top 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 119 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Also TV now: This show/movie did well 40 years ago so we rebooted it with people who never saw it, a shitload of special effects, and totally missed why it was popular in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They did this a lot in the 90’s too. Production companies love to ground an IP into the dust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That explains why I'm so familiar with boomer shows and movies, despite being a millennial. There was a lot of old content and remakes on TV then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Tbf back then I wasn't watching remakes or reboots (mostly, and I know they did make them, but..) I got familiar with those shows by watching the reruns themselves. And even as a kid who wasn't alive at those shows releases, they still held and in many cases still do hold their original magic. Ex: Golden Girls.

    But I type that as my Caddyshack VHS rolls credits so maybe I'm the weirdo. Oh well, I'm alright, nobody worry 'bout me!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wait… have you also been trying out the MacGyver reboot from 2015???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I bought the OG McGyver on DVD a few years ago and I was all "I remember this being a lot better than this"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Magnum PI still holds up, at least the first season.

    Airwolf, not so much. Same with Hardcastle & McCormick and Riptide. I still liked Knightrider last time I watched an episode, but it was always kinda corny.

    Been meaning to watch Simon & Simon next, but haven’t looked for it

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Curious - do you feel a lot of reboots have missed the mark?

    I'm starting to feel the opposite, where a lot of reboots are way better than the original.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    In general I feel like reboots are lazy. There is a plethora of created and not-yet-created IP to choose from but producers continue to reboot the same franchises often ignoring established cannon in favor of “popcorn eating masses” appeal. Reboots frequently result in a generalization or dilution of the original plot with character traits dialed up to 11.

    To answer your question more specifically; yes. Movies like ‘The Magnificent Seven’, franchises like Star Trek in the 90s, even shows like MASH or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (both based on films of the same name) showed that reboots don’t have to be in the same vein as their source content either by a change of genre, a change in timeframe, or even a change in medium. The best reboots have always brought their own new flavor to or take on the original material. But even doing that little means taking a risk and that doesn’t seem to be something producers are willing to do right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nu Trek has been consistently awful.

    only SNW has come close to anything that feels like the spirit of trek

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm reserving my judgement until I see the reboot of the Munsters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Apparently I have horrible taste because every show i like gets canceled in the first or second season

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Conversely

    Producers find a new show idea that looks interesting and could be popular .....

    Writers: yeah we got this idea that could be turned into an hour and a half hour long film ... it's very interesting, great plot dialogue, and there's a great twist

    Producers, executives: Great idea! I love it! But it would give us more content if you could turn it into a series instead. Take the whole film and stretch it out across seven one hour episodes.

    Writers: how?

    Producers, executives: just cut it up into seven parts, slow everything down and make a dramatic cliff hanger at the end of every episode.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Opposite problem, too. Take what was supposed to be a series and shrink it down to a movie. The Section 31 movie comes to mind. It's so much better if you view it as if it were the pilot for a new series, but that's never going to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    It depends. I really like the ability to flesh something out into a longer format - especially book adaptations. Not that there isn't space for 2 hours and under films, but the rise of high production TV series that aren't meant to go on forever IMO has been net positive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honestly there is so much back catalog to watch, who even needs a flood of new stuff? I can't possibly keep up.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I'd rather have them kill shows immediately than right before the final season. See Westworld, Expanse and (almost) Snowpiercer. I'm currently really anxious about Yellowjackets.

    Firefly still hurts though.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Firefly still hurts though.

    With age comes wisdom. I realized some time ago that we get to love Firefly because it never lived long enough to be bad. No one talks about famous actor James Dean becoming an ultraconservative asshole, being closeted racist, or a serial abuser of women. He died before anything like that could happen. Firefly is the same way. It lives in our hearts with all of the potential it could have been. Contrast that to Game of Thrones which had a wonderful start and a dreadful and forgettable end.

    How many people today would say "Lets binge watch all of Firefly from beginning to end!" vs "Lets binge watch all of Game of Thrones from beginning to end!"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago*

    This is how I've always felt about it too. All of Whedon's other shows had twists that made the audience hate entire seasons; there's no reason to believe Firefly would have escaped that pattern.

    So instead of being sad it died early, we can be glad we can still imagine where it could have gone in the best case scenario. The vision in our minds will likely be better than what we would have got if it'd continued.

