Is the wrath that has met Netflix's revival of the canceled
a product of viewer investment in the initial iteration of the series? Or does it hold
merit as a valid criticism of this installment?
While fans might have been blissfully happy with a new "Arrested Development" immediately after its 2006 cancellation, seven years on was anyone really expecting a regurgitation from the minds that created the biting brilliance of Season One, the whacked out hilarity of Season Two, or the rushed genius of Season Three?
This does not pay off. It can be confusing, repetitive, forced, and ultimately labored. But, it's aiming to fulfill the signature layered storytelling that fans came to adore from repeat viewings of the first three seasons of "Arrested Development."
of the other failures were understandably at odds with what fans expected. The
production is noticeably sloppier. The clumsy use of the green screen is
unacceptable and distracting. The cinematography is not as snappy--perhaps
because the plot’s overlapping stories posed a limiting restriction on what the
camera could reveal in any particular scene.
Flashbacks with Kristen Wiig and Seth Rogen seemed forced (both are wonderful). The product placement "gag" fell flat this time; plugging for Mike's Hard Lemonade went sour, while the Burger King promotional episode in Season Two was a feat of brilliance. The most disappointing shortcoming was that the tactic of focusing on one character at a time did not fit a show whose main delight was the relationships between a glorious ensemble cast.