Since reviews are starting to come in, I figured maybe we could have a thread for them. Here's a pretty negative one from "Variety" (I just pasted the part relevant to "MacGyver" The full article can be found here: http://variety.com/2016/tv/reviews/lethal-...rd-1201860866/)

And then there’s Fox’s “Lethal Weapon” and CBS’ “MacGyver,” which demonstrate the limits of the reliance on older properties. These shows, both of which are based on hits from the ’80s, have no spark of their own, and add nothing of value to their respective franchises.

These plodding dramas do not evoke the past as much as they pretend that the past 30 years did not happen. Audiences are extremely familiar with the kinds of story beats that drive not just these “new” programs but the hundreds that came before them; buddy-cop and spy-guy moves have been remixed and repeated for decades, but these derivative works ignore that reality.

Both programs seem like broken relics from a time capsule; neither does much to update, add to or simply have fun with these well-regarded properties. That each ransacks its source material in search of something fresh and lively, and comes up empty, is astonishing and disappointing, given that these programs — at least one of them — could have provided a whole lot of escapist fun.
“MacGyver” should have been one of the fall’s slam-dunks; the property is known and loved by many TV fans of a certain age, and its cheerfully inventive hero could have become part of a renewed TV franchise that drew in both old-school fans and gadget-loving newcomers. How hard could it be to find a charming actor to play a smart rogue who has a string of zippy, espionage-driven adventures? Quite hard, apparently.
Lucas Till’s performance as the title character misses the mark completely; even when MacGyver explains the contraptions he builds on the fly via voiceovers, Till’s delivery is wooden and clunky. The writing doesn’t help — the pilot script is full of silly plot short-cuts and painfully cheesy lines — but there’s no getting around the fact that the new version of the character has very little appeal, and certainly won’t put the memory of Richard Dean Anderson, who originated the role, out of anyone’s mind.
CBS has a very successful procedural formula: It usually revolves around a rule-breaking lead who assembles a team willing to do whatever it takes to assist him (and it’s usually a him). Just because the Eye network (and many others) have used that format a lot doesn’t mean it can’t be highly effective and enjoyable. But whatever the new “MacGyver” is trying to do, USA’s “Burn Notice” (to cite just one example) did it much, much better. George Eads does what he can to bring a bit of energy to the MacGyver spy crew, but it’s a futile effort. MacGyver may know a lot about chemistry, but this unmemorable team has none.

And here's a more positive one from TV Line
http://tvline.com/2016/09/15/macgyver-revi...bs-reboots-mac/


When we first laid eyes on Don’t-Call-Me-Angus MacGyver, he was sporting a ridiculous pom-pom hat while scaling a cliff to track down a stolen missile, which he proceeded to defuse using, yes, a paper clip.
Jump ahead almost exactly 31 years, and paper clips prove as handy as ever, as demonstrated multiple times in CBS’ higher-octane reboot (premiering Friday, Sept. 23 at 8/7c).

With Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class) inheriting the role immortalized by Richard Dean Anderson, Mac remains averse to guns, though now he has some pistol-packing muscle at his side, in the form of Jack Dalton (CSI’s George Eads), beefed-up here as former CIA. Along with a requisite computer whiz, they answer to Patricia Thornton (House of Cards‘ Sandrine Holt) as agents with the Department of External Services (or DXS).
The CBS reboot promptly establishes Mac as a guy who can dress up as well as get down and dirty, fending off baddies with fisticuffs or Frisbee’d drink trays. Akin to the original series, there is much voiceover to open the pilot, as Mac schools us on his particular mission as well as talks us through hacks he employs with along the way. (In 2016, “MacGyverisms” now come with on-screen call-outs, in case you want to shop online for hexamethylene diamene.) It’s almost shameless how quickly Mac plows through the “classics,” including using soot and packing tape to lift a fingerprint, and I’m still unsure of what principle he uses exactly to outwit a biometric scanner. But these quick fixes remain a good part of the fun

As Mac, Till rightly comes across as effective and never intimidating, charming in an unassuming way. He enjoy an easy chemistry with Eads, who brings a well-modulated intensity and unquestionable physicality to his role (though Dalton’s ability to bed anything that moves is noted one too many times). Holt is well-cast as Thornton, but gets too few notes to play in the pilot (with almost all of them in response to Dalton’s “bro” antics).

Displaying swagger as well as glimpses of genuine warmth, Tristin Mays (The Vampire Diaries) brings something fresh as Riley Davis, an incarcerated hacker the team springs from the clink to replace the tech analyst (Revolution‘s Tracy Spiridakos) they lose to an obvious plot twist. Fresh from his Rush Hour run, Justin Hires again is doing Chris Rock Lite as Mac’s roommate Bozer; oblivious to his best bud’s true occupation, and spending his own days as a chef, the character screams “dead end,” with storyline momentum screeching to a halt each time Mac stops home.