    No need to worry about Jayne's inevitable face-heel turn, or whatever other terrible subplots could potentially have cropped up in later seasons like River developing explicit (rather than merely suggested) incestuous feelings for Simon, or Inara betraying the crew for a cure to her disease (before being welcomed back a season later), or Kaylee getting killed off out of nowhere because Whedon loves doing that to characters of her archetype, or YoSaffBridge becoming a core crew member after we learn her tragic backstory even though her awful personality hasn't changed at all.

    And that's not even getting into what the network execs, who hated the show, would have done with their meddling. Things could have been so much worse. Fans should console themselves with the fact that the show at least died with its dignity intact, and we even got a movie that resolved a few of the major hanging threads.


    No one talks about famous actor James Dean becoming an ultraconservative asshole, being closeted racist, or a serial abuser of women. He died before anything like that could happen. Firefly is the same way.

    Something like this would have happened even if Joss Whedon wasn't revealed to be a scumbag. Adam Baldwin, the actor who played Jayne, went on to become a major mouthpiece for the alt-right and a mainstay of conservative Twitter. IIRC he's even the one who named GamerGate (not that the name required even a modicum of creativity).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    The Expanse would need at least 3 seasons to catch up to the books. I'd rather they stop at the actual end of an arc (which is followed by 30 year time skip, mind you) than half ass through and botch the ending of the entire series.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's some rose colored glasses right there.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    TNG, Voyager... Rough first seasons leading to excellent series

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Also TV now:

    Murder mystery.
    "Comedy" that's all about murder mystery.
    Depressing drama.
    Drama about murder.
    Murder comedy that's mostly just drama.
    Documentary about murder.
    Depressing documentary.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The Netflix show, House of Cards, in the first few minutes of the first episode, Kevin Spacey stumbles on a hit-and-run and there's a badly injured dog. He puts it out of its misery.

    According to Netflix who wanted it removed, it led to a major drop off of people dropping off the show. But to the showrunner, that's the point.

    Now, people drop off that show when Kevin Spacey appears so whatever.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Its the idea that not every character should be likeable and not all media should be without friction.

    I... generally think stuff like that in the first few episodes is really stupid. Mostly it just turns things into misery porn and is a great way to alienate your audience. I think a much better approach is to lure the audience in so that they don't quite realize when Walter/Saul/Kim became truly irredeemable monsters... even if that tends to lead to people never realizing it.

    And I think it is extra disingenuous to pretend that House of Cards was some daring show that bucked all the norms. It wasn't HBO levels of sexposition but they definitely were playiing up the "you can't watch this on network TV" from the first episode.


    Print, not TV, but one of my favorite authors is Harry Connolly and his Twenty Palaces series had a pretty infamous chapter that was all one long run on sentence (I forget how many pages but I want to say 5-10?). You don't necessarily realize it in the moment but it is a hard read that is mentally tiring and it perfectly suits the contents of the chapter. Apparently basically every single beta reader hated it and he has alluded to it being why his Agent and Publisher dropped him and... I probably would too. I loved it but it very much hurt the overall pacing of the book to a large degree.

    But that was also 3 or 4 books in. Not the first chapter of the first book (which was a child burning to death horribly... Yup. Connolly definitely got a hold of some incriminating photos or something).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Back when you had TV on a specific schedule, you were forced to watch things as they were. If a show was clunky, well you didn't have much choice in the matter, it was watch that or change channel or go outside.

    With on-demand stuff, you can just completely skip over stuff you might actually like because the first few episodes are clunky. Why should I watch something clunky when I have the choice to watch something I know is good from the start?

    ...I'm still not watching One Piece though, I don't care how good it gets later.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Part of the problem is that modern shows have far smaller audience than two decades ago in absolute numbers. The most watched shows today have horrific numbers compared to previous decades.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I hate when they release streaming shows one episode per week. I am not going to watch it until it’s done and I catch up on other shows. Stop trying to get me to watch weekly, it’s not going to happen. That’s just not how people watch tv anymore.

    So a new show to me is new for a solid year before i can get to it sometimes. So many times a show gets cancelled before I can watch it and half the time I lose interest once I know it’s cancelled

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Maybe I'm weird but sometimes I actually enjoy streaming one episode per week, especially if I like the show, it just forces me to spread it out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I used to hate the weekly model when streaming became popular, but I think people are better viewers when they watch weekly. It's easier to have ongoing water cooler conversations about each episode, so your show gets consistent buzz. Plus you don't have the extreme of a whole year+ to wait between seasons. If a classic show ended in May you could start a new season in September. By the time most modern shows have new seasons, I forgot 40% of what I saw last season.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Dude id be fine with like 3 per week... if they do 13-14 episodes then they guaranteed two months streaming income. As it is... yes im gonna just keep rotating streaming services.

