Coupling

To say that some of us are snobs for viewing Coupling US as utter rubbish compared to the brilliant Coupling UK, is to say something completely unfounded and untrue. It is true that a large portion of the original script was used in the pilot of Coupling US, but the fact that the less-than-mediocre entrance of the US version was excruciatingly unfunny had more to do with the setting, the actors and the idea than the actual script. Please - for viewers who have seen the US version and not the British Coupling - take note: You can have the funniest lines in the world, but if they are delivered by an actor who has no grasp of the character the lines were intended for, has no comedic depth and is a mere imitation - not even a shadow - of the original character, those very same lines that you once found hilarious can suddenly be rendered lame and unoriginal. A sitcom is not only successful because of the funny lines produced during the show, but also by how successful the actors are at conveying those lines. And the actors themselves need to have some likability too. Sadly the US version falls short in every possible way. Many people have commented on how the actor playing Jeff has really disappointed fans by turning such a side-splittingly funny character into a teeth-grindingly inferior joke. But it doesn't end there - almost the entire cast is misplaced and unsuited for the characters they are portraying. Perhaps the British actors have outdone themselves to such a degree that they cannot be re-cast to the satisfaction of Coupling fans. But then, why should they have to be? The original was truly the best and I see no reason why it should have been remade. Edited perhaps, to fit into US time slots, but to be remade entirely is completely unnecessary and an all-round bad idea. The proof is in the pudding - if you don't believe me just have a look at how much this version of Coupling scored on the user rating.

Another thing that gripes me is the misconception by people who have only watched the US version, that this show is a cheap imitation of Friends. I can't stress enough how absolutely misguided this perception is! The original Coupling has three things in common with Friends - there are six central characters, three of them are women and three are men, and the show revolves around relationships. That's about where it ends. In Coupling, sex is discussed much more openly and at times, at length. If this puts you off, then read the tagline of the original Coupling - "It's better than foreplay". This show is about sex and if that offends or bores you, then don't expect to enjoy this very much sex-orientated sitcom. Friends would be more to your tastes then, obviously.

The argument that the Coupling characters are imitations of the Friends characters is also untrue. If you watch the original Coupling you'll notice that the characters are very well rounded off. I'm not saying the Friends characters weren't, but to say that Jeff is like Joey, Jane like Phoebe, etc. is nonsense. The characters in Coupling have more depth than the US pilot would have you believe. As writer Steven Moffat mentioned in an interview, his characters are people of extremes. Jeff and Sally are both, for example, extremely paranoid people. Jeff worries over every problem he might encounter, stresses over it, names it, numbers it, and ultimately falls victim to it with hilarious results. Sally is paranoid about her beauty, her age, her weight, her relationship status, what she wants in a man, how she wants to world to see her man, etc. Then you get Patrick and Jane, both extremely confident people. Patrick is a pioneer of supreme confidence, he has had many sexual encounters, he rarely if ever dwells on the possibility that things may go wrong and he is always pursuing his next sexual conquest. Jane, who is a self proclaimed bi-sexual and bi-vegetarian, is also a very confident person. She's sexually confident and romantically in a world of her own. A world where she imagines that she holds the key to the heart of a certain pizza delivery guy even though she has never met him. A world where she is only threatened by the concept of having to compete with God for a man's love. Then there is Steve and Susan, perhaps the most normal of the lot. They're trying to build a relationship in between the hilarious events and people that make part of their life and we have fun watching them do so.

In short, these characters are well developed. Not only that but their personalities drive the show. The situations they find themselves in are because of the type of people they are. For instance Jeff only finds himself in a situation where he pretends to have a wooden leg in order to date a hot woman, because his terrible communication skills allowed him to say, in a moment of panic, that he had is leg amputated. Similarly Patrick's confident, sex-driven character helped along the first break-up between Susan and Steve, thanks to his cupboard of love.

