MovieChat Forums > In Treatment (2008) Discussion > Mixing the old show and this woke reboot...

Mixing the old show and this woke reboot as they were the same show is just a new level of bullshit


The old show with Gabriel Byrne is a little cult classic. The score above 8 in iMDB was not inflated. It's one of those series that without being extremely popular, it was praised by almost everybody.

Now they've made a woke reboot, diverse casting and hires. The usual stuff nowadays. But what matters: it's a reboot, it's a different show. And it should have a different reference.

Well, HBO thought that they can sell the reboot as "new seasons" and take profit from the old show score and reviews, which this reboot clearly doesn't deserve. Ah, HBO, you used to be cool. Not anymore.

reply

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction on your part. I had similar feelings about the show when I watched the first episode, also the third and fourth, especially the fourth that has actor Joel Kinneman in a sexual affair with the doctor. My knee jerk reaction was to think - no (**&#&@ way!

As a older white male, I did find the second episode with the ... I guess embezzler trying to stay out of prison for health reasons I guess ... to be very believable and very well done. The writing, the acting, the direction, all were excellent.

This iteration of the show seems to be more upfront about the actual toll and interactions of the human side of the therapist, whereas Paul's version always tried to hide it or in my opinion never did confront it head on.

You can do what you want and have a white nationalist hissy fit and throw curses around ridicule the "woke" word about it, it's just a TV show, but I will reserve judgement and see what future episodes bring.

After the horrid Allen V. Farrow, HBO will never be the same in my opinion, that was twisted journalism akin to a Palestinian rocket attack on Woody Allen, but I'm hoping that is not the gutter level HBO intends to sink to with everything now. I find some very good stuff in this new In Treatment so far. 1 out of 4 ain't bad for a start.

reply

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction on your part. [...] As a older white male [...] what you want and have a white nationalist hissy fit [...] throw curses around ridicule the "woke" word [...] I will reserve judgement and see what future episodes

I will repeat my point, since it seems you missed it: it's a reboot, so it's a DIFFERENT show.

You're free to like it, the same you're free to like every other woke show under the sun, but that's not what I was talking about. I will repeat my point, you know, the one you missed: it's a DIFFERENT show. And that means that it shouldn't share the reference (and the scores and reviews) with the original show with Gabriel Byrne, not to say eliminate the original poster with Byrne and replace it with the one from the reboot.

reply

> I will repeat my point, since it seems you missed it: it's a reboot, so it's a DIFFERENT show.

No, I got your point, I just disagree with it, or rather agree with your perception, but consider it insignificant in the overall scheme of things. When you make your reboot I guess you should name it whatever you want.

Seriously though, where would you draw the line, and would everyone agree with your. What about "The Expanse" that changed ownership between seasons, of the Star Trek series? Star Wars?

As far as the picture for the show, you have a point there, but that is more MovieChat's crippled format, one that IMDB does not have. When you click on different seasons you can get different data, MovieChat cannot do that.

As far as my opinions on the show, just added conversation. Am I not allowed to do that without getting criticized? Well, excuuuuuuuusssee me. ;-)

reply

Seriously though, where would you draw the line, and would everyone agree with your. What about "The Expanse" that changed ownership between seasons

We're not talking here about a new producer or a new showrunner in a show. We're talking about a new show with a new team, new cast and new characters produced 10 years after the original one ended. That's a textbook fucking reboot.

of the Star Trek series? Star Wars?

Here you have Star Trek
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/
Here you have ST The New Generation
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/

As you can see, even though they belong to the same franchise, they're different shows and they're referenced as different shows.

reply

The Star Trek movie reboots. That also ripped the whole series and timeline to shreds.

You have a point, but I imagine this is more about what you are calling the reboot purchasing the rights to the series, or HBO deciding on how to market it. The titles and credits have continuity. I am ready to accept it, it's sadly not like they are going to go anywhere with Gabriel Byrne's character any longer.