  • source
  • parent
  • There's so many shows that I watch one episode of something with the wife every night, and we haven’t run out of stuff to watch in years. We like to watch one show at a time till we finish the season before we move on to something else, so we just wait till the show or season is over

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I much prefer one episode a week. However the wife doesn't. This is the main reason we never finished Flash. Also because she felt we had to watch all the arrow verse shows in order to watch Flash and she decided it wasn't worth it once to do that you'd have to watch one episode of Arrow than one of Flash, then one of DC's Legend of Tomarrow.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I don't watch a TV show until it is finished, it had a satisfying ending and it is acclamied.

    This is how I watched Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Sopranos. I loved it.

    This is how I avoided watching a single episode of Game of Thrones.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I know the 26 ep a season shooting schedule was hell on actors, but it really allowed for more variety in episodic shows. There could be good eps and stinkers in a season without it impacting the overall show. Plus it gave you more time to weave in on-going plots while also giving room to explore specific characters more thoroughly.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It also guaranteed work for those actors. A 3 season show meant you had steady work for 3 straight years and could still do auditions when you had time. This 10 episodes every 3 years is dumb

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yes, it was a guaranteed paycheck... until the show ended. And doing a movie in the off months basically only worked for a Clooney level talent where anyone who ever interacted with him realized he was a generational talent that guys and gals would swoon for. Everyone else MAYBE could get a bit part if they knew the production crew (see: The Schwim on Band of Brothers). And then, if you were lucky, you were basically typecast by the time the show ended and stuck either playing the same character or needing to find a company that wanted to take a chance on you reinventing yourself... which lined up with the weinsteins of the world.

    And all of that assumes that you aren't in a role that requires you to spend most of your off time staying in shape and having more or less the same appearance in case pick-ups are required. Otherwise you have entire VFX teams working to... remove a mustache.

    That is why there is increasing pushback to Marvel Movie contracts from a lot of actors. Yes, it is a guaranteed paycheck (although those get smaller and smaller with each geneartion) but it is also the only thing you can really do for however many years in case you get called up that you just got one of your appearances added to a TV show everyone will hate.

    Which is more or less where we are at. Sure you sometimes have something like a Zendaya where the Disney Channel actress you got for your lead suddenly becomes the most popular actress on the planet and you have to work around her schedule AND all the supporting actors who became high B listers. But mostly you are just dealing with talent who care more about their careers than making sure they are available for the one episode you want them to come back next year.


    Its why so much of the Game of Thrones fandom (and original creator...) clearly don't have much production experience. Yes, it would have been cool to have arcs like Lady Stoneheart. But the chances of Michelle Fairley being interested in coming back four years later for two episodes is nigh zero AND would have given her way more negotiating power than studios want. Same for all the other one off characters who come back two books later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You didn't have to be a huge talent on A level movies. There was always work for minor actors doing documentaries, B, C, and family movies, dozens of TV channels desperate for shows to put on the air, and other opportunities. Acting has never been an easy gig, but it's getting harder and harder to find good work these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    But it gets back to "what am I going to do when this show is over?".

    Which is why I referenced David Schwimmer and Band of Brothers. His portrayal of Sobol was spectacular (and wildly disrespectful but that is what happens when you make a miniseries based off someone's memoirs). But he was basically in 3 episodes and was arguably more background than not in 2 of those. But there is a reason that every few months you have a "Holy shit, So and So was in Band of Brothers?". That was basically a production where anyone whose agent knew the right people could get a bit part.

    But it gets back to the "problem" with the old TV model. Signing up for a TV show was basically admitting you were going to "cap out" at that unless you got INCREDIBLY lucky. Versus staying flexible and potentially becoming a great.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Its why so much of the Game of Thrones fandom (and original creator...) clearly don't have much production experience. Yes, it would have been cool to have arcs like Lady Stoneheart. But the chances of Michelle Fairley being interested in coming back four years later for two episodes is nigh zero AND would have given her way more negotiating power than studios want. Same for all the other one off characters who come back two books later.

    I always wondered how they planned to pull that off with the Wheel of Time show. I know it's a moot point now, but there's a big one that left and came back way later. There are also some smaller examples, but I feel like with the bit parts you could probably get someone that looks similar enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I was thrilled by the BBC Sherlock that I wanted more. It was like 9 episodes across three seasons.

    I think CBS had a Sherlock show with Lucy Lawless, which had like a couple seasons and 20 episodes each. And yikes. The story went nowhere, with their monster-of-the-week storytelling.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›