• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

TV show reboots never seem as good

tall_guy1

tall_guy1

Am watching the King of the Hill reboot. While nice to see the characters again, reboots like this always have an awkward "time gap" feel to it as if someone from a different time came to "visit" us from the past. Usually if it's within the same decade or so, it works (like Futurama the first time it came back, but the new one had a longer "jump" in time), but I remember Will and Grace feeling "off" when it came back in 2017. Your thoughts?
 
I think the disappointment lies in a side by side comparison of the reboot to the original. When I watch a reboot, I'll judge it on own merits, the quality of acting, writing, and storylines. The reboot will always be inferior if you're constantly comparing to it's original, it will never live up to your expectations.

Just give it a chance on it's own. But then, you also have outright flops like the 'Murphy Brown' reboot. Ugh!
 
KilowattKat said:
'Anf Just Like That....' is/was a good reboot of ' Sex And The City'.

I also enjoyed 'The Connors', even without Roseanne Barr.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like a continuation, rather than a reboot. Same with "The Connors". Another example of a recent continuation is "Justified: City Primeval". "Justified is one of my all-time favorite shows, and while the update replaced the neo-western Kentucky charm and humor with grittier Detroit noir, it was still pretty good.

A reboot would be like the newer version of "Hawaii Five-0", which was pretty decent in it's own way. It was it's own show, and didn't acknowledge the original. Unfortunately , it led to lesser reboots like "Magnum PI" and the truly awful "MacGyver" update.
 
KilowattKat said:
I think the disappointment lies in a side by side comparison of the reboot to the original. When I watch a reboot, I'll judge it on own merits, the quality of acting, writing, and storylines. The reboot will always be inferior if you're constantly comparing to it's original, it will never live up to your expectations.

Just give it a chance on it's own. But then, you also have outright flops like the 'Murphy Brown' reboot. Ugh!
Click to expand...
Sadly I think Candace had lost her comedic timing
 
I didn't care for 'That 90's Show', Not as funny as 'That 70's Show'. The new characters they brought on, really made it unwatchable.

The new 'Frasier' also didn't connect with me like the original It was more than not having Miles, Daphne, and Martin. The original set such a high standard, that there was no way of reaching that again.
 
Last edited:
I honestly thought King of the Hill was one of the better reboots. I actually thoroughly enjoyed it compared to other reboot efforts. It seemed natural and not forced to me.
 
There was really no way they were ever going to re-do Night Court all these decades later, without Harry Anderson and Markie Post. They tried to "jump the shark" by bringing a couple of Melissa Rausch's Big Bang Theory castmates on but the cancellation hammer still came
 
gr8oldies said:
There was really no way they were ever going to re-do Night Court all these decades later, without Harry Anderson and Markie Post. They tried to "jump the shark" by bringing a couple of Melissa Rausch's Big Bang Theory castmates on but the cancellation hammer still came
Click to expand...
Changing John Larroquette’s character wasn’t great either, but Wendie Malick was great as always.
 


Back
Top Bottom