Having seen every episode of both versions, I can categorically say that Skins should not have been remade in America... If you've seen both versions, you'll most likely understand what I mean when I say that the show just doesn't work for the United States. It was originally an England based show, and it was written with the habits and mannerisms of English teenagers in mind. The way the script and everything was written, is specifically for England, and being molded to try and fit America, just makes the whole thing seem forced and fake. I think what writers should have done was make a different story line completely, but still keep the basic concept and ideals of the original Skins, instead of more or less remaking the script verbatim. A for effort, D- for finished product.
50 Reviews
painful to watch
nut_pod19 January 2011
The UK skins (the original skins) was/is a great TV show and it worked very great because the actors and the characters fit so right. This new version has failed completely at doing that.
They shouldn't have looked for an American Tony (he doesn't even exist) but they should have made a new Tony that could be American and would fit the new actor.
As only the first episode has aired so far and though it may therefore seem a little early to be so judgemental already. But as the first episode was an almost literal remake it seems even less realistic. The show wasn't written for American circumstances, again it doesn't fit.
I hope they cancel this thing very very soon and if they would make a real US skins (that could be a good show if they put some effort in it) I would totally be behind that.
They shouldn't have looked for an American Tony (he doesn't even exist) but they should have made a new Tony that could be American and would fit the new actor.
As only the first episode has aired so far and though it may therefore seem a little early to be so judgemental already. But as the first episode was an almost literal remake it seems even less realistic. The show wasn't written for American circumstances, again it doesn't fit.
I hope they cancel this thing very very soon and if they would make a real US skins (that could be a good show if they put some effort in it) I would totally be behind that.
To early to tell...
Moonys_Wolf25 January 2011
I'm a big fan of the UK Skins. So when I heard there was going to be a US version I was a little apprehensive.
After watching the first episode, well, I was just disappointed. The entire episode, while exactly the same as the UK one, just didn't have the necessary spark to it.
The acting is very mediocre and needs to be improved on greatly. I get that this is the first acting gig that they've had, so I'll let that slid just a little. Some of the actors aren't necessarily as bad as the other, which gives the show some tolerability.
Having watched the second episode, which is completely new, I can say that some faith is restored. This episode is better than the first and gives a story line that I personally can't wait to see expanded on.
All I can say is that, I hope by season 2 (should it get that far!) the actors will have improved and will win over the viewers more.
With a little more work, this show could potentially catch up to the UK one.
After watching the first episode, well, I was just disappointed. The entire episode, while exactly the same as the UK one, just didn't have the necessary spark to it.
The acting is very mediocre and needs to be improved on greatly. I get that this is the first acting gig that they've had, so I'll let that slid just a little. Some of the actors aren't necessarily as bad as the other, which gives the show some tolerability.
Having watched the second episode, which is completely new, I can say that some faith is restored. This episode is better than the first and gives a story line that I personally can't wait to see expanded on.
All I can say is that, I hope by season 2 (should it get that far!) the actors will have improved and will win over the viewers more.
With a little more work, this show could potentially catch up to the UK one.
A weak soulless copy
gabriel-omnia18 January 2011
I will keep this simple.
The first few minutes hold the secret to the show's failure. Tony looks out the window and sees his neighbor, a naked older woman, about to get dressed. She has bigger and nicer breasts than her UK counterpart, but we do not see these breasts. I hope you understand that this is not about breasts but solely a metaphor for the whole show.
Even though, some minor details were brushed up, the rest plays out exactly the same as the UK version; only more rushed and soulless. Tony, the main protagonist of the first episode, is supposed to be manipulative but interesting. In this version, he's merely a douche.
This show lacks new ideas as well the vigor and the originality from its predecessor. A total failure.
The first few minutes hold the secret to the show's failure. Tony looks out the window and sees his neighbor, a naked older woman, about to get dressed. She has bigger and nicer breasts than her UK counterpart, but we do not see these breasts. I hope you understand that this is not about breasts but solely a metaphor for the whole show.
Even though, some minor details were brushed up, the rest plays out exactly the same as the UK version; only more rushed and soulless. Tony, the main protagonist of the first episode, is supposed to be manipulative but interesting. In this version, he's merely a douche.
This show lacks new ideas as well the vigor and the originality from its predecessor. A total failure.
This could have been some kind of wonderful... emphasis on 'could'
Sweet_Ophelia3 February 2011
I hope the American creators of 'Skins' realise how much potential has been wasted on their remake.
The British E4 'Skins', created by Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley is fantastic. And what makes the show so great is its versatility. Currently the UK version is in its fifth season with its third remodelled cast.
The American version is a remake of its Pommie counterpart . . . sometimes word-for-word, or shot-for-shot. Heck, they've even recreated the promo photo shoots down to the 'pile-on' cast shot. Yawn. 'Skins' is a show about teenagers. Not your 'Gossip Girl', '90210' and 'O.C.' privileged darlings where fans watch to live vicariously and glimpse the high-life. 'Skins' is all about the relatable. Typical teenagers in typical towns doing typical (if hair-raising) things. The UK version is set in Bristol (the 'meat and potatoes' town of England) while the US version is set in Baltimore (and equally unimpressive slice of suburbia). The brilliance of the show lies in the fact that the teenage characters get up to wicked stunts and tangled loves regardless of their dull surroundings. Because, teenagers will be teenagers no matter where they live. It's no shock that teens living and loving in New York will have some wild adventures. What 'Skins' shows is that teens even in backwoods Noweheresville will get up to the same sorts of shenanigans . . . and often with more significant and profound experiences.
And that's what makes Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley's 'Skins' framework so adaptable. You don't need the same characters to tell these stories. All you need is teenagers. Teenagers are the portal through which these tales are told. All the US makers had to do was choose a suitably unremarkable setting (Baltimore – check) and use typical teen stereotypes to base their show around. And Lord knows that the Americans have enough clichés thanks to John Hughes movies – the jock, the princess, the freak, the nerd. . .
