Read more here.

Thanks for the article. I agree with the man who says the remake actually has to be good. The remake for Bionic Woman was a mess, with a weak actress who couldn't do an American accent, and which was supposed to be an update of the original, yet with a producer who said he'd never even seen the original. I remember the endless hype over how impressed we were supposed to be that he was a producer on BSG. Never mind that that was a niche show, not something that would work on a network.

Most remakes are at heart lazy, which is why they don't succeed.

I wish the new 90210 was as good this season last year when it had so many people tuning into the premiere. Now the show isn't perfect and moves a little slow, but I'll take that over the whiplash we get on most modern serialized shows. I do think that now the show is a success critically, but before like Melrose, Bionic, etc. you just throw in anyone as a showrunner and the projects felt rushed. If you're going to play off the success of the original then it needs to be as good and a faithful adaptation. Now a remake as opposed to s spin-off has more liberties, but there are certain things that should remain.

I think a lot of these remakes highlight just how bad network TV is now. I'm speaking mainly about serialized dramas. A show like Desperate Housewives would've been laughed off of TV after one season. It has so many plot holes, dropped stories and absolutely know character development. If you look on cable those shows work because they still have longer scenes and tell a story that unfolds in a way that makes the viewer want more. Look at Damages, Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. Now it's "GO GO GO!!! SWEEPS!!!!"

If you can't even remake a show like Melrose Place then something is wrong. I'm over remakes and I'm dreading the upcoming Dallas remake/reboot. I hope my dear Knots Landing and My Three Sons are never touched.

I think Melrose was always going to be a difficult show to remake because the flavor of the show was so rooted to that era, was so rooted to the chemistry between the cast members. I really don't know what the point was of remaking it. Why not just do another show set in an apartment complex/office setting?

“This may be one case where an established brand is more a liability than an asset. In television, it’s a much safer approach to rip off an old idea than to try to remake one. It’s a perfectly plausible plan to develop a new TV show about three beautiful women fighting crime in fabulous clothes; maybe not such a good idea to call it ‘Charlie’s Angels.’ ”

This is basically it for me. They want to update and modernize and this and that, but by the time you're done doing all of that, all you have is a reliable name and a similar premise, but nothing else is the same, so it looks like they just want the publicity that the name gives them. It sucks.

I still don't get why 90210 and MP are called remakes. Those are revivals (just like Dragnet 67 was and the 2001 series of the UK soap Crossroads), set in the original show's universe, with original characters' storylines continuing over from the original show.

If you can't even remake a show like Melrose Place then something is wrong. I'm over remakes and I'm dreading the upcoming Dallas remake/reboot. I hope my dear Knots Landing and My Three Sons are never touched.

My Three Sons! Aaah! Robbie grew up to be so foine in the later years when he was married to Katie and they had the kids. Love that show.

Oddly enough, Don Fedderson's other big 60s sitcom, Family Affair, was remade by The CW in 2002. Failed.

Edited January 1, 201015 yr by All My Shadows

Has there been a successful TV remake EVER? The so so revivals of Hitchcock Presents and Twilight Zone and Outer Limits in the80s and 90s might count--and Galactica was def a bigger critical grab this time around, but...

I think one thing is, as the article implied, they see that movie remakes often do really well (although there are countless flops there too). The thing is a movie remake even if it's not great CAN coast on nostalgia more than a whole series--it's one thing to waste 2 hours of your life seeing Charlie's Angels cuz of the stars and a faint sentiment for memories of the old show--but if it's a tv series remake it has t find new reasons to watch and not just rent the old DVDs if we're gonna stick with it for 22+ hours.

I think another reason movie remakes of old shows do well is that filmmakers can pump a lot more money into the concept than the TV show ever did, and can dazzle you for a couple of hours with production values. It's sort of nice to see a cheap and sleazy show like Charlie's Angels remade with an actual budget.