This more than most sitcoms is just abusive relationships with a laugh track. Glad it’s not getting rebooted

You can't replace Peter Boyle and Doris Roberts. But it would be cathartic to see Patricia Heaton with a daughter-in-law who is entirely inept as a cook and homemaker, and she has to resist the urge to become Marie while watching Ray become his father.

Good.
It was barely funny when it first came out, and hasn't aged well at all (I know because it's on every fucking morning when there is literally nothing else to watch).
Keep the misogyny, toxic masculinity and heteronormativity, and abusive-bullshit-as-normal in the past where they belong - boomer humour needs to be allowed to die, not kept alive at any cost to fill a handful of greedy pockets and entertain bigots (cough cough Frasier cough cough).

let things have their time. i understand the idea behind a lot of these revivals, but they're often pretty bad. it's not just about getting actors back and rebuilding sets. it's about the writers and all the other people that work on these shows. i'm fairly happy with how the Futurama revival turned out, but they were already set up for it, and it was really just another joke about all the other times they got revived.

in the case of Everybody Loves Raymond, you don't have Peter Boyle. without him the show would just be a shadow of its former self anyway.

sometimes it's better to imagine these characters just riding off into the sunset.

I never liked it to begin with so I'm ok with this.

Good news everybody

So far the only thing I'll ever say was a good reboot was the 2nd Jumanji movie. The one that came after that is a shameless cash grab with little to no soul, but the other one was actually pretty decent.

They didn't pull a Star Wars and take the best parts of the previous movies to make a new film. They didn't make it overly cringe or completely dumb it down to the point of being nothing at all like the original. And they tried something new instead of just re-creating the original but only changing the time period and characters.

Rarely, but not never.

But, that's probably because making a hit is very hard. The shows that are considered for a reboot are the hits. So, not only does it have to be a hit, but it has to be a bigger hit than the original.

That's probably why the good remakes are remakes of something that was a hit because it broke new ground in some way, rather than just having great acting, directing, writing, etc.

The original Star Trek was a hit not because the writing, acting and directing were top notch, but because the show had female officers, it had a Russian helmsman working with American officers. It had TV's first interracial kiss. It aired during the cold war, but depicted a post-capitalist world that might arguably have been communist. All that mattered more than the writing and acting. When they rebooted it, they could get great writers, directors and actors. Same general idea with Battlestar: Galactica and Doctor Who.

This also explains why it would be hard to reboot a sitcom. Sitcom situations are... um... common. Typically sitcoms don't break any new ground. If they're popular it's because of good writing, acting and directing. This might also be why some people thought the Will & Grace reboot was good. The first one was popular partially because it broke new ground, depicting homosexuality in a positive and normal light. Arguably that mattered more than the acting, writing and direction.

Pfft, Degrassi the Next Generation kicked Degrassi's ass.

Also the more respectable answers like Star Trek TNG, FMA Brotherhood, and The Office too, but I stand by Degrassi TNG > Degrassi!

Good for him, he must be doing okay on money. Lol.

The first agreeable thing to ever come out of him.

I think Will and Grace was the only reboot that was quality. I've heard good things about the Kids in the Hall reboot, but I don't think that really counts since it's sketch comedy.

Be like Raymond

Somewhere in Queens is a fantastic watch & the closest we'll get, apparently noone here watched it