Ok, I have by now pretty much watched the entire opening (2) episode(s) of 90210, and thus I can give a more fair and complete comparison between the two shows.
90210 gets the edge in re-introducing alum. Even if they are only small throw away parts, as there were in both, they seemed to flow much better in 90210. The opening double episode of Degrassi was based around a reunion for the members of the class of the old show. What that does is make a forced situation seem unforced. They want to show everyone, but how do they do it, simple. period. 90210 was more subtle, and for that reason, better. Hell, they even made a part for the castaway Shannen Doherty. While I was not a watcher of the original show, I recognized a few faces. It's apparent that some were going to be there, and others were going to quickly fade away. And frankly I had no problem with this. It was like they were genuinely trying to make a show that could stand on its own. There were roots in the old one, but they were really shallow and unneeded. Degrassi had its roots well established. It didn't really need them, for only a handful of original characters are meaningful (Radditch, Snake, Spike, Caitlin Ryan, Joey Jeremiah), but it wanted to show a clear(er, well there really was no comparison in 2001) connection to the old show. I suppose we will see later whether they are just going to hash together old plots with new characters, who are really old characters, or whether they are going to make an entirely new show, such as in Degrassi.
Enough about that. It is the only edge I give 90210.
The theme of the opening of the series, I think, was supposed to be about responsibility, but it was dealt with in such an immature and childish manner that it is much more about blame. And if this is serialized, as most dramas are, then all indications point toward a simple continuation of blame upon blame moving in circles upon itself.
A cheap way to get drama.
This show really is no Degrassi.
--Knuttel
No comments:
Post a Comment