KMan101
Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by KMan101
-
It was great so many people came together last night like they used to when these shows were originally on the air to watch and talk about it. We need more of this. And by this I mean television that gets us talking (not talking about more of this Live thing, but I'm not entirely against a second go around ... though I doubt ratings lightning can strike twice, it's just rare ... the first always gets a huge turnout) Those ratings translate to 10ish million and a 1.7 in the demo. Not a huge event (but in this day and age, those are big, but reminds me of Roseanne's revival ratings) but shows that an audience IS there to capture. The networks just ... aren't. They're satisified with 2 million and a 0.5 in the demo nowadays ... -
I forgot completely Ferrell was in it until he showed up and I cringed immediately. Helen and Tom were made a parody of. I can kind of get what the actors were going for but it fell flat, IMHO. I know Sykes is getting criticism but I think she was just doing her take on Louise and I didn't necessarily hate it, but Sanford was so full of life (but remember AITF Louise was more understated, but she still had her moments). Louise was very different than what she ultimately became on The Jeffersons so I thought it was a decent take, but was it a good use of her? No. I've rethought it and I appreciate her trying to do her own take. I think she wasn't trying to parody Isabel Sanford and looking back now, I appreciate that. There's a fine line between paying homage and being a total parody SNL skit. Personally, I could have done without the Frank Lorenzo bit ... lol, sorry Sean Hayes but all I saw was Hairspray Live! when he walked in.
-
-
Well. That was ... interesting. Tomei was the best thing about it. She nailed Edith and Stapleton. She's wonderful. Perfect casting. The rest were passable to decent. Foxx did his best Sherman Hemsley. I liked him better than Harrelson as Archie. Sykes didn't have the hautiness or energy of Isabel Sanford's Louise but she was passable if you remember early AITF Louise. I can see why they chose her but yeah she'd have been put to better use as Florence (but I know she wouldn't play that role) It bordered on parody (Frank Lorenzo and Bentley as well as Helen and Tom Willis were like caricatures) I really don't even know how to feel or what to think. They did an excellent job with the sets. It's amazing how well the script holds up (EDIT: there's a reason I still watch reruns and the script never feels tired or even dated - which is weird to say because it is in a way - really) and we're still dealing with all of the same issues (which is disappointing), so I appreciate the messages they were trying to convey. These shows were so progressive for their time and this kind of thing is severely lacking now. It's not done in a mocking tone or treated as a lecture. That's why the reboot of One Day at a Time worked so well. Timely, funny, and not overly preachy (IMO) while still delivering a timely message.
-
Agreed. It was JFP's Maureen Bauer-esque mistake. Again. She never ever learns. It was such a massive mistake and I'm annoyed they never corrected it. It seems too late now. But I'd welcome it in a heartbeat. He had a lot of story and life left him in. JFP (and by extension, of course, Guza) truly gutted General Hospital. JFP took so many vets off contract, killed off so many promising characters ... drove actors away ... just awful. And then she got hired at Y&R, I mean, you just can't make this stuff up LOL. It's just amazing how the soap world works with "producing talent". Just recycle hacks left and right (only thing people can defend her for are either the sets or production values and she knows how to win an Emmy ... she really should have been a primetime producer because that's clearly what she would have rather been doing ...).
-
True. I guess it's a good way to look at it so I'll take Pop over nothing at all.
-
Ah, ok! That's good
-
I think there's potentially a huge (in this day and age, huge isn't the same as it was even 10 years ago) audience. This franchise spans a decade on air (1990-2000) and has been in constant reruns (it was on FX, SoapNet and Pop and it's always done well in reruns). It's a beloved franchise that folks STILL talk about. The 90210 reboot on The CW got around 8/9 million viewers for it's premiere. The audience is *there* but will they tune in? The spin-off is all we have to compare and that was poorly done. Kelly faded out (Jennie lost interest apparently and so did they). Donna and Brenda were guest stars. It wasn't the truest reboot/revival, and could have done better. It fizzled because it wasn't great. But it's a good question. I'm curious to see. I imagine a lot of fans will be thrown when they realize it's not an actual reboot in the sense of the word. Personally, I'm starting to like they're trying something different. We'd all be critical of an actual reboot even if it's what we want. How many of us have trashed and cringed when a new reboot is brought up? LOL. It's a big deal they're all back together. The real question shouldn't be "can this get viewers in Season 1", because I have zero doubts it can. The real question is if folks stick with it and it gets a Season 2. I agree nostalgia can only carry things so far.
-
Meh at Pop (though I'd rather it be cable and not broadcast). I guess I can't get my hopes up ... lol. But I want it to continue. I just don't want a one and done. And I think it'll get lost on Pop. No one talks about Pop, except for Schitt's Creek. But maybe now they will? Too bad TV Land got out of the multi-cam sitcom game ... (and their schedule appears to be on autopilot for years now). I don't know why Pop doesn't thrill me. I don't have faith this lasts years and years and I don't want a one and done. (And if CBS All Access wanted a multi-cam sitcom, they could have moved Murphy Brown there instead of axing it ... just saying ...) Netflix clearly made a horrible move here. Viewership apparently GREW from Season 2 to Season 3. GREW. Yet, not enough watched? Something's not adding up here. My guess is that a multi-cam sitcom just isn't the format they want, it's not "binge worthy" to them. They have a different criteria it seems. I don't get it at all. How long do they have the cast? June? Something better happen soon!
