From: ahk@chinet.com
super70s wrote:
>On 2026-01-14 06:29:04 +0000, Your Name said:
>>On 2026-01-14 06:06:53 +0000, Ian J. Ball said:
>>>On 1/13/26 9:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>super70s wrote:
>>>>>2026-01-14 04:35:05 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>>>>Yet another old show gets ruined by the lazy, talentless "reboot
>>>>>>everything" brigade infesting Hollyweird. :-(
>>>>>>Iconic '70s NBC TV Show Gets Reboot Order
>>>>>>-----------------------------------------
>>>>>>NBC plans to revisit one of its iconic 1970s series with a
>>>>>>reported new reboot now in development. The network has
>>>>>>ordered a pilot for the project, signaling a possible
>>>>>>return of the classic TV detective to primetime.
>>>>>If a Matlock reboot can be a big hit with an older-than-middle-aged
>>>>>woman in the lead this doesn't seem nearly as unfeasible.
>>>>It's not a reboot. In fact, the first episode referenced the Andy
>>>>Grifith tv series. You got it very wrong.
>>>It wouldn't be the first time.
>Want some cheese with that crow smart guy?....
I'll repeat myself for the clue impaired. It was a plot point early on.
"Matlock" was created so Madeline Kingston (Kathy Bates) could infiltrate
that law firm during first season, literally named for the Andy Griffith
character. It's a line of dialogue. The new show has a different setup
and structure and it's not episodic. It references the original show but
it is not a reboot of the original show. There was no story reason to
pay the licensing fee to Dean Hargrove other than he makes money for no
work whatsoever.
I know this having watched a few early episodes. I doubt for later
seasons, the infiltration is still necessary, but I don't know as I've
stopped watching.
The opinion Your Name quoted was wrong. You and the opinion writer
should get a room.
>>Despite what many people like to claim . . .
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
