out of piecing these things together.

[Pete Part Three]

>But Oh Em Gee Willow cheated on Oz with Xander and then turned into a lesbian, now THAT?s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!

Yes, because shy 16 year old schoolgirls, have a thorough handle on their own sexuality.

Oh, and the tea-boy with the cyberwoman girlfriend turned gay, now THAT’s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!

[Dave]

>But Oh Em Gee Willow cheated on Oz with Xander and then turned into a lesbian

Are you implying one event caused the other?

[Andrew]

> I only mean this in a fun way, as well.

Ah, I see what you’ve done there, you’ve confused ‘speaking in fun’ with ‘talking like a prick’.

> But Oh Em Gee Willow cheated on Oz with Xander and then turned into a lesbian, now THAT?s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!

It’s almost as if all you’ve done there is taken two separate dramatic aspects of a show, reduced them to a single line of description and said them in a sarcastic tone. Gosh, if only this technique couple be used about ANYTHING in place of useful or intelligent criticism.

“But Oh Em Gee The Doctor sent Rose home and she came back anyway and then he left her in another dimension, now THAT?s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!”

It’s the execution, characterisation and emotional truth of any writing that makes the difference, after which the rest is taste. You must know this, so why act otherwise?

> The true test is post-Who. Then you?ve got the Grand Moff, who?s last properly successful series was Press Gang.

Oh yeah, cos picking up Bronze and Silver Roses for your sitcoms is something everyone has done, and Coupling and Jekyll weren’t watched by anyone…

[genericnerdyusername]

I didn’t see Jekyll, therefore it was a failure in the eyes of everyone who is…erm… me?

Coupling was bloody awesome though.

[Dave]

>Coupling was bloody awesome though.

I hated Coupling. I could see that achieved what it set out to do, it just didn’t do it for me. It was strange watching something and knowing wasn’t shit but not really enjoying it either. Somehow it left me cold. Whereas something like Two Pints Of Lager And Packet Of Three I knew was shit through and through.

I can’t explain it.

[Pete Part Three]

I know what you mean. I found it frequently very clever (I seem to remember an episode which had two time-periods running concurrently which was incredibly smart for a supposedly “regular” sitcom) but it just ANNOYED me. I just didn’t “believe” it. Similar problems with Torchwood, really. It seemed to be trying for an American kind of shebang and not quite accomplishing it.

Of course, then they adapted it for American audiences as a Friends clone and it didn’t work at all.

I’m inclined to blame Jack Davenport actually. On account on him being shit.

[genericnerdyusername]

“Whereas something like Two Pints Of Lager And Packet Of Three I knew was shit through and through.”

This is very true. I only watched two episodes before I fully accepted this fact. I do know they killed of Ralf Little’s character off screen and that he was eaten by a shark, I get it’s a “jump the shark” reference but it’s still shit.

[genericnerdyusername]

“I?m inclined to blame Jack Davenport actually. On account on him being shit.”

I liked him in Coupling, especially when him and his girlfriend were watching TV and the programme they were watching said that even men in relationships masturbate frequently, and he starts whistling in an attempt to look natural. I also liked him in Pirates of the Carribean. So erm… basically I take issue with this statement.

I haven’t watched the fourth series of Coupling though, on account of it not having Jeff, the best character, in it.

[Muzzy]

> I haven?t watched the fourth series of Coupling though, on account of it not having Jeff, the best character, in it.

It’s…erm…alright. Not having Jeff decreases the amount of laughs and crazy theories that the lads come up with, and the replacement character is just annoying. I seem to remember the first episode of the series was actually pretty good and promising but it slowly gets worse from there.

[Seb Patrick]

Coupling is great. In terms of concept and structure, “The Girl With Two Breasts” is one of the most brilliant sitcom episodes of the last however-many-years, not to mention being supremely funny.

[ChrisM]

I liked Coupling (although I’m not sure I’ve seen them all) and I liked Jeckyll a lot. The explanation of Jeckyll/Hyde’s origins didn’t make much sense to me although I can see why they took that route. The obvious possible explanation would be much to clich?d and ultimately his/their origins wasn’t really what the story was about (at least only in part). The ending creeped me out!

[pfm]

> and Coupling and Jekyll weren?t watched by anyone?

Because viewers = quality.

Jekyll was half good. Good ideas, yes, and two of the six eps were pretty great, but it descended into a mess. Maybe there were production problems out of Moffat’s hands. It does seem odd that Michelle Ryan was used so little after she was given an almost Rose-like role in episode 1. She was hardly in the second half of the series.

> ?But Oh Em Gee The Doctor sent Rose home and she came back anyway and then he left her in another dimension, now THAT?s the work of a godlike genius showrunner!!?

Epic failure. And Rose as ‘Bad Wolf’ wasn’t meant to be like end-of-season-6-black-hair-power-crazed-Willow either. If she had gone lez with Lynda-with-a-y then maybe so.

[Andrew]

> Because viewers = quality.

You didn’t say good, you said ‘properly successful’. Hi, welcome to the real world where ‘what you like’ isn’t the same thing as ‘successful’. Didn’t like Joking Apart, Jekyll and Coupling? Okay. You’re an idiot, but okay. But don’t bleat about ‘success’ like industry awards, audience appreciation stats and ratings matter less than that opinion.

> And Rose as ?Bad Wolf? wasn?t meant to be like end-of-season-6-black-hair-power-crazed-Willow either.

Who made that comparison? Who said it was meant to be? Seriously, do you even know what you’re talking about when spout like this?

