I haven't seen it, but it's sort of different than your's in that the dude goes back to high school, which is different than your novel.

My housemate watched it and said it wasn't horrible and that he'd watch it again. But then again, this is the guy who watched Models, Inc when it was on the air. So figure that into the equation too.

Thought I'd let you know.

Sam

No I did not see, and I do not plan to see. This is a well worn plot & the promos were as interseting as watching paint dry.

TK

I actually liked it. It's not something I normally would have watched, and I went in expecting to hate it. But the kid who plays the lead was very good, the rest of the acting was pretty good and the writing didn't suck. The script wasn't *great*, mind you, but it was pleasant enough and I laughed a few times. I'd watch it again, but it's not something I'd go out of my way to catch every week. I didn't think to tape it, but I can tape it this week if anyone wants it.

The difference between "Do Over" and the other show with the similar premise ("That Was Then") by the way, is that "Do Over" is the half-hour sitcom version and "That Was Then" is the hour drama version. Also, I read somewhere that the "That Was Then" character is able to go back and forth between the past and present, which (so far) the "Do Over" main character can't do.

I watched part of it because I'd heard you talk about it. Frankly, I thought it was boring.

Nope, haven't seen it in Oz -- probably not surprising. What is surprising is the title -- wasn't that the same as the one you chose for your novel?

If so, I guess the TV show has dibs on the name coz they got there first. So unless you want to sell your novel as a novelisation of the TV show...

On the marketing front, though, you may have an advantage in getting a publisher interested, provided that i) your novel is sufficiently similar to a successful TV programme, but ii) your novel is sufficiently *different* that you won't be accused of stealing their story.

As for the constitutional rights of protesters -- over here, protesters don't have any: no right of assembly, no right of anything except religious freedom and compensation if the State takes away their property.

However we still let them protest...dunno why, since according to Charlton Heston and the NRA our government should be oppressing the $#@& out of them because they can't have firearms. Perhaps we're just a bunch of softcocks.

MB