Resurrecting shows which have been long, i mean long since dead with the original cast !

Open all Hours - aired 1976 to 1985 - Christmas Special 2014

Birds of a Feather - Seasons 1 to 9 aired 1988 to 1998, Season 10 airing 2014

I know it has been done before with Star Trek but i can't think of any recent US show resurrections, plenty of remakes

I could go another few episodes of Married with Children (and they never got to finish the show properly anyway)

And also another few episodes of the ORIGINAL Melrose Place

They had a couple if Brady movies

Because money...

Because union...

Because contracts...

Because advertisers...

Take your pick, the BBC operates a lot differently than the independent US broadcasting companies.

Futurama nearly lost the original cast due to monetary issues then the ratings shuttered Planet Express' relaunch.

Arrested Development had to use green screen tricks to complete scenes for the Netflix revival due to schedule conflicts. And because of the cost to make the new season, Netflix only commited to producing a new single season.

And it's been done with a few shows in the states:

The Brady Bunch came back several times, with almost all the original cast (The Brady Brides, The Bradys)

Leave It To Beaver came back in the 80s with the original cast (except the already dead father).

Star Trek was supposed to do it, but the new show was scrapped in favor of making the first movie instead.

Many shows have also done reunion movies, like The Dukes Of Hazzard, MacGyver, Andy Griffith, Matlock, etc.

What we have nowadays are reboots alongside remakes, as they include original characters as well as new ones. Dallas for example, or 90210 and Melrose Place. These are different than say Hawaii Five-O which is a straight remake with a new cast.

Finally, the shows that many of us would love to see reunions of just aren't feasible. Ed O'Neill stars on the most popular comedy on TV, think he'd be in a rush to put his hand back down his pants one more time? And can you imagine what it would cost to get the cast of Friends back together? Or Seinfeld?

Hunter ran from 1984-1991, then had a short run of new episodes in 2003.

The British model is so different anyhow, because they don't tend to run shows into the ground like US networks do. Especially on the Big 4 networks, which usually crank out episode of successful shows (at 20+ a year) until they're a shell of their former selves. Look at the U.S. version of The Office vs. the U.K. original... 201 episodes vs. 14.

There's not as much left to say once a successful show goes off the air here, aside from a 'where are they now' sort of thing. Even something that went out on a good note, like Cheers... I almost think it would be depressing to see them all old and hanging out at the same bar. This leaves shows that were cancelled too early, and aside from a few rare instances where they develop a large cult following, low-rated shows aren't going to be given a second platform.

At this point, I'd think Jennifer Aniston would be the only Friend with a high asking price.

I watched that Hunter reboot when it aired 11 years. They did 3 or 4 reunion movies and all them did really well, so NBC greenlit a mini-season (5 episodes), to see if the show could be re-launched. However, they stupidly aired the new episodes on Saturday nights. It was canned after 3 episodes. Dryer claims that creative differences and budget constraints were the issue, but that was PR bullshit to cover that it died being placed on Saturday nights.

Arrested Development was just six months ago or so.

/thread

Frankly, British television is a much smaller industry with less opportunities than Hollywood. You'd see it here more often if the US was one-sixth its current size and our entertainment product wasn't exported across the globe.

British TV is supported by Government money for the most part. I know the BBC had major financial problems for a long period of time and had to make severe budget cuts and layoffs. It's an entirely different mindset on how they make TV and film over there.

They brought back Columbo several times. There are certainly series that would be successful if they came back, but most of the higher profile ones there is at least one cast member who would not want to do it.

Don't forget Dallas came back a couple years ago too. And isn't 24 back soon? But I think DRG hit the nail on the head. British shows tend to leave people wanting more since they have a finite end & shorter runs.

American shows end on a much more "Thank God it's finally out of it's misery" note so nobody really cares by the time they end.

There also was an attempt to revive WKRP IN CINCINNATI with a mixture of old and new cast members. It sucked.

Probably the most, but almost all of them seem to be working consistently. The only one you don't really see anymore is Schwimmer.

Does Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 7 count?

