-
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
‘Bewitched’ Remake Eyed By Networks
- Thread starter mvcg66b3r
- Start date
I have only one word .... NO!
Why not?
Have you seen the movie?
Bewitched had a great run on TV.
That was fifty years ago.
Bewitched had a great run on TV.
That was fifty years ago.
They keep going back to these older shows for remakes that turn out awful. Remember the attempts at remaking The Addams Family? The more recent Munsters abortion? We've got an Odd Couple remake coming up on CBS that I'm seriously hoping they don't destroy (although I find Matthew Perry being cast as Oscar to be brilliant). Try some original programming. Take chances. Learn to hire people who can actually write and entertain an audience instead of trying to do what's already been done -- and failing miserably at it.
Last edited:
The movie had horrible casting with Will Ferrell! ....though I liked Kidman as a witch.
This will polarize fans of the original series just like JarJar has done with Star Trek..I guess Hollywood has run out of new ideas...(I can see another MASH coming out?? EGADS)
As both a Star Wars and Star Trek fan, I take great personal offense at the idea of Jar Jar Binks tarnishing both of those franchises...
The magic in those old shows, if indeed there is magic, is the cast. Those actors created those roles and can never be replaced in anyone who has ever seen them. Like The Little Rascals disaster a few years ago, you cannot simple replace a set of characters and have anything good come out of it.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Coming from a professional actor, that's saying something. Yes, the cast is important. But so are the scripts and all the other elements that go into the show. There are well over a dozen film versions of Hamlet, with different actors in the cast. Some were better than others, but you couldn't say "nothing good came out of it".
Most sitcoms are crap. But then, most of everything is crap. Chances are if they were to do a remake of Bewitched, it would be crap. But chances are that if the same creative team were to create a whole new sitcom totally from scratch, it would still be crap. Given how old Bewitched is, they could just as easily come up with a "new" sitcom based on the same premise with a new name. Or, they could do the classic TV switcheroo and do a sitcom where the husband has magick powers instead of the wife. There's a long history of such reversals. McHale's Navy lead to Broadside, a failed attempt at doing the exact same show, except about WAVES. Welcome Back Kotter lead to Head of the Class, with underachieving sweathogs replaced with overachieving IHP students. The Beverly Hillbillies lead to Green Acres. Mr. Ed lead to My Mother the Car.
Or, you could make a case that Charmed was merely a "prequel" to Bewitched, about a re-named Samantha and her two sisters before Sam married Darwin (or Durwood, or whatever Sam's mother called Darrin). For that matter, Bewitched was little more than I Love Lucy with the twist of making Lucy a with and giving Ricky a different name, accent, and job.
Frankly, I'm more pessimistic about the chances of this being a success because the two writers have no sitcom experience. Sitcoms are very, very different from feature films. Just because they wrote a few good romcom movies, like He's Just Not That Into You, doesn't mean they can write sitcoms. Their only previous attempt of note at a sitcom was Opposite Sex, which lasted 8 episodes. There's a chance that this might not suck, but I'd say the chance is small. It sounds like just another project for pilot season that will never be aired.
Actually that would be the SECOND remake of the original Odd Couple TV series. Remember the 1980's version with Ron Glass as Felix Unger and Demond Wilson as Oscar Madison?
Yes, I didn't mean to say that the upcoming version was the only remake. Of course, that was the product of a writers' strike, which is rarely a good thing, as evidenced by the fact that it didn't even make it out of that season.
I was talking in the context of modern TV shows patterned after older shows or movies. These are very different from stage and movies made over the past few hundred years. You are way off topic here - which apparently tends to be your approach to most subjects.
You should become a critic.
Those two shows were entirely different. The main premise for Lucy was her repeated attempts to get into show business, first with Ricky's band and club and later into the movies. Bewitched was more like I Dream of Jeannie where Samantha constantly interferes with her husbands job. There was no magic in Lucy and nothing but magic in Bewitched.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Remember also that the first Odd Couple TV series was adapted from a movie, as was one of the best shows in the history of television, M*A*S*H.
I don't give a damn what medium is it, the casting is not more important than the writing, direction, cinematography, and all the other elements that go into making a show what it is. Just because you're taking an extremely narrow view of reality, that doesn't change the fact that when it comes to putting fictional stories on film, there are lots of elements involved, not just casting.
I don't care how good a cast is, give them bad scripts and the show will suck.
Last edited:
M
Mario500
Guest
Why did you refer to one person by two names and another person by only one name? The reason I asked is because I believe the person you had referenced by only one name had both a first name and a last name and would rather have both names mentioned while being referenced for the first time in a conversation (it would be much more respectful).
Last edited:
One reason for the remake could be the advances in CGI - a new show would really be able to wow the viewers with special fx - no more floating spoons wobbling on fishing line, like the original.
If they're smart, they'll update the premise ... but not like they did in the movie. The movie, while it had its fun moments, looked like a pasted together disaster that one group of writers tried to save from another.
Here's a more modern premise: People know Samantha's a witch. She's "out." (Archie comics have gone there with Sabrina.) But, she still has her mortal husband and decides to live in the mortal world. It's no longer about hiding that she's a witch. It's about fitting in without ruffling the feathers of neighbors, Darren's family, co-workers, etc. And Samantha could be in her own workplace, too. No more stay at home mom. And you could still have episodes about the two kids in the mortal world, too, at school, in sports, etc.
And as to the argument it'd never be good with a new set of actors: The chemistry between Elizabeth Montgomery and Dick York was excellent (with Dick Sargent, eh, not so much).
And the supporting cast was one of the best for 60s/early 70s sitcoms.
It would be a high bar, but not impossible, IMHO.
The new writers would have to remember this is a romantic comedy. Love conquers all. That was part of the "magic" in the original Bewitched with Montgomery/York.
Here's a more modern premise: People know Samantha's a witch. She's "out." (Archie comics have gone there with Sabrina.) But, she still has her mortal husband and decides to live in the mortal world. It's no longer about hiding that she's a witch. It's about fitting in without ruffling the feathers of neighbors, Darren's family, co-workers, etc. And Samantha could be in her own workplace, too. No more stay at home mom. And you could still have episodes about the two kids in the mortal world, too, at school, in sports, etc.
And as to the argument it'd never be good with a new set of actors: The chemistry between Elizabeth Montgomery and Dick York was excellent (with Dick Sargent, eh, not so much).
And the supporting cast was one of the best for 60s/early 70s sitcoms.
It would be a high bar, but not impossible, IMHO.
The new writers would have to remember this is a romantic comedy. Love conquers all. That was part of the "magic" in the original Bewitched with Montgomery/York.
Great actors will give bad scripts a good airing. Bad actors will give good scripts total defeat. Likewise, imperfect direction and cinematography can and is overcome in many films by the actors and storyline. They make the difference between a good film and a great one but usually do not crater an otherwise decent film. (There are exceptions of course.)
And I didn't say casting was the ONLY important element. I said it was the MOST important.
Do you just like to cut and paste for arguments sake?
I did so because it was late, I was tired and I really don't give a crap about your opinion.....happy now??
Nitpicker!
- Status