KMan101

Well, time changes things. What did he do to piss them off? I had no idea they weren't speaking to him. But to be fair, he could still reboot Frasier without them. Not that I wouldn't want the rest back. EXACTLY! And I think that's the appeal of going back. Actors are seeing the viability in exploring their popular characters again because they realize there are new things to tell. Of course they don't want to go back two years after the show's over, but give 'em 15-20 years and time changes. There's more to explore. We're in a different place than we were when many of these went off the air. For so long you "couldn't go back" but now many are seeing that you actually can and it's not the end of the world. It's like the soaps. That's why people are invested. There's a history and attachment there. I think it's a great idea to revive old shows. They lose me with the "reboots" though (there's a difference between a reboot and a revival, but they all get called "reboots" and I hate it, LOL). But I get everyone lumping them together and calling it all lazy. And some have blurred the lines, like 90210 and Melrose Place. REBOOT: - Charlie's Angels (before it's time? lol) - 90210 (revival on some level, reboot on another) - Melrose Place (revival on some level, reboot on another) - Dynasty - Magnum PI - Hawaii Five-0 - One Day at a Time - Alf (likely to be a mix of revival/reboot "we're continuing the story with a new family") - Facts of Life (not a guarantee and could go either way if any of the cast demands to be involved) REVIVAL - Roseanne / The Conners - Will & Grace - Murphy Brown - Fuller House (spin-off/slash revival) - Dallas (though it seemed to want to be a reboot not a revival) - 90210 (falls under both, IMO) - Melrose Place (falls under both, IMO) Apologies for forgetting anyone.

I mean, look at CBS - Murphy Brown - Magnum P.I. - FBI - S.W.A.T. - Hawaii Five-0 - Young Sheldon (spin-off but it's from the mother franchise) Most companies now want "sure bets". They're very risk adverse, even though risk often pays off. I'm a Disney Parks fan and they're also very risk adverse, cloning attractions and making "safe bets" tied to franchises and IP's that are familiar. Gone are the days of them coming up with their own ideas. I'm not justifying it, just saying it's a corporate reality at the moment. I don't like it but sometimes we can get something good out of it.

This! I'm all for this. The timing would be right. They could work in the passing of Martin and have that be a great launching point. Not like the actors, even Neuwirth, aren't somewhat available. I know they're all busy, not saying they aren't, but they don't have long-term series commitments from what I'm aware of. I feel like Kelsey wasn't on the bandwagon of revivals at first but I wonder if the passing of John Mahoney has him thinking similarly as me. I know people are tired of revivals but I say bring 'em. Give me Frasier realizing life repeats itself with his now adult son. I think Will & Grace's revival has definitely caused others to re-think the idea. The Conners likely as well. Murphy Brown could go either way but I can't help but be a little excited when I see the cast back together. So I'm jumping onboard. I have more of an issue with reboots like Charmed and Roswell and Dynasty than I do with bringing back old shows that I loved. Sure it's the same purpose (use a familiar name to draw a built-in audience) but I'd rather have the history behind it. (One Day at a Time is an absolute exception to this though, and proves it can be possible, but I also understand it's annoying to some and not neccessary and creatively lazy) I'd rather watch Frasier and The Conners than Zach Braff's latest failure. We can't beat it, so we might as well join it. I really never thought actors like Patrick Stewart and Kelsey Grammar would go back to their roles, but time changes people's minds. Frasier doesn't seem imminent (doesn't Grammar have something with Kristen Bell on a streaming service? He was just on GMA peddling it but I don't recall any Frasier reboot talk)

