People that use "cringe" unironically are typically referring to others that are simply not embarrassed to be open or outgoing. I could see that being the case about this show.
They should have moved the characters on, and explored a more serious avenue for them. That would have been actually interesting. You know, the way life actually goes? Yeah, they were young doctors, playing pranks etc. But, now they're more serious, but still occasionally funny. It didn't need to be the same show, and shoudn't be.
When Futurama comes back around again, we expect the characters to be the same, and up to the same antics, because, surprise, cartoon characters don't need to age, and it doesn't work when they try it.
They could have built a medical dramady around these characters, but they took the "safe" route, and now they'll be gone in a season or two.
Oh hell no. It doesn’t and shouldn’t be a “dramady”. There’s a billion serious medical shows, scrubs should stay a goofy ass comedy because sometimes peoples just need a freaking laugh
They should have moved the characters on, and explored a more serious avenue for them.
They literally did. That was the crux of the 9th season. It flopped and the series was cancelled.
They could have built a medical dramady around these characters, but they took the “safe” route, and now they’ll be gone in a season or two.
That's always been the formula for these revivals. They spend half the budget on promotion, churn out 8-12 episodes, and then throw the concept back into the garbage bin.
I'm amazed they haven't tried to revive Friends yet, using this model.
You said "reboot" without any other qualifiers, so that was my attempt at some examples.
I think the term we're actually looking for here is "revival." "Girl Meets World" seemed to do OK, as well as "Dexter: New Blood" ... The airtime of the successors from this article is probably a good indicator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_revivals
The Next Generation is a continuation of Star Trek. Though, I’m sure a lot of people saw it as an attempted replacement of Kirk and Spock when it was announced.
Formulaically, it was indeed a reboot with new characters taking on aspects of the old roles, as well as a tone shift to match the 20-year gap; I imagine it was inserted into the existing timeline in order to preserve all of the world building that had already been done, similar to what was later done with Doctor Who.
Financial success isn't my personal benchmark, but I don't argue your point there. I think the first revival of Futurama was worth it, since it was cancelled too early, but the latest stuff has definitely made me say "just leave it alone at this point"
DuckTales, Battlestar Galactica, House of Cards, Fruits Basket, Lost in Space…
Reunion? As in a continuation of an existing series after many years have passed? I can’t think of any that are considered as good as the original run by fans.
I was really digging the Saved by the Bell reboot. I thought it had enough awareness and edge to really tear into the original's classless, atemporal premise. I think streaming has kind of turned media consumption into an amorphous firehose of "content" and slop where anything struggles to register. I do think that if SbtB had hit a little earlier, on a service anyone gave a fuck about (Peacock? are you kidding me?) it might have found its footing.
While the show might be bad, using "cringe" in a professional media review article is just embarrassing. The word even in casual use is just bad and says more about the speaker than what they're speaking about. In a "professional" critique, the word provides absolutely zero information other than the to the quality of the article itself.
*Just watched the first two episodes - it's Scrubs, but updated. Nothing wrong with it unless you don't like Scrubs in the first place.
27 Comments
Feyd@programming.dev · 14 pts · 205d
Ehhh I'll give it a shot. The whole complaint seems to be that it's the same show as before? That's what I want....
ech@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 205d
People that use "cringe" unironically are typically referring to others that are simply not embarrassed to be open or outgoing. I could see that being the case about this show.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 205d
They should have moved the characters on, and explored a more serious avenue for them. That would have been actually interesting. You know, the way life actually goes? Yeah, they were young doctors, playing pranks etc. But, now they're more serious, but still occasionally funny. It didn't need to be the same show, and shoudn't be.
When Futurama comes back around again, we expect the characters to be the same, and up to the same antics, because, surprise, cartoon characters don't need to age, and it doesn't work when they try it.
They could have built a medical dramady around these characters, but they took the "safe" route, and now they'll be gone in a season or two.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 205d
Oh hell no. It doesn’t and shouldn’t be a “dramady”. There’s a billion serious medical shows, scrubs should stay a goofy ass comedy because sometimes peoples just need a freaking laugh
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 205d
They literally did. That was the crux of the 9th season. It flopped and the series was cancelled.
