10 Worst TV Reboots Of The 2010s, Ranked

Are there any original ideas left in Hollywood? This question comes up every time we hear about another reboot of a classic TV show, which often comes off as a cynical cash grab in an age of endlessly recycled IP. The 2010s were especially rife with reboots across television and film, and many of these projects we'd rather forget about entirely.

Of course, it's not all doom and gloom in TV land. The 2010s saw some truly great reboots like "One Day at a Time," "Hawaii Five-0," and "DuckTales." But for every successful reboot, there were at least twice as many disappointments.

Not every show on this list is outright terrible, but they are the worst of the decade. In most cases, these attempts to modernize beloved characters or add a new dimension to a once-popular series fell short of our expectations. Some of these shows had viewers really peeved, with fans claiming they sullied the legacy of the original, while others simply lacked imagination. Prepare to get annoyed all over again, because these are the 10 worst TV reboots of the 2010s, ranked.

Do you actually love any of these reboots? Think there are any we missed? Let us know in the comments below.

It was an uphill battle to get viewers on board with the "Charmed" reboot. When the series was first announced, the stars of the original "Charmed," including Holly Marie Combs and Alyssa Milano, expressed their displeasure online, and some fans even lobbied to get the new show cancelled. Ultimately, the series ran for four seasons on the CW, but it never reached the ridiculously fun heights of the original.

The reboot follows Mel (Melonie Diaz), an angry, self-professed social justice warrior and lesbian grad student. Her younger sister, Maggie (Sarah Jeffery), is much more easygoing and is planning to rush a sorority her first year of college. When their mother, Marisol (Valerie Cruz), dies, they discover their magical powers and half-sister, Macy (Madeleine Mantock). The eldest, she has a mind for science and relies on her intellect.

2018's "Charmed" sets itself apart from the original by featuring a more diverse cast and focusing explicitly on sociopolitical issues. Unfortunately, the show suffers from a lack of subtlety in this regard, which gets in the way of deeper character development. These sisters don't have the chemistry of the original trio, and the first season spends too much time overloading the viewer with plot twists and new information. It improves by the middle of the season, but new showrunners in Season 2 result in a loss of momentum that the series never recovers from.

"BH90210" may be the weirdest reboot we've ever encountered, and for the most part, that's not a good thing. Basically, it's a faux-reboot, or maybe a reboot about a reboot? The premise is this: the original cast of "Beverly Hills, 90210" is reuniting to film a reboot of the series, and various interpersonal drama ensues. The "Beverly Hills" cast plays alternate versions of themselves, with fictionalized backstories that both reflect and diverge from their real-life histories.

It's all very bizarre, and it never quite comes together. As TVLine's Andy Swift put it in his review, "This detachment from reality effectively neuters the show's myriad soapy storylines — ranging from financial woes to extramarital escapades — giving the whole thing an unfortunately low-stakes vibe."

On the other hand, we appreciate the big swings the show takes, even if it hurts your brain to think about it for too long. The cast still has great chemistry, and seeing them all together again (sans Luke Perry) is a treat for fans of the original. However, "BH90210" feels more like a gimmick than a real TV show, and the writing isn't witty enough to develop intrigue beyond its meta premise. It's not the worst reboot out there, but it's far from the best.

Before we begin, allow us a caveat: "Heroes Reborn" is not technically a reboot, since it includes characters from the original series and takes place in the same universe, but it effectively reboots the show in a new context, so we've decided to include it here. "Heroes Reborn" takes place in a world where many Evos ("evolved humans" with superpowers) are open about their abilities thanks to Claire's (Hayden Panettiere) public admission in the original series. When Evos are blamed for a terrorist attack in Odessa, Texas, they are once again forced to go into hiding.

The show brings back Noah Bennett (Jack Coleman), who used to hunt down Evos, and new characters with burgeoning powers. Tommy (Robbie Kay) is a teenager who can make people disappear, and Miko (Kiki Sukezane) learns she can enter the world of video games. Meanwhile, a married couple (Zachary Levi and Judi Shekoni) have become Evo assassins in response to their son's death.

There are some interesting ideas here, but like the original series' post-Season 1 run, there is just too much going on. There are too many characters to keep track of, and too many plots that don't serve the development of those characters. Bringing back Noah, far from a fan favorite, also seems an odd choice. Ultimately, "Heroes Reborn" can't decide if it wants to retread the same ground or tell a new story, and it fails at making an argument for its own existence.