Which by the way, Gabriel Byrne's season 2 of the "War of The Worlds" reboot is coming up very soon. You can add that in to your rant!?

reply

Which by the way, Gabriel Byrne's season 2 of the "War of The Worlds" reboot is coming up very soon. You can add that in to your rant!?

Why? The show is not using previous War of the Worlds movies or shows iMDB references. It's a new show, and it has a new iMDB reference. I don't get what you meant there.

reply

Something to consider in terms of how important your main point is.

reply

?????

It's like I making a point about a movie abusing animals during the shooting, so you bring a movie where there's no animals, because... well... "something to consider in terms of how important the main point is", sure, whatever that means....

reply

You seem all set to want to get mad about anything. Fine.
I thought since you liked Gabriel Byrne you might be interested in that show, and it was interesting that there are so many "War Of The Worlds" movies with the same name. But go ahead - go wild with outrage and entertain us all!

reply

You seem all set to want to get mad about anything. Fine.

No. I was making a point about this new show using the reference of an old one, when these are not "new seasons", but a full reboot.

And you brought another series where that problem doesn't even happen, because... well, because... I don't know, because it has Gabriel Byrne? because "something to consider in terms of how important your main point is"? because of the derivate of a tangent to a ellipse in the focus vertical projection? who knows...

reply

The same kind of a thing also happened over on the other topic here --

where we began discussing PATIENT NUMBER 2 --

then suddenly for some reason a DRAMATIC SHIFT takes place --
where this poster begins talking ABOUT ME as if I were also a CHARACTER in the SHOW even though I am not.

They also gave me a LECTURE saying this:

>>I feel pretty sure you will just come back and blame me, or push more opinions about stuff we are not talking about ... which in a normal conversation a certain amount would be OK, but you have no ability to monitor because you are so desperate to validate yourself.

So perhaps this other ACCUSATION about how they think someone else was talking about "STUFF" that we weren't, who they also say has "NO ABILITY to MONITOR" is still another case of PROJECTION on their part???

Because I also STAYED FOCUSED upon PATIENT NUMBER 2 the entire time.

🧐

https://variety.com/2021/tv/reviews/uzo-aduba-in-treatment-review-hbo-joel-kinnaman-1234970717/

A character played by John Benjamin Hickey seems like an attempt to cram in every hot-button issue of the moment it was written — he’s a tech-world white-collar criminal with complicated views on race and gender who considers himself "a VICTIM of CANDCEL CULTURE."

Hickey does his best, but he’s playing a provocation, not a person. These sessions exist uneasily next to "MORE CAREFULLY WRITTEN" episodes about Anthony Ramos’ home health aide character, who either is exhibiting drug-seeking behavior or is caught in the mental health system.

Her enclave, an architectural marvel bathed in golden Los Angeles light, is a the ultimate safe space — and each episode, she lets the world come in, with all its possibilities and perils. The fact that her patients are often laughably blind to "DEFENSE MECHANISMS" she, and we, can easily decode is irritating and gratifying in turn; it also turns Brooke’s safest space into a staging-ground. (Her stunning irritation when the Swindell character’s grandmother attempts to see private areas of the home is an early sign of just how besieged Brooke feels.)


In other words, the DEBATE where the "BLOW UP"
started was also OVER my saying that EP. 1 had been "MORE INTERESTING" than EP. 2 (with the guy who said his PARENTS had been HIPPIES and he was raised in a COMMUNE).

What's also interesting is how MOST COMMUNES also didn't last long enough for someone to "GROW UP" in them.

