A ton. The larger point is that they are given an opportunity to do something different otherwise we will not what what actually is possible. An example that springs readily to min is the Star Wars Prequels. One author I read discussed the importance of the prequels because the prequels paved the way for doing new Star Wars stories. A lot of SW stories were not able to get past Empire vs. Rebellion, and so made it difficult to come up with something new. The new allowed an influx of ideas that people would not have considered had the PT not been made.
Your 90% garbage to 10% good does not bode well for the new socially acceptable Night Court. Yeah, but what if the person doing the interrupting is an expert? Then what? Sometimes the haters actually know what they're talking about. Here's another saying, "opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one." I think everyone has the right to interrupt or not interrupt anyone they damn well please. The alternative comes across as, "We're experts. You aren't. We know what we're doing so just sit there, shut up and take your medicine." Please, we get enough of that bullshit attitude from our politicians who think they know what's best for us. Yes, yes, I get the gist of that chinese saying above.
I'm certainly not advocating for not trying new stuff. If I came across that way, that's not what I mean. Well, wait a minute now. Christopher says that there are "experts" who know better than us so I'm pretty sure that writers would eventually have been able to move past that, prequels or no. Actually, I think Lucas selling out to Disney opened the door for new stories more than any other factor.
Again, we will not know until after we actually see it. That should not need to be pointed out. I certainly have my doubts about whether they can capture lightning in a bottle again, but I'm confident that merely copying what was done 40 years ago is not the way to achieve that. The only way it can work is if it's fresh and innovative in the same way the original was. Pandering to nostalgia is not, by itself, enough to succeed.
Nostalgia goes a long way with me, but if it's creatively empty, I'll check out fast. That said, I hope it's terrific, and I'm willing to give it a chance.
I mean, yes and no. I think that they felt a need to adhere to Lucas' view and that limited the storytelling but this is off topic. I don't think so but I am glad you clarified.
Then why did the network greenlight the reboot of a forty year old sitcom instead of just creating a new show?
Two reasons. One is to try to capitalize on nostalgia. The other is that TV is bereft of original ideas and/or lazy. Look at how many CSI's there are, or were. How about NCIS? Look at all of those "Chicago" shows. Something becomes popular and then all the clones and imitations come out. I'm not sure what these TV execs would do if they could only create new stuff and not rehashes. Even most of the stuff that can be called original is often ruined by excessive violence. So many shows and movies where the central premise is built around guns, killings, and human suffering.
Not put out content and go out of business and find a new career. Like it or not, the appeal to nostalgia is driven in party by the consumption of nostalgia.
That's the dichotomy. The lure of nostalgia (and money) drives the networks to bring these old shows back but they then reinvent these shows for the present.
Of course, but as I said, nostalgia alone is not enough. That's the mistake people make -- they assume that just because nostalgia can draw in an audience, that's the only ingredient needed to keep them. But of course it isn't. You still need quality, and quality is not achieved by the mere copying of what somebody else did. Nostalgia succeeds when it's paired with innovation. Look at something like, say, The Incredibles. It's loaded with 1960s nostalgia, but it also told a fresh superhero story in an innovative way. Same with Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. It's heavily dependent on TOS nostalgia, but rather than merely copying TOS like a fan film, it updates and deepens its characters, setting, and elements in a very modern way. It's the balance of the old and new that makes it work, that doesn't just pander to the old audience but welcomes in a new audience too, and gives the old audience something fresh and unexpected. Or look at WandaVision, which is steeped in nostalgia but uses it as a device to tell a story far deeper than the things it homages. This is not an all-or-nothing conversation, yes nostalgia or no nostalgia. The nostalgia factor is a given in a discussion about a Night Court revival/sequel series. The question is how best to approach that nostalgia, how to balance it with the other factors that go into making a series successful. To put it another way: Nostalgic storytelling doesn't merely copy the past. It responds to it, engages with it, often critiques or deconstructs it. It uses the past to say something in the here and now.
