GEMMA JOHNSON, a die-hard fan of the UK Ghosts, weighs it against the US remake and finds it missing the humour, heart and charm that made the BBC original a hit
UK Ghosts vs US Ghosts
Typically, I do prefer US versions of shows. The US Office is far superior to the UK Office, and Superstore tramples all over our version, Trollied.
(Side note: I will never, ever accept the US version of Shameless. Frank Gallagher must be 100% Mancunian. Period.)
Having now reviewed all episodes of BBC’s Ghosts, Spooky Isles asked me to take a look at the first series of the US version and to see how it compares.
Full disclosure — I approached this with an open mind and aimed to watch all of the first series, all 18 episodes of it.
I abandoned ship at episode three.
Here are the reasons why I just couldn’t connect with this version.
Mike vs Jay
In the US version, the lead ‘alive’ male is Jay, played by Utkarsh Ambudkar. From the start, I had trouble connecting with his character — he seemed dull and quite monotonous. There was a distinct lack of comedy.
In the UK version, we have Mike, played by Kiell Smith-Bynoe. He is a master of comedic timing, and this was evident right from episode one. Mike and Jay are essentially background characters during these early episodes, with the ghosts and Alison/Samantha taking centre stage. But there’s a lot to be said for the quality of an actor who can still steal a scene when the focus isn’t on him.
One moment that highlighted the difference between Jay and Mike was when they decide to start renovations on the house. Jay takes a drill and starts on a bedroom wall. There’s nothing remarkable about the scene — had I not seen the UK version, I would have thought nothing of it.
Mike, on the other hand, approaches the wall like a robot, clutching his drill and singing, “Daddy gonna put a hole in the wall,” which leads to further hilarity from the ghosts’ perspective. He adds humour with facial expressions and body language alone. Jay didn’t seem to have the same ability — he mostly looked annoyed and irritated.
Button House vs Woodstone Mansion
The homes in both versions are supposedly abandoned and neglected. One of the central plots is about Alison and Mike / Samantha and Jay renovating the property to try to make money.
Both houses appear dilapidated from the outside, with the promise of DIY horrors inside. But here’s where the next problem arises.
The inside of Woodstone Mansion is far too perfect from the moment Samantha and Jay open the front door. Immaculate furniture, polished floors — it all feels too pristine. In contrast, Button House’s interior matches its exterior. It’s run down, dusty and feels like it could collapse at any point.
Take the boiler, for instance. In Woodstone Mansion, it’s a full-sized, shiny, modern white unit. In Button House, it’s rusted, ancient and borderline sentient — far more believable for a crumbling property.
Alison and Mike were desperate to make money just to keep the house from falling down. That desperation was convincing. With Jay and Samantha, the urgency isn’t there because the mansion is just too perfect — and as a result, a lot of comedic potential is lost.
Plague People vs Cholera People
I completely understand the need to change the type of illness the basement ghosts have — that’s not the issue.
What I loved most about the UK plague people was that they were played by the same actors who portrayed the main ghosts. That existing rapport came through in the scenes and added charm. In the US version, they’re played by different cast members, and the connection just isn’t there. The basement scenes fall flat.
The space itself doesn’t help. In Button House, the basement is dark, cramped and genuinely creepy — the perfect setup for a gag. In Woodstone Mansion, it’s spacious and oddly well-lit, which kills the tension and comedy.
When Samantha and Jay first go down there and switch on the light, it’s not even that dark to begin with, so the reveal of the Cholera people is far less surprising. In contrast, Button House’s basement is pitch-black, making the ghosts’ appearance far more shocking — and funnier.
The Ghosts
I was surprised that there’s no witch-based character in the US version, especially given their own history with witch trials. Mary was a stellar character in the UK series, and I think she would have translated brilliantly to a US audience.
There’s also no Humphrey equivalent — another missed opportunity. Were witches and headless men a step too far for the US?
Some of the characters were like-for-like with tweaks. Some worked better than others. I struggled with Hetty, the lady of the mansion. She was too demure and restrained. Fanny, on the other hand, was loud, shrill and neurotic — very believable as a former lady of the house.
I also didn’t connect with Flower, the US counterpart to Kitty. She’s a spaced-out hippie who talks about getting high and peace and love. I just found it odd and hard to relate to. Kitty is far superior — her genuine innocence and naivety made her instantly loveable.
The Writing
The UK version is full of dry, sarcastic humour — something we Brits do particularly well. The US version lacks that edge. That’s one of the reasons the first series fell flat for me.
The first three episodes — the ones I managed to watch — mirrored the UK version’s storylines. Even though I’ve seen those UK episodes countless times, they still make me laugh. With the US version, not a single chuckle. Not even a smirk.
Since becoming the Spooky Isles reviewer for Ghosts, I’ve had many people tell me to try the US version. But I’ve also had people warn me to avoid it.
Sadly, I have to agree with the latter.
What did you think of this article about UK vs US Ghosts? Have you watched both versions? Share your thoughts in the comments!
