Charmed Reboot Will Be a "Standalone" Show, The CW Says



Now that The CW is developing a Charmed reboot -- this iteration is set in the 1970s, and staffed by Jane the Virgin talents including showrunner Jennie Snyder Urman and writers Jessica O'Toole and Amy Rardin -- the big question is: will the new take be connected to the original series?

Check out all of TV Guide's Winter TCA coverage here!

The CW President Mark Pedowitz said Sunday at the Television Critics Association winter previews in Pasadena, Calif. that the new series "is a self-contained, self-sustained show. There is the Power of Three element in there, but at this time, it is a very standalone show."

No doubt the new Charmed, about sister-witches in San Francisco, will have some added twists. Particularly since it's not the first time a network attempted to revive the hit, which starred Shannen Doherty, Holly Marie Combs, Alyssa Milano and Rose McGowan. CBS previously attempted a new take at the series in 2013, but that only went as far as the script stage.

Of the new show, Pedowitz made it sound like pretty much all ideas -- including appearances by the original stars -- are fair game at this point. "We'll see what happens as the series goes on," he said.

(Full disclosure: TVGuide.com is owned by CBS, one of the parent companies of The CW.)

This article originally appears on TV Guide.com.

Comments (36)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
Jan 17, 2017
Does anybody know how i can contact TV.com...normally i get daily emails from tv.com with notifications of which shows i am watching are aired that night. SInce Jan 2017 i get emails, but it doesn't show the shows....it says NAN NAN ..????
Anybody can help me?
Reply
Flag
Jan 11, 2017
It would be nice if Hollywood came up with something even 50% original. Reboots aren't exciting if that is all anyone is doing.
Reply
Flag
Jan 10, 2017
You are calling it Charmed, but saying that it is not connected...they are going to ruin the grace Charmed had and disrecpects what the original actresses has achieved with that series. So many fans..still after 10 years.
So, i am not for a reboot!!
3
Reply
Flag
Jan 10, 2017
To be fair, a reboot should be unconnected to the original show, because that's a continuation not a reboot... BUT the original ran so long and had it's fans, giving it any name referring Charmed and not being connected to it is just stupid.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 10, 2017

Can't wait for the reboot of TV's Benson.....

: P

Reply
Flag
Jan 11, 2017
Good idea, Obama needs a job :)
Reply
Flag
Jan 13, 2017
Obama doesn't have the comic timing to pull it off. :)
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
I've wished that some shows no longer on the air were either given a stand alone reunion night ( 1 episode that shows what the inworld characters are doing now) or one, short reunion season/mini-series that can serve as backdoor pilot (and no, not Fuller House, but similar enough). It would also be of interest for shows that did not get a proper series finale or retcon a bad one.

As for a Charmed reboot, I miss my original three sisters, I'm not sure what's being peddles is of interest.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
Stupid idea. Either make it connected to the old show, or make a whole new series without the "Charmed" name.
5
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
It would be smarter to invest in making a new show about witches. Not a new concept or remotely new idea but people are willing to try new things, new takes on interesting subjects. Reboots however disappoint original fans and keep people away that weren't fans of the original who have no desire to see a crap reboot.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 13, 2017
False argument? hmm well my point was the same as you just repeated which was yes most shows are hated. And that was my exact point, that something is most likely to be successful having little or no connect to the original. So why call it a reboot or even try to make some link so an original. My assumption from them calling it a "reboot" is that they will make some unneccesary attempt to connection or link which in my opinion would make it less likely to be decent. And thus my thoughts on not great reboots, but maybe the term is overused since it could mean anything from a true attempted copy to a show to a show with a small link to an original. I'd rather from the very beginning of the thought of a show maybe have it take place in the same "universe" or have the same lore but not for people to be going as far as to call something a reboot
Though i do somewhat disagree about quality not because I'm saying a reboot is bad just because its a reboot which is not what I mean at all, but I think people may also judge a reboots quality apon their own assumption of how connected or alike they think it will or should be to the original.

Anyway... I hope if this actually gets made, that it's not a disappointed to whoever is looking forward to it. If it does get made I hope it's because there is a legit interest among fans not just someone trying to capitalize on the name or a network thinking that makes it more of a sure thing than taking a chance on original programming
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 11, 2017
Cancelled isn't an indication of good or bad. Bad and good shows get cancelled. I'd personally rather watch a good show that gets cancelled too soon vs a bad one. I've seen neither of those so I wouldn't know but the fact that people still bring up secret circle from time to time leads me to believe people have a high opinion of it.

