F-U, Reboot-Mania: Express Your Hate Here

[Wax Lion]

I, too, was thinking about the ODAAT credits. I guess I watched a lot of daytime reruns of the show from season two, because I always thought Schneider blow-drying his hammer was always part of the credits. I loved the ending where they pose for a group photo with a timer. I see they did a couple versions of it but I thought it was a bigger part of the show, like Mary Richards throwing her hat in the air.

 

Since this is Netflix, I hope the new version tries to keep that theme song which is one of my favorites. It fits the tone of the show and works well on its own and could survive being adapted to a latin style of music.

[Amello]

Obviously with changing casts you CAN'T keep the same credits (not to mention that people age, particularly Valerie)

 

Situations like these don't seem to bother the powers that be at SHAMELESS (U.S. version). Their credits have been exactly the same despite cast changes and actors aging.

[BW Manilowe]

As I recall, the 704 Hauser pilot had a member of the Bunker family show up at the end who came to see his old house. When he saw the family was aruging about politics he nodded that things were the same as when he lived there. I think it was Gloria's son, so they didn't need to cast the same actor, he was just there for the nod to continuity.

If the rebooted ODAAT is similarly set in the same building, they could easily cast any age-appropriate actor as Ann's grandson, I don't think any old school fans will care. Still, most of those Food Network shows are done on the cheap where several episodes can be filmed in a short time and a multi-camera sitcom isn't a big strain on an actor's schedule so I'd expect that it wouldn't be that hard to get Bertinelli to make a guest appearance.

Unless I'm forgetting something else, Ann didn't have a grandson. She had a granddaughter, little Annie, from Julie's marriage to Max. So Annie can show up at the old homestead. Or Valerie Bertinelli, either as Barbara or as a totally different character.

[BW Manilowe]

I think this goes here, since I think this is planned more as a TV-movie than a stage version. If I'm wrong, Mods please move it to the Live Musicals thread. Thanks! Anyway...

Debra Messing has been cast as Marjorie Houseman, Baby's mother, in ABC's upcoming remake of Dirty Dancing, starring Scream Queens' Abigail Breslin as Baby.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/14/debra-messing-dirty-dancing-remake

[Kromm]

I think this goes here, since I think this is planned more as a TV-movie than a stage version. If I'm wrong, Mods please move it to the Live Musicals thread. Thanks! Anyway...

Debra Messing has been cast as Marjorie Houseman, Baby's mother, in ABC's upcoming remake of Dirty Dancing, starring Scream Queens' Abigail Breslin as Baby.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/14/debra-messing-dirty-dancing-remake

Dirty Dancing isn't a musical though.

[BetterButter]

Fox orders new 24 pilot with none of the original cast

[Wax Lion]

Unless I'm forgetting something else, Ann didn't have a grandson. She had a granddaughter, little Annie, from Julie's marriage to Max. So Annie can show up at the old homestead. Or Valerie Bertinelli, either as Barbara or as a totally different character.

 

Ah, my memories of the show have gotten mixed up. I thought the final season saw Barbara and her husband adopting a boy who was already living with them, I'm probably mixing it up with another sitcom.

[Shannon L.]

I hope the new 24 at least has a role for Yvonne Strahovski. I thought she was a great addition to Live Another Day.

[opus]

Ah, my memories of the show have gotten mixed up. I thought the final season saw Barbara and her husband adopting a boy who was already living with them, I'm probably mixing it up with another sitcom.

There was a 2 parter where they attempted to adopt a kid named Jessie, but (30 year old spoiler), he ended up being adopted by the foster family he had been staying with.

[Wax Lion]

Ah. That's what I was thinking of, I guess I mixed that up as how Barbara's story ended.

[Rick Kitchen]

Bryan Fuller has been hired to be the showrunner of the new Star Trek series.  He used to write for Deep Space Nine and Voyager.  He says he doesn't want to set the show on the Enterprise, but on the Reliant.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Rick Kitchen

[festivus]

I'm just shocked they aren't trying yet another Twilight Zone or Star Trek reboot. Yet.

 

So close! Star Trek and Tales from the Crypt.