Unfortunately MTV wimped out. They took the easy route and, effectively, decided to copy off someone else's homework. For shame!
They have replicated entire episodes. They have taken British characters and changed their names (Sid – Stanley) and tried to fit square pegs into round holes. For shame! And it's even worse because there is every evidence that if MTV had made 'Skins' their own – created their own characters and story lines and used the bare framework of 'teenagers' (hardly worth the copyright!) then this series could have succeeded. Case in point, Tea.
The best thing about the US version is the one character that they made themselves; 'Tea' is played by Sofia Black-D'Elia and she's fabulous. She's a warped cliché – an American cheerleader, but with the twist of also being a lesbian. She is a replacement character from the UK version, 'Tea' as a stand in for the male homosexual character of Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).
Tea's episode was the second one of the season and it was fantastic. Tea as a cheerleader lesbian who is 'out' at school, perhaps even the token homosexual amongst her friends. But at home she keeps her sexuality under-wraps from her Jewish family. Tea's episode had such American flavour – as Tea hangs out at a lesbian Rockabilly dance hall to pick up chicks – it was a flavourful mix of old Americana with a modern twist. The writers even added layers of complications to Tea's already hectic life by introducing an uneasy attraction between her and the show's playboy Lothario, Tony (James Newman). This 'romance' is doomed to be one-sided, though Tony looks to be in determined pursuit of the unattainable.
Tea's second episode was exactly what I wanted from the American version of Skins. I wanted the Yanks to make this show their own. Alas, the third episode, 'Chris', was back to the unoriginal 'been-there-seen- that' of the UK version.
The first season of Skins USA is a dismal failure. But the character of 'Tea' and her Americana-meets-L-Word episode is proof positive that the Yanks can do it! They just have to take a chance – think outside the (British) square, infuse some originality into their version and trust in their writers to come up with something as equally smashing as their Pommie counterparts.
The British E4 'Skins', created by Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley is fantastic. And what makes the show so great is its versatility. Currently the UK version is in its fifth season with its third remodelled cast.
The American version is a remake of its Pommie counterpart . . . sometimes word-for-word, or shot-for-shot. Heck, they've even recreated the promo photo shoots down to the 'pile-on' cast shot. Yawn. 'Skins' is a show about teenagers. Not your 'Gossip Girl', '90210' and 'O.C.' privileged darlings where fans watch to live vicariously and glimpse the high-life. 'Skins' is all about the relatable. Typical teenagers in typical towns doing typical (if hair-raising) things. The UK version is set in Bristol (the 'meat and potatoes' town of England) while the US version is set in Baltimore (and equally unimpressive slice of suburbia). The brilliance of the show lies in the fact that the teenage characters get up to wicked stunts and tangled loves regardless of their dull surroundings. Because, teenagers will be teenagers no matter where they live. It's no shock that teens living and loving in New York will have some wild adventures. What 'Skins' shows is that teens even in backwoods Noweheresville will get up to the same sorts of shenanigans . . . and often with more significant and profound experiences.
And that's what makes Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley's 'Skins' framework so adaptable. You don't need the same characters to tell these stories. All you need is teenagers. Teenagers are the portal through which these tales are told. All the US makers had to do was choose a suitably unremarkable setting (Baltimore – check) and use typical teen stereotypes to base their show around. And Lord knows that the Americans have enough clichés thanks to John Hughes movies – the jock, the princess, the freak, the nerd. . .
Unfortunately MTV wimped out. They took the easy route and, effectively, decided to copy off someone else's homework. For shame!
They have replicated entire episodes. They have taken British characters and changed their names (Sid – Stanley) and tried to fit square pegs into round holes. For shame! And it's even worse because there is every evidence that if MTV had made 'Skins' their own – created their own characters and story lines and used the bare framework of 'teenagers' (hardly worth the copyright!) then this series could have succeeded. Case in point, Tea.
The best thing about the US version is the one character that they made themselves; 'Tea' is played by Sofia Black-D'Elia and she's fabulous. She's a warped cliché – an American cheerleader, but with the twist of also being a lesbian. She is a replacement character from the UK version, 'Tea' as a stand in for the male homosexual character of Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).
Tea's episode was the second one of the season and it was fantastic. Tea as a cheerleader lesbian who is 'out' at school, perhaps even the token homosexual amongst her friends. But at home she keeps her sexuality under-wraps from her Jewish family. Tea's episode had such American flavour – as Tea hangs out at a lesbian Rockabilly dance hall to pick up chicks – it was a flavourful mix of old Americana with a modern twist. The writers even added layers of complications to Tea's already hectic life by introducing an uneasy attraction between her and the show's playboy Lothario, Tony (James Newman). This 'romance' is doomed to be one-sided, though Tony looks to be in determined pursuit of the unattainable.
Tea's second episode was exactly what I wanted from the American version of Skins. I wanted the Yanks to make this show their own. Alas, the third episode, 'Chris', was back to the unoriginal 'been-there-seen- that' of the UK version.
The first season of Skins USA is a dismal failure. But the character of 'Tea' and her Americana-meets-L-Word episode is proof positive that the Yanks can do it! They just have to take a chance – think outside the (British) square, infuse some originality into their version and trust in their writers to come up with something as equally smashing as their Pommie counterparts.
Disappointing
dernyul17 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps MTV thought we wouldn't notice, but the "American" version of Skins is actually the Canadian version of Skins. I guess to MTV that Toronto looks exactly like Baltimore. To people, though, it really doesn't.
Worse yet, it's a word for word remake of the original rather than a truly new version with very noticeably Canadian accents. It would have been easy to get a new cast, film in the US, and write new scripts relevant to US kids that have the same themes as the UK version. There are plenty of great stories of American teen reprobate, but Canadian Skins opts instead to just repeat the same story lines, scenes and characters that made the original great, but without the same impact, ingenuity or power.
