Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemm.ee

46 replies

kbin.social

This more than most sitcoms is just abusive relationships with a laugh track. Glad it’s not getting rebooted

61
kautaureply
lemmy.world

People love when their dysfunctional family is on a tv screen and then they feel like they’ve done nothing wrong

17
kbin.social

would you care to point out which ones didn't feature abusive dickwads?

like that's kind of a thing that goes back a long ways.

4
kbin.social

When you say "more wholesome sitcom" i hear "more shitty sitcom", like Growing Pains. which specific sitcoms are you referring to?

-1

I know it's animated, but Bob's Burgers is a great example of a current "wholesome sitcom" that's really good.

5

Most shows need a character to bully for some reason. I guess everyone in Hollywood just chooses someone in their life to verbally abuse and they think everyone else does that too?

3

"Kevin can f*** himself" is literally about that very thing. It's not amazing and does a weird thing where it bounces between sitcom mode and...I guess thriller mode, which doesn't always work but I appreciated the way it dealt with the sitcom bullshit of abusive relationships.

7

You can't replace Peter Boyle and Doris Roberts. But it would be cathartic to see Patricia Heaton with a daughter-in-law who is entirely inept as a cook and homemaker, and she has to resist the urge to become Marie while watching Ray become his father.

36

Good.
It was barely funny when it first came out, and hasn't aged well at all (I know because it's on every fucking morning when there is literally nothing else to watch).
Keep the misogyny, toxic masculinity and heteronormativity, and abusive-bullshit-as-normal in the past where they belong - boomer humour needs to be allowed to die, not kept alive at any cost to fill a handful of greedy pockets and entertain bigots (cough cough Frasier cough cough).

21

let things have their time. i understand the idea behind a lot of these revivals, but they're often pretty bad. it's not just about getting actors back and rebuilding sets. it's about the writers and all the other people that work on these shows. i'm fairly happy with how the Futurama revival turned out, but they were already set up for it, and it was really just another joke about all the other times they got revived.

in the case of Everybody Loves Raymond, you don't have Peter Boyle. without him the show would just be a shadow of its former self anyway.

sometimes it's better to imagine these characters just riding off into the sunset.

15

Obviously Ray is worried, because Everybody Loves Raymond was SO shit that an even worse reboot would create a hole in reality that everything would be sucked into. God knows where we would end up.

12

Rarely, but not never.

But, that's probably because making a hit is very hard. The shows that are considered for a reboot are the hits. So, not only does it have to be a hit, but it has to be a bigger hit than the original.

That's probably why the good remakes are remakes of something that was a hit because it broke new ground in some way, rather than just having great acting, directing, writing, etc.

The original Star Trek was a hit not because the writing, acting and directing were top notch, but because the show had female officers, it had a Russian helmsman working with American officers. It had TV's first interracial kiss. It aired during the cold war, but depicted a post-capitalist world that might arguably have been communist. All that mattered more than the writing and acting. When they rebooted it, they could get great writers, directors and actors. Same general idea with Battlestar: Galactica and Doctor Who.

This also explains why it would be hard to reboot a sitcom. Sitcom situations are... um... common. Typically sitcoms don't break any new ground. If they're popular it's because of good writing, acting and directing. This might also be why some people thought the Will & Grace reboot was good. The first one was popular partially because it broke new ground, depicting homosexuality in a positive and normal light. Arguably that mattered more than the acting, writing and direction.

10
lemm.ee

So far the only thing I'll ever say was a good reboot was the 2nd Jumanji movie. The one that came after that is a shameless cash grab with little to no soul, but the other one was actually pretty decent.

They didn't pull a Star Wars and take the best parts of the previous movies to make a new film. They didn't make it overly cringe or completely dumb it down to the point of being nothing at all like the original. And they tried something new instead of just re-creating the original but only changing the time period and characters.

9
kbin.social

Off the top of my head: Doctor Who, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Battlestar Galactica.

16
520reply
kbin.social

And the first few Mission: Impossible movies. They were a reboot of a 70s show.