Because the "HIPPIE CULTURE also GOT CANCELLED"
and was REPLACED by "YUPPIE CULTURE" (as can also be seen in a film called "THE BIG CHILL").

reply

it's a DIFFERENT show. And that means that it shouldn't share the reference (and the scores and reviews) with the original show with Gabriel Byrne


📌📌📌📌📌

The HBO American version of the show with Gabe was also a REBOOT of another SHOW from ISRAEL and was NOT the ORIGINAL SHOW. [/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Treatment

>>The program's format, script and opening theme are based on, and are often verbatim translations of the Israeli series BeTipul (Hebrew: בטיפול‎), created by Hagai Levi, Ori Sivan and Nir Bergman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeTipul

>>BeTipul in its first season won all the Israeli Academy Awards for a drama series, including Best Drama Series, Best Actor, and Best Actress given to Dayan and Zurer, Best Script, and Best Directing. Maron and Zack were also nominated for Best Actress. In its second season, it was nominated for Best Drama, along with 7 other nominations. Dayan won again the Best Actor award, and Levi and Zack both won the Best Actress award. Season 2 also won the Best Script award.

>>BeTipul (Hebrew: בטיפול‎; lit. In Therapy) is an Israeli television drama revolving around the personal and professional life of an Israeli psychologist, Reuven Dagan, played by Assi Dayan. The series portrays a psychologist who treats patients at his clinic five days a week and then seeks psychological treatment for himself.[1] Filmmaker Ori Sivan served as the head writer of the series.

>>An American adaptation entitled In Treatment premiered January 28, 2008 on the American cable network HBO to critical and audience acclaim. Seasons 1-3 of the show star Gabriel Byrne as Dr. Paul Weston, the equivalent character to Reuven Dagan and Dianne Wiest as Gina, Paul's own therapist. After an 11-year hiatus, the show returned for season 4, starring Uzo Aduba as Dr. Brooke Taylor.

>>[i]oHagai Levi, co-creator of the original show, is one of the executive producers on the American version.[1]


In other words, THE CO-CREATOR of the ORIGINAL SHOW also helped to PRODUCE the show that we're currently watching at the PRESENT TIME.

YOU AGAIN:

>>We're talking about a new show with a new team, new cast and new characters produced 10 years after the original one ended.

NO. Because the AMERICAN VERSION of the show that you INCORRECTLY assume is the ORIGINAL ONE is NOT the ORIGINAL SHOW.

It just a COPY of the ORIGINAL SHOW from ISRAEL that's BEEN REBOOTED the same way as you now complain this other VERSION has been.

reply

The HBO American version of the show with Gabe was also a REBOOT of another SHOW from ISRAEL and was NOT the ORIGINAL SHOW.

Duh, I know, that's why I said "the original American show" and not "the original show".

EDIT. I just checked that I wrote it and I realized I forgot to add the "American" label I was convinced I added. Anyway, I don't care, that doesn't change my point. The original American show and the original Israeli one still have different references.

EDIT 2. I see you already made a comment while I was writing the first edit. Whatever.

reply

>> the original show with Gabriel Byrne

>>produced 10 years after the original one ended.

As you can see by the way that one QUOTED what you said:

YOU DID NOT say "the original American show. "

reply

There you go again. Rude, boring, intolerant and offensive. You would make a shitty parent or therapist in my opinion because you always have to 1000% right and punitive about it. Yuck, who wants to discuss anything with a extremist nutcase?

I suggest you go into therapy and for your first session bring some of your posting threads in and see what the therapist diagnoses. Seriously!

reply

You were already told over on the other topic the reason why I could be "DEAD WRONG" about PATIENT NUMBER 2 being a PSYCHOPATH.

And If I were to assume that you don't have a LICENSE to practice or make a PROFESSIONAL DIAGNOSIS the way you've done, would that be correct???

But since PSYC was one of my MAJORS in GRAD school, please also allow me to take a GUESS at what's going on here.

Due to the way in which one of us chose to call the other one an "EXTREME NUTCASE," ...

and then tells them they need to "go into THERAPY," ...

it's perfectly CLEAR that what we seem to have here is what's called a case of "PROJECTION," ...

(which is also one of the MANY "EGO DEFENSE MECHANISMS")

which is also where one person FLINGS ACCUSATIONS at another person which apply more to the person themselves who FLINGS the accusations.