This is an unnecessary failure. I had high hopes as I loved the UK teen soap opera. This is a soulless pile of garbage replete with the main kid mimicking the original Tony's wise ass smile. So disappointed.
Worse yet, it's a word for word remake of the original rather than a truly new version with very noticeably Canadian accents. It would have been easy to get a new cast, film in the US, and write new scripts relevant to US kids that have the same themes as the UK version. There are plenty of great stories of American teen reprobate, but Canadian Skins opts instead to just repeat the same story lines, scenes and characters that made the original great, but without the same impact, ingenuity or power.
This is an unnecessary failure. I had high hopes as I loved the UK teen soap opera. This is a soulless pile of garbage replete with the main kid mimicking the original Tony's wise ass smile. So disappointed.
Are you kidding me?
Kk13742 February 2011
I own the first four seasons of the British version of Skins on DVD and could watch them over and over. This American, oh I'm sorry Canadian, cast just don't meet the mark whatsoever. There is no talent there at all and since they are copying the almost exact script from the original you would assume it would be an easy job. And the worst of all is the actor who plays Tony. I have seen better acting in children's theatre by 10 year olds. And he is supposed to be the leader of this group? This show is going to be canceled in no time. I wish it was better because E4 in England did so well with this show. Sorry MTV but you fail
Highly entertaining!
arayrodgers8 March 2011
I actually think this show is pretty good, especially considering it's on MTV because no one really expects to see a show with much of any soul on MTV. I know it's a copy off of a British show, so they don't really deserve credit, but I love how the show is set up, with each episode focusing on a different character.
The characters are not great and sometimes they're a little over the top, but they're certainly more thought out than you would expect from a teen show. They are also realistic enough that I can sometimes see myself or one of my friends in the characters.
The show gained a ton of controversy for showing teenagers doing drugs, drinking, and having sex, without backing it up with a lesson like an after school special. That being said, this is not Degrassi. It is much more honest. It doesn't exactly glorify immoral behavior, there is the occasional negative consequence, the moral lessons on here are much deeper than, "don't do drugs, don't have sex!!!" The themes are more like messed up relationships, depression, etc. Which shows that kids that partake in these kinds of things are good people too and not just lost soulless sinners.
The acting is sub par a lot of the time, but the issues and the dialogue are most often much more believable and much easier to relate to than all of the cheesy teen shows out there. Because of that, I really respect the show.
So for being real, and not just preaching to the kids, I give this show props. I also would like to say that the humor is good, the music is good, and most of the dirty things that go on are done some what tastefully...sometimes...lol
The characters are not great and sometimes they're a little over the top, but they're certainly more thought out than you would expect from a teen show. They are also realistic enough that I can sometimes see myself or one of my friends in the characters.
The show gained a ton of controversy for showing teenagers doing drugs, drinking, and having sex, without backing it up with a lesson like an after school special. That being said, this is not Degrassi. It is much more honest. It doesn't exactly glorify immoral behavior, there is the occasional negative consequence, the moral lessons on here are much deeper than, "don't do drugs, don't have sex!!!" The themes are more like messed up relationships, depression, etc. Which shows that kids that partake in these kinds of things are good people too and not just lost soulless sinners.
The acting is sub par a lot of the time, but the issues and the dialogue are most often much more believable and much easier to relate to than all of the cheesy teen shows out there. Because of that, I really respect the show.
So for being real, and not just preaching to the kids, I give this show props. I also would like to say that the humor is good, the music is good, and most of the dirty things that go on are done some what tastefully...sometimes...lol
Its not as bad as the other reviews would have you think
kewl_rules19 January 2011
I have seen both versions of the show and I really didn't mind this version.
Yes the show is filmed in Canada and not America, but its cheaper to film up here in Canada. The show is set in the suburbs Baltimore; The production just needed a place with lots of suburban houses, and Toronto has a lot.
The actors themselves did an OK job. Some of the actors weren't all that involved in the show, so I can fairly comment on the part. The most notable characters in this episode were Stanley ("The American" Sid) and Tony. The actor who played Stanley did a good job, because after all Stanley isn't all the complex at this point in the over all plot. Now for Tony... I saw potential in the actor who played Tony (I would state the actors name, but IMDb has not listed it yet). I saw a bit of the Tony that we all secretly adore after the choir scene, so there is hope. Tony is an extremely smart and manipulative character which makes him very difficult to play. I felt the same about this Tony as I did about the other Tony the first time I "saw" him. I took me 2-3 episodes for me to completely understand and love that character, maybe it will be the same for this version as well.
Took make a review that's already to long shorter. All in all not that bad. I think it will grow on me and get better, just like the other show did.
The only problem I have with the show is that Maxxie is a lesbian cheerleader and not a gay dancer.
Yes the show is filmed in Canada and not America, but its cheaper to film up here in Canada. The show is set in the suburbs Baltimore; The production just needed a place with lots of suburban houses, and Toronto has a lot.
The actors themselves did an OK job. Some of the actors weren't all that involved in the show, so I can fairly comment on the part. The most notable characters in this episode were Stanley ("The American" Sid) and Tony. The actor who played Stanley did a good job, because after all Stanley isn't all the complex at this point in the over all plot. Now for Tony... I saw potential in the actor who played Tony (I would state the actors name, but IMDb has not listed it yet). I saw a bit of the Tony that we all secretly adore after the choir scene, so there is hope. Tony is an extremely smart and manipulative character which makes him very difficult to play. I felt the same about this Tony as I did about the other Tony the first time I "saw" him. I took me 2-3 episodes for me to completely understand and love that character, maybe it will be the same for this version as well.