That's the beauty of the original Coupling. The characters, the lines, the actors, the setting - it all just clicked beautifully into place. To try and remake this in a different setting with the same lines was a terrible idea to begin with. And to compare it with Friends even more so, considering that the original Coupling was vastly superior in terms of situation comedy and in terms of character likability.

Just bad. Once you've seen the English version this comes across as a slap in the face to the creators. The actors are really not up to it, nothing can compare to the English cast, the chemistry just doesn't seem to be right here. And nobody else can really do Geoff the way he's supposed to be. I wasn't able to enjoy the U.S. version, it all just seemed wrong. As I have already stated the chemistry is just wrong. The cast don't really seem that comfortable with what they're doing. Since I love the original British version so much, I was expecting this to keep up the same level of quality, but it doesn't even come close. I'm not at all surprised that it was cancelled.

For those of you unfamiliar with Coupling (it means you've been living under a rock) it is a show from the great isle of Britain which is basically Friends... who have sex.

The show is wildly popular in Britain and made a splash on BBC America, and thanks to DVD the show has been reaching a broader audience. And with anything successful in Britain, America feels that they can take it and remake it better.

So in the same vain as Three's Company, Faulty Towers, and American idol, Coupling has been shipped to America, given a generic wrapper and dropped into the laps of the unsuspecting American couch potato. With the success and intelligent writing of the British version the American version is bound to be a success... right?

WRONG.

Bollocks is what I say dog bollocks to be more precise. From the first moment of casting, by the way the casting director should be shot, I knew this show as doomed for failure. Now I know they want to differentiate themselves from the original, but part of the appeal of the original show is who was cast in it. Each character in the British version was cast in such a precise way that half of the success of the show is based on the actor who performs their part. And since episode one was practically a word for word re- shooting of the original British version (minus 15 minutes since British programs run 45 minutes instead of 30) the miscasting took jokes that could and should have been funny, and made them, not, so funny.

To make matters worse a laugh track is used to elicit laughter in areas that are, not, funny. Granted, a few times I was forced to laugh, I won't deny it, but not as much as I did when I saw the original.

So the cast, Jay Harrington plays "Steve", Steve is supposed to be a bit of a dork, a nice guy, but not all that clever as portrayed by Jack Davenport (recently seen in Pirates of the Caribbean). Jay Harrington is not dorky, not clever, and to be honest not that interesting. Part of the reason why Steve's lines work is because of how Davenport delivers them, I realize its a pilot but Harrington has a lot to make up for.

Jane, Steve's "ex"-girlfriend is played by Lindsay Price, a petite, attractive, squeaky voiced girl, who would make a great Susan, but is no Gina Bellman. Again part of what makes Jane great is Bellman's performance, Jane is one of my favorite characters and I can't see Price pull it off. Again, she would have made a great Susan, but not Jane.

Speaking of Susan, Rena Sofer from General Hospital fame plays the role originally performed by Sarah Alexander. Alexander makes the role what it is, Sofer would have been a better Jane then sally, its evident the producers tried to use Sofer's appeal to make the show work, well it didn't, she was very uncomfortable in the role, Susan, a woman who enjoys sex but is embarrassed by it at the same time. I honestly don't think anything would embarrass Sofer.

Christopher Moynihan plays Jeff, Jeff makes the British version what it is, Jeff is the pivotal role involved with the success of the show, cast a bad Jeff and the show will fail, well let me tell you, boy did they ever cast a wrong Jeff. Richard Coyle, who plays the original is fantastic, he's funny, and goofy and just so "Jeff", Moynihan is everything Jeff isn't, and most of all he isn't funny. Originally Breckin Meyer (of Clueless fame) was cast as Jeff, had he remained the show might have been more successful.