In other words, I'm sorry you feel "THREATENED" somehow by what's been said, and by the way that one also has been EDUCATED in a way that you have not been about certain matters.

But constantly SLINGING INSULTS or "FLINGING FALLACIES" ( which in DEBATE terms are also called "ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEMS") at another person also does NOTHING to solve the serious kinds of "RESENTMENT ISSUES" that you seem to have for not having been educated regarding certain matters.

What it does is make you the "RUDE, BORING, INTOLERANT and OFFENSIVE" person that you FALSELY and "CONSTANTLY" keep accusing another person of being (who has also NEVER CALLED you NAMES or said anything to INSULT you or try to BELITTLE you).

So why not take the advice that JESUS gave us and "go get the HELP" that you say you think the other person is in need of???

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your ...

https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm

>>First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. American Standard Version. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Contemporary English Version.



🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

reply

I see, God is obviously on your side. LOL

reply

Did you read the full comment? Do the same as me with his comments, I just read the first one-two sentences and skip the rest.

reply

Why? What do you see in the full comment that you think I might have missed?

reply

Obviously, you missed a point.

To be specific, the second one of the final three at the end of "and then tells them they need to "go into THERAPY," ..." 😁

reply

> Due to the way in which one of us chose to call the other one an
> "EXTREME NUTCASE," ...
> and then tells them they need to "go into THERAPY," ...

You left out some context there ... like everyone dimension of every comment made by this poster who I have read way too much of across many comment boards - or specifically enough to get a general idea of this person's thinking process and emotional tone.

So I gather you agree with that point and believe there is some level of hypocrisy in my comment? How could you judge that? How do you think know that I am not in therapy, or even a therapist myself? Do you think you have a good understanding of the comments I am referring to?

reply

I agree with that point... up to a point. Probably, the third one. But I'm speculating here. When somebody says "...", what's really his main point? which one? Do the points have an individual meaning or they just serve as a context? Would the points be the same if we separated them and said ". . ."? 😜

reply

You lost me there.
I think you replied in the middle of my comment to joi2049.
> Did you read the full comment?

Basically I was asking you, why, what's it to ya, and trying to guess a bit. I am not sure with what or whose point you are agreeing with, and maybe it's not that important, but if you would explain I'll try to answer the best I can.

reply

>>I was making a point about this new show using the reference of an old one ...

>>And you brought another series
where that problem doesn't even happen ...

>>because "something to consider in terms of how important your main point is"?

>>who knows...

They're saying you DON'T STICK to the POINT ...

which is also the SAME kind of an ACCUSATION you FLUNG at me YESTERDAY when you said this on the other topic !!!

>>>you are injecting something totally off track of anything I was talking about it

😃😃😃😃😃

reply

I'm could be WRONG, but I'm also pretty sure that a "THERAPIST" who went around calling other people "EXTREME NUTJOBS" the way you do would NOT have a LICENSE to practice for very long (much less be given one in the first place).

>>like everyone dimension of "every comment made by this poster who I have read way too much of across many comment boards" -

So what you're saying here is that you have some kind of strange OBSESSION with "reading EVERY COMMENT" regarding whatever it is that I've said???"

Because you also mentioned that same ISSUE before when one was given your other LECTURE over on the other topic:

ME to YOU:

> Perhaps the "holding back and rage" that you say you feel is coming from me could also actually be coming from YOU yourself???

YOU:

>>It could be, but it isn't.

>>>*** 📌 "I've seen many of your other comments and posts," and the way your blew up at the C-word as well, and had to insert that into your comment when it was kind of sideways.

As you can see, you also mentioned before having seen "MANY of my comments and posts" before you now say that you've seen "EVERY one" of them??? All 3,000 something of them???

Please also NOTE that one "NEVER BLEW UP," (as you put it) and how it was actually YOU WHO BLEW UP at the mention of the C WORD, and then began FLINGING FALLACIES such as the same kind of "ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEMS" (against the man) that one finds again here on this topic.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

JESUS was a WISE MAN long before FREUD ever came along.


