Reasons Why It's The WORST REMAKE EVER

I'll admit i didn't watch the entire episode, mainly because of the prejudices im holding as an Australian.

I think another reason why this series won't do so well is because the australian kath and kim weren't just thrown together in a matter of months for the sake of making a series; they were developed over a long period of time. Fast Forward and Big Girls' Blouse gave us glimpses of what would become K&K, but Gina, Jane and Magda had worked on charater development to the bone. They took the time to create characters we would love and hate, whereas the US version they have no substance. Now, if they only sat down and took their time with the narrative structures, it might have been ok. Look at shows like Scrubs; they did their homework and it paid off!

and on no.12: no one, and i mean NO ONE, could do a pathetically adorable sports nutter like Madga. No one should play Sharon if it isn't played by her! i mean, the season 4 finale with "Wayne" had me crying in delight!

Well, I enjoyed it, even though I agree with everything you said. The original episodes might be better, hopefully...
The one main thing that bugged me was the way they messed up the Bodyguard joke. That was just bad writing.

---
"I don't keep typing paper in the closet!"

I wanted to reflect on your points:

1) I feel the same way. I feel like the writers came up with a few loose ideas and said "go for it!" I feel it wasn't well thought out at all. American humor is getting like that. For instance Saturday Night Live here is like that, take a spontaneous idea and try to make a 10 minute skit out of it. It doesn't work most of the time, but I guess then you don't need to hire writers, you can do it all off the cuff...oh wait, that doesn't work? You must not have a sense of humor, because this is some CRAAAAZEEE stuff. Look at us, waling through the mall being ZANY!!! (Irony intended).

2) There is no character development. It's spoiled brat vs. horny cougar. That's it. We learn nothing about the characters, nothing changes them, they react to nothing.

3) I am not sure, even as an American, what they are making fun of. I guess it is people who go to malls or spoiled brats or horny cougars. I am sure any of those could be made fun of in better ways than this show.

4) I would like to see the 47 year old stuffed in PVC pants instead of Selma Blair. It would be funnier. But I guess we can't have non-model people on our shows unless they are in the background (like the Office US version). I didn't watch Ugly Betty because, basically, Ugly Betty isn't ugly, she's a pretty girl made to look what TV people in America think is supposedly ugly. Which isn't that ugly or different. Ok, it doesn't have to be the other extreme, like complete ugly, but not model perfect.

5) The camerawork is nutty. I don't know why it is the way it is.

6) I can't even remember voice overs in the show. I forget a lot about the show. But I never forget it isn't that funny.

7) Yeah, or they mispronounce words in cliched phrases or get the whole phrase wrong. I've heard that about 5-6 times now and only have seen three of the shows.

8) Us Americans is dumb. I am surprised we don't have a laugh track to tell us where to laugh, so in that case, we get long pauses and actors to do dumb double take looks to tell us it's funny.

9) Ebbbony-Rae with three B's? Sounds funny. See, the other version sounds funnier even in print vs me seeing it. There is no sense of irony. Maybe that is why it comes off petty and surface. I just don't see why I should care about the American Kath and Kim, they seem dull and not developing. I find the characters like the best friends who come in for an episode more interesting. I keep feel it will get better and it doesn't.

10) I have noticed Selma stares down the camera a lot. I think this is supposed to be funny, like she is showing her disdain. But it doesn't work.

11) That is probably why I don't like it. It is all surface. I mean, watch the intro to the credits, it's two people walking in a mall. That's it. You need not watch further if you don't want the same. And that is supposed to be hilarious on its own and it isn't. There has to be character and plot. I am sure Shannon and Blair can act, I am just not sure if they know what to do with their characters. It is just a badly developed show in this version. I mean, I'd watch it if it improves, I just don't because I am sure it won't.

12) Can we steal Sharon, whomever she is? Is she funny? :P

I'm aussie, like the aussie version, and i like the USA version. I don't compare, don't judge them to each other. To be they are seperate shows on different analogues of aimilar characters in different countries.

I am sorry but Selma Blair adds something really great, different and unque to the kim character.

Great analysis - spot-on! Sorry, but I don't get why anyone responds to this with 'but they're different shows for different audiences'. Yes, but the post is about why one is done BADLY. And it could have been adapted for an American audience without being so bad. I happen to like both versions of the Office, and I think the makers of the American version did a good job of making the humour a bit more accessible to American audiences without dumbing it down too much. If someone goes to the effort to argue in detail, I think it's fair to respond in kind if you disagree. It seems like the counterargument should be for why you think it ISN'T bad, not just that it's a different audience - which clearly the OP and respondents are more than intelligent enough to grasp.

