(Almost) every week, I answer a question from Monday's Act Four Live chat in the Wednesday edition of this newsletter. You can read the transcript of the January 29 chat here, and...
| |  | | | | Alyssa Rosenberg on culture and politics | | | | | | Norman Lear, third from left, on the set of Netflix's reboot of "One Day At A Time." Lear created the original version of the series, which ran from 1975 to 1984. (Michael Yarish/Netflix) | (Almost) every week, I answer a question from Monday’s Act Four Live chat in the Wednesday edition of this newsletter. You can read the transcript of the January 29 chat here, and submit questions for the February 26 chat here. As you may notice from the gap between those two dates, the chat will be on hiatus for a couple of weeks while I’m on vacation and for Presidents’ Day. The Act Four newsletter will also go down to once a week while I’m away, returning to its regular schedule on February 21. Thanks for your patience, and now, to the question! This week, a reader writes in defense of reboots: | | TV networks announced a bunch of in-development reboots and revivals, and they came with the usual complaints of “why can’t Hollywood have new ideas?” I hate that complaint both because it’s dismissive of what it takes to update a concept, and it ignores the fact that our media landscape is so over-saturated, that that the need for brand recognition is premium because most things aren’t breaking out, deservedly or not. Are there anythings that haven’t found an audience that you think could have worked under a familiar brand? | | I will agree with you on one point: it is hard to update a concept well. And I think you’re generally correct that the entertainment business is in a fairly conservative place right now, which is why we see a lot of reboots — the most recent to get ordered being “Murphy Brown” — and a heavy reliance on franchises. But I’m not sure I can urge readers to accept the implication that what might be most comfortable for corporate bottom lines is necessarily what’s best for them. If the original concepts that networks are offering to viewers don’t break out, it is not inherent proof that viewers just want the exact same thing they’ve seen before — especially in an era when something like “Game of Thrones” has broken out big-time and has provided even Americans who don’t watch it with a slew of new references and slang. Maybe it’s just proof that TV development departments aren’t doing a particularly good job of coming up with original concepts and works to adapt! | | | I should not say this as someone who is almost radically opposed to reboots, or to shows that didn’t do particularly well getting new life at different outlets after being canceled by their original hosts. I adored “Bunheads,” but I have no desire to mess with its lapidary perfection by seeing Amy Sherman-Palladino and Lamar Damon try to cobble the original crew back together and recreate old chemistry that may have dissipated. I think “Community” got less watchable after it was resurrected by Yahoo. I’m not even interested in a second season of “Big Little Lies”! Sure, this means that I sometimes may end up with small amounts of things that I think are darn-near perfect, rather than infinite amounts of things that decay overtime. | | That said, I think the Netflix reboot of “One Day at a Time” has been excellent, and I’m looking forward to seeing the new episodes of “Roseanne.” But in both cases, I wasn’t familiar with the originals, so to me, they play much less like reboots. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Twitter
Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment