Tales of the City

I was really looking forward to the updated version, as I have seen every episode as it originally aired on PBS. The story-line was great, it was awesome to see the original actors'actresses reprising their iconic roles. Then came "the twins". Absolutely not even needed to be a part of the series. Those characters ruined it for me. I understand that perhaps the creator wanted to include Millennials to introduce the series to a new generation, but OMG, the extreme stereotypes of our youth and their digital habits seem to have gone too far, and the outcome that was in the show was not only extremely annoying but downright ridiculous. And to think I was worried about the stereotypes of the LGBTQ community.

At first I was a little disappointed since I've been in love with the book series for more than 20 years. But it grows with every episode and now I'm hooked! The old characters make me feel like home and the new ones have already taken a place in my heart.

I'm two episodes in, I'm quite enjoying it, but the flaws are glaringly obvious. I'll start with the biggest one and that is the supposed gap in decades that has occurred. I would have much preferred that it was set in the 90s or early 2000s, with the first series being set in the 70s this just doesn't add up for me. I'm finding it hard to move past it and very distracting.

The second flaw is the constant nods and winks to the younger generation and references to Instagram etc. There was an annoying pause in the flower shop when a customer paid for his purchase using his phone. This approach, which I think is intentional, is incredibly obnoxious.

Aside from these criticisms, I'm still a fan of the original material, and I am hopeful it settles down. Laura Linney rocks

Having read all the books several times I was looking forward to this series on Netflix. I'm so glad Olympia Dukakis, Laura Linney, Paul Gross and Barbara Garrick came back. Shame one of the original 'Michael' actors didn't return. The story was ok but hardly resembled the story in the last 3 books that would be appropriate for the passing of time for the characters. Anna's flashback story was a good addition however but the ending was quite underwhelming. I feel that it missed an opportunity to tell the real story of the characters as there was a wealth of story available from 'Michael Tolliver Lives' 'Mary Ann in Autumn' and 'The Days of Anna Madrigal' to make a brilliant season. Shame they got the timing wrong! Michael and Mary Ann should be in their 60s now! It would have sat better if it was set in the late 90s yearly 00s.

Also a shame they didn't keep the original theme music. It would have helped to retain some of the magic of the original. Netflix seem to have aimed the series at a new audience but forgetting the existing fans of the books and first 3 series.

A good watch that filled a rainy day.

We wait now for the next book by Maupin about Mona as he announced on Radio 2 last week.

I had alread red the Tales Of the City books at least the first 5 or so, and lived in the Bay Area in the early 80s when the books were being published to my then delight. So these remarks are from an oldie.

The Netflix 2019-extensions of the Tales Of the city saga is ten hours of uneven yet satisfying setup for perhaps another future generation of tales.

It's presented in the form of a whodunnit (whoisdoingit) plot with a some wrapping up of previous loose ends with new characters to carry it forward. Seems each episode has a different writer so the intensity varies between episodes. Superficially it's just the same old nonsense as the previous series, but this time with a slower pace and with current obsessions and topics. Mr Maupin makes a cameo as usual.

Nice that the Gene Compton's cafeteria event gets attention, no doubt will bring that to international attention.

My initial reaction was distaste at episodes-1 and 2. I wanted to dislike this effort out of imaginary respect for the old characters. I did not immediately like the new younger characters until later in the series.

Despite the dodgy timeline (Michael Tolliver is portrayed as 54 when 64 might be more consistent with the books ) and the initial difficulty of accepting the new younger characters, it won me over. Some scenes dragged however. Episode-3 dinner scene was intense, as was a young character rifling though an older character's 80s address book with most names crossed out, a familiar agony for my generation.

Nice musical background too.

In short schmatltzy magical soap for millennials and nostalgic oldies.