Sonya Walger plays Sally, the self-obsessed neurotic best friend of Susan. I have to admit, Sally's my least favorite character, played by Kate Isitt in the original. Not to say that Isitt is a bad actress, she just plays the character so well, I'm annoyed. The ironic aspect of this is Walger, last seen in The Mind of the Married Man on HBO, is English, has an English accent, but for some asinine reason, they had her adopt an American accent, and a bad one a that. Walger's performance of Sally was practically unnoticeable, as I believe that most of her lines were cut to a lot for the 15 minutes needed to be cut.

Colin Ferguson plays the well endowed "stud" Patrick, and I have to say, Ferguson is probably the only cast member correctly cast. While he has yet to pull of the obtuse confidence of the original Ben Miles, he shows some promise. There's nothing I can really say about Ferguson except if they recast the show, please keep him.

So will the American version of Coupling even catch a glimpse of the success the original did? I would have to say with its current cast, no. Considering the original's appeal was the mix of witty dialogue and brilliant acting, something the American version lacks, its a testament at exactly how important the right casting director is. The American version was well written, but the characters just lacked any kind of appeal, it just made me long for more of the original.

Speaking of the original, why Hollywood didn't just pump money into the original and produce more of those instead of this mess is beyond me, evidently Hollywood feels that the average American cannot bear a British accent, but then again, how did the original become so popular?

Someone already gave an excellent breakdown of the American cast and how they are inferior to the original. It is not that American remakes can't be done ... "Three's Company" was basically a remake of a British show, and when I caught it on air, I was not impressed ... the American version was better. Perhaps perhaps perhaps it was just because it didn't translate well. Still, it shows that just because you remake a show doesn't mean it is necessarily bad. On the other hand, maybe the key is that the show was translated to American tastes, just as "Coupling" itself took "Seinfeld" and "Friends" and translated it into a form the British could recognize. If so, this remake is a bad translation.

It might be unfair to base this on one episode, but the problems do seem too basic to ignore. First off, the show was much more forced than the original, and had an annoying laugh track that just made it worse. The original is peopled with characters fascinated with sex but still in some sense sympathetic and human. The remake seems to be peopled with sitcom actors. All too stylish. The original was often hilarious but often restrained as well ... the remake, perhaps showing its American style, was less restrained. And, the original took place in Britian, but wasn't so "British" that was bothersome ... in fact, its British touches gave it some flavor. This takes place in Chicago, but the show has to put a sign in the bar with "Chicago" in it, since w/o that you'd have little reason to know these people lived there. Perhaps, the locale will be taken advantage of in the future, let's see.

The original was influenced by the properness of the British symbolized by Steve, who forever seems to be uncomfortable. The fact is that this is easily translated to America ... the fact is that many men here are uncomfortable with sex, fascinated and mesmerized by it, but deep down uncomfortable and unsure of themselves. It is human nature and if handled properly, could be the basis of a great comedy. The problem is that American sitcoms have gotten in a rut in which sex is so easily handled and tossed about, so that a more restrained show (especially one following the madcap "Will and Grace") would be deemed too much of a risk.

I will tell you what a risk is ... a nearly verbatim remake of a great show, one which many viewers could access for themselves, that is quite inferior to the original, but is so overhyped that expectations are rather high.

-j

PS In the original, Steve and Jane dated for years, but here, it was changed to one year. Perhaps, this is a symbol of the cheapening of the show ... in an American sitcom, one could not be together THAT long. Also, the original had a joke comparing their relationship to a husband driven to homicide ... the remake used a "Titanic" joke. Not quite the same image!

I adore the original BBC Version. Here I am watching the Clone....squirming here. I know these words. I know this situation. OK...too soon to tell. Oh, no!

SAME EXACT SCRIPT! How ridiculous! How pathetic...

Sigh....the thing is - EVERYONE in America will think just how "funny" this is. I don't get it. It IS already funny...in the BRITISH VERSION!

Is this like Shakespeare in the Park?

Stick with the BBC Version. They did it RIGHT...the FIRST time!

Must everything be "Americanized"? Why didn't they just show the British version so those great actors could share in the glory?

Sigh....