[Ridley]

Maybe we should think of it as Torchwood: New York (or wherever) in the same vain as the CSI series?.

So Torchwood 4..?

If Barrowman is intended to be in it as a/the main character, it would be interesting if They did what Lucas and Walliams tried to do with Little Britain USA and have US Torchwood be treated as season one for the new audience and series four for everyone else.

RTD is going to have fun trying to get his gay references in though! In a TV landscape where you can?t even make jokes about toilets, try anal innuendo. The censors are gonna love you Russell :-D

“So, another Friday is upon us. What will you be doing, Captain? Something GAY no doubt?”

[Tanya Jones]

I hated Coupling first time round, but loved it on a recent second viewing. Which probably doesn’t prove anything, but if it helps, I loved Joking Apart on broadcast and still love it now.

[Ben Paddon]

Coupling was the first Moffat show I liked. I never saw Joking Apart (and I intend to pick it up on DVD eventually), and Press Gang annoyed me as a kid for reasons I can no longer remember. I’d love to give it a second whirl, though.

[Pete Part Three]

>Press Gang annoyed me as a kid for reasons I can no longer remember

His name was Dexter Fletcher.

[pfm]

> Didn?t like Joking Apart, Jekyll and Coupling?

Never seen Joking Apart, liked half of Jekyll (don’t think it helped that he cast Gina Bellman from Coupling, who can’t act), Coupling never floated my boat, though maybe I should rewatch it like Tanya has. I loved Press Gang (used to be unhealthily in awe of Julia Sawalha both on this and AbFab) and you can see checking the clips now that it still sparkles like nobody’s business. I really want to get the complete series but ?52 is a bit steep for me atm. I used to laugh at Chalk as well, despite it not being that special (didn’t deserve the universal panning it got though. Bloody hell I think we’d KILL to have a BBC1 sitcom of that quality now!)

> Who made that comparison? Who said it was meant to be? Seriously, do you even know what you?re talking about when spout like this?

You’re striking me as a touch ignorant with this tbh. I know exactly what I’m talking about. RTD mentioned Buffy as a big inspiration for him on developing and writing new Who. Heckfire, it’s not hard.

[Pete Part Three]

So what are you saying? That Whedon fans claim he ripped off bad Willow for Bad Wolf Rose because, in other areas, he was inspired by Buffy?

I’m confused. What’s your point?

[Ben Paddon]

I think performingmonkey is putting 2 and 2 together and getting Gibraltar.

[Seb Patrick]

Or as the Americans would say, “Faaaaaahve”.

[Tarka Dal]

Can I just say…

Press Gang = Great
Joking Apart = Great
Chalk = Great
Coupling = Great
Jekyll = Great

Now there’s somekind of a link there, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

[Ben Paddon]

The word “Great” seems to be interconnected to each show somehow.

[peas_and_corn]

Nah, it’s the use of vowels.

[Carlito]

Happy to see some Chalk love on here. I was a fan; probably the only one I know.

[pfm]

What’s coming has definitely got to be Moffat’s biggest challenge so far. Mainly due to the added responsibility of keeping a hugely successful show afloat, on top of writing 6 great episodes of drama (which he struggled to pull off with Jekyll, let’s be honest and fair) and overseeing the remaining 7.

[Tarka Dal]

> writing 6 great episodes of drama (which he struggled to pull off with Jekyll, let?s be honest and fair)

I realise I’m in danger of Moffat’s absolutely excellent arse, but I genuinely loved Jekyll from start to end and didn’t feel dissapointed by the ending the way a lot of other people seem to be.

Question: When is the Moffat/Gatiss (?) Sherlock Holmes thing likely to air, anybody?

[Ben Paddon]

Later this year, it seems.

[pfm]

I think it would be wise to hold it back for a while until interest in the (excellent) Guy Ritchie film dies down a little. Can’t wait to see what they’ve cooked up though.

I received the set of Gatiss’s Lucifer Box novels for Christmas (it’s called the Lucifer Box Set :)) and have yet to delve into them.

> I think performingmonkey is putting 2 and 2 together and getting Gibraltar.

I’ve had my fun and that’s all that matters.

[Tarka Dal]

> I think it would be wise to hold it back for a while until interest in the (excellent) Guy Ritchie film dies down a little.

I’m not sure I understand your logic, surely it’d be an idea to cash in on the movie whilst Sherlock Holmes is flavour of the month?

Unless you’re suggesting it might come off badly in comparison?

[pfm]

Even though it obviously isn’t it could maybe feel like Gatiss/Moffat were ‘cashing in’ on the current Holmes interest. People would feel like they were getting Holmes overload and might not bother watching it, and that just can’t happen with the talent involved here. Best to hold it back then people can judge it on it’s own merits rather than thinking of RDJ and Jude Law (both of them did an amazing job IMO).

[Jonsmad]

Who is playing Holmes and Watson in the gatiss/moffat Holmes then? First I’ve heard about it.

I love chalk, and I agree everything Moffat has done I’ve liked, I’d add the Rowan Atkinson Who to that list as well. I dont own Press gang but I’ve got the rest of those shows on dvd. I wish Chalk 2 was getting a proper dvd release, but it’s been 18 months since the last one, so not sure. Jekyll is alright, though it felt a bit to me like it would be an ongoing series that didnt carry on.

[Dave]

>Who is playing Holmes and Watson in the gatiss/moffat Holmes then? First I?ve heard about it.

I’m sure it won’t be, but Gatiss would make a very good Holmes.

[Author]

Replies