Skins

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.

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.

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 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.

...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.