 

I think I am confused with the difference between revival and reboot. Because I am happier than a pig in shit about revivals like the X-Files and Twin Peaks which have the same characters and actors. Reboots I think are shows that use the same universe but add a bunch of new characters like this 24 thing, and remakes are like Hawaii Five-0. If this is right then I have a big F-U to reboots too. I'm fine with revivals and remakes. Well on the latter I'm okay with stuff like Hawaii Five-0 but not stuff like Charlie's Angels where they change things too much from the original.

[BW Manilowe]

So close! Star Trek and Tales from the Crypt.

I think I am confused with the difference between revival and reboot. Because I am happier than a pig in shit about revivals like the X-Files and Twin Peaks which have the same characters and actors. Reboots I think are shows that use the same universe but add a bunch of new characters like this 24 thing, and remakes are like Hawaii Five-0. If this is right then I have a big F-U to reboots too. I'm fine with revivals and remakes. Well on the latter I'm okay with stuff like Hawaii Five-0 but not stuff like Charlie's Angels where they change things too much from the original.

Hawaii Five-0 is & always has been considered a reboot, not a remake; it uses the same original 4 characters from the team, plus certain other characters (Max Bergman, Duke Lukela, I think Lou Grover), or at least character names (Clara Williams, who was Danno's elderly Aunt in the original but is his middle-aged[ish] Mother in the current version), from the original but sets the stories in present day instead of the late 60's-early 1980's of the original (& makes use of the technological/crime-solving/other relevant advances we've made since the original). The X-Files, I'd consider a revival because it just picked up a few years after it previously left off.

The definition of "reboot", when it concerns TV shows or movies, is "restart or revive; give fresh impetus to". So perhaps that fits The X-Files too.

Edited February 12, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[festivus]

Okay then I guess I'm still confused. :)

[merylinkid]

A reboot is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.

A revival is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.

 

We can call them whatever we want.   We can call this "DoOver" of the show which would cover both.

[Raja]

Okay then I guess I'm still confused. :)

In a reboot you throw out portions of the continuity so you can tell your story unencumbered by the history of characters. This is more important in the last 30 years when a viewer can buy the entire run of shows and watch at their leisure instead of waiting for the next showing in syndication and hoping some standards and practices exec didn't pull an episode in its entirely because of changing social and political climates or the show runner of the day tried to keep continuity straight . So instead of a revival which would have Steve McGarrett  a Korean War vet veteran 5-0 leader and his son, Steve Jr taking over after his murder. You make Steve McGarrett the former post 9/11 SEAL the founding member of 5-0 after the murder of his father the police Sergeant rebooting the franchise and ignoring the history of what Jack Lord's original series team did, To the point that not only McGarrett but many members of his team have the same names even if one is of a different gender

[festivus]

When I read about these shows in the media some call them reboots and other call them revivals so I do get confused about the meaning. Thanks for trying to explain to me. 

[Kromm]

There are no formal definitions. That said, I'm sure film or TV scholars have written stuff arguing what's what with these terms.

[ganesh]

I don't think X Files is a reboot because it's the same actors and the show continuity is still in place. 

[festivus]

That's what I thought too so I guess I'm still going to go with the definitions in my head. 

[Wax Lion]

Reboots I think are shows that use the same universe but add a bunch of new characters like this 24 thing, and remakes are like Hawaii Five-0. If this is right then I have a big F-U to reboots too. I'm fine with revivals and remakes

 

I see it the other way around.

 

A reboot is when it's a new continuity, making use of new versions of the core characters and the premise but usually with a few changes. Of course it's confusing because Hollywood producers and entertainment press aren't consistent in how they use those terms.

 

The first time I've seen reboot used was in comics. The Legion of Super-Heroes was once a very popular franchise, but a creative team put together a new take on the title that was polarizing. It had some loyal fans but once those creators left, they lost those fans and couldn't get any of the fans who quit to come back. So they started fresh. New versions of all the familiar characters appeared but there were changes -- most notably, the big revelations couldn't be retold like they were still mysteries.

