No. Just... No.

[Bicycle Bill]

Deciding, I guess, that duplication is the most sincere form of flattery and honor (and since they can't seem to come up with any NEW ideas), I see that in its infinite wisdom, ABC has announced a 'reboot' of "The Wonder Years".



Notice how similar in style and coloration the 'new' logo is to the logo of well-received original, which gave us the memorable characters of Kevin Arnold (a young Fred Savage) and Winnie Cooper (Danica McKellar), among others.  Nope, no attempt to mix and confuse the two, not at all, no way, sir!



Relocated from an ambiguous suburban location (usually assumed to be California, although some of the original shows also showed vehicles with New York license plates) to the deeo south, it is intended to "take a nostalgic look at the Williams family, middle-class residents of Montgomery, Alabama, through the point of view of imaginative 12-year-old Dean."

Oh, did I mention that the cast is all-black?

Dammit, ABC, not everything needs to be re-examined under the myopic lenses of BLM, cancel culture, and the 'wokeness' of the 2020s. For Christ's sake, leave well enough alone!

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

In order to be a woke and interesting show, they should make it about a mother who is a medical doctor and is living with and caring for her 8 kids who have eight different absent fathers. They need a homosexual kid, another who wants to transition to another sex, a mentally challenged child and a physically challenged child. One kid who looks white and another that has Asian features. And maybe two "normal" children, one who is a girl and narrates the show, and the other a boy who is very close with his sister and is an all around funny kinda guy.

Comedy ensues.

The writers will have a lot to work with. It's a bunch of Emmies waiting to happen....

[MajGenl.Meade]

And our knickers are supposed to be in a twist because . . . ?

[Econoline]

Why couldn't they just come up with a new show with a new name, instead of a completely unnecessary and altered-beyond-recognition "reboot"?

[MajGenl.Meade]

And our knickers are supposed to be in a twist because . . . ?

[BoSoxGal]

Honestly some of the posts on this board seem very racist to me.

The original Wonder Years was about a young man’s experience of growing up in the 60s and 70s, narrated by his adult self in reflection. This new version is the exact same premise and the only difference is the family is black - so it’s not “a completely unnecessary and altered-beyond-recognition "reboot"” as asserted. It’s not altered beyond recognition because it’s the exact same premise just changed race of the family, and it’s not completely unnecessary because there is a huge appetite among the not racist and anti racist population of this country for the stories of people who have lived in our society as POC with all the attendant experiences.

It actually sounds very good - thanks for making an entire thread to denigrate the concept of a show you haven’t even bothered to watch yet, but are furious about because the cast is BLACK and the subject matter is the American experience as told through the lens of a BLACK family; your prejudice is to my benefit as now I know about it and can watch it. ANYTHING with Don Cheadle is worth checking out, and Dule Hill is wonderful too. Not to mention that Fred Savage executive produces and directed the premiere episode.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... s.amp.html


Also most of the reviews I’ve found are very positive- but I’m sure that’s only because the reviewers are all WOKE and wouldn’t ever pan a show about BLACKS.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.co ... 64438/amp/

[MajGenl.Meade]

you . . . are furious about [it] because the cast is BLACK and the subject matter is the American experience as told through the lens of a BLACK family

BSG wins the internet!

[Bicycle Bill]

BSG, I lived through the 60s and I don't seem to recall that Alabama was considered the "land of opportunity" for a middle-class black family.  I have the suspicion that this show is going to be about as realistic as "The Cosby Show" or "The Jeffersons" when it comes to a factual, accurate depiction of black life in Montgomery immediately after George and Lurleen Wallace.

And as E-line said,

Why couldn't they just come up with a new show with a new name, instead of a completely unnecessary and altered-beyond-recognition "reboot"?

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

I'm generally not a fan of "reboots" or reimaginings, and I just tend to avoid them, whether it's Sherlock Holmes updated where Watson is a female caretaker (at least that's how I understand it) or the Wonder Years is reimagined with and an urban setting and African American cast (or One Day at a Time with a Hispanic cast in LA). It's not that I object to the new shows, it's just that I'd rather the writers come up with a different idea (or don't call it the same name) and name and let the show be successful or unsuccessful on its own (and not trading on the notoriety of the original material); but that's just me. So I avoid these reboots, whether it's based on literature (like Holmes) or even a show I didn't watch very much (like One Day at a Time). I'm sure I miss some good shows with this attitude, but I'll take that chance.

[BoSoxGal]

The reboot of One Day at a Time was a pleasure, at least the first season that I watched. It has excellent reviews overall so I gather the quality persisted through to the end.

The Wonder Years reboot is not set in an ‘urban setting’, it’s the suburbs of Montgomery, Alabama as depicted in the trailer I posted. Maybe urban leapt to mind because the family is black? Shockingly, it depicts a loving intact middle class black family - families like that did in fact exist, despite stereotypes about blacks that are far too prevalent in this society.

[Big RR]

As I said, I concede I will miss some good shows, films, etc. with my feelings about reboots.