2
lemm.ee

Had no idea since I've never seen any of them. Closest I ever came was having a PS1 Mission Impossible game and never making it past the start.

1

Ahhh the video game wasn't that good. The first and imo especially the second film was amazing.

2
WarmSodareply
lemm.ee

You're comparing movies to sitcoms.

4

It's the best reboot example I have because all others I've seen suck. I don't have any other point of reference for good reboots other than Jumanji.

8

the other one was actually pretty decent.

So it was only mediocre? I can't personally speak to it as I only saw the original, but this is hardly a ringing endorsement for reboots as a whole, or even that specific one.

1

Pfft, Degrassi the Next Generation kicked Degrassi's ass.

Also the more respectable answers like Star Trek TNG, FMA Brotherhood, and The Office too, but I stand by Degrassi TNG > Degrassi!

8
lemmy.zip

I think Will and Grace was the only reboot that was quality. I've heard good things about the Kids in the Hall reboot, but I don't think that really counts since it's sketch comedy.

3
kbin.social

Arguably "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" is a reboot. Not sure if the The Office counts.

6
520reply
kbin.social

And who's gonna play Chandler Bing?

3
lemmy.zip

Strong disagree

Going by modern nomenclature, Frasier was a "reboot" of Cheers and Family Matters was a "reboot" of Perfect Strangers (and the first season or two had some REALLY good epsides). Or, to go by more inarguable standards: it isn't my thing, but The Connors is uniformly praised and is the best that "Roseanne" has been since they stopped caring about being about working class families.

At the end of the day: it is a question of whether the character work of the original was strong enough and if there is a story worth telling with the reboot/spinoff/whatever.

And considering Everybody Loves Raymond didn't even have a solid story for the original run and had an even more unlikable protagonist than Tim "The Narcman" Taylor...

-29
lemmy.zip

Nu-Frasier is a "reboot" of good Frasier. It is about Frasier, having moved to a new town, trying to get along with his family that has very different values to him while working at a new job. And, as much as I love old Frasier and consider it one of the top ten shows of all time... it was also about doing a show with (one of) the worst character(s) of Cheers. Just like Nu-Frasier is a spinoff/reboot starring the worst character of Frasier.

Would it be a "spinoff" if the title wasn't just "Frasier"?

At which point, what is Fuller House? Same cast (minus the Olsens) of the original. Very similar premise. But I guess the title is different so it is a Spinoff. Same with How I Met Your Father.

-11

At which point, what is Fuller House? Same cast (minus the Olsens) of the original.

A sequel series. Plain and simple. The new Frasier is this too.

It takes place some time after the original with mostly the same main characters, and they are the same characters from the original show.

No alternate universe, no alternate versions of characters, no retelling of stories, it's just that time in the universe has jumped forward a few years.

13

A spin-off or spinoff is any narrative work derived from an already existing work that focuses on different aspects from the original work.

I think the "focuses on different aspects" is what you're missing.

It's well known that Frasier was a spinoff of Cheers. A spinoff generally focueses on a different character, or views the show from a different point of view.

A reboot takes an existing franchise and "reboots" it. Frasier (2023) is generally a reboot because it takes the same show and restarts it. Frasier (1993) took a side character from Cheers and made an entire show about it.

  • Frasier 1993 and Frasier 2023 are both shows about the life of Frasier Crane.
  • Cheers is a show about the bar cheers and the regular barflies, and one of them is Frasier Crane. Thus Frasier is a spinoff.

If they took Freddie and made a show called "Freddie" then I would call it a spinoff.

8

fuller house was a reboot and sequel with the kids now the parents.

6

What are you on about? Frasier and Family Matters were spin-offs. They came directly after their parent shows, and they were entirely new stories. They weren't rebooting anything.

15

Going by modern nomenclature, Frasier was a “reboot” of Cheers

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Frasier was a spin-off.

Family Matters was a “reboot” of Perfect Strangers

This makes even less sense. Family Matters and Perfect Strangers aired concurrently. This is like saying Angel the series was a reboot of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

15

You reached the end