I’m still surprised that, other than guest appearances in Frasier, there were no Cheers specials or reunions in the 30 years since it went off the air.
Yeah, that too. They could have leveraged this as a Cheers/Frasier Reunion. As per my original idea, have Frasier surprise his son with a Thanksgiving visit to Boston, but finds out that they've drifted quite a bit. Frasier wonders if maybe they should have Thanksgiving at his old haunt and invites his old friends.
Pretty sure Ted Danson has stated that he would not do a reunion. Though I bet we get a couple cameos from some cheers cast eventually...
The words were the bar is "no longer". Meaning perhaps it was bought and renamed or turned into something else besides a bar......
IIRC, the bar that we see the outside of every episode is still there. It's the replica bar that closed.
No we were referring to the fictional Cheers not the Actual Cheers (originally bull and finch) or the replica (which yes has closed) The Cheers in the show is apparently "no longer" according to Entertainment Weekly. I'm assuming there is some throw away line from Fraiser in the show about his old water hole. He probably says something like the old bar he frequented the last time he was in Boston is no longer there....
I can foresee “they killed off Cheers offscreen with a throwaway line” achieving Hicks and Newt/Alien 3 levels of hatred over the years.
Yeah I think they would not want to remove Cheers like that. They could just say it's kind of out of the distance and some of the new characters like the new bar. I could see a episode were he and Lilth both go to the bar to pay respects to KIrstie Alley by all the Cheers gang showing up for the funeral of Rebecca Howe.
So many of these reboots are failing: Head of the Class, Saved by the Bell, etc. I’d rather see something new.
Most of those would be considered sequel series rather than reboots. Reboots generally entail wiping the slate clean.
Meh, not really, not any more. In film/tv, yeah, reboot originally meant starting clean and was used after the word "remake" became toxic. Then they started doing reboots/remakes but with one returning cast member or acknowledging the previous series still existed to "respect" the fans of the original project. Then they started calling them legacy reboots or legacy sequel or rebootquels if it was a prequel to avoid the bad taste of calling them "reboots" after that word started leaving the same bad taste in audiences mouth as "remakes" did. They're all just marketing terms for the same thing, taking an existing IP (originally a beloved IP, now anything with the remotest nostalgia bait) and remaking it for modern audiences, with or without acknowledging the past elements of the franchise as canon.
Yeah, I think at this stage “reboot” is more or less used for any revival, not necessarily for a Batman Begins-style complete redo of a series, which is where I think I first heard the term used in connection with films or tv.
While its true that's how that term is used now, it's still frustrating and I refuse to use it in such a manner. Proper word usage and all that.
Not really, no. There are differences in their approaches. I would not consider this Frasier series a reboot. for instance as it continues his life after his original series. A spinoff maybe, just like Frasier was originally a Cheers spinoff? But that's no reboot. And then you have a sequel series featuring the return of most of the cast taking place decades later, ie Fuller House, Saved by the Bell, Degrassi, etc, which are much more akin to movie sequels such as Beetlejuice receiving a sequel, but in a series format. When I hear 'reboot', I think of things like the 'Home Alone' series on Disney+, a Culkin-less production in an effort to completely remake things from the ground-up. I would put forward that the the major difference would be in how they use the source material. And the reason they keep doing this is to keep their IPs alive, the same reason Disney remakes their animated movies into live-action.
You can call them what you want but they're all just industry buzzwords they pull out and change everytime one starts to get a bad rep. Telling someone they're using it wrong because they have a difference of opinion in how the industry buzz words should be used than you is kinda pointless. There was a whole discussion about this in the reboot thread when someone started complaining that people weren't meeting their exact personal definition.
Whatever. Keep using what you want. I'm not putting pressure on anybody. Just pointing out a different point of view, on a forum. You know, open discourse.
In the 90's I visited the Bull & Finch pub. I knew the interior bore no resemblance to the studio set, and was prepared for that. But it was jarring, nonetheless. Mid-afternoon the place was busy, but ungodly loud as it was thumping heavy bass from a ten-thousand watt sound system blasting out Sinead O'Connor. I couldn't hear myself think. The lighting was about as bright as the bridge interior on Picard's Titan. I did have a drink, a sombrero, which was too sweet and over-iced. On the whole, it was an unpleasant experience which left me marveling at how Cheers, and television, can powerfully influence one's expectations. Frasier always had a theatrical energy to it, and the trailer stays true to that. It looks like he's become the Martin Crane of this show, but with all of Frasier's classic pompousness to drive his son and his circle insane.
The Bull & Finch is definitely still around. I had a few pints there when I was in Boston a couple of weeks ago. They also have a "Set Bar" upstairs in the same building but I don't know why. It doesn't look anything like the actual Cheers set.