That's always been the formula for these revivals. They spend half the budget on promotion, churn out 8-12 episodes, and then throw the concept back into the garbage bin.
I'm amazed they haven't tried to revive Friends yet, using this model.
Brutticus@midwest.social · 8 pts · 205d
"Joey" has entered the chat
hesh@quokk.au · 7 pts · 205d
Is anyone surprised? When has a TV
rebootrevival worked?SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 205d
Battlestar Galactica? Doctor Who? Star Trek: The Next Generation?
hesh@quokk.au · 14 pts · 205d
Weren't those new shows with new casts? This is the same show and cast being brought back two decades later
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 205d
You said "reboot" without any other qualifiers, so that was my attempt at some examples.
I think the term we're actually looking for here is "revival." "Girl Meets World" seemed to do OK, as well as "Dexter: New Blood" ... The airtime of the successors from this article is probably a good indicator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_revivals
hesh@quokk.au · 6 pts · 205d
My bad I guess I mixed up the terms, thanks for clarifying
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 205d
NP, I think we both learned something
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 205d
My Little Pony? (G3 -> G4, not G4 -> G5)
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 205d
The Next Generation is a continuation of Star Trek. Though, I’m sure a lot of people saw it as an attempted replacement of Kirk and Spock when it was announced.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 205d
Formulaically, it was indeed a reboot with new characters taking on aspects of the old roles, as well as a tone shift to match the 20-year gap; I imagine it was inserted into the existing timeline in order to preserve all of the world building that had already been done, similar to what was later done with Doctor Who.
GiantRobotTRex@lemmy.sdf.org · 15 pts · 205d
Futurama was revived multiple times. The quality of the Hulu revival may be debatable but the Comedy Central revival was undeniably successful.
Whether you like Family Guy or not, its revival was definitely a major financial success for Fox.
hesh@quokk.au · 3 pts · 205d
Financial success isn't my personal benchmark, but I don't argue your point there. I think the first revival of Futurama was worth it, since it was cancelled too early, but the latest stuff has definitely made me say "just leave it alone at this point"
JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 205d
The King of the Hill revival has been decent, in my opinion.
sudoMakeUser@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 205d
It has been a great return to form. It is missing a little piece of the charm with Dale's actor passing but yes, overall quite good.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 2 pts · 205d
And John Redcorn's VA got murdered after the first season ended...
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 205d
Reboot?
DuckTales, Battlestar Galactica, House of Cards, Fruits Basket, Lost in Space…
Reunion? As in a continuation of an existing series after many years have passed? I can’t think of any that are considered as good as the original run by fans.
Brutticus@midwest.social · 3 pts · 205d
I was really digging the Saved by the Bell reboot. I thought it had enough awareness and edge to really tear into the original's classless, atemporal premise. I think streaming has kind of turned media consumption into an amorphous firehose of "content" and slop where anything struggles to register. I do think that if SbtB had hit a little earlier, on a service anyone gave a fuck about (Peacock? are you kidding me?) it might have found its footing.
I guess Cobra Kai is my real answer.
undeffeined@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 205d
I very much enjoyed Dexter Resurrection. New blood was Ok, but I think it was due to that aweful ending on the original ending
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 205d
Zach Braff looks like he's 80% of the way to becoming Bill Nye.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 205d
There's like a Zach Braff, Joel Osteen, Ray Romano continuum of vaguely odd-looking dudes.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com · 5 pts · 205d
awww mahn say it aint so.
ech@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 205d
While the show might be bad, using "cringe" in a professional media review article is just embarrassing. The word even in casual use is just bad and says more about the speaker than what they're speaking about. In a "professional" critique, the word provides absolutely zero information other than the to the quality of the article itself.
*Just watched the first two episodes - it's Scrubs, but updated. Nothing wrong with it unless you don't like Scrubs in the first place.
etherphon@piefed.world · 2 pts · 205d