Took make a review that's already to long shorter. All in all not that bad. I think it will grow on me and get better, just like the other show did.
The only problem I have with the show is that Maxxie is a lesbian cheerleader and not a gay dancer.
I had low expectations..
dazzasupreme0521 January 2011
...and they succeeded in satisfying them. I'm a Brit implant, so I love to watch my BBC America shows and I loved the original Skins (I even think Season 3's episodes were less than the original cast, but way better than this American/Canadian version). I do remember hearing that maybe Nicholas Hoult (Tony) was the only person that had any real acting experience (from what i remember reading, i may be wrong). The second thing is, like everyone said, they were British teenagers: Skins plots were relevant to growing up over there--they were slightly over the top, but any English kid could relate.
The way the characters act are the way British kids act growing up: that delivery, the tones, the attitudes from Tony and Jai. ALL the characters stood out. In this USA version, it does come off as plodding and dull-i've traveled all over the US (Canada too) and like England, there is a distinctness about they way kids are...so like everyone said, they should take the overall theme and make it American.
The Office is probably the only recent offering that stands on its own as an English concept with American humor. They should talk to those writers.
The way the characters act are the way British kids act growing up: that delivery, the tones, the attitudes from Tony and Jai. ALL the characters stood out. In this USA version, it does come off as plodding and dull-i've traveled all over the US (Canada too) and like England, there is a distinctness about they way kids are...so like everyone said, they should take the overall theme and make it American.
The Office is probably the only recent offering that stands on its own as an English concept with American humor. They should talk to those writers.
I can't stop watching
n-rieck16 February 2011
I have only viewed 4 episodes but I can't stop watching. It might be because non-professional actors make this program appear to be so much like real life. Every one of the characters represents someone in my own teenage years. Back then there were a few jocks, a few space-cadets, and a few girls with questionable morals, with all the rest of us just being carried along in the wake of their actions. We all thought we were so damned smart, and that adults were so so weird, or stupid, or socially inept. (in reality we weren't so smart and the adults weren't so stupid) "Skins" appears to be written from the perspective of these teens. Most appear to be working through their problems while the adults behave badly and are not working through theirs.
And where did the program name come from? In the first episode the name "Skins" is mentioned in a reference to rolling paper.
And where did the program name come from? In the first episode the name "Skins" is mentioned in a reference to rolling paper.
Skins USA on MTV
chrisboi201025 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Skins USA is based off the British series of the same name. It tells the stories of young teens and their friends trying to survive the life of being a teenager.
MTV is airing this in their late night line up for Monday nights and I will say I totally love it!
The first few episodes will mirror the original at first, but will take a different direction once the series finds it's legs.
Before judging harshly take a better look at the series, because it's worth watching if you love the UK series.
7 out of 10!
MTV is airing this in their late night line up for Monday nights and I will say I totally love it!
The first few episodes will mirror the original at first, but will take a different direction once the series finds it's legs.
Before judging harshly take a better look at the series, because it's worth watching if you love the UK series.
7 out of 10!
US Skins, you have failed.
Gabbiiiiiiiiiii18 January 2011
Once I saw the preview for this "American" - *cough* Canadian *cough* version of Skins, I knew it would be bad. But I didn't expect it to be THIS horrible. The acting is atrocious and so poor. These "actors" (and I use that term lightly) are definitely doing this for the money because there is no way anyone who wants to seriously be an actor/actress is going to do this awful. Anyone who has passion for acting wouldn't do THIS poor of a job. When they rehearse, do their scripts just say their lines and have footnotes telling them to have no emotion whatsoever? This cast is so pathetic. It could be a hit if some big changes occur. If it continues to be as crappy as the pilot, it will not be a success. "MTV's highly anticipated Skins..."? Yeah right. Anything you consider bad acting cannot compare to this. It simply cannot.
Every line seems rehearsed and unnatural. Instead of trying to own up to the original actors, they should have made it somewhat their own. Hopefully, they'll become more comfortable with these roles and grow into them in time or something because this show just has FAIL tattooed ALL OVER IT.
Every line seems rehearsed and unnatural. Instead of trying to own up to the original actors, they should have made it somewhat their own. Hopefully, they'll become more comfortable with these roles and grow into them in time or something because this show just has FAIL tattooed ALL OVER IT.
Extremely lacking.
struck2122 January 2011
I am a fan of the original. I have watched every season but the first two still are the best, now the US has gone and trashed it.
People who say you need to forget the UK version and just watch the US/Canadian version, need to realize that this is the UK version word for word; scene for scene; character for character. It's impossible to not compare them.
The acting is almost a none issue, as it is so bad you start to ignore it. Tony is horribly cast and even more horribly acted. Effy, well, I know she didn't have any lines, she still looked wrong to me.
The joys of watching Skins when I first discovered the UK version were great, the joys of watching the US remake, weren't there. I knew this was gonna be a failure but to copy the original word for word and still ruin it, someone needs fired.
If this shows makes a full season I will be surprised, but it won't make it on any good reviews.
People who say you need to forget the UK version and just watch the US/Canadian version, need to realize that this is the UK version word for word; scene for scene; character for character. It's impossible to not compare them.
The acting is almost a none issue, as it is so bad you start to ignore it. Tony is horribly cast and even more horribly acted. Effy, well, I know she didn't have any lines, she still looked wrong to me.
The joys of watching Skins when I first discovered the UK version were great, the joys of watching the US remake, weren't there. I knew this was gonna be a failure but to copy the original word for word and still ruin it, someone needs fired.
If this shows makes a full season I will be surprised, but it won't make it on any good reviews.
