Quote:
Originally Posted by James Langford
I don't know of many successes when it comes to revivals of old tv shows.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
the new Munsters or Leave it to Beaver
|
For their time, there were horrible.
For the current time, sadly, these would be better than the average crap we're getting.
Quote:
and a few others I imagine. But the new Sherlock Holmes, perhaps an exception to the rule, gives me hope.
|
UK does well with re-imaginings and reinventing (or continuing!) old shows. The difference is that the UK doesn't abuse time slots like it happens in the USA. Nor are the network so quick to tease new shows with partial orders, nor cancel at the first whiff that something might be less than perfect for the 18-49 audience.
Sometimes a good redo is messed up by bad actors. Andy Dick ruined the 1995 Get Smart redo. It would have been a good continuation with a better actor, and some better writers. They tried to continue 1960s camp, instead of toning it down for the Seinfeld era of comedy.
Quote:
It tells me that the studios may not be able to duplicate every aspect of greatness but they recognize it.
|
It tells me that there's no more originality in Hollywood. Just rehashing past success.
They're not giving new shows the same opportunities that shows had in past decades. These days, some of the most popular shows to have ever existed would have never been made. The cannot stand up to the instant-success needs of studio execs. The days of NBC, ABC and CBS giving shows a season to try are gone. They'll pull you after just a few episodes if the numbers are not perfect right out of the shoot.