Never said it was. I merely opine on the simple fact that people complain about nostalgia but people keep buying it. Why?
For one thing, because you're talking about different groups of people. Some people are content with familiarity, while others seek innovation. Which is why intelligent creators don't rely on nostalgia exclusively, but use it as one ingredient in the mix, so as to appeal to both audiences. For another, as I just said, it's not as simplistic as a binary question of nostalgia vs. its absence. It's about how nostalgia is used -- whether creators just lazily copy the past or creatively use it as part of something new. "People" don't complain about nostalgia so much as they complain about the excessive reliance on it, especially when it's a substitute for other things of worth.
Looks like Staci Keenan is no longer acting (and went and got her law degree). I was hoping that at some point she might reprise her role (if the NC revival lasts more than a season) from Night Court's sibling series, My Two Dads.
Anything can be funny. A topic as objectionable as racism was made hilarious in "Blazing Saddles." Now, are the writers of Night Court: TNG going to be as talented as Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't mean that a womanizing 21st century Dan Fielding couldn't be funny. That being said, I doubt they'll go that direction. I'm sure they'll make a big noise about the "hot take" direction they're going with for Dan in the "Me Too" era but it will most likely be a boring middle-of-the-road characterization because the network won't let them take any real chances in either direction. I'll definitely check out the show to see what they come up with. But if the new judge doesn't do closeup magic, I'm gonna freak out!
I've said already -- it's not just "womanizing" anymore if he's in a position of power and authority over women. Then it's in Harvey Weinstein territory, outright sexual predation. It would make Dan an irredeemable villain. Yes, irredeemable villains can be made funny -- Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles, say. But they're funny in a limited way, because all they can be is bad. Is that what we want Dan Fielding to become? In the original, the conceit was that he was so reprehensible that the nicest thing Harry could say at his (premature) eulogy was that he was... [extremely long pause]... a mammal. But in reality, he had a sympathetic side, a vulnerable side, a kind side. He and Roz developed a mutual respect and even friendship, and he often came through and did the right thing when it counted, however grudgingly. And with an actor of John Larroquette's brilliance, especially with three decades' more experience and gravitas, you want him to be multifaceted and nuanced like that. Particularly since he's the only returning member of the original cast, indeed one of the few surviving members. He's the sole representative of the show that we loved, so we want him to be lovable, to carry forward the good aspects of the colleagues Dan worked with. You can't do that if he's Harvey Weinstein. I don't think any Larroquette character is likely to be boring.
Bottom line: Can an enlightened Dan Fielding be funny? Sure. Can an enlightened Dan Fielding be funny to viewers who are used to the original Dan Fielding? Absolutely. Will a funny, enlightened Dan Fielding be enough to retain viewers who actually miss the original Dan Fielding? Doubtful. It's more likely the original Dan Fielding's most devoted fans will catch the premiere, chuckle some at the new Dan, then, when they realize old Dan isn't coming back at all, kiss off the new series and watch classic Night Court reruns. Why? Because contrary to what's been previously stated, it isn't just "some" people who are comfortable with the familiar. Most Human Beings are more comfortable with the familiar, especially when it comes to their popular culture. In fact, sequels, spinoffs, spoofs and yes, reboots wouldn't work at all if that weren't the case. I mean, Christopher could put on a hairshirt, beat his breast and gnash his teeth and shout from the town square "YOU'RE MAKING HIM DO THINGS HE DID FORTY YEARS AGO!!!" and most intellectually honest people, who don't really care about wasting an actor's artistic skill, will likely respond, "Yeah, and...?" That's just reality, and it's been reality for ages. So, last question: Will a show called Night Court with all new characters except for the enlightened Dan Fielding succeed without the viewership of a chunk of devoted classic fans? Well, honestly, recent history has shown that new seasons can keep getting greenlit as long as MeTooers, Alphabet People and their allies are willing to figuratively beat off over it on Twitter, so it should do fine. I won't watch a new Night Court series that has nothing from the old series to appeal to me, but more power to anyone who's willing. Enjoy!