 

So Hawaii Five-0 is a reboot. There's a Steve McGarrett but it's not the same Steve that Jack Lord played. He fills the same role Steve did in the original series but he's different in a lot of ways. The stuff that happened to the Jack Lord character is not part of the Alex O'Loughlin character's history. That history has been wiped fresh, like your computer's memory when you reboot it, but its supposed to be the same character.

[kassygreene]

I think that it is reboot if you use the same characters, settings, music (H50 2010 without a recognizable version of the original series theme music could have very easily crashed - and would have deserved to), but with different names and (at least for "contemporary" programs) moved to the modern day.  It is a revival if you have the same list of same stuff, but use the original actors and allow for the elapsed time, so it's more of a "this is where we are today" thing.

 

So by this Hawaii Five-0 (2010) is a reboot of Hawaii Five-O (1968) - and as I am doing a two-year long re-watch of the original H5O, I can very confidently assert that the original scripts mostly do not wear well (hence the two-year long re-watch - it's like swallowing a teaspoon of vanilla, which delights all the senses except taste...).

 

And by this the current X-Files Season 10 is a revival, executed as coming back after a very long hiatus...  Actually I haven't watched it yet, as my plans to re-watch the entire series have not yet slotted into the timeline of my life, but I will watch when S10 is done in two weeks.

 

The thing television and movies never do anymore is a remake - there were a lot of really bad remakes for a long time, and reboot seems to have taken the curse off such pitches in Hollyweird.

[festivus]

Okay I'm just going to quit trying to figure this out. I was just reading an X-Files article where they did not want the author to use the term reboot. They were calling it an event series. I think I'll just use this as my definition from now on:

 

A reboot is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.
A revival is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.

 

:)

[ParadoxLost]

A reboot is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.

A revival is what a producer calls it to get the money from the studio/network to make the show.

 

Slight tweak.

 

A revival is what a producer calls it to get even more money from the studio/network to make the show with the original actors.

[SVNBob]

The best show to talk about the differences between reboots, revivals, and remakes is Star Trek.

 

First there was the original series in the mid 60s, with Shatner, Nimoy, Takei,  et al.  That lasted only 3 seasons.  And was considered dead and gone afterwards.

In the mid 70s, it was revived as a film, following in the same continuity as the TV series.  And that made a lot of money, so a series of additional films came after that, still in the same continuity.

 

With the proof that there was still a fanbase, in the late 80s came Star Trek: The Next Generation.  This was rebooting the franchise with a return to TV of the overall story began in the 60s, but with a new cast.  The same universe, so same continuity, just several decades beyond where the films were.

 

This continued with Deep Space 9 and Voyager.  Two spin-offs following off of Next Generation, but still in the same universe and continuity that began 30 years prior.  Same with the films starring the Next Generation cast.  Even Enterprise, the prequel series, was still supposed to be in the same overall timeline as everything else here.

 

Then in the latter half of the of the 2000s, came the J.J. Abrams helmed Star Trek movie.  This was a remake, casting new actors (Pine, Quinto, Cho, et al) to play the roles originated in the first series.  A new continuity was deliberately and pointedly established in this movie, separate from all that had come before.  The sequel followed this new timeline, and the next film will do so also.

 

Recently, there's been news of a new TV* series to come, headed by Bryan Fuller.  Indications are that it will follow in the same timeline as the recent films, but on a new ship.  So it will be a reboot of the remake rather than a revival on its own.

 

*This might be the series that CBS was planning to debut on their paid streaming service, giving people an actual reason to subscribe to that.

Edited February 13, 2016 by SVNBob

[Joe]

I dispute that the 2009 movie was a remake. It had a different plot than any of the other Trek movies. However, Into Darkness was a partial redo of the second movie, Wrath of Khan.

[ParadoxLost]

I dispute that the 2009 movie was a remake. It had a different plot than any of the other Trek movies. However, Into Darkness was a partial redo of the second movie, Wrath of Khan.

 

My initial reaction was that the 2009 movie was rebooting Star Trek in the movie genre because it was tied to the continuity of the original via Spock's time travel initiating a AU.  So I also don't really think of the follow up movies as remakes/re-dos because they rebooted using the premise that the AU is close enough to the original timeline that the major adversaries are still the same.  But I bet they skip the whales.