The new MacGyver of course had a wild ride to the airwaves; CBS greenlit the series in May, only to jettison almost all of the original pilot (save for Till and Eads) and ultimately bring on Hawaii Five-0′s own “rebooter,” Peter M. Lenkov, to give it a retooling. Centered around a full-time team of operatives, it deviates from the comparatively “lone wolf” nature of the original, though that’s not necessarily to its detriment; it simply makes it more familiar, CBS procedural-y. And while some are carping that Eads’ character in essence arms Mac with a gun, I’m pretty sure Dalton didn’t fire a single bullet (to kill or maim) in the premiere.

The "Hollywood Reporter" is also rather harsh: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ma...v-review-929730

As for the pilot itself? Despite a blockbuster director at the helm, it's a shoddy product made out of the sort of ill-fitting bits and bobs that Angus MacGyver himself might fashion into a bomb.

(...)

And surely MacGyver doesn't take itself too seriously, which is the best thing I can say about it.

(...)

But maybe it also doesn't take itself too seriously in the ways that it ought to? While the original series kept things light much of the time, it was an action show and not a comedy, because if it had just been a comedy, we wouldn't have needed MacGruber. Till is handsome and bland and easygoing, which aren't the worst traits to have, but two or three veteran character actors or actors with character were needed to surround him. The entire MacGyver team, including Tristin Mays as a hacker who gets sprung from prison to help on a mission, is smooth and pretty and essentially authority-free. Eads' cockiness and Hires' inexplicable shrillness are the only performance variations. There's no actor in the cast capable of providing the grit or grounding that the show needs for the flights of fancy to land.

(...)

This new MacGyver pilot features plenty of the necessary MacGyvering — turning ordinary items for various forms of militaristic disruption — but I thought "Hmmm, that was probably too simple" more often than I thought "That was cool" or "Could that possibly work?" and the latter reactions ought to be the show's key currency. And if the expected MacGyver-y things MacGyver is doing aren't inspired, at least the action beats ought to be, but Wan and Lenknov's eyes may have been bigger than their heads, leading to too many stunts and set pieces either steered by less-than-ideal CGI or in front of less-than-convincing backdrops. The pilot travels the globe, but doesn't look like it moved too far off the backlot. There's no "Wow" factor at all.

And perhaps that boils down why MacGyver is just unnecessary, rather than being explicitly awful.

When nobody on TV or in the movies was MacGyver, MacGyver was exceptional. When everybody is MacGyver, he's just another guy doing the same science fair experiments and life hacks that could make up a Buzzfeed list.

(...)

Short one by CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/19/entertai...ll-tv-previews/

More than 30 years after its premiere on ABC, "MacGyver" gets new address adjacent to another revival, "Hawaii Five-0." CBS, however, has basically just slapped fresh paint on an old vehicle, with a series that, much like "Scorpion," weds braininess with spy hijinks, in a light, action-oriented hour that's breezy to the point of weightless.

Lucas Till (from the recent "X-Men" movies) assumes the title role, rigging fantastic gadgets on the fly to escape perilous situations, with the requisite crack team helping him save the world.

At one point MacGyver calls making a gizmo "DIY or die," the most inventive line in a ho-hum revival that, despite its title character's signature skills, clearly has no intention of reinventing the wheel -- or much of anything else.

This one's not too bad: http://www.tvguide.com/news/macgyver-cbs-r...tag=TVG_Twitter

But the disclaimer at the end says it all... ;-) (Full disclosure: TVGuide.com is owned by CBS.)

(...)

Till is solid as a younger MacGyver, even though he abandoned the Anderson mullet in favor of a mane that looks coiffed by Jared Padalecki's salon. And with Till's charm, this MacGyver is less Mr. Wizard and more sexy scientist, a predictable update for today's audience. But the real star here is CSI alum George Eads, who plays MacGyver's trigger-happy muscle Jack Dalton. MacGyver isn't a serious show per se, and Dalton's goofiness keeps things lighter than the intended comic relief. Eads fits the part really, really well.

That intended comic relief is Justin Hires -- fresh off another CBS reboot in Rush Hour -- who plays MacGyver's waffle-making roommate (yes, MacGyver has a roommate) Wilt Bozer. He's in the dark on what MacGyver actually does for a living, but it's obvious he won't be in the dark for long. The fourth big player is Tristin Mays' Riley Davis, who plays the stereotypical computer hacker who keeps the plot moving along or grinds it to