The cast and crew were in the throes of shooting the second episode during The Times’ set visit.
“For the others, it was easier, because they haven’t lived their lives in public like I have.” “It was hard to be like, what’s fictitious? What’s real? Everyone knows everything about me,” she says. Spelling found that it didn’t come as easily as she expected. Fame and celebrity - I don’t think people really understand what that sort of energy is like when it’s coming at you.” Whatever demons I have to exorcise about the original experience, I get to exorcise in here and now. For me, there’s a certain catharsis to it as well. “I think the fact that this show is going to be far more tongue-in-cheek is one of the things that made it interesting to all of us. “Leaning into these overblown perceptions of Hollywood and of ourselves was the appeal,” Priestley says. The actors say it’s been entertaining to play with fan perceptions of what they’re like in real life. “But I think we’re trying to avoid talking about it too much, because part of the fun of the show is the guessing game of it all.” “Some of them are much closer to who they are than others,” Alberghini adds.
And they all need to know what those other personas are going to be like to figure out how they play into it.” “There’s Larry David and ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm.’ There’s Matt LeBlanc in ‘Episodes.’ This felt a little more of an undertaking because it’s the whole cast playing fictional versions of themselves. “There’s obviously examples of actors doing this,” Chessler says. That meant having them involved in crafting them. “We made this together.” Crafting the actors’ heightened personasĬo-creators Chris Alberghini and Mike Chessler say that, given the premise, the actors needed to be comfortable playing their heightened personas. “We sort of sat down and gave our input on what we wanted to come back to,” she says. In the end, Carteris says, it morphed into something they built together. I’ve been wrong before, and I’m willing to try anything.” The collective creative thought was this was a better road forward. “I think the audience wants to see ‘90210,’” Ziering says. And I was like, ‘It’s not that!’ I remember after we all got on board, I said to Jason, ‘When you originally said no, did you think it was a reality show because of me?’ And he said, ‘Well, yeah.’”įor Ziering, a traditional revival seemed more likely to satisfy fans. “I think they thought we were trying to do a reality show. “I think the fact that I had done reality shows didn’t help,” Spelling says. Spelling, who played a heightened version of herself in VH1’s “So Notorious” and has had a career in reality TV, suspects her history made it hard for her former castmates to wrap their mind around the idea. It seemed like being ourselves could be the way in.” “So we thought: How can we make it work in a way that was new? Everyone is always asking us if we see each other, if we talk to each other, if we like each other. “But we didn’t want to shut it down completely,” Spelling says. But when she texted Garth - the two had been looking for another project to work on together since their defunct 2014 sitcom, “Mystery Girls” - to relay the message, Garth’s response was a resounding, profane “No.” Spelling met with David Stapf, president of CBS Television Studios, who wondered if a reboot was on the table. The team behind Fox’s reboot talk about its metafictional premise and its relationship to the series’ fans. The new ‘90210’ is a nostalgia bender with a meta twist.
0 kommentar(er)