[merylinkid]

I dispute that ST:NG was a reboot.   It was a revival of the show, same premise, just new people as the world of the original continued after the show ended and we were checking into that world again.   

 

The 2009 movie was a reboot because it started everything over from the beginning.   

[Kromm]

I dispute that ST:NG was a reboot.   It was a revival of the show, same premise, just new people as the world of the original continued after the show ended and we were checking into that world again.   

I'd call it a "sequel series" rather than either a revival or reboot. Essentially a spin-off--and I think you could still label it that AS WELL--but with the rider that it wasn't piloted on the old show or had any contemporary production link.

 

Why? To my mind a revival would tend to have cast in common, rather than just continuity. A good example might be the almost-revival of Coach that was supposed to happen. Craig T. Nelson was going to be playing the same person, in the same continuity. He was going to have SOME of his old castmates around, but also new ones. It was going to be set years later, in a total new setting. It would have been the very core essence of a revival.

 

A reboot to me inherently doesn't share continuity. If there's a common continuity, to me this term would always be wrong. It's just the same premise, the same name, and many (but not necessarily all) of the same named-characters, with new actors. The setting will likely be the same.. but doesn't have to be.  It can be in the same time period as the original, or a modernization.

 

A continuation, to my mind, is what X-Files did. Same show brought back intact. Minor production differences, and that's it. Not that X-Files HAS a setting per se (except that ratty basement office) but I'd distinguish it from a revival simply in that they're really acting like it's the same series (whereas Coach was going to be a new one). 

[BW Manilowe]

Damon Wayans Sr is starring, in the Danny Glover role, in the Pilot for Fox's Lethal Weapon series, which is being called a "movie reboot" per the linked article.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/lethal-weapon-pilot-fox-damon-wayans-1201704866/

[Trini]

When I read about these shows in the media some call them reboots and other call them revivals so I do get confused about the meaning. Thanks for trying to explain to me. 

 

Plus, I've seen the media use the term "reboot" completely incorrectly (by any definition), so keep that in mind, too.

[Wax Lion]

I definitely wouldn't call ST:TNG a reboot. It featured new characters in the same setting as the previous series, albeit later in time. The JJ Abrams movie was a reboot, since it featured new versions of Kirk, Spock, Uhura, etc.. who were changed in ways to give a few twists to what people might expect. TNG wasn't a reboot as it took place in the same universe as Kirk's Star Trek adventures and even featured a few crew members from the Enterprise.

[Wax Lion]

I've been thinking more about remake vs. reboot since I've started watching Metastasis, the Colombian version of Breaking Bad.

 

I guess for the most part TV remakes happen when you move a  show from one country to another. A remake tries to stay pretty close to the original, usually because that's how they're trying to get people to watch. In a reboot, the twists are the hook to get people to watch.

 

So I guess it comes down to the marketing. A remake promises to update the familiar for another region or a new time while a reboot promises to play with that familiarity, like how JJ Abrams' Star Trek has Uhura romantically involved with Spock. That's supposed to be surprising based on what audiences expect out of the original versions of the characters. A remake would stop at the point where it characterizes' Kirk' hacking the Kobayashi Maru exercise as douchy, not clever.

[Kromm]

Here's a "reboot" that I think has been mentioned before in this thread--although the article I'm going to link to reveals it's ACTUALLY going to be a continuation, just with all new characters in the same setting as the old show. Anyway, a lot of details in this:

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a784346/jorgie-porter-and-sherrie-hewson-will-star-in-bbc-ones-are-you-being-served-remake/

[Wax Lion]

Thanks, Kromm, I've been waiting for that casting announcement. I have to admit, I was expecting more fun stunt casting. Since it's a one-off special, they could have gotten some bigger names. (I was hoping for June Brown for Mrs Slocumb just to get a EastEnders castmember in there, since the late Wendy Richard who plays Ms Brahms was part of the original EastEnders cast).

[methodwriter85]

NBC is pursuing a Cruel Intentions reboot.

 

I just don't see the point. It's Network t.v. How scandalous can it possibly get?