90210 and Melrose Place were technically continuations of the original series.

Get Smart had a 1995 revival.

And while networks here don't do Christmas Specials of old shows, they do occasionally do TV movie reunions. I Dream of Jeannie had a reunion movie called I Dream of Jeannie... Fifteen Years Later.

Here's a list of some TV reunions:
http://www.imdb.com/list/kKuKUnd3E1Q/

Dallas was also a continuation of the original series.

Lets rock!

yeah i guess Dallas counts

The coolest reunion shows would be shows which had actors who weren't big stars at the time, but are now

E.g. Off Centre with John Cho

Two guys, a girl and a pizza place with Ryan Reynolds

They won't happen

You have more chance with shows which had actors who aren't doing anything anymore but you know David Jason (he's actually Sir David Jason now) did the Open all hours reunion i think as a tribute to Ronnie Barker.

Most of these are very old, not many recent examples

Well, with those examples, the problem isn't really the later fame of the actors, but the fact that there's no real demand for those shows to come back, since nobody watched them the first time around. TV execs would rather green light new shows with those actors than try to revitalize a "failed" show.

There is hope that Still Open all Hours may be turned into a series. So the Christmas special could be seen as a pilot for the new series instead of a reunion of the old series:
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/...FKRTlA.twitter

Yes, the TV reunion movie seems to have faded out in the late 80s, early 90s. I'm guessing they likely suffered from declining ratings.


Others have mentioned the differences between British TV and US TV production methods. One is that the BBC often produces shows more on par with how movies are made: one series/season at a time. They'll commission a show with no expectation of it going any further than the first series. Then if the first series does well, they'll start working out doing another one. A show like Open All Hours, for example, had a 5 year break between series 1 and 2, and a 3 year break between series 3 and 5. That simply wouldn't fly in the US, which works on the principle of a nearly continuous production schedule for shows, where they're often picked up for the next season before the current one finishes airing.

Another difference is in the number of shows per season/series produced. When you're only doing, on average, 6 episodes a year of a particular show, it's easier for cast and crew to arrange for another series, as it's not a huge commitment. In contrast, US TV shows often sign up actors for 7 year commitments now when they sign onto a show, and network seasons often run 20+ episodes. It's a huge time commitment.

You think the Birds of a Feather redo was good des?

I agree the UK method of limiting a series' run or coming back only when there is a new story to tell is much better model. By demanding continuous runs of a set number of episodes every year, US producers force uninteresting stories, stagnate characters, and burn out the fan base.

Example: It was interesting to hear of the backlash from viewers when it was announced Under the Dome would be brought back for a second season. I know it wasn't the overwhleming sentiment, but there clearly was enough concern that it was heard about. The fanbase was set for a story to be brought to the screen ... instead they will receive fluff and filler for no reason other than to milk the show. A second season was not necessary to tell the story -- they were already set to do it in a limited run. Instead, fans will get interesting subplots akin to Fonzie waterskiing and Rosanne winning the lottery.

Well another point that's been mentioned is, do you want to see the same characters doing those same things 20 years later, when they're that much older? Would these people still be friends, or in the same part of the country? To evolve with the characters and where they are now, the show might also have to make a shift, so for example characters lives would go from being a sitcom to a drama.

Something like Dallas makes sense since it's about the business and the families, so you can continue years later and they're still going at it.

I know I'm using a British show here but to think of an example: I would guess that Basil Fawlty is probably still running Fawlty Towers (assuming he's still with his wife and that he didn't kill her), but would Polly really be hanging around there for 40 years? We'd probably see Basil charge high rates for Wi Fi or trying to write fake positive reviews for himself on Yelp. The dynamics would change, and maybe you'd get some good situations out of it, but it's not always necessary.

The Cheers example above was good, hell Frasier already left for Seattle that same year. Much as I would love to see the gang at the bar again, it would be kind of weird at the same time.

To add onto that, Sherlock can go on for many many years this way. They'll always be cases to solve and the core of it is the leads. The way the show takes breaks makes it such that the audience isn't tired of it yet, and that the writers can take their time.