😃






reply

I see, God is obviously on your side. LOL


Since my DEGREES are in the "HUMANITIES" (man centered studies), which is an OFFSHOOT of "SCHOLASTICISM" (God centered studies), I'm not sure if it's correct or not to say that GOD is on MY SIDE???

Because the SHIFT was also TAKEN OFF of the study of him (GOD) and replaced with that of MANKIND???

PLEASE also NOTE 📌 how one isn't being PC here when one says MANKIND instead of what would currently be HUMANKIND (as a way to include "WOMANKIND" as well).

But since FEMALES also weren't allowed to attend UNIVERSITIES way back at that time when the SHIFT took place from the study of GOD over to MANKIND, it's probably also appropriate enough for that reason to leave them out of it???

In other words, in this case it would also be the MALES who ate the APPLE this time. 🍎

😉

😃



reply

Whether you put in American or not ... your point stands ... weakly in my opinion. The original show's name was in Hebrew ... so it was not "In Treatment". If you notice the translations of the names of movies and shows if often a completely different idea, if not just a different language or character set.

reply

Actually, the name was "In Treatment" too. That's what "BeTipul" means in Hebrew.

reply

But it was in Hebrew. Not the same. You could do a series in America called In Treatment and not get sued because the name is different ... assuming it is not a rip-off of the script or subject matter.

The character string is different and as any polyglot will tell you translations, even exact translations are never exact.

reply

>>The series portrays a psychologist who treats patients at his clinic five days a week and then seeks psychological treatment for himself.

As you can see, since [b]THE ORIGINAL SHOW from ISRAEL has the "SAME EXACT FORMAT" as the AMERICAN version (which is a COPY of it), that's why it's NOT CORRECT to say or to try to INCORRECTLY claim that it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IDEA.

reply

Here's another link that addresses the other matter you mentioned:

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/60a695b6c76afb77c5dac743/Are-you-one-of-the-WOKE-or-a-Gammon-Is-APPLE-EATER-a-better-word?reply=60a81e41f42c933c1627d5e3

>>people who are “woke”, or awakened, are those with superior intelligence, education, and ability to reason, to arrive at reasonable conclusions about the nature of our world, based on established facts.

And even though you also contributed your 2 cent worth to the topic, you also don't seem to have learned very much from reading it.

[–] zaq123 (1583) 6 days ago

Woke is a cult-like pseudo religion. A political cult.

They proclaim themselves "woke" like Christians claim to be "saved".
They refuse to listen to reason. \
They are forbidden to read or hear anything that upsets their nutty beliefs.


It gets worse the more you look into them.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-woke-mean-in-politics

Nelson McKeeby, Worshiper at Religious Society of Friends (1966-present)

Answered 9 months ago ·

Originally Answered: What does “woke” mean?

The term being “woke” has a long history, but it is a term for a Christian believer who follows the core tenants of Jesus Christ’s teaching ... who applies the teaching of Christ to his daily life, generally by embracing objective thinking, clear understanding of truth, and a willin

PARAGRAPH ONE:

>>embracing objective thinking, clear understanding of truth, and a willingness to work against tyranny against the fellow man.

PARAGRAPH 4:

>>A woke person knows God operates by truths. Science is truth. The words Jesus gave us to understand love is truth. Bigotry, racism, misogyny, all of these are not truth.

So whenever someone displays signs of "Bigotry, racism, misogyny" wouldn't that also indicate they are NOT someone who "follows the core tenants" of what Jesus tried to teach???

reply

people who are “woke”, or awakened, are those with superior intelligence, education, and ability to reason, to arrive at reasonable conclusions about the nature of our world, based on established facts.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

reply

I agree. This was Gabriel Byrne's show. Trying to swap in a new lead actor 10 years later and pretend it's just a new season of the same show is stupid.

reply

The KKK resident member with another rant against diversity. Yawn.

reply