American characters and British story cause culture clash
Lyokofan18 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sorry, but this was just awful. The acting was terrible. I know they're new actors, but so were most of the cast in the UK series and they were fantastic. The pilot is basically the same as the British pilot, the scenes, Mr. Snyder (Stonem)'s butt crack, even the essay Daisy (Jal) reads aloud during psychology class. The only thing that's changed noticeably is the characters themselves. In making them "American" they have become disinterested and dull. The only characters who seem remotely good are Cadie and Tea. Even then, Cadie is neither as fun nor spacey as Cassie, making her drug habits seem unbelievable, and while Tea seems to be a foil for Tony that Maxxie never was, the fact that she's now a she now detracts from Abbud (Anwar)'s character as well as Tony's. With Maxxie, Anwar had to deal with his homophobia, but now with Tea, Abbud is reduced to perverse comments about girl-on-girl. Tony's cheating and betrayal hurt Michelle more because Tony had been with a guy, giving Tony something that she could never. If Tony cheats on Michelle with Tea now, it's 1. another girl, and 2. more on Tea as she's the one crossing sexuality.
The new characters US characters don't fit in the UK story and world. Stick to the original show. This on is well written (it's the same as the UK) but badly acted, developed, produced, and basically fails at everything Britain hadn't done for them already.
And the constantly BLEEPs don't make the show edgy, just dumb.
The new characters US characters don't fit in the UK story and world. Stick to the original show. This on is well written (it's the same as the UK) but badly acted, developed, produced, and basically fails at everything Britain hadn't done for them already.
And the constantly BLEEPs don't make the show edgy, just dumb.
Truly abysmal
andy-salter29 January 2011
I've just watched the first two episodes of this utter rubbish and i am left with a very bad taste in my mouth. The Uk version was rough, rude, gritty, believable. well acted, well written, well directed and worth watching, which is why it is now in its 5th season. The US version is none of these, what was the point of remaking Skins and watering it down, it totally lost its edge and the beeping of the swearing ruined it even further, they even changed the bed spread for god sake. the character of tony is not in any way believable, cassy (sorry kate) is no where near unstable enough. i don't understand why the Americans feel the need to change things, they toned down Shamless, gave Life On Mars a completely ridiculous ending and now this, LEAVE THINGS ALONE AND DO NOT MESS, i doubt very much if this will make it to a second season or even end the first.
Missed opportunity
AFHSinger0518 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First off, just to be clear, this is being written by an American who found Skins about a year and half ago on BBC America and has loved the series since that moment.
That being said, it is hard to come to this version without making comparisons to the UK original. Virtually impossible because having watched the UK show many times, I know the series practically by heart.
I honestly tried to watch this with an open mind. I swear I did. But my mind kept drifting off to playing the UK version in my head while watching the show. Fact is, the UK version had more depth in the first 10minutes of the pilot than this show did in the entire hour.
The acting in this show is completely mind numbing.
All of the actors were very flat in their performances and you could just tell that they were saying what was written in the script instead of making it seem real. Granted, it is the first acting job all of these kids have had, but sadly, it is obvious that they haven't really acted before, which just makes it harder to watch.
Appearance-wise of these actors has been drastically lowered as well. Whether people wish to admit it or not, we are humans and we make first judgments on appearance, it is impossible not to. And these kids have nothing against their UK counterparts.
Tony was the biggest miss. He is supposed to be absolutely drop dead gorgeous, that no matter how much you may hate him for the conniving sh!t he does, you still love him. I doubt this kid could handle himself in a fight, though they made it seem like he could in the party scene. But really, what is he, 5'3, 5'4 max?
Chris was another let down. I really doubt that, in the real world, this kid would be able to lay anyone other than his blow up doll at night. And we are to believe that the teacher is going to hook up with him? PLEASE! Because, once again, we are humans who do judge on appearance first.
Cadie was just bizarre. The whole knife obsession? And the first scene with Stanley. Yeah, she is crazy, but not the out of it crazy that Cassie was. Cassie was lovable crazy, Cadie... I really don't want to walk ahead of her down a dark alley for fear that she would slit my throat and cook me in some stew.
Stanley seemed the most believable character. The virgin nerd who does Tony's bidding. Though he was believable, still didn't make it easier to watch.
Tea was interesting. Of course the character most different from her counterpart (closeted lesbian vs openly gay), something caught me with her. If anything, I will watch her episode to see what they do with that character. And to be honest, I was ready to hate that character the most because Maxxie was my favorite in the UK version. But surprisingly, I will watch her episode to see what happens with her.
Abbud, Michelle and Daisy... Don't have anything to say about them because they were just too irrelevant to focus on.
This is was a missed opportunity to take an amazing UK show and make it for the US audience.
If they just took the main concept of the show (group of friends getting through high school while smoking weed, popping pills and hooking up), it could've been really great. Instead, they took an amazing UK show and just tailored it for the simple-minded American youth.
I wanted to have a lot of faith in Brian Esley since he also created the original and he was the top guy for the US version. But he really missed something in the translation. Everyone involved with this did.
Aside from Tea's episode next week, I may watch it again... If there aren't any good infomercials on...
That being said, it is hard to come to this version without making comparisons to the UK original. Virtually impossible because having watched the UK show many times, I know the series practically by heart.
I honestly tried to watch this with an open mind. I swear I did. But my mind kept drifting off to playing the UK version in my head while watching the show. Fact is, the UK version had more depth in the first 10minutes of the pilot than this show did in the entire hour.
The acting in this show is completely mind numbing.
All of the actors were very flat in their performances and you could just tell that they were saying what was written in the script instead of making it seem real. Granted, it is the first acting job all of these kids have had, but sadly, it is obvious that they haven't really acted before, which just makes it harder to watch.
Appearance-wise of these actors has been drastically lowered as well. Whether people wish to admit it or not, we are humans and we make first judgments on appearance, it is impossible not to. And these kids have nothing against their UK counterparts.