My generalization about reboots was about every single one. And obviously every fans taste will be different some might like a reboot while others don't. However my statement was more to the high percentage of reboots that end up being disappointing, bad, or never get off the ground. Just as is true with a high percentage of shows reboot or not
Reply
Flag
Jan 11, 2017
My point was, they tried to do new shows about witches. I'll also add Witches of East End to the mix. They were gone in a heartbeat because they couldn't draw people into them. People just don't go into the genre anymore.
The only current one that comes to mind is Nowhere boys and even that is a bit of a stretch and don't even know if people know much about it outside it's home country.

As for your generalization of reboots, you do realize that is a false argument? Most reboots get hated? Most shows in general are hated. Very few become successful. Don't get me wrong, I don't get the reboot trend either. Most successful reboots are the ones that actually have very little to do with the source material - so why bother call it a reboot in the first place?
But the point is, people rate a show as good or bad based on whether they think it's good or bad. The reboot aspect has very little to do with it. It is neither a plus nor a minus as far as quality go. But it's a plus as far as marketing hype goes.
More +
Reply
Flag
Jan 10, 2017
Shows about witches... You mean like Eastwick? Secret Circle? Yeah, those got cancelled ASAP.

Reboots disappoint original fans? Tell that to Battlestar Galactica, Hawaii Five-o, , Doctor Who, Teen Wolf and probably others I've forgot. That's even assume you differentiate reboot from just basic imports, cause otherwise the list is waaaaaaaay longer
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
All this BS is the usual TV talk. A picture is worth a thousand words. When this new "reboot" does premiere, simply watch it or follow a few episodes thereon, and decide if it charms your palates. If not, simply cast it out and end your watching spell.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
you forgot the 5th cast character member kaylee cucuo

and what do they mean by standalone. who even says that for a reboot, its a reboot duh!
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
Right.
If it's a standalone show, why even call it "a charmed reboot" is my question? Then it's more of a inspirational copy of Charmed and shouldn't (Yes I assume it's gonna be BAD) drag the original in the mud by calling it by a classic and just and the "reboot" in the end of it. It NEVER result in a good thing when they take something like that and remaking it.
Name it something else, don't have the original cast in it at all, and let it fly on its own. Doing it this way is just gonna make fans of Charmed compare it to the old one and probably not like it anyways.
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
"is a self-contained, self-sustained show. There is the Power of Three element in there, but at this time, it is a very standalone show."

What exactly is that supposed to mean? It could apply to any show, on any network, apart from those that like to do crossovers! It's no clearer than the last post, so I'm not particularly enthused at the prospect of a reboot which isn't really a reboot or the drip feed of non-information that will surely be touted until it airs!
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
Who knows what it means.. I guess.. it's a reboot and not a tie-in.. The TV.COM staff uses the English language in mysterious ways... :)
3
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
I think they're just quoting whatever the network prez says. He's the one being vague with the wording. Personally he sounds full of bs. I wouldn't be shocked if it was connected to the original in some way. I kind of assume its going to be similar to the 90210, Fargo, and Dallas spinoffs. A brand new show that basically is a remake of the original but is also technically in the same world or related to the original. They all tend to do this now, especially if they think the show will be great they will try to tie it to the original.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
Actually, what is being suggested sounds more like a "tie-in" than a reboot i.e. the power of three element.

Charmed had an incredibly strong history and future inherent in the storyline. The Charmed witches were the product of the Halliwell matriarch lineage and presented as the most powerful of this line. The shows creators and writers pretty much boxed-in the history and future that even spin-offs, if they had done them at the time, could only reasonably contain any potential for success by following these threads.

A 70's 'reboot' that has nothing to do with our intrepid trio of Piper, Phoebe and Page, quartet if you count Prue, is just a reimagining and I definitely don't want to see that. So, reboot, tie-in, reimagining, whatever, so far it sounds lame!
Reply
Flag
Jan 09, 2017
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
They mean it might not have references to Victor or Grams and her five husbands or Darryl or anything else that happened in the future storyline.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
.....yeah, I get that! - "a reboot which isn't really a reboot" It's going to be pants!
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
Nope, I know 'tv land' is struggling with new ideas but if you're doing a new Charmed series then it has to be a post season 8 fanale?

I mean CBS/tvguide.com/CW we NEED to know why Billie gave up magic and married a physicist!
2
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
I'm with you on post season 8 but not fussed about Billie.
1
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
But why would she not use her magic to lock Sheldon in the lift shaft forever?! ;)
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
...because without the Charmed Ones she's nothing. She's had 10 season's to weave spells on Sheldon....YAAAWN!
Reply
Flag
Jan 08, 2017
They got rid of the wrong sister Christy would have just killed and enslaved them!
1
Flag

Like TV.com on Facebook