Welcome! Apparently it was on this morning. I totally forgot. Or it was supposed to be. I know Logo is airing FOL right now for Charlotte Rae One Day at a Time is back on the schedule THIS Friday @ 12:00PM. But Logo is notorious for switching up their schedules on a whim so DVR is your best bet. It's a Living follows at 3:00PM on Friday. @All My Shadows @ChitHappens Finally they schedule compatible shows together. Looking through the listings ... Monday 8/13 It's a Living airs from 3:15pm - 6:35pm (gotta get those commercials in!). One Day at a Time is on before it at 12:00pm. Tuesday 8/14 It's a Living airs from 12:00pm - 4:00pm Wednesday 8/15 It's a Living airs from 9:00am - 12:00pm (Laverne & Shirley follows at 12:00pm) Friday 8/17 It's a Living airs from 12:00pm - 5:00pm (One Day at a Time is on before it from 9:00am - 12:00pm) Unless it gets pulled, it should be on a lot next week. Who knew Logo would ever be so great for classic TV fans?

It is funny what we can make time for lol. I knew I was forgetting someone about IAL! I'll try and keep track but Logo has an ever changing schedule. Sometimes they stick with blocks of the same shows sometimes they mix it up. I have one of my streaming dvrs set up to record it so I don't miss it. I'll have to look at the schedule. I really liked Season 1. It's a basic sitcom but the leads are all solid. I can see though how it sort of got lost in the shuffle. It's even more generic sitcom plot later, but I still enjoy it. I wish they gave Ann Jillian more to do than. They rarely seem to center an episode around her.

Same here. I forgot how much I enjoyed the show. It's been a long time since I've seen it. Probably since when it aired on TV Land (around 2002-2004?). I need Knots Landing and Falcon Crest to get back on my screen. I haven't watched either since SoapNet. And because I don't feel like starting a thread or finding the other one, It's a Living seems to be back in rotation on Logo. It's started with the first season a few weeks ago on a Friday late night and it seems they've been airing more of it just this week. I've recorded them but haven't kept up with the schedule @ChitHappens and whoever else would be interested. Can't recall who else showed interest.

WOW! I mean, people aren't stupid, they remember where a star got their start. It's bizarre we have this tendency now that if we erase it it doesn't exist ... or pretend it didn't happen ... They should be worrying about other things than that their star got their start on a soap and many of those fans are following them to what they're doing now ... Thanks. I forgot about that, lol.

I remember that. She's a class act all the way around. I don't remember the mocking but it's not a surprise. Soaps have long had a stigma that many still cling to. And sometimes the soaps themselves don't help this ... lawd. lol

Well, yeah ... lol. They have a lot of viewers who feel a certain way and they often seem to play it safe. NBC has come around and Paul, Will and Sonny are pretty accepted it seems. CBS clearly sucks at this. ABC is a mixed bag. I blame it more on the writers and Frank than on ABC not wanting to see "the gays" (I know Brad and Lucas have finally started popping back up again but isn't their story mostly about Julian now? And anything with them is usually off-screen?) And I adore them for it. I appreciate when they can acknowledge their past without a sneer. I mean, Julianne Moore CAME BACK to ATWT as it ended. That was such an amazing gesture. If This Is Us wasn't a ridiculous hit, Hartley would have already probably been back on Y&R, lol. I've been glad to hear over the years actors not too familiar with Daytime acknowledge how demanding it is.

Fair point. But I find accepting online streaming and accepting someone's way of a life very different. I'm part of the community so I welcome everyone to grow and change (and while I understand the point you were trying to make I still find them vastly different). Just saying it "looks" hypocritical sometimes, but I'm not trying to say everyone is. Just certain people and situations come off as hypocritical. Not really a big deal, lol. Just my opinion of course But yes, I welcome anyone who can grow and change and evolve. I'm always trying to learn from situations and I handle a lot of things differently than I did say 10 years ago. I feel like the same person yet in a lot of ways completely different. Anywho ... I'm also tired of daytime playing it safe. UK soaps have numerous gay people and it's not at all a big deal. Not that I think the writing for them is all that great but often they're treated like anyone else and given lots of stories (usually dark and depressing). DAYS treats them like anyone else but it's not really enough.