Tony was the biggest miss. He is supposed to be absolutely drop dead gorgeous, that no matter how much you may hate him for the conniving sh!t he does, you still love him. I doubt this kid could handle himself in a fight, though they made it seem like he could in the party scene. But really, what is he, 5'3, 5'4 max?
Chris was another let down. I really doubt that, in the real world, this kid would be able to lay anyone other than his blow up doll at night. And we are to believe that the teacher is going to hook up with him? PLEASE! Because, once again, we are humans who do judge on appearance first.
Cadie was just bizarre. The whole knife obsession? And the first scene with Stanley. Yeah, she is crazy, but not the out of it crazy that Cassie was. Cassie was lovable crazy, Cadie... I really don't want to walk ahead of her down a dark alley for fear that she would slit my throat and cook me in some stew.
Stanley seemed the most believable character. The virgin nerd who does Tony's bidding. Though he was believable, still didn't make it easier to watch.
Tea was interesting. Of course the character most different from her counterpart (closeted lesbian vs openly gay), something caught me with her. If anything, I will watch her episode to see what they do with that character. And to be honest, I was ready to hate that character the most because Maxxie was my favorite in the UK version. But surprisingly, I will watch her episode to see what happens with her.
Abbud, Michelle and Daisy... Don't have anything to say about them because they were just too irrelevant to focus on.
This is was a missed opportunity to take an amazing UK show and make it for the US audience.
If they just took the main concept of the show (group of friends getting through high school while smoking weed, popping pills and hooking up), it could've been really great. Instead, they took an amazing UK show and just tailored it for the simple-minded American youth.
I wanted to have a lot of faith in Brian Esley since he also created the original and he was the top guy for the US version. But he really missed something in the translation. Everyone involved with this did.
Aside from Tea's episode next week, I may watch it again... If there aren't any good infomercials on...
Didn't disappoint, didn't deliver. It's got potential.
gabby-chung1328 January 2011
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not biased. I've watched the UK Skins from series 1-4. In my opinion, this review will be the fairest for people who have never seen either version yet. --
Alright; like my summary says: Skins MTV didn't disappoint, but it also didn't deliver. It has a lot of potential, as far as plot goes.
My initial reaction to the trailer was "Oh God, this will be terrible!". I had been in love with Skins UK for a few years beforehand, and the thought of a "copy-cat" was very unwelcome.
To be honest, watching Pilot USA for the first time, I was actually impressed. I thought that the introductions of each character was absolutely nailed, especially by Tony who had to use the same script as the original - a script catered to British lingo. Things looked a little less absurd and a little more believable (come on, compare the drug dealers in each version!) than the original. Sure, the characters look completely different - but it is, after all, a different show. Where the USA version lost kudos points for me, is around halfway through Pilot. The acting at some points were good, but at other points were terrible. All in all, though; you can really tell that the show has been 'Americanized', despite having the same script. Job well done, I believe.
As for the controversial gay Maxxie being swapped for a lesbian Tea; I really think that was a good move on the producer's part. Yes, I do believe that it was done to give the male audience something titillating to look at and muse about (lesbianism seems to make more headway with the Hollywood airtime than 'gay-ness'); but what it provided was an opportunity for Skins USA to have some originality, despite being a spin-off. It's the first thing that really allows them to branch off into a different direction than the UK version (obviously, putting Tea's episode as the second episode was strategic as well).
Speaking of the second episode, which I will touch only briefly on: I do think that the acting was much worse than the first episode, but that is up to the actors and director to fix. The plot in the second episode was terrific! It has the typical drug-abuse, alcohol, and sex; reinforcing that theme; yet showed very good character development for only one show. In that episode, focused around Tea, we not only learn much about this new interesting character, but about how the others behave in different environments as well.
Being a long term Skins fan, I believe that Skins USA has great potential. In all honesty, I think that those who are giving bad reviews to the show are just spiteful because they see their favourite show being "commandeered" by Americans. Before you become offended, seriously think about that statement. It holds some truth.
Well done, 8/10.
I can't stress enough - in order for this show's success, the acting really needs to be picked up. (We haven't seen much of Eura yet, but I believe she also needs to work on her character to be as wonderful as Effy was)
Alright; like my summary says: Skins MTV didn't disappoint, but it also didn't deliver. It has a lot of potential, as far as plot goes.
My initial reaction to the trailer was "Oh God, this will be terrible!". I had been in love with Skins UK for a few years beforehand, and the thought of a "copy-cat" was very unwelcome.
To be honest, watching Pilot USA for the first time, I was actually impressed. I thought that the introductions of each character was absolutely nailed, especially by Tony who had to use the same script as the original - a script catered to British lingo. Things looked a little less absurd and a little more believable (come on, compare the drug dealers in each version!) than the original. Sure, the characters look completely different - but it is, after all, a different show. Where the USA version lost kudos points for me, is around halfway through Pilot. The acting at some points were good, but at other points were terrible. All in all, though; you can really tell that the show has been 'Americanized', despite having the same script. Job well done, I believe.
As for the controversial gay Maxxie being swapped for a lesbian Tea; I really think that was a good move on the producer's part. Yes, I do believe that it was done to give the male audience something titillating to look at and muse about (lesbianism seems to make more headway with the Hollywood airtime than 'gay-ness'); but what it provided was an opportunity for Skins USA to have some originality, despite being a spin-off. It's the first thing that really allows them to branch off into a different direction than the UK version (obviously, putting Tea's episode as the second episode was strategic as well).
Speaking of the second episode, which I will touch only briefly on: I do think that the acting was much worse than the first episode, but that is up to the actors and director to fix. The plot in the second episode was terrific! It has the typical drug-abuse, alcohol, and sex; reinforcing that theme; yet showed very good character development for only one show. In that episode, focused around Tea, we not only learn much about this new interesting character, but about how the others behave in different environments as well.