Honestly, I didn't expect too much from this show - I might have, given Molly & Selma's involvement, but the stills of the two in character made it apparent it would probably miss the point. Such an overly co-ordinated, stylised idea of 'tackiness' in the costuming - half the humour is missing when you get that wrong! But I was willing to give it a chance.

I'm stunned at how much worse it is than I imagined. I at least expected them to translate the dagginess into some sort of hick-ness or whatever is the equivalent.

This is one of the most superficial takes on something I've ever seen. It makes it seem really calculating, like 'this is a hit in Australia, let's try it here' and nothing more. It seems like not only did NO thought go into how to adapt this, there just wasn't even the slightest understanding of what this show is about to start with. Like they just thought it was about the zaniness instead of all the carefully-constructed elements, so well outlined by other posters here, that make it brilliant. If they had the smallest inkling of that, they wouldn't have had to dig deep to find the equivalent in America to poke fun at.

This was just so dull and so dry, like they thought dryness for dryness' sake would carry it. There was nothing to the characters, no personality whatsoever. And then, bizarrely, every now and then one of them would straight-out mimic the Aussie Kath/Kim.

The actors don't commit at all, and though they are clearly not working in the most inspired environment, they could have made it much better. I thought Selma could've done much better considering her John Waters role. Her performance is lifeless. Obviously the makers of this think that's the essence of the characters in Kath & Kim, thinking they are just blank and not much acting goes into them, and fail to see how much effort is in the Australian performances. Molly should do much better too, instead being too flat and serious, and then going into skit-like wackiness at random moments that feel forced.


The other characters are just dull peripheral stereotypes you typically find in a mediocre dramedy. They just further remind us how much this show tries to coast on what someone else has created, without having the balls to go where they did.

And I really agree, the Hollywood-isation of how they look kills this, both because costuming is an important element of the satire which helps define the characters, and because it makes the whole thing very neutralised, very neither-here-nor-there. It's like they want them to look tacky, but not truly awful and it just makes it non-committal, which can't work for comedy. Sometimes Kath looks like a reasonably stylish suburban Mum. Obviously the clothes aren't that cheap either (neither hers nor Selma's).

It ends up showing how out of touch Hollywood stylists are, that they have no concept what a lot of real people wear nor can relax from micro-coordinating everything. It's so carefully, expensively tacky! Not effortlessly slovenly like Aussie Kim or unawarely dated like Kath. Everyone behind this has clearly lost touch with real body types, too. Selma Blair, who has at times been scarily emaciated, puts on enough weight to have the same amount of flesh as many real-world women with enviably slender figures, and we're meant to see her as a bit fat?!

It's just one of many things that make this not just poorly done, but disingenuous. Like some Hollywood producers came up with their idea of fat, classless people - from a distance - and are laughing AT them. And think we will too, because "OMG, like, Molly Shannon's hair is, like what I totally saw on some mom in Kmart - ew!- in 2005!"

When we should be laughing with them. The makers of this don't seem to get either the characters OR their audience. The show should have come from people - writers, producers, actors - who know the life Kath & Kim satirise all too well, and who have both a real affection for it and see the deeply hilarious side.

I agree with your post. The Phil character is absolutely flat compared to Kel. Kel was great with his lisp, his weird hairdo, his past sperm donations, his past gay sex, his hunk of spunk, etc.

Sharon really made the show in the first two series of the original. The third and fourth series of the original were pretty bad, in my opinion, and the Sharon character was much less developed, and much less necessary. Sharon is a character the US show is really missing out on.

Molly Shannon's character is so bad compared to the original that I don't even want to comment on it.

I love Selma Blair, but she is not very good as Kim. Kim was a blob who stuffed herself into tight clothes that made her fat drip all over herself, but Selma just looks like she's pushing her stomach out all the time. Selma is way too young and way too skinny. In the original, Jane (Kath) and Gina (Kim) were the same age, and Kim playing her daughter was part of the joke. Selma plays being a b!tch pretty well, but it's not relating to the show in a workable way.

Craig is also the fallout of Kim being cast too young. Brett was older, balding, and had great sarcasm and played being exhausted with Kath & Kim well. Craig is flat. Craig just plays a nice 'kid'.

There is no direction with this show. They don't seem to have a point. It's just a meandering mess, which I assume is the problem of the US filming too many shows, and that causes them to dilute the original point too much to spread out the episodes.

"We only saw clips from the totally hilarious Aussie version."

This line here tells me you're crazy. Both version sucks, but truthfully the Aussie version actually sucks a little bit more than the American version.

I'm neither American or Australian, but I do enjoy other Australian Comedy-shows (especially The Wedge), this show however just is not funny at all, it's way to stupid to be funny. Especially Kim who is so spoiled it makes it embarassing to watch really ruins it in both series.

Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.