Texarkana Gazette

Reboots, revivals, remakes, comebacks, reimaginat­ions take center stage—again

- By Robert Lloyd

In the beginning was the work. And the work begat the sequel, begat the franchise.

Thus, your “Iliad,” your “Odyssey.” Your Old Testament and New. Your “Sherlock Holmes,” “Sherlock” and “Elementary.” Your “Full House,” your “Fuller House.”

And so does a work become a property, exploitabl­e across diverse platforms and many sorts of merchandis­e, and in the fullness of time may become a reboot. And we are in a time full of reboots, revivals, re-imaginings and unexpected returns, all across the arts, but especially in television, where the future is looking more and more like the past.

Among the series recently brought back to life from the foggy mists of time are “Will & Grace,” “Gilmore Girls,” “Dynasty,” “Queer Eye,” “Twin Peaks,” “Hawaii Five-0,” “MacGyver” and “One Day at a Time.” On the horizon—in production, on the drawing board, seriously being discussed— are the belated next chapters of “Murphy Brown,” “Miami Vice,” “Cagney & Lacey,” “Mad About You,” “Roseanne,” “Roswell,” “Get Christie Love!,” “Lost in Space,” “The Twilight Zone,” “Magnum P.I.,” “Charmed,” “The L Word,” “American Idol” and “The Office.” Some, like “Roseanne” and “Murphy Brown,” seem made to address the current political landscape. Others are … “Magnum P.I.” This is only a partial list. Some of these shows will pick up the old story with the original cast and characters. (There is obviously a limit on how many years you can let pass, but David Lynch and Mark Frost made “Twin Peaks: The Return” in no small part a meditation on time, age and death.) Some will reupholste­r the concept for the present day, with new attractive young people

in parts originally played by the attractive young people of yesterday. Some, like the mid-’00s version of “Battlestar Galactica,” whose critical and popular success might mark the beginning of the current wave of reboots, will look deeper and more darkly into material that was comparativ­ely fluffy the first time around.

Mining the past is not new to the medium. Earlier decades saw “The New Gidget,” “New Monkees,” “The New Lassie” and “The Munsters Today”; original casts took up their old posts in “The New Leave It to Beaver,” “The New WKRP in Cincinnati,” “What’s Happening Now!!” and “Kung Fu: The Legend Continues.” (Both “Kung Fu” and “The Munsters” are being re-redevelope­d; the former comes from superhero

specialist Greg Berlanti— “Arrow,” et al.—and features a female lead; the latter, from Seth Meyers’ production company and written by “Odd Mom Out” creator-star Jill Kargman, finds the family living in Brooklyn.)

Some would say this orgy of recycling betokens a lack of imaginatio­n in the executive offices of Hollywood, and perhaps it does. Show business has never lacked for a lack of imaginatio­n. It is a mimetic, monkey-see, monkey-do affair, where nothing seems to guarantee success of a project more than some other project’s previous success. The high cost of filmmaking encourages conservati­sm, and there is a certain sense, after allif a circular sense, in giving the people what the people have previously demonstrat­ed they want.

For the businessma­n, an unexploite­d property is money left on the table, but there also may be the happy memory of a favorite show and the exciting prospect of bringing it back into the world. For the artist, there may be unfinished business, a bad last season that needs to be put right (“Roseanne”) or a question left unanswered (“Twin Peaks,” though 18 more hours made the mysteries only more mysterious).

For the actor, it may offer a better job than what he or she has had since or might otherwise expect— Netflix’s “Fuller House” is a bigger hit than any other Candace Cameron Bure or Jodie Sweetin project could possibly be. (Even John Stamos couldn’t get more than a season out of Fox’s “Grandfathe­red,” and that show was really good.) It can also offer, more positively, a chance to reinhabit a favorite character, to get the band back together, to make a certain music only those players can play. Indeed, the creative team of a television show is is very like a pop band, a web of relationsh­ips between parts less great than their sum, however great the individual parts may be. Art might have something to do with it—and friendship.

And then there is the audience.

Although watching TV seems a casual enough pastime, television characters exist for us with a special intensity. They come into our house week after week, living more or less in real time, aging alongside us. We may see them grow from childhood to adulthood, acquire kids of their own. It doesn’t matter that it is all made up. We speak of them as “real,” become involved in their woes, their hopes, their joys, episode after episode. Where a film dispenses with its narrative business in a couple of hours, a television arc can stretch across months, even years. A chronologi­cal intimacy is establishe­d.

And so we want to keep the characters we care about with us; witness the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments that accompany the cancellati­on of a well-loved series—and every series has someone who loves it.

Writers of literary fiction have also exploited this element of time. When a British ship arrived in New York in 1841, carrying the latest installmen­t of “The Old Curiosity Shop”—serialized novels being the television shows of their day—fans gathered on the pier are reported to have called to the sailors on board, “Is Little Nell alive?” Joseph Heller gave the characters in “Catch-22” later lives in “Closing Time.” John Updike saw his Rabbit Angstrom through four novels, spaced 10 years or so apart, from “Rabbit Run” in 1960 to “Rabbit at Rest” in 1990, with the 2000 novella “Rabbit Remembered” providing a posthumous coda. (The novels are reportedly being adapted for television by Andrew Davies, Britain’s dean of literary miniseries.)

But where the original writers are unavailabl­e, substitute­s have served. There are James Bond books Ian Fleming was no longer around to write, while something of a cottage industry exists in Jane Austen sequels, mostly speculatin­g on what happened after Elizabeth Bennet married Mr. Darcy, including P.D. James (and TV- adapted) “Death Comes to Pemberley,” Helen Halstead’s “Mr. Darcy Presents His Bride,” Carrie Brebis’ “Mr. & Mrs. Darcy” mystery series and Eucharista Ward’s “A Match for Mary Bennet: Can a Serious Young Lady Ever Find Her Way to Love?”

Similarly, where the entertainm­ent industry has proved unwilling, fans have taken it on themselves to sustain a series or property, writing and sharing new stories of old characters—even filming new episodes of canceled shows. (“Star Trek”— which officially came back last year with the CBS All Access series “Star Trek: Discovery”—leads the pack.) These stories often go where series themselves had not gone before, or could.

 ?? Tribune News Service ?? ■ Robert Knepper, Jim Belushi, Kimmy Robertson and Harry Goaz in a scene from the Showtime series “Twin Peaks.”
Tribune News Service ■ Robert Knepper, Jim Belushi, Kimmy Robertson and Harry Goaz in a scene from the Showtime series “Twin Peaks.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States