Being a long term Skins fan, I believe that Skins USA has great potential. In all honesty, I think that those who are giving bad reviews to the show are just spiteful because they see their favourite show being "commandeered" by Americans. Before you become offended, seriously think about that statement. It holds some truth.
Well done, 8/10.
I can't stress enough - in order for this show's success, the acting really needs to be picked up. (We haven't seen much of Eura yet, but I believe she also needs to work on her character to be as wonderful as Effy was)
interesting and entertaining
whattup27 January 2011
After watching the first episode I thought the US version of Skins was going to be a carbon copy of the UK version which would have been AWFUL. But after watching the second episode, the story has diverged from the original and the new cast is putting their own flair on the relationships in the show. With the plot moving in a slightly different direction, the US Skins can stop being compared to the UK version and can develop as its own program. If the rest of the season is like the premiere I would rate Skins a 1, but if the writers and cast continue to put a new spin on the show like in Tea's episode I have much more hope for the quality of the program, hence the 7 out of 10. I think it really deserves the high rating.
Eh....
camillenatzke-118 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* So I am huge fan of the UK Skins and I really wanted the US version to be as good but like the reviewer before me said it's so obviously NOT American. Ten minutes into the show and you already notice "Hey they're not in America...!" The location looks so obviously Canadian it's annoying. Hey MTV, we already have this show it's called Degrassi the Next Generation. As for the script, I knew going into it that they were going to use the same exact storyline (MTV fail) but they didn't even bother changing the dialogue for an American audience. NO ONE talks like that. Who calls their mom "mummy"? I've never met a drug dealer that lives in a kitsch palace. Who the hell cast this show? Effy was gorgeous in the UK version. The "US" Effy is downright homely and looks nothing like Tony. In season 2 of the original Skins Effy almost dies of an overdose but I'm really hoping that in the US version she will actually die because I can't stand the sight of her. If this were on any other channel I think it would be canceled after the first episode. You think MTV would understand today's youth and know how to create believable characters. Sheesh.
Love!
lizabirdw27 January 2011
I Love this show! I find it highly addicting and will be truly saddened if it is canceled. I need more SKINS!-
Side note: Tea is fabulous! I love her character and I find her incredibly likable; lovable even.-
I think the majority of the characters are likable. All you need is the ability to empathize with another human being in order to like them. 2 episodes in and I'm so excited to see more!-
I would recommended this show to all my friends. Please do not cancel this show! I hope it makes it at least all the way through the first season.-
The series also has webisodes that are hysterical and add to the story line all the much more. Fabulous!
Side note: Tea is fabulous! I love her character and I find her incredibly likable; lovable even.-
I think the majority of the characters are likable. All you need is the ability to empathize with another human being in order to like them. 2 episodes in and I'm so excited to see more!-
I would recommended this show to all my friends. Please do not cancel this show! I hope it makes it at least all the way through the first season.-
The series also has webisodes that are hysterical and add to the story line all the much more. Fabulous!
Maybe better than the UK Version, please don't shoot me for saying it.
amaudet-23 February 2011
I loved the UK version, except that I couldn't stand Tony.
In the US version Tony by far is the most interesting character, but for different reasons. This Tony seems less shallow (although he is still shallow enough). He has more depth and we're only three episodes in, so if we're going by the UK version, then the US Tony should only get better.
This is worth a watch. I'm not a teenager anymore nor am I old enough or out of touch enough to think that this show should be not broadcast or shunned by advertisers. While I do think that parents should be cautious about what their kids watch, by the age of the Skins characters this should be irrelevant. Kids have always and will always find a way to do exactly what they want. I think an honest show depicting sex, drugs, and partying like Skins is much better than the vapid, overly dramatised shows out there now like Gossip Girl or 90210.
So far, I'm more interested 3 episodes in than I was with the UK version's first three episodes. I hope MTV has the balls to keep this show on the air because there is value to the show without it being preachy, condescending, or patronising to its audience.
In the US version Tony by far is the most interesting character, but for different reasons. This Tony seems less shallow (although he is still shallow enough). He has more depth and we're only three episodes in, so if we're going by the UK version, then the US Tony should only get better.
This is worth a watch. I'm not a teenager anymore nor am I old enough or out of touch enough to think that this show should be not broadcast or shunned by advertisers. While I do think that parents should be cautious about what their kids watch, by the age of the Skins characters this should be irrelevant. Kids have always and will always find a way to do exactly what they want. I think an honest show depicting sex, drugs, and partying like Skins is much better than the vapid, overly dramatised shows out there now like Gossip Girl or 90210.
So far, I'm more interested 3 episodes in than I was with the UK version's first three episodes. I hope MTV has the balls to keep this show on the air because there is value to the show without it being preachy, condescending, or patronising to its audience.
Here we go again!
gibbs-181725 August 2020
Why Even Bother?
SpaceOctopus19 June 2013
I know we were successful with The Office remake, but I wish people here would realize that doesn't mean any other remake of a good British show here is ever going to be any good again. Not only does there NOT need to be a remake of many of the shows we decide we want to ruin because so many of us Americans are too stupid to enjoy the original, but there SHOULDN'T be any remakes.
Do yourself a favor and watch the original. It's very good. Do yourself another favor and don't watch THIS horrible crap.
We need to stop remaking shows that are perfectly good the way they are already, and if someone likes the idea, to just convince someone to air it here as well. I'm tired of this unbelievable lack of originality that is becoming an epidemic in the media profession when it comes to television and movies. Good writers and directors are cast aside and ignored, and instead, talentless hacks who write whatever the heads want them to write, are hired and they don't have a single fresh idea in their body. Then they hire what they think are a bunch of "pretty" faces (which believe me, they're not.) who can't act their way out of a paper bag, and it makes it even worse. At least in the UK, they still hire REAL people to act and a lot of shows still have integrity. HBO on the other hand is still maintaining a fairly creative and original aura. Follow their lead, people! Just because it seems like the populace wants crappy TV, does not mean they do! Give us something NEW to think about! If you can't come up with a new idea, DON'T STEAL IT FROM THE British!
