★★★★★ 0/5

9021OMG

90210 had its unveiling in American yesterday. Critics enjoyed its sense of fun, but acknowledged script issues.

15
Leave a comment

90210 launched yesterday in the US yesterday and delivered the highest rated series premiere ever for the CW network in the 18-49 demographic.

Reviewers (y’know the ones who never got to see it ahead of time) acknowledged it stirred some nostalgia within them, with some occasional flashes of wit, and talked up its flashy look. But they weren’t so hot on the storytelling yet. It’s even said to be a little bit tame compared to Gossip Girl.

TEN’s chief programming officer, David Mott, is upbeat at the audience response in the US saying, “What a fantastic result. The show resonates perfectly with our core 18-49 demographic and we can’t wait for its Australian debut on Monday.

“Rarely do you have a show with such great global buzz and we’re confident come Tuesday morning we’ll be crowing our own rating victory.”

I’m sure they will too, whatever the result is.

No doubt 90210 will perform in the demographic next Monday, even if it doesn’t top City Homicide.

Here’s a selection of the reviews:

LATimes: 90210 is a conventional, if crazily busy, teenage drama, true to the spirit of the original. It is essentially wholesome, with an emphasis on striving toward the right behavior, while at the same time trying for something distressingly modern: There is implied oral sex four minutes into the first episode. (That’s 8:04 p.m., America.). The parties are bigger and crazier and shot in real Hollywood nightclubs; the girls are way skinnier; the rich kids more obviously rich. They’re still hanging out at the Peach Pit, but they’ve got cappuccino there now.

Variety: Even the biggest fan of the original would be hard-pressed to call it realistic, but that earlier incarnation did deal with many topical issues of the day. This version doesn’t cover issues as much as exploit them. With shows like The Hills and Gossip Girl, exploring the upscale teenage lifestyle, this 90210 doesn’t really offer any fresh zip.

Pittsburgh Gazette: It’s not a great show but it’s not a terrible teen drama, not by a long shot. And that’s a bit of a surprise given The CW’s unwillingness to send it out for critics to review in advance of air (Perhaps as a dare to critics, the first dialogue heard is new Beverly Hills kid Dixon declaring, “This sucks!”). The new 90210 turns out to be a solid sequel with plenty of shout-outs to fans of the old 90210.

Boston.com: The two-hour episode seemed to take forever to set up some remarkably bland plotlines — stories that might have seemed dull even back in 1990, when the original series premiered. A spoiled rich girl cheats on her English paper, a glassy-eyed teen has a drug problem, Lacrosse jocks pull pranks, a child was given up for adoption many years ago — we’ve seen them all many times before on other teen soaps, and with more finesse, too.

Tampabay.com: …What surprised me most after sitting through the two-episode kickoff of 90210 last night was how much I didn’t hate it. Instead, the new version of 90210 is simply unremarkable — a glittery showpiece for twentysomething actors playing teens with impossibly white teeth and improbably large bank accounts.

Chicago Tribune: Still, despite everything – the woodenness and comical self-absorption of Doherty, the dorky callbacks to the Peach Pit, the sometimes cringe-inducing dialogue, the predictable and superficial plots about drug abuse, paternity problems and old rivalries – it must be said that this version of 90210 does contain a few flashes of genuine wit. And its eagerness to please is obvious: The soap sure is working hard for the money.

NJ.com: I felt surprisingly nostalgic throughout a lot of this. I don’t know that I would call it good, but I could see myself tuning in again in the same way that I’ll sometimes stop to watch A-Team reruns of “Just One of the Guys” if I stumble across them while channel surfing.

15 Responses

  2. I’ve been watching it and its pretty good, i reckon it’ll hit the million mark. Think, all of the 40 year olds watching it who watched it in their late 20s, and today’s teenagers will most definately get into it.

  3. At 42 i’m probably not in the target demoraphic, but I’ll still prefer it to Kitchen Nightmares and City Homocide. A lot of over 40s don’t, but I still remember what it’s like to be young.