The CW reboot of "Dynasty" updates the drama for the 21st century, but doesn't do enough to recreate the flashy appeal of the original. In this version of the story, Elizabeth Gillies plays Fallon Carrington (among others), the heiress to an energy empire run by her father, Blake (Grant Show). When Blake announces plans to marry his employee, Cristal (Nathalie Kelley), Fallon schemes to take control of the company. 

"Dynasty" has charms. Gillies is great in the lead role, and her campy performance is one of the show's highlights. Alan Dale is also perfectly sanctimonious as Anders. The series creators, Sallie Patrick, Josh Schwartz, and Stephanie Savage, cut their teeth on teen soaps like "The O.C." and "Gossip Girl," but "Dynasty" doesn't have the charm or flair of those beloved shows. Many of the central characters lack depth, and it's not quite trashy enough to be interesting.

The CW's budget also proves problematic. The sets aren't adequately glitzy, and the clothes, a memorable part of the show in the '80s, fail to make an impact. Moreover, the series just doesn't stand out in today's TV landscape. Our screens are filled with squabbling rich families now, and this "Dynasty" is missing a compelling edge. Casting changes later in the series don't help matters, though Gillies and her co-stars dispense moments of fleeting brilliance.

The original "MADtv" was never the highest caliber of television, and was often considered a low-budget ripoff of "Saturday Night Live." Still, it gave us plenty of laughs (remember "Can I have your number?"), and introduced memorable talents like Key & Peele, Alex Borstein, and Ike Barinholtz. The CW's one-season reboot, which appeared on our TVs in 2016, feels like a ripoff of a ripoff, though we don't blame its creators for trying to revive the magic.

The CW series features a new cast of comedians along with guest spots for original cast members, including Nicole Sullivan, who does her best Hillary Clinton impression. (It was 2016, after all.) The main problem is the material they have to work with, which has nothing to say. The show is filled with jokes about the election and "Game of Thrones" that you've heard 100 times before, and these actors' laudable commitment to the bit doesn't make the scripts any fresher. 

The original series was at its best when it got weird, rather than trying to recreate the political commentary of "SNL." The same is true of this reboot, but unfortunately, the writing isn't up to snuff. With no meme-able moments or viral videos waiting to happen, 2016's "MADtv" has already been forgotten.

"24: Legacy" is technically a spinoff of "24," but it functions as a reboot with an (almost) entirely new cast. Unfortunately, it doesn't add anything original to the classic "24" formula. Corey Hawkins plays Eric Carter, an ex-Army Ranger who previously thwarted a terrorist attack, and is now being hunted by more terrorists. He turns to Jack Bauer's (Kiefer Sutherland) former stomping grounds, the Counter Terrorism Unit, for help. He's aided by former CTU boss Rebecca Ingram (Miranda Otto), who's pretty busy because her husband (Jimmy Smits) is running for president.

The original "24" was simultaneously deadly serious and silly, and "24: Legacy" combines both of those impulses in the worst way. The plots are convoluted and over-the-top, though its sense of humor is absent. Corey Hawkins is fine in the lead role, but his presence only points to what's missing: Kiefer Sutherland. Jack Bauer, in all his infuriating inconsistencies, made "24" what it is. The real-time premise gave the show its verve, but the characters are what made it tick.

Speaking of time, there are only 12 episodes of "24: Legacy" (the finale takes place after a 12-hour time jump), which kind of defeats the purpose. Eric has little in the way of interiority, and he frequently makes head-scratching decisions. His colleagues don't fare much better in terms of character development. Unsurprisingly, the show also falls into the same traps as its predecessor, pointing out the existence of racial stereotypes while simultaneously reinscribing them.

"The Odd Couple" is a reboot of a '70s show based on a 1965 play (and a 1968 movie), which may explain why it feels terribly outdated. To give credit where credit's due, the casting director was on the money. Matthew Perry plays Oscar Madison, a recently divorced sports journalist and an unrepentant slob. His new roomie is Felix Unger, played by Thomas Lennon, a fastidious clean freak. The talented supporting cast includes Yvette Nicole Brown, Wendell Pierce, Leslie Bibb, Dave Foley, and Lauren Graham.