As for Urban.suburban, I had read something about the show that led me to think it was an urban setting; nothing to do with race, there are many shows with predominantly white casts that have urban settings as well.

And FWIW, my real concern about reboots is it unfairly trades on the work of the author/creator and writers and actors in the original who created something which was sold under the title. In any work based on an original, clearly some artistic license is permissible, but wholesale changing of the characters, inserting new characters, etc. goes well beyond this. It's not a matter of race; I have no problem with true colorblind casting so long as the integrity of the original work is maintained (I recall seeing a new Broadway production of Carousel a couple of years back where Billy Bigelow was played by an African American man, but the story and text of the play were kept intact), I just don't like works that change the original and then trade on its notoriety. So if the Homes series was called The Detective and Featured Joe Blow as a great crime solver with his sidekick Ms. Whomever, I'd have no problem with it--ditto for the other series

[BoSoxGal]

Okay . . . but that disregards the fact that the creators/owners of works still under copyright have to agree to a reboot, as was the case with One Day at a Time which was produced by Norman Lear both times and credit for creating the series was given to the original creators both times. Similarly the original creators of The Wonder Years are credited in the credits of the new version. Is it a rip off when the creators/copyright owners have given their blessing?

I just think that’s a limiting way to think, as almost all storytelling is derivative to some degree. That’s a word that is most often used negatively, but the truth is that anyone who studies literature and film/television would have to acknowledge that the same stories keep getting told over and over and over through human history in different forms with different details but with themes that are nearly identical to other versions in other languages and cultures. And sometimes it’s an out of copyright work that is recognizable as borrowed but given a different spin by numerous creators, like the half dozen film versions of Henry James’ Turn of the Screw which are all interesting and worthy in their own way.

I mean to each his own, but I’m glad I have my attitude toward the storytelling arts and not yours, because I’ve seen many a brilliant reboot that instilled fresh appreciation for the original work and expanded my appreciation with exposure to a different artistic perspective of the thing. Maybe it’s an English major thing?

[Big RR]

I just think that’s a limiting way to think, as almost all storytelling is derivative to some degree. That’s a word that is most often used negatively, but the truth is that anyone who studies literature and film/television would have to acknowledge that the same stories keep getting told over and over and over through human history in different forms with different details but with themes that are nearly identical to other versions in other languages and cultures

Whether it is a limiting way to think, is debatable, but I have no problem with the rest of what you have said. Sure stories are told and retold, but rarely under the same title. The opera La Boheme was reimagined as the musical Rent, and Romeo and Juliet was reimagined as West Side Story, but it would have been misleading to call either of those by the the name of the work they were based on. And, IMHO, even if the owners of the copyright (who are not necessarily the creators oer even involved in the creative process) and titles consent, I still do not like it as I see it as an affront to the original work, anymore than I think the studios should have the right to edit and release/re-release films as they see fit (sadly, the law does not agree with me on this).

Gene Roddenberry once described the nascent series Star Trek a "Wagon Train to the stars" (noting its storyline based on the series Wagon Train), but he didn't want to call it that; he wanted it to stand on its own.

[BoSoxGal]

I would just add that I’m currently watching a reboot of a terrific television series called Scenes from a Marriage first created and filmed by Ingmar Bergman and well recognized as a classic. However it is in Swedish and thus inaccessible to the many English speakers who refuse to read subtitles in order to watch in on the Criterion Channel - sadly there are a great many people who won’t do foreign film or television because of subtitles, and they miss out on a lot of great art.

The original Scenes is also dated, having been filmed in the early 70s in what is now seen as a very different world by young folks. The American reboot is updated to reflect modern sensibilities and is no less brilliant for it, at least in the two episodes thus far released. The subject matter is very important to my thinking - it’s a refreshing break from the plethora of romcom and romantic drama pablum that instill in young folks a fantasy ideal of long term committed relationships and marriage. I’m glad it has been rebooted.

I read that the original idea was for a reboot imagined from the perspectives of the children, the brainchild of Bergman’s son. Sadly that reboot has not yet been made - probably too depressing.

[Bicycle Bill]

The original Scenes is also dated, having been filmed in the early 70s in what is now seen as a very different world by young folks. The American reboot is updated to reflect modern sensibilities ... it’s a refreshing break from the plethora of romcom and romantic drama pablum that instill in young folks a fantasy ideal of long term committed relationships and marriage.

"updated to reflect modern sensibilities."   Sounds like Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth.

And what's the matter with aspiring to a goal of a long-term committed relationship and — *GASP!* — marriage??  It worked out for my parents.  Sorry if your experiences may have been otherwise, but that's no reason to turn completely against the original premise.

-"BB"-

[Crackpot]

Not really, the fact is time changes perspective. There are great shows in the past that just won’t read today because the world they referenced just doesn’t exist today. People born much later than me will have very little reference to understand The Prisoner because they have no frame of reference to the Cold War. Sometimes it’s the social and visual cues that rip people out of thier ability to suspend disbelief like Forbidden planet (I find the stuff that still works in that movie amazing).