  4. Having just watched the new 90210 I do like it, there is a lot to take in. As someone who didn’t follow the original closely, especially the last few seasons there is a lot to remember from the old show and characters, working out how it all fits, but it is good.

    I think it can work on ch10.

    It may not break any ratings records but as David said it’s the demographics that matter and this might appeal to them more than City Homicide or Kitchen Nightmares.

  5. Tim, you’re on the money in terms of the curiosity factor. I would never dream of watching shows like The OC, Gossip Girl, The Hills and Summerland, but as a fan of Beverly Hills 90210 from the 90’s, I will be tuning in to see the reunion of Brenda and Kelly amongst the new batch of spoiled rich kids.

    Whether or not I’ll continue to watch is another story. No doubt the show will score top marks in the 13-17 and 16-24 categories, but I suspect David Mott will be disappointed in the older demos unless the lead in from Idol really works its derriere off.

  6. 90210 has actually been received poorly by critics. Even Gossip Girl was more well received when it premiered last year. 90210 has a score of 46 on Metacritic, with no one giving it a score above 63.

    http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/90210

    Not that critics are worth listening to, but the tone of the article seemed to suggest it was being received rather favourably (see Ten’s dude saying “such great global buzz”) when that isn’t necessarily the case. As for me, I probably won’t bother watching. I don’t see the appeal in watching the melodramatic antics of rich kids, unless its done with wit and style like The OC.

  7. it rated 4.91 total viewers, its only competition was americas got tallent wich had over 10 million ncis had over 8 mill and wipeout and house had around 7 mill, everything was reapets except usa got tallent

  8. VMan, you may be underestimating the fans of the old 90210 who will at least watch the premier.

    Frankly i have better things to do than watch 90210 but best of luck to it.

    BTW: For those curious as to how many people actually watched is in the US, i read that it was 4.9 million, though i don’t have a reliable source on that, the posting claimed it came from HollywoodReporter.com but i couldn’t find it on there.

  10. There’s NO WAY 90210 will rate well here. I think David Mott will be surprised and disappointed. There’s no way it will go over 1 mil on its debut, and there’s no way it’ll avg more than 800K throughout its run.

    It is a teenage drama. It is on Channel 10. Going by past experience with Neighbours, OC, OTH, Dawsons, it won’t do well.

    Perhaps 800K+ is ‘well’ to David Mott? Well I guess in this day and age, a teen drama being able to pull that number with good demo’s would be good.

    ANYWAY!! I don’t really CARE about how it does here! I’m just so happy that it got off to a great start in the US! I hope that the retention for next week is good, because surely a lot people will have watched just to see what its like, and will tune out. I’ll be looking at the ratings very carefully over the next few weeks.

    To sum up: Who cares what it does in Oz! Even if it doesn’t rate well and Motty takes it off, we always have the option to download.

  12. “The CW (adults 18-49: 2.6, #1) pulled off a rare adults 18-49 win on Tuesday thanks to the launch of “90210” (adults 18-49: 2.6, #4, half-hour: 8.00%). A second episode of “90210” (adults 18-49: 2.7, #3, half-hour: 0.00%) followed at 9:00/8:00c, building off its 8:00/7:00c numbers.”
    http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=tuesday

    I did well in the all important demographics they are after, The CW and Ch10 have similar audiance appeal so I hope it does well.

    OT – it’s in the old Gilmore Girls time slot, which they held for 6 years in the US on the WB then CW.

  13. In the US it’s never about total ratings actually, its about winning demographic and audience share. Our Aussie networks are trying to effect that change here but it’s a battle.

    In the 18-49 demographic, 90210 took CW to the top for the first time in the network’s two-year history.

    NBC 5.5 rating/9 share.
    FOX 4.1/6
    CBS 3.9/6.
    The CW 3.4/5
    ABC 2.8/4.

Leave a Reply