How does it compare to 'Sanford and Son' ?
I have never seen an episode of "Steptoe and Son" but I LOVE Sanford and Son. Any opinions on whether Redd Foxx and company did a worthy or even better adaptation of this series ?
share[deleted]
I've only seen bits of Sanford & Son on youtube (i'm in the UK) so maybe i'm a bit biased. However from what i have seen of the US version, it looks like it was made with the sit com market in mind. Steptoe & Son (UK) was more like a drama with a comedic edge. It has a very dark soul at times and the pathos is very evident (especially the friction between Harold & Albert, almost like a shakespeare tragi-comedy). It would move between comedy and tragedy very easily and was exceptionally well played by two straight actors. The US version however seems very much made for laughs and is played by two comedians (a clue to the different approach perhaps?). One of the ones i saw on youtube even has a plot evolving round the girl group The Three Degrees as a nod to its commercial appeal. It also seems to concentrate more on Red Foxx's character more whilst the UK version never really favoured either character. I think anyone who isn't familiar with the other version should check out youtube and then make a judgement.
share[deleted]
Apart from the odd episode such as the one where the old man goes to his brothers funeral or when Harolds Australian half brother turns up, no relatives featured regularly. I think that was an incvention purely for the American version.
And yes, in the UK version the father would frequently clutch his chest and feign a heart attack when he wanted his own way. "I'm going, Harold" was one of his funniest lines.
[deleted]
Yes you are quite correct. "I'm going Harold" was an occasional phrase and did not feature in every single episode. It was used sparingly to show the lengths the old man would go to to get his own way when all else failed.
More to the point, i wonder how Galton & Simpson felt when they saw the US version? Mind you, i expect the royalty cheques helped soften the blow!
[deleted]
Your points may be valid but it doesnt change the fact that the American producers tinkered with the show for commercial reasons and it became a success. The BBC do not have the same commercial pressure on them when developing a TV series so they can afford to take some chances. But if an American show doesn't get ratings pretty quickly then it gets cancelled. With this in mind i can see why Sandford & son developed the way it did (even though i may not like it). When an American network tried to copy the UK series Dads Army in the 70's it didnt get beyond a pilot show. And the US version of Fawlty Towers was completely pointless because the UK version was already well known and liked. The US version of 'Dear John' was a moderate success but traded off the biting satire and angst of the UK version and made it a star vehicle for Judd Hirsch instead(although it did stick reasonably closely to the same storylines as the UK version).
I really got a lot of information from you other users. Thank you for your knowledge and insight.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't find your comments to be racists I do find them to be pompous. It's in that way that I find your comments to be offensive. First of all what "You" expect and what was intended is 2 different things. Sanford & Son was in the top 10 in ratings for every episode it did. Maybe for you that might not quantify as being good but I am sure most would agree that is really impressive. As far as the circus comment I guess you are going to suggest to everybody that Steptoe never had a episode anybody could say was a "Circus"?
shareThe original was much more than a sitcom, is was at times a tragi-drama, all too real in the bleak years after the second world war. 'Sanford' just seemed typical sitcom fare, having said that, I only saw one season of it but it didn't have the pathos and intricate writing the original thrived on. However, I'm British so I may be biased.
shareLook, it's very possible that Steptoe and Son was the higher quality product, since theirs (the UK's) USUALLY is (Office, notwithstansing). That said, you can't take away how successful Sanford and Son was in the United States, and the fond memories people here have of it.
"Mark this moment, Doctor. In the history of the universe, this moment is unique. Davros lives!"
steptoe is a classic and their are a few reasons for that. The actors, you couldn't hand pick better. They just 'suit' the role. Fantastic expression in terms of facial, mannerisms etc
I saw a few of sanford and switched it off.......
it's a completely different product. Which is better? Steptoe, by a country mile.
But going from steptoe to sanford - it really is the only conclusion because for what it's meant to represent - it's better on all counts
Of course people will love sanford, and some would prefer it to steptoe but gonig from steptoe and then watching sanford - honestly it's not even close
It's not about black or white. There are many factors. Uk is good at it's humor and Usa is good at what its humor
Steptoe was very british - just like red dwarf and usa ruined it - in my opinion - but I always think it's dangerous to bring a product to another country, without the stars of the show.
But honestly steptoe's class while standford, for me is standard fare.
That's not to be rude or critical but it was a show in itself but one that didn't have the cast (in terms of the mood, expressions etc) and 'felt' different - not as special.
steptoe is a classic and their are a few reasons for that. The actors, you couldn't hand pick better. They just 'suit' the role. Fantastic expression in terms of facial, mannerisms etc
I saw a few of sanford and switched it off.......
it's a completely different product. Which is better? Steptoe, by a country mile.
But going from steptoe to sanford - it really is the only conclusion because for what it's meant to represent - it's better on all counts
Of course people will love sanford, and some would prefer it to steptoe but gonig from steptoe and then watching sanford - honestly it's not even close
It's not about black or white. There are many factors. Uk is good at it's humor and Usa is good at what its humor
Steptoe was very british - just like red dwarf and usa ruined it - in my opinion - but I always think it's dangerous to bring a product to another country, without the stars of the show.
But honestly steptoe's class while standford, for me is standard fare.
That's not to be rude or critical but it was a show in itself but one that didn't have the cast (in terms of the mood, expressions etc) and 'felt' different - not as special.
steptoe is a classic and their are a few reasons for that. The actors, you couldn't hand pick better. They just 'suit' the role. Fantastic expression in terms of facial, mannerisms etc
I saw a few of sanford and switched it off.......
it's a completely different product. Which is better? Steptoe, by a country mile.
But going from steptoe to sanford - it really is the only conclusion because for what it's meant to represent - it's better on all counts
Of course people will love sanford, and some would prefer it to steptoe but gonig from steptoe and then watching sanford - honestly it's not even close
It's not about black or white. There are many factors. Uk is good at it's humor and Usa is good at what its humor
Steptoe was very british - just like red dwarf and usa ruined it - in my opinion - but I always think it's dangerous to bring a product to another country, without the stars of the show.
But honestly steptoe's class while standford, for me is standard fare.
That's not to be rude or critical but it was a show in itself but one that didn't have the cast (in terms of the mood, expressions etc) and 'felt' different - not as special.
The original was much more than a sitcom, is was at times a tragi-drama, all too real in the bleak years after the second world war. 'Sanford' just seemed typical sitcom fare, having said that, I only saw one season of it but it didn't have the pathos and intricate writing the original thrived on. However, I'm British so I may be biased.
But that's just it, Steptoe while a well crafted program also spoke to people at that time perfectly. But at the same time the United States couldn't have been more different. The 'bleak years' after WWII were probably the most prosperous years that the US and Canada ever had. I'm not saying Americans can't appreciate pathos but it would look a little foreign on tv at that time when everything else was always promoting prosperity and fantasy. share
I watched a couple of episodes of Sanford and Son on youtube, at first i was a bit sceptical because i have been a massive fan of Steptoe and Son for a long time and even though the shows are similar in some respects, i found them to be quite different. To awnser the OP's question i personally dont think you can compare them. The fact that one is British and one is American makes them a different show. The sense of humour is different.
Greed is for amateurs. Disorder, chaos, anarchy: now that's fun! - TOP DOLLAR
Where can I find S&S episodes? I just realized that is ambiguous ;-)
Steptoe and Son.
You have it.
The shows were different.
Sanford and Son was funny in its own way. It was best when it wasn't remaking Steptoe episodes.