 

Also, I know that her career isn't exactly hot, but I hope SMG looks long and hard at the project before she decides to sign on. If this sucks, it could damage her.

 

Honestly, Sarah would do better to get herself on a edgy Netflix drama.

Edited February 24, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Rick Kitchen]

From what I read the Cruel Intentions thing will be 15 years after the first one.

[paulvdb]

That was already announced and posted here some time ago (see my post from October 2015). The actual news from that article is the casting of two actors.

 

The real news about the Cruel Intentions series today is that Sarah Michelle Geller will be in the series. The description in that new article makes it look like she is going to be the main character while the first announcement made it seem that Bash would be the main character. I suppose they could be equal main characters or it could be a change in direction after SMG was cast. Or maybe I just got a wrong impression from the article and Bash is still the main character.

[ParadoxLost]

I just saw a promo for a TV version of Rush Hour.  I didn't know that this was a thing.  It looks awful.  The two leads are desperately trying to portray Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan portraying the characters instead of characters.

 

So now I am even more annoyed than I originally was about making Lethal Weapon into a TV show.  With Damon Wayans (not Jr.) as Murtaugh,

[Raja]

I just saw a promo for a TV version of Rush Hour.  I didn't know that this was a thing.  It looks awful.  The two leads are desperately trying to portray Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan portraying the characters instead of characters.

 

So now I am even more annoyed than I originally was about making Lethal Weapon into a TV show.  With Damon Wayans (not Jr.) as Murtaugh,

I was thinking that Arsenio Hall and Sammo Hung already did this without paying for the Rush Hour name. They both came in 1998, concurrent creation?

 

I know shows aren't called Lethal Weapon in a .... like Die Hard on a boat but they might as well be. The interracial or gender partnership along with the veteran special forces guy is a trope as old as dirt.

[Wax Lion]

Tonight Damien debuts on A&E and it sounds like it adds a new wrinkle on the reboot/remake/continuation debate. From what I can gather, the series is a sequel to The Omen but reboots everything from there. There's a character Ann, who wants to groom Damien to be the antichrist. In the movie sequel, there was a character Ann who turned out to be secretly protecting Damien. The characters have different last names, but I'm curious if the same name and role makes her an homage or a rebooted version.

[BW Manilowe]

Geena Davis is starring in the Pilot of Fox's TV reboot of The Exorcist.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/geena-davis-star-foxs-exorcist-873220

[UYI]

I hate that SMG signed on to the Cruel Intentions reboot. I know, it's her most popular role next to Buffy

 

Fans of her role as Kendall Hart on All My Children will debate that one. ;)

[BetterButter]

Amazon is resurrecting The Tick, but without Patrick Warburton

[Kromm]

Amazon is resurrecting The Tick, but without Patrick Warburton

Knee-jerk I wanted to say "what's the point without him" (even though he's probably too old for it now anyway---plus working elsewhere). But then I thought about it some. Even if we dis-include the original comic books, there was still an animated TV show before the live action one and Warburton had nothing to do with it. Edited March 11, 2016 by Kromm

[Rick Kitchen]

Warburton is in a new series.  He might be unavailable.

[BW Manilowe]

Rectify's Clayne Crawford has been cast as Martin Riggs (the Mel Gibson role) in Fox's TV version of Lethal Weapon.

http://tvline.com/2016/03/10/lethal-weapon-tv-series-clayne-crawford-cast-fox-martin-riggs/

[Kromm]

Rectify's Clayne Crawford has been cast as Martin Riggs (the Mel Gibson role) in Fox's TV version of Lethal Weapon.

http://tvline.com/2016/03/10/lethal-weapon-tv-series-clayne-crawford-cast-fox-martin-riggs/

Will his co-star pronounce it as "Reeeeeeeegs"?

[Wax Lion]

I was amused when I ventured in to the replies going to the twitter account for USA's Queen of the South to see angry fans of La Reina del Sur (both series are based on the same novel but the USA version is apparently aiming for a different tone) who don't like the idea of their show being remade.

[UYI]

Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/heathers-comedic-anthology-works-at-876093

 

Seriously, why are they pulling my dick? 

 

(For the record, I'm a woman. I have no dick. :P)