-
So many negative nellies! lol If it were a tried and true reboot most would bitch. They do something different, most bitch. Maybe they shouldn't have bothered? lol No one's going to be 100% happy with this. I'm willing to give it a shot. And if it sucks, I will be more than happy to shout it from the rooftops.
-
-
The promos are misleading as hell (most casuals would likely assume the show is being revived) if you don't follow this project more closely and know what it's about ... I'm willing to give it a shot ...
-
I'd prefer shorter seasons. Longer than last, of course, but not 19. I guess if quality holds up I won't complain.
-
I liked it :/ The interview Jennie and Tori did made me a little bit more interested (did any of you read it?). I'll give it a shot. It's not what I want but I can't help but be thrilled seeing them all together, but that's me
-
To be fair with Garcia and Taggert, I always felt they were written to be "wrong" and Sonny/Jason to be "right" so of course they were over the top ... I saw through the blatant writing. lol I know. The show does need a major shakeup. Unfortunately I've lived through enough to know we'd lose who we like and not the ones we think should go sooooo .... but still. It's past time. There's been a lot more outcrying lately about the state of the show, such as Frank and his pets, firing him, the writers, how Monaco is doing her best Chandler Massey and thinking about pizza (who could blame her? but she's been meh for years and years now ...) And then you read interviews with Altman and Van Etten and the whole tease for the Robert/Anna/Finn stuff sounds ridiculous. What they really want to say is "we're forced to do Anna and Finn so we're using Robert to make things interesting for them because they're so goddamn boring together". Robert's only angst for them, he's not a real threat. But he should be. The show could be so much better. They have tons of veterans still able and willing. They have a lot of good castmembers. But Frank is and has been the problem for a long time. Even during Ron's time period, lots of folks blamed him for certain things but it's clear it's Frank who's the problem (I also think Nathan Varni is destructive and clueless), but that's not to defend the writers. Ron was a hot mess (to put it nicely) after his first year and Shelly and Chris, while not awful (and I would like to see them without Frank or without interference), aren't exactly setting the world on fire with their writing. So it's time to clean house. But again I wouldn't mind seeing how Shelly and Chris did without Frank and him forcing his pets on them.
-
Exactly. I'd still take her back though, LOL But sadly most competent producers and writers have no interest anymore, due to years of interference, etc. They've basically all been driven out. Hence the recycling of hacks. 1997 was ... not good but like you said ... I'd take it back anyday over whatever this is now ... hell 2018 was better than 2019 has been. It's not even offensive or destructive, really, it's just ... not good. It feels like it's on autopilot. I LIVED for Garcia and Taggert's hatred of Sonny and Jason.
-
-
-
Such a waste! IMHO But I love seeing them together. ( RIP Luke ) And Jennie and Shannen holding hands!? https://ew.com/tv/2019/05/08/beverly-hills-90210-revival-bh90210-tori-spelling-jennie-garth-exclusive/ Interview with Tori and Jennie. I love what Jennie has to say about perceiving things in your 20s vs in your 40s. I think we all can relate on looking back on things and realizing you interpreted the situation wrong or that you'd handle the same situation so differently with maturity. It sheds light on the series. They're playing fictionalized versions of themselves (no Dean McDermott!!! But "Tori" is married with a bunch of kids) while trying to get a reboot off. They suggest the second season (if there is one) will focus on the reboot aspect. I like what they had to say and I'm slightly more intrigued and willing to give it a shot. Sounds also like Luke was involved initially and supportive of it (I imagine he would have ultimately found a way to participate, so I was wrong there). LOL! @ this: As a fan I must know, will there be a Peach Pit, or will it be Peach Pit After Dark? Something else? GARTH: What would be next after Peach Pit: After Dark? SPELLING: It would be Senior Community Center. [laughs] Peach Pit Senior Center. GARTH: We’re working on a location right now for our new version of the Peach Pit. You’ll be seeing the Peach Pit. SPELLING: There’s definitely going to be for the die-hard fans, there’s going to be moments where they’ll get to see us play Kelly and Donna and all the other characters.
-
-
Ah, puts it in better perspective ... Bill never knew what to do with her either. I think he finds the idea of a character more interesting than the actual execution and he swiftly loses interest. He lost interest in Kristen fairly quick too, didn't he? You can see a lot of comparisons in casting on B&B to that of Y&R and how maybe he wanted to emulate some of them (Ashley/Kristen spring to mind, but I don't think Kristen was ever on par with Ashley but I haven't seen enough of OG Kristen yet to form an opinion)
-
-
-
-