Well, yeah, adaptable is a nice way to put it, but it does make some "look" like hypocrites for demeaning the forum only to come around to it later. But that's life, people come around when it's popular. I tend to be early to the party (and late to some) and like things before they're popular and tend to not fall for the overhype things get when they're suddenly mainstream popular. I always saw the potential of streaming. Like you said, look how many actors are jumping into cable or streaming tv shows. Heck, Jaime Lee Curtis was on that awful Ryan Murphy show on FOX for two seasons! Kathy Bates, Angela Bassett ... the list is long. I'd call it a bit hypocritical in some cases. In other cases, many were just wary and came around when it suddenly became popular. It's like when anyone jumps on the latest trend after dismissing it for years. But it does come off a tad hypocritical in some cases. For decades there was a clear divide between Broadway, Film, Soaps and Television. Some actors/actresses always mixed it up. But it was looked down upon. The lines are long gone now, it was a slow transition but the last, say 10 years, it's so much different and more accepted to jump around and do various forms of entertainment. They see it as a way to flex their acting abilities and do different things. For decades popular stars on primetime, in movies, etc. couldn't run fast enough away from their popular characters. The FRIENDS cast still suffers from this. I want to add more to this post and reply to more of what you said (getting into the PP soaps and the fans still bitching) but I'm pressed for time at the moment. I'll post more later I think this is a great topic of discussion! And interesting about Netflix chasing big stars. It's kind of a shame because they're becoming 'too big' IMO. But I get it. It's what happens with companies. They grow and grow and what they once stood for falls to the wayside. I think there are still some outlets for independent artists but I see it becoming a struggle again. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, they want to be big and mainstream. They need to keep topping themselves and getting big names and shows. It makes sense but it's taking away what made it so appealing to jump to streaming (aside from being able to be creatively free, though I imagine that changing too and more interference emerging)

You said it well above my quote and I agree with you. There was a stigma attached. It doesn't exist anymore. Some of course still remain set in their ways but streaming has come a long way. It's much more "accepted" and seen as a means to get quality work out there. I think B&B could very easily become a CBS All Access Exclusive Soap. I also think all soaps should still be a half hour though ... lol I wish creatives saw soaps as a way to tell a great story. We get so many serialized, soapy, shows yet soap operas are still looked down upon in the industry. Not as much by actors but overall it's an afterthought. They shouldn't be. It's really too bad they couldn't stay relevant (and they could have, without it being what they *think* is relevant, when it really isn't).

I've been touting the online thing too. It's their best option at surviving. But no one seems to be jumping on it. AMC/OLTL were a few years too early in their jump (which sounds odd to say, I know, but 2013 was ages ago in the scheme of technology and how people were embracing it; GL would have been even earlier and likely cancelled again - just a hunch). It's a shame PP bit off more than they could chew and that ABC were such asses about it all. They should have been working together. I also think you answered your own question on why soap fans (not really on here) were/are hesitant for the jump to online. "Web soap" and "online show" were almost dirty words. I don't know. There was just a massive resistance. I think it's a case of people being set in their ways and seeing things a certain way. Many also don't have the luxury of high speed internet or even computer access. TV, free over the air, is always going to be what people want. But there's so much advantage to streaming. I'm glad to see it coming so far and streaming on the TV has brought a lot of people around. There's quite a few jumping to streaming, DirecTVNow, YoutubeTV, etc. Lots of this wasn't available just five years ago. There was a stigma attached to something being broadcast online. Most people just don't like going out of their comfort zone. We as a society (not all of us, of course) prefer what we know to what we don't so people hedge off. Then they come around when it becomes more "mainstream popular". I think the reaction to AMC/OLTL going online, say, this year, would be different than 5 years ago, and seven years ago when they were cancelled (can you believe it's been that long already?). Some were bitter and didn't want to follow them online. No one's ever going to be 100% satisfied, especially a soap fan EDIT: Let's not forget, people watching them on Hulu wasn't the problem. Another problem was the somewhat nasty and negative coverage the AMC/OLTL reboots got. Wasn't Giddens particularly critical for no apparent reason other than to be a bitch about things? It was bizarre some of the reactions people had.

lol. I love it. And it's true. The show tackles some good topics. And manages to be real and have humor. It's a fantastic show. I hope more people start checking it out.

