An 'Everybody Loves Raymond' reboot is 'out of the question,' says Ray Romano.
      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        3·
        11 months ago

        Most shows need a character to bully for some reason. I guess everyone in Hollywood just chooses someone in their life to verbally abuse and they think everyone else does that too?

    • Kushan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      “Kevin can f*** himself” is literally about that very thing. It’s not amazing and does a weird thing where it bounces between sitcom mode and…I guess thriller mode, which doesn’t always work but I appreciated the way it dealt with the sitcom bullshit of abusive relationships.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    294·
    11 months ago

    Good.
    It was barely funny when it first came out, and hasn’t aged well at all (I know because it’s on every fucking morning when there is literally nothing else to watch).
    Keep the misogyny, toxic masculinity and heteronormativity, and abusive-bullshit-as-normal in the past where they belong - boomer humour needs to be allowed to die, not kept alive at any cost to fill a handful of greedy pockets and entertain bigots (cough cough Frasier cough cough).

  • wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social
    15·
    11 months ago

    let things have their time. i understand the idea behind a lot of these revivals, but they’re often pretty bad. it’s not just about getting actors back and rebuilding sets. it’s about the writers and all the other people that work on these shows. i’m fairly happy with how the Futurama revival turned out, but they were already set up for it, and it was really just another joke about all the other times they got revived.

    in the case of Everybody Loves Raymond, you don’t have Peter Boyle. without him the show would just be a shadow of its former self anyway.

    sometimes it’s better to imagine these characters just riding off into the sunset.

  • Gamoc@lemmy.world
    144·
    11 months ago

    Obviously Ray is worried, because Everybody Loves Raymond was SO shit that an even worse reboot would create a hole in reality that everything would be sucked into. God knows where we would end up.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    122·
    11 months ago

    So far the only thing I’ll ever say was a good reboot was the 2nd Jumanji movie. The one that came after that is a shameless cash grab with little to no soul, but the other one was actually pretty decent.

    They didn’t pull a Star Wars and take the best parts of the previous movies to make a new film. They didn’t make it overly cringe or completely dumb it down to the point of being nothing at all like the original. And they tried something new instead of just re-creating the original but only changing the time period and characters.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
        10·
        11 months ago

        It’s the best reboot example I have because all others I’ve seen suck. I don’t have any other point of reference for good reboots other than Jumanji.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      the other one was actually pretty decent.

      So it was only mediocre? I can’t personally speak to it as I only saw the original, but this is hardly a ringing endorsement for reboots as a whole, or even that specific one.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    111·
    11 months ago

    Rarely, but not never.

    But, that’s probably because making a hit is very hard. The shows that are considered for a reboot are the hits. So, not only does it have to be a hit, but it has to be a bigger hit than the original.

    That’s probably why the good remakes are remakes of something that was a hit because it broke new ground in some way, rather than just having great acting, directing, writing, etc.

    The original Star Trek was a hit not because the writing, acting and directing were top notch, but because the show had female officers, it had a Russian helmsman working with American officers. It had TV’s first interracial kiss. It aired during the cold war, but depicted a post-capitalist world that might arguably have been communist. All that mattered more than the writing and acting. When they rebooted it, they could get great writers, directors and actors. Same general idea with Battlestar: Galactica and Doctor Who.

    This also explains why it would be hard to reboot a sitcom. Sitcom situations are… um… common. Typically sitcoms don’t break any new ground. If they’re popular it’s because of good writing, acting and directing. This might also be why some people thought the Will & Grace reboot was good. The first one was popular partially because it broke new ground, depicting homosexuality in a positive and normal light. Arguably that mattered more than the acting, writing and direction.

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    123·
    11 months ago

    Pfft, Degrassi the Next Generation kicked Degrassi’s ass.

    Also the more respectable answers like Star Trek TNG, FMA Brotherhood, and The Office too, but I stand by Degrassi TNG > Degrassi!

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      52·
      11 months ago

      FMA brotherhood is very divisive lol but I liked it too! It’s also not really a “reboot” in the traditional sense.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        2·
        11 months ago

        FMA:B divisive? This is the first I’ve heard that, isn’t it the top rated anime on MAL?

        edit: Also 17th on imdb’s top 250 tv shows of all time, with the only animated shows ahead of it being Rick and Morty, Bluey (lol), and Avatar: The Last Airbender

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          Many people are divided over which one is “better.”
          Some say brotherhood is tighter/more streamlined and some say it’s at the cost of characterization/it’s too trimmed. Not divisive in “people hate it” but open a discussion with a couple of fans and they’ll gladly argue about why one is superior to the other. Though occasionally I’ll meet some diehards who work really hard to convince people not to watch brotherhood and instead watch the full/original version.

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            1·
            11 months ago

            Ah I wonder if that’s a thing that’s a preference for people who grew up with the 2003 anime. From my personal experience, most people prefer Brotherhood as the definitive adaptation of Hiromu Arakawa’s story, and either haven’t even bothered going back to the 2003 anime, or find ok but not as cohesive as Brotherhood (as you mentioned), or really dislike the departures it takes from the “canon” storyline.

            As an aside, I did not expect to get into a discussion about FMA in an Everybody Love Raymond thread lol

            • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
              1·
              11 months ago

              I have to admit that the storyline with the little girl and some of the other emotional parts hit me harder in the original, because they were able to stretch out those relationships longer. But at other times, it stretched too long and that’s where I appreciated Brotherhood going to the action quicker.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            1·
            11 months ago

            For what that show tries to do, it performs magnificently! Wholesome positive relationships in a show about a family, how novel!

            Funny that it had to come from the literal other side of the globe.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        If I’m being fer real fer real, I like FMA and FMA:B equally and think they both have very different but on the whole equal things of value to offer.

  • Odigo2020@lemmy.zipEnglish
    3·
    11 months ago

    I think Will and Grace was the only reboot that was quality. I’ve heard good things about the Kids in the Hall reboot, but I don’t think that really counts since it’s sketch comedy.