It's a shame that such an impressive cast of actors was given lackluster material. Though the opposites attract premise is in some ways timeless, this reboot does next to nothing to update the format, nor does it justify its presence on the airwaves. The "I live with this uptight guy who seems gay but is not actually gay" joke was beyond dated by 2015 and the depiction of the men's nagging wives doesn't come off any better. At one point, Foley's character quips, "You've met my wife. Why would I want to live longer?"

This kind of humor seems straight out of the mid-20th century, and though Perry and Lennon certainly have chemistry, their spark isn't enough to save "The Odd Couple" from mediocrity. It lasted for three seasons — more than we expected — before fizzling out completely.

If the 2016 reboot of "MacGyver" proved one thing, it's that the beloved character should stay in the 1980s, where he belongs. This new version of the show adds nothing of substance to the story and lacks the high-stakes thrills of the original. For one thing, Lucas Till plays the title character, and he doesn't have what it takes to distinguish MacGyver from any other crime-fighting hero on TV. Fresh-faced and unremarkable, he doesn't possess the gravitas and charm needed to make the (admittedly banal) material sing.

Many of the details adhere to the original, though the 2016 production is more of an ensemble piece than it was in the '80s. His coworkers are played by actors such as George Eads, Tristin Mays, and Sandrine Holt, but unfortunately, none of them have much chemistry with Till. MacGyver still does his MacGyver-ing, complete with that cheesy voice-over, but his tricks don't land the way they used to. His inventions are inelegantly explained to the audience using blocky text that lists the supplies he's working with, zapping any intrigue out of his machinations.

The production values don't help matters. While there are some impressive stunts here and there, the sets look cheap, and certain scenes rely too much on CGI. Though not totally offensive, "MacGyver" is, on the whole, quite bland. Despite mostly unfavorable reviews from critics, the show ran for five seasons before quietly fading out of view.

The 2013 version of "Ironside" has little in common with its source material, and as far as reboots go, it's one of the most baffling examples. Blair Underwood plays the modern-day Robert Ironside, described in an NBC press release as "tough, sexy but acerbic," which tells you everything you need to know about how thinly drawn this character is.

While Raymond Burr's Ironside was steely, he also had soul. Underwood's Ironside, through no fault of the actor, is badass to the point of parody, and all of his scenes exist to clumsily prove that wheelchair users can be rule-breaking crime fighters, too. He tortures information out of suspects, is a brazen ladies' man, and can see things others can't. Case in point: when he notices a gun wedged underneath a cushion, his colleagues are amazed by his observational skills. "I get a different view of the world from down here," he responds, nonsensically.

Ironside's co-workers are just underdeveloped, delivering rote dialogue that technically moves the plot forward but does nothing to fill out this world. The show introduces Ironside as an extremely angry man with a chip on his shoulder, which is fair, but it never gets deeper than that. His backstory is told in the cheesiest way possible, and the tone oscillates between after-school special and hostile cynicism. Many disabled actors took issue with Underwood's casting in a disabled role, and the show was canceled after only 4 episodes.

The 2011 remake of "Charlie's Angels" is one of the biggest creative blunders of the 21st century, and it's certainly the worst TV reboot of the 2010s. The original "Charlie's Angels" was never high-quality storytelling, but the modern iteration is so uninspired and dull that it makes the '70s version look brilliant by comparison. The re-imagining of these characters is the show's first (of many) missteps. These Angels, played by Annie Ilonzeh, Minka Kelly, and Rachael Taylor, are reformed criminals roped into doing good. Bosley is a young, good-looking hacker played by Ramon Rodriguez.

We love Rodriguez in "Will Trent," and Taylor was great in "Jessica Jones," but the acting is wooden all around, probably because the scripts are so poorly written. Kelly is miscast here, as she doesn't have the toughness to play a badass biker girl, and Ilonzeh isn't given much to do. Consider the lines they're forced to deliver: "I never thought my heart could hurt his much" and "We're angels. Not Saints."

The show's greatest downfall is that it can't decide what it wants to be. It's not campy enough to deliver the lighthearted fun of the original (or the 2000s movies), nor is it gritty enough to work as a serious crime procedural. The series features heightened violence and darker backstories, but little in the way of tension or stakes. With none of the pleasingly ludicrous spirit of its source material, "Charlie's Angels" was canceled after only four episodes had aired.