She really has had an amazing year. I'm so happy for Laurie. She's very talented.

lol. I'd so watch it!

HMC seems like she enjoys being outraged. I thought they were all over the show too by the time it ended. It definitely lasted a season or two longer than it should have. The promo for the new show looks OK, I guess.

Logo came to my mind as well. And one of my favorite theme songs too.

It really is. So many have the mentality of "you're either with us or against us" and that's just not how it should be. People are forgetting to be human beings first ...

But they haven't really broached politics since the first episode. The fans are making it political, but it really isn't. The first two episodes were great. Episode 3 was meh. But they've hit their stride again with the last few episodes and I hope they keep on this track. I think we'll get a Halloween episode. Roseanne mentioned it first thing when they were renewed for Season 2, and they'll be on in the fall so there's hope! *crossing fingers* I agree they try to cram too much in sometimes but I'd rather see most of the cast than just a few (although I realize you're talking about the topics they deal with and I agree they may be trying to do too much but they only thought they had 9 episodes so I get it, we'll see what they do next season with a few more episodes of breathing room; I think 13 is best. I don't need 22 episodes with half of them being filler episodes). But I think they can find a good balance. I really don't think the show is very political at all. I like it broaching real topics and making us laugh about them and talk about them. We're so worried about offending each other that we don't talk about things we should be talking about. (Just in general, not saying here, of course, lol, but everyone is so quick to be offended or take something the wrong way, etc.)

LOL it was well done. I'm glad the show is on Hulu. It's been criminally ignored for decades now in reruns. It pops up here and there but never lasts. I'm surprised Antenna or Laff haven't picked it up. I feel like I remember Hallmark trying it out but maybe I'm wrong? I think it would have been a good fit there but they seem to cling to Frasier and Cheers reruns in late night.

As much as Laurie is a.m.a.z.i.n.g. Jackie works better how they've been using her. But I agree in wanting to see a little bit more. Hopefully next season. I finally watched last week's episode. The episode was hilarious. The show has found it's groove again. It started a tad rusty but they've hit their stride again, IMHO. Fantastic episode and felt so old school. I loved it. The actors portraying the Muslim family were great. I hope we see them pop up more in the future. I just loved it. "Talibanistan" Roseanne honestly came back to TV at the perfect time. We need to laugh. We need to talk and have humor about life again. I really liked how they tackled this subject. It just ... worked. I also really liked seeing more of DJ. I'm glad they're finally touching on him and what he's been up to. Mary is so freaking adorable love her. I loved the all-girl sleepover. I have to admit before the season started I had all sorts of unfounded fears of if they would all be able to slip back into these roles. But man. They have. I was worried most about Sara Gilbert but she's just nailing Darlene again and I'm here for it. Glad it'll be coming back in the fall! HALLOWEEN! Roseanne desperately wants to do one. EDIT: Can't believe I forgot! CHUCK AND ANNE MARIE!! Anne Marie's side eye game was SO on point lmao. I've always loved Adilah Barnes, I'm really glad to see her and James Pickens back. They too slipped right back into their roles.

Seeing mixed reactions in here. Maybe I'll try to go back and watch. I don't know if I can watch that many episodes though, lol. I'll try ... I just have to have some expectations in check I guess. It's a CW show after all. I saw the first couple of episodes ... a little rushed but not the absolute worst I suppose. lol Rutherford and Sheridan joining helps immensely. They can drop Cristal for all I care. Kill her off. I hate saying that but she adds literally nothing, which is a shame.

True. It's just bizarre to feel like Andy doesn't exist. But they said it'd be addressed. I don't mind waiting, it just feels weird not a mention of Andy and Jackie having a son is on the show. But oh well. Just nitpicking honestly.

Yeah, I miss the days of network exclusivity to a show. Golden Girls for years was ONLY on Lifetime, for example. I miss that.