Tag: TV revivals

New Year’s 2017: 3 wishes for the new year

New Year’s resolutions may not happen, but I can hope these wishes come true, right?

As we usher in 2017, here are my wishes for TV.

No more crossovers

This might be an unpopular opinion, but these two-, three-, and now four-part crossover episodes are too much.

With the success of The CW‘s superhero shows, I get the marketing behind combining all the shows over a week, with each individual show airing a new episode. But when they started these with “The Flash” and “Arrow,” it wasn’t entirely necessary to watch both shows to keep up.

But the recent 4-part crossover between “The Flash,” “Arrow,” “Supergirl” and “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” ended that. I didn’t watch the “Supergirl” part. But “The Flash’s” part ended on a cliffhanger, so then I had to watch “Arrow.” And then “Legends of Tomorrow” finished the saga.

That’s a lot of time to spend on one “event.” And I watch only “The Flash” regularly.

Even though they show what’s happened, it’s still confusing. I felt lost keeping up with some of the story lines because I didn’t know the characters. But I’d be confused not watching the episode of “The Flash” because I might miss stuff.

It shouldn’t be a requirement to watch four shows to fully understand one week of programming. It’s like being an outsider on a show you don’t watch…except you do.

Keep shows available online for at least a month

I made a similar plea for this last year, but I still wish for it.

With Hulu for only subscribers now, it’s more difficult to keep up with weekly TV. It’s doable since networks post content on the websites, but some networks still make you wait eight days unless you verify a cable provider.

But most networks give you only two weeks to watch a show. During midseason breaks, you might get the chance to catch up, but it’s not a guarantee.

We all need time to catch up, even with our favorite shows. So give us a break. Especially in a binge-watching culture, some people would rather watch a few episodes at a time instead of week-to-week.

CBS All Access is the next up and coming thing, especially with “The Good Wife” spinoff “The Good Fight” coming exclusively to it in 2017 (though the first episode will air Feb. 19 on CBS), I’m guessing it won’t be long before TV show won’t ever be free online, but I don’t want to subscribe to multiple TV streaming services.

end the revival trend

“Fuller House.” “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life.” “The Exorcist.”

So many shows and movies are rebooted, revived, etc. And yes, it’s great nostalgia. But I’m done.

“The Exorcist” was creepy but predictable. “Fuller House” isn’t that good of a show. “Gilmore Girls” filled a need to hear the final four words…and then sent fans into a tizzy over what’s next.

Sometimes it’s better to just let a show end in its time and be good, instead of filling an empty void in our hearts.

What do you want for TV in 2017?

‘Fuller House’: Mixed feelings on Netflix reboot of ‘Full House’

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on Feb. 29, 2016. Season 2 of “Fuller House” hits Netflix on Dec. 9.

We may not always have the milkman, the paperboy or evening TV…but we do still have “Full House.”

It’s just “Fuller House” now.

The much-anticipated reboot premiered Friday, and I have mixed feelings about it.

Let me first say that I love “Full House,” but I wasn’t ready for reboot.

I didn’t think “Girl Meets World,” the reboot of “Boy Meets World,” worked. While it was fun to see the cast members reunite, the Disney show missed the spark of its predecessor.

“Fuller House” has a similar problem. But, after the first two episodes, it improved.

The Netflix show’s first episodes were jam-packed with nostalgia and old gags. From “How rude!” to an Elvis baby costume, a lot was there…including an awkward break-the-fourth-wall moment acknowledging the absence of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, who played Michelle Tanner in “Full House.”

The premiere takes place 29 years after “Full House.” It focuses on D.J. Fuller (formerly Tanner) (Candace Cameron Bure), who’s trying to balance work and family life after her husband died.

So, basically it’s “Full House” with reverse gender roles. Guess who checks in to help out? Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Kimmy Gibbler (Andrea Barber).

It’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just makes some plots, such as episode’s 2 moving in and sharing rooms, boring. And the first episode was filled with exposition, even though I bet 90 percent of people watching the show already knew the basics.

But by episode 3, the plots improved. They weren’t all rehashed from “Full House,” and they incorporated the use of modern items such as smartphones, Uber and social media.

Issues such as parenting and moving on cross over well between the two shows, but “Fuller House” takes a moment to look at other problems such as infertility. It was refreshing to see this type of comedy tackle bigger issues while still maintaining its loving, always-ending-in-a-hug moments.

At times the plots came out forced, such as a “Dancing with the Stars”/“Dirty Dancing” moment at a club with Maks and Val Chmerkovskiy and D.J.’s high school boyfriend Steve’s (Scott Weinger) attempts to date her. It also could be stale with the old jokes and format (one conflict for the kids, one for the adults), but it still provided laughs.

The problem with these reboots is that expectations are too high, so it’s impossible to please people. But I will say “Fuller House” is better than “Girl Meets World.”

If you loved “Full House,” give “Fuller House” a chance, but try to keep your expectations at bay. It’s still enjoyable, but you won’t be saying “Holy chalupas,” the catchphrase of Max, DJ’s middle child.

What do you think of “Fuller House”?