That being said Reboots are a touchy thing and can be royally fucked by egos and bureaucrats. (See the torpedoed Dark Universe)

[Big RR]

I've heard of it, and have no doubt it may well live up to its hype, but why use the same name? When Americans chose to remake the acclaimed Swedish horror film Let the Right One In, they used a different title (Let Me In); I didn't care for that remake, but I applaud them for not using the same name. The producers here could have done the same; it is a new film with different characters and actors and plot line. I have no problem with it being made--as you said before story telling is this sort of art. If your attitude comes from being an English major, I think mine comes from being a connoisseur of films; think what it would be like if you had 5 different Moby Dick novels, or War and Peace, or Crime and Punishment or ... on the shelves, and then think what it would be like if someone only read one of the latter ones and thought (s)he knew them all.

Again, all I ask is that there be truthfulness in the marketing and that the product be marketed as a different film, series, whatever, by giving it its own title. I can think of a few remade films I saw that were better than the original (and many, many more that were nowhere near as good).

And FWIW, Scenes from a Marriage (at least the theatrical movie directed by Bergman) is available in dubbed version for those who will not read subtitles (although I don't understand it, I have a few friends in that camp). For any who have avoided it for a dislike of subtitles, I strongly urge you to seek it out; Bergman was a master filmmaker and the film is well-worth watching,

[ex-khobar Andy]

Reboots:

The Office. Not bad once they had abandoned the idea of a word for word reboot.

James Bond. Sean Connery - Roger Moore - Pierce Brosnan - Daniel Craig. OK if you like than sort of thing.

Henry V. Olivier - Branagh - Hiddleston. Pretty good (OK I have not seen the Hiddleston effort - I'm told Taylor Swift liked it).

Psycho. Not sure if I could see the point of the second go-around.

Dr Who. Every British actor who did not make it into Harry Potter. I'm told there is now a lady time lord but I don't believe it.

Poldark was pretty good both times. My 1970s self did fancy Angharad Rees, but she never answered my letters, never called, never wrote, never twitched her little finger on screen to send me a secret signal the way I told her to. Sob. Took me years to get over that. I should probably strike that.

OK sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

[Big RR]

And what's the matter with aspiring to a goal of a long-term committed relationship and — *GASP!* — marriage?? It worked out for my parents. Sorry if your experiences may have been otherwise, but that's no reason to turn completely against the original premise.

Bill--have you seen the original theatrical film or series? It was hardly a celebration of monogamous marriage, more of a view on love and people's need for it (and what is needed).

Andy--the Bond movies were not reboots per se, more different movies with different Bond actors; same for Dr. Who (we all have our favorite, usually the first one we saw). Henry the V is also not really a reboot, more like the same movie with different actors. I've never watched the Office, but many American shows were reboots of British ones, such as All in the Family (Til Death Do us Part), Threes Company (Man About the House), both with different names (I enjoyed both and the British ones as well).

[BoSoxGal]

There are many good reboots, I disagree wholeheartedly with BigRR on this point, sorry not sorry. As to using the same name - it’s a tribute to the prior production and in SFAM as in many other reboots, the structure and story is largely the same with only minor differences, so why wouldn’t it be titled the same?

So far Scenes from a Marriage rebooted is more modern in that they have cell phones (gasp!) and she is the primary breadwinner (gasp!) but the overarching theme of a marriage coming apart is the same.

And despite the fantasies of some, the truth is that about half of marriages come apart, and about half of the ones that don’t are some shade of miserable. That’s statistics from hundreds of studies over many decades.

The divorce rate in America has fallen in recent years - but so has the marriage rate, significantly. And domestic violence which has always been endemic has risen substantially in the pandemic - nowhere to get away from the rage and entitlement, and millions of women having to leave the workforce to provide childcare and thus having their avenues of escape substantially limited.

Another fact that has been established incontrovertibly over decades of research and by a mountain of statistics is that marriage is much more beneficial for men than for women. It makes men healthier, is makes women less healthy. Women who are widowed or divorced remarry at a much lower rate than men who are widowed or divorced. Among the population of women as a whole, those who never marry and never have children are disproportionately represented in the pool of female centenarians.

For the majority of women, including women of my age who came up in the time of the ERA movement, and even younger women whose male counterparts are presumably more ‘woke’ (i.e., feminist) than ever before, the division of household labor and childcare both physical and mental (planning of activities, keeping track of birthdays/events involving household members and extended family and friends, scheduling medical and other necessary appointments, etc. - the managing of a household and family) falls disproportionately to women - even often when the woman is the primary breadwinner in terms of income brought into the home.

The patriarchy still thrives, and it results in many women falling far short of their potential and spending much of their lives in domestic drudgery. Not so very fucking appealing, and with the economic inequities currently present in our society and the climate crisis looming, I fully expect to see marriage rates and birth rates continue to plummet over the course of the rest of my lifetime.

#justiceforGabby