For me, I'm even okay with recasting some major roles because these are reboots. It's a completely different animal. I view it like Dallas on TNT. I don't view John Ross or Christopher as recasts because it's a new production. Whatever cast these new shows start with will be those characters for me. But I still say if you need to do too much recasting, just create new characters so it isn't an issue for you.

ITA. But that goes back to a question I asked a while back: are these shows reboots or are they resurrections?

IMO, a reboot means re-imagining everything and starting from scratch like Dallas (the best model for PP to follow), Star Trek: TNG, Battlestar Galactica or the gawd-awful attempts to bring back Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman and Knight Rider. A resurrection is pretty self-explanatory. Bring the show back as close to it was: Family Guy, Arrested Development and Firefly (in the form of the movie, Serenity.)

I want these shows to be reboots. I think that's their best chance for success.

Although Dallas didn't actually reboot. It was off the air for over 20 years. It utilized the existing cast it could and then used legacy children. It's now using even more of the previous cast. Had it come back 10 or 20 years ago it would be a different story. And any time I've heard that approach suggested to you in the past you react like somebody tossed acid at you.

These shows have been off the year for less than two years, which is a very different situation, and daytime has always been a different animal than a primetime soap. It can certainly change and revolutionize itself as it has many times before, but that doesn't mean cutting out the core characters or families, anymore than Dallas did. Which is why these shows won't cut them out, either.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Vee

I thought a reboot was basically taking something and doing it all over again with same characters and whatnot.

To me Dallas isn't a reboot but a continuation in alot of ways

I thought a reboot was basically taking something and doing it all over again with same characters and whatnot.

To me Dallas isn't a reboot but a continuation in alot of ways

So do you see Dallas as a resurrection more than a reboot? Because I can see the argument for that.

I gave my definition for what I think of as a "reboot" but I'm completely open to other definitions.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

So do you see Dallas as a resurrection more than a reboot? Because I can see the argument for that.

I gave my definition for what I think of as a "reboot" but I'm completely open to other definitions.

You said a reboot was "re-imagining everything and starting from scratch", which IS correct but that's not what Dallas is, it's a continuation of the show just 20 ears later.

You said a reboot was "re-imagining everything and starting from scratch", which IS correct but that's not what Dallas is, it's a continuation of the show just 20 ears later.

I was iffy on whether to define Dallas as a reboot or a resurrection. I'm willing to accept I called it wrong.

I guess by those standards AMC/OLTL have to be classified as resurrections and not reboots. I don't know whether that's good or bad.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

While I tend to reserve "reboot" for shows like 2011's Charlie's Angels or Ving Rhames as Kojak, I think Dallas falls into both categories. It retains cast members from the original and is in many ways a continuation, but there have been some retcons and de-SORASing, not to mention the sheer number of years that have passed since the original. Even though the focus has shifted to the younger generation (a natural soap opera progression), one thing I would not call it is a "revamp" (save that for Loving/The City or Central Park West/CPW).

While I tend to reserve "reboot" for shows like 2011's Charlie's Angels or Ving Rhames as Kojak

I hated the former and was completely unaware of the latter but I see what you mean.

Personally I'm torn. I love some of these characters and I want to see their stories continue but at the same time, I truly believe that things have to change if the genre is going to survive.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by marceline

Things can always change without annihilating the core of the show. That's why Dallas was a success, for one.

I was almost at the Empire 25 today! He seems like a nice man, I just hope they don't get screwed.

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by Vee

Thom Racina's video Message

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200388579787985

Thanks for sharing that. I'm somewhat amused by how Thom Racina acts in this video.

ITA. But that goes back to a question I asked a while back: are these shows reboots or are they resurrections?

IMO, a reboot means re-imagining everything and starting from scratch like Dallas (the best model for PP to follow), Star Trek: TNG, Battlestar Galactica or the gawd-awful attempts to bring back Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman and Knight Rider. A resurrection is pretty self-explanatory. Bring the show back as close to it was: Family Guy, Arrested Development and Firefly (in the form of the movie, Serenity.)

I want these shows to be reboots. I think that's their best chance for success.

Wouldn't Dallas be a mix of the two? Bionic Women, Batlestar Gallactica, etc, didn't have direct connections tothe original (Star Trek did more so but I'd call it a genuine sequel). This is all confusing me

I think they haven't been gone long enough to be full on reboots, but I wouldn't mind if they had more of the reboot elements you mention.

*edit* SOrry Marceline, I see others already picked on you about the terminology I do want changes, but more with format and content than structure. Remember when PP first announced this nd people half joked about a show set in Pine Valley with a bunch of brand new 20 year olds, etc--ie AMC in name only. That would make no sense--for me a reboot is more like when a movie is remade--elements from the original are used but you don't have any actual connection (except maybe character or location names sometimes) with the past, zero knowledge of any of the past is referenced or aknowledged, etc

Edited January 31, 201312 yr by EricMontreal22

The UK has great success with their soaps and huge audiences and they add new families all the time. I know it's a different market, but I do think their soaps are better for it. Now I wouldn't want the same turnaround, but I'd certainly prefer them cut one or two families out and add an entirely new family if they were having trouble getting actors from certain families. I don't think viewers would react poorly to it either.

The UK has great success with their soaps and huge audiences and they add new families all the time. I know it's a different market, but I do think their soaps are better for it. Now I wouldn't want the same turnaround, but I'd certainly prefer them cut one or two families out and add an entirely new family if they were having trouble getting actors from certain families. I don't think viewers would react poorly to it either.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think the viewers would react poorly to it.

One new family is fine (and it sounds like they could be going there)--though a soap cliche like Maya being a long lost Castillo sibling might be a bit much (we only saw Mama Castillo in that web-episode, right?)

If you start the new show off though with, like, two whole new families, it's a bit jarring.