Binge-watching prevalent, but weekly watching still a good way to watch TV

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on March 15, 2016.
NOTE: “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life” premieres Nov. 25. All four 90-minute episodes will be released at once.

Is TV really TV anymore?

With Netflix, Hulu, On Demand and more, it’s no surprise people are overwhelmed with options.

So how do people watch? It depends. But binge-watching has become a norm.

I just got into watching Netflix. I know, I’m really behind. But the main reason definitely has something to do with “Gilmore Girls.”

“Gilmore Girls” is one of many shows getting the reboot/revival treatment. Four episodes, each centered around a season, will come to Netflix sometime soon.

Amy Sherman-Palladino, one of the creators, doesn’t want to release the episodes all at once, which made me consider how I want to watch these new episodes.

I’ve wanted to see more “Gilmore Girls” for years, so I’m conflicted about having to wait any more than I already have. But I also think it’ll be nice to savor the episodes.

As with most things in life, there are two sides to this story:

3 ADVANTAGES OF BINGE-WATCHING

More continuity. You can clearly see how events, relationships and more unfold throughout a show if you binge-watch.

Easier to follow. Watching episodes one after the other makes you less likely to forget something since it stays fresh in your mind.

Satisfaction of finishing a show. There’s something rewarding about finishing a show after days of binge-watching … or even making it through a season in a weekend. Though there might be other things to do …

3 ADVANTAGES OF WEEKLY WATCHING

Builds suspense. Cliffhangers stay cliffhangers when you have time between shows. You can think of all the possibilities and then be surprised when something changes.

Satisfaction of waiting. Waiting for something gives it more value. Nothing is spoiled, it’s cherished. Plus you’ll have time to do other things. I mean, really, 30 minutes of one show weekly vs. four hours of one show in one day … you do the math.

Less chance for spoilers. If you’re binge-watching a show, chances are it aired in real time a while ago. Which likely means there are lots of articles and social media posts and friends who can spoil the plot for you. Watching in real time lessens the chance of spoilers because you’re watching plots unfold as the show airs.

When it comes to “Gilmore Girls,” I’ll take what I can get … as long as it’s sooner rather than later. In the mean time, I’ll keep binge-watching and watching shows weekly.

Which do you prefer: binge-watching or weekly watching? Why?

‘Full House’ shouldn’t be revived, even if it ‘Boy Meets World’ has been

This blog was originally published on elkharttruth.com on Sept. 11, 2014.

Just because a show was good in the ’90s doesn’t mean it will be good now.

Case in point: “Girl Meets World.”

Sorry, Disney, but the show doesn’t work.

So, John Stamos, as much as I love Uncle Jesse, please don’t revive “Full House.”

“Girl Meets World,” a spin-off of “Boy Meets World,” should’ve been destined for success. It had the nostalgia factor. It was going to have Cory and Topanga. And old cast members of “Boy Meets World” kept coming out of the woodwork to guest star. Even Minkus (Lee Norris) and Harvey “Harley” Keiner (Danny McNulty) came on the show.

Not to say “Girl Meets World” is not successful — it has been renewed for season 2, and it’s the No. 1 TV show for kids 2 to 14, according to Entertainment Weekly. But it’s failing to conjure the magic of its predecessor.

When I finally sat down to watch some episodes of “Girl Meets World” a few weeks ago, I was disappointed.

I’m a huge fan of “Boy Meets World.” I’ve seen every episode multiple times. I hate when Cory and Topanga aren’t together. I love how the parents take care of Cory and his friends.

But “Girl Meets World” does not have the same dynamic.

Yes, it’s a family show. Yes, Riley (Cory and Topanga’s daughter) and her friend, Maya, have similar characteristics to Cory and Shawn. But the show comes off as a cheesy rehashing of the original, with copied to-the-tee plot lines and forced moral lessons, which came off so naturally on “Boy Meets World.”

Part of the problem with “Girl Meets World” is simply the passage of time. Cory and Topanga were wonderful to watch as kids and students, but they aren’t as relatable as adults. Not everyone who watched “Boy Meets World” is at the stage in life where kids are on the horizon, much less in middle school — which is where Riley is.

This is probably why “Friends” will never return. As much as fans clamor for a reunion, co-creator Marta Kauffman has made it clear the show is about being in your 20s — when your friends are your family — so a movie reunion will never happen. Chandler and Monica had a family at the end of the show’s 10-year — why would we want to watch that?

If the key to the “Girl Meets World” was Cory and Topanga, it failed. They aren’t young anymore. They have responsibility, and it was more fun to watch them struggle through life than to see them have it all together.

That’s why “Full House” shouldn’t be revived. Word on the street is Stamos wants to bring the show back and many cast members are on board.

If you are going to bring a TV show back, it needs to have value and purpose. Besides nostalgia, a “Full House” revival doesn’t have value or purpose, and it’s not a fresh idea, either.

“Boy Meets World” and “Full House” still do well in reruns on various networks. It’s partly for nostalgia, but it’s also partly for the fact that the shows are timeless, minus the fashions. (I hope feathered bangs never come back.)

But let’s stick to reruns only, please. Or funny Jimmy Kimmel Live staged reunions. Enjoy.