Honestly, I think that should be somewhat illegal....it seems like it already would be, considering copyright and stuff like that. What really really irks me is that the people here even have the audacity to slap "U.K." on the original and just leave the title the way it is here, when it should be the other way around. It's not "Skins UK" it is "SKINS"! This is "Skins U.S."! And guess what? It SUCKS! Just like every other bad remake. I'm just glad they haven't completely destroyed some of the very best British shows I love yet, and I just hope against all hope that it never happens. In fact, I hope someday soon, they'll realize they aren't ever going to get another "The Office". They were just lucky!
Do yourself a favor and watch the original. It's very good. Do yourself another favor and don't watch THIS horrible crap.
We need to stop remaking shows that are perfectly good the way they are already, and if someone likes the idea, to just convince someone to air it here as well. I'm tired of this unbelievable lack of originality that is becoming an epidemic in the media profession when it comes to television and movies. Good writers and directors are cast aside and ignored, and instead, talentless hacks who write whatever the heads want them to write, are hired and they don't have a single fresh idea in their body. Then they hire what they think are a bunch of "pretty" faces (which believe me, they're not.) who can't act their way out of a paper bag, and it makes it even worse. At least in the UK, they still hire REAL people to act and a lot of shows still have integrity. HBO on the other hand is still maintaining a fairly creative and original aura. Follow their lead, people! Just because it seems like the populace wants crappy TV, does not mean they do! Give us something NEW to think about! If you can't come up with a new idea, DON'T STEAL IT FROM THE British!
Honestly, I think that should be somewhat illegal....it seems like it already would be, considering copyright and stuff like that. What really really irks me is that the people here even have the audacity to slap "U.K." on the original and just leave the title the way it is here, when it should be the other way around. It's not "Skins UK" it is "SKINS"! This is "Skins U.S."! And guess what? It SUCKS! Just like every other bad remake. I'm just glad they haven't completely destroyed some of the very best British shows I love yet, and I just hope against all hope that it never happens. In fact, I hope someday soon, they'll realize they aren't ever going to get another "The Office". They were just lucky!
Should NOT have been attempted
onslow-7168311 September 2021
I remember when this first came out. I hadn't seen the original skins yet and I remember thinking to myself that I bet people would be upset. When I heard it was a remake of a British show that was about teens and controversial I figured that it would be watered down but I will admit I planned to watch as soon as I saw the commercial. I was around 18 and just the age group they were hoping to attract. But I wanted to dive into the original first because I just knew an American version would be way tamer. And for once the hype was true the original was freaking awesome and very realistic. And there is tons of drugs and sex and nudity but i think that being exposed to stuff makes you more mature about it. Anyway soon after I settled in for the American premiere. The 1st episode is basically a shot for shot remake except for 1 thing. In the original there is a gay male character named Maxi. Honestly he was one of my favorites. In the US version he's replaced by a pretty cheerleader lesbian. I think if you asked one of the writers or anyone affiliated with the show why they changed the character they'd probably say something like "lesbians aren't shown on teen shows and girl power blah." But in my opinion I believe that they felt Americans are more comfortable seeing very feminine lesbians (cheerleaders no less) have sex than males doing the same. And honestly in most cases(especially considering this was 10 yrs ago) it's true. Especially when it comes to males and even more true for males around the age the show is aimed at.
I know that may seem like a small change but it changes the plot significantly from the original. Since this show was canceled 10yrs ago I don't consider this a spoiler: In the original version Tony who is basically the main character is NOT a good guy in the 1st season at all. He's selfish and impulsive and will try anything if it feels good. He has a loyal girlfriend who cheats on constantly and she takes it. Then he sleeps with maxi to "try it." I had a feeling that wouldn't be in the US version but to change the characters sex changes everything. In the US version when him and his lesbian friend have sex it takes away the whole point. I felt like it showed how hedonistic and manipulative and almost sociopathic he is that he would basically change his sexual orientation and hurt EVERYONE involved because he was "bored" and wanted to try it." When it's a girl nothing is different for him and it pushes the idea that a lesbian can change for the right guy. I actually kept watching to see how it differed I was curious how the changes would affect the show and I was constantly amused how OUTRAGED parents were about the show. It was so watered down compared to the original but I knew it would happen. It got canceled after like 7 or 8 episodes cause all the sponsors pulled out because parents threatened to boycott. They said how this awful show would influence their kids to do drugs and have sex but I think the problem is they don't wanna know that this is what their kids are really doing and the show forces them to see it.
I know that may seem like a small change but it changes the plot significantly from the original. Since this show was canceled 10yrs ago I don't consider this a spoiler: In the original version Tony who is basically the main character is NOT a good guy in the 1st season at all. He's selfish and impulsive and will try anything if it feels good. He has a loyal girlfriend who cheats on constantly and she takes it. Then he sleeps with maxi to "try it." I had a feeling that wouldn't be in the US version but to change the characters sex changes everything. In the US version when him and his lesbian friend have sex it takes away the whole point. I felt like it showed how hedonistic and manipulative and almost sociopathic he is that he would basically change his sexual orientation and hurt EVERYONE involved because he was "bored" and wanted to try it." When it's a girl nothing is different for him and it pushes the idea that a lesbian can change for the right guy. I actually kept watching to see how it differed I was curious how the changes would affect the show and I was constantly amused how OUTRAGED parents were about the show. It was so watered down compared to the original but I knew it would happen. It got canceled after like 7 or 8 episodes cause all the sponsors pulled out because parents threatened to boycott. They said how this awful show would influence their kids to do drugs and have sex but I think the problem is they don't wanna know that this is what their kids are really doing and the show forces them to see it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
