The movie's gonna be centered more around the "second generation" cast, but the originals are supposed to make appearances.

what does "skins" mean in the UK usage and the context of this show?

what does "skins" mean in the UK usage and the context of this show?

It's British slang for rolling a joint, or any type of paper.

It's British slang for rolling a joint, or any type of paper.

oh, we just called them "papers"

"you got papers?"

oh, we just called them "papers"

"you got papers?"

LOL! Oh now I get it. I've heard that before. Why couldn't they call the U.S. version "Papers"...or "Blunts" instead?...lol I could see it working.

Edited January 18, 201115 yr by AllmyDaysatGH

"Skins" as a title fulfills so many themes though, lol. It's pot, it's sex, it's your true identity, etc. They should have tried to play up those meanings instead of having American teenagers refer to "skins." Maybe they thought they'd introduce that slang to the US and in a year's time, ALLLL pot smokers will refer to their papers as skins. Who knows.

I saw nothing wrong with the title. I think most people got it.

Especially because during the show, while holding a bag of WEED, a character asked "You got any skins?" to which another replied "I hope so, I need to relax!"...Who could have NOT gotten that?

I saw nothing wrong with the title. I think most people got it.

Especially because during the show, while holding a bag of WEED, a character asked "You got any skins?" to which another replied "I hope so, I need to relax!"...Who could have NOT gotten that?

Right. But British teens talk like that. American teens do not.

It's like if they referred to an apartment as a "flat."

You're right, most don't. But some do, well some I know.

And changing the name of the show would have made it, probably, all together seperated from the other show. I think a lot of the buzz and hype around the show was that it was a a real replica of the british version Skins. If the name was different, it wouldn't be the same, IMO.

I don't know...I kinda disagree. I think it would have been in their better interest to separate it from the original as much as possible. A lot of people didn't and still don't realize that it's a US version of a UK show, and those that knew that are finding it hard to judge it for what it is and not in relation to the original. MTV should have just did their own dang thing.

And changing the name of the show would have made it, probably, all together seperated from the other show. I think a lot of the buzz and hype around the show was that it was a a real replica of the british version Skins. If the name was different, it wouldn't be the same, IMO.

I don't want it to be exactly the same as the UK's though...the U.S. version could have it's own little spin on things while still getting it's influence from the original. From what I read it's pretty much the exact same thing and some people think that's good but I think it's a bit of a mistake.

Edited January 19, 201115 yr by AllmyDaysatGH

I don't want it to be exactly the same as the UK's though...the U.S. version could have it's own little spin on things while still getting it's influence from the original. From what I read it's pretty much the exact same thing and some people think that's good but I think it's a bit of a mistake.

I don't think it's a complete mistake. But I agree on some level. The stories of the original are very, very good. And I think some of them are things that need to be told in an American version. The UK "Skins" really made an impact over there. So I think having a remake of the show here is a very good idea. It's not a carbon copy. THere will be differences. Hell, there already are. But having it be called "Skins" just gives it even more hype and attetnion, because of the fame and notoriety of the original.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/01/cable-ratings-hannah-montana-finale-piers-morgan-premiere-and-more.html

- A decidedly less warm-and-fuzzy show about teenagers, "Skins," debuted to a little under 3.3 million viewers on MTV Monday. The remake of the British show -- which attracted a good deal of pre-premiere controversy -- also delivered 2.7 million viewers in the channel's core demographic of teens and adults under 35. MTV says it was the best series launch in that demo in network history.

I still haven't seen it, but apparently it's child porn? What-the-f-ever, America.

It always makes me ashamed as an American, that the British have no problem importing Friends, Golden Girls, Lost, Flintstones, whatever..without having to remake it with a British cast. The US though I think outside of The Avengers with Diana Rigg and Patrick McNee 45 years ago just cannot contemplate importing a show with accents. There are occasional shows that do make it in syndication (Fawlty Towers, even Benny Hill) but it never is an option to just buy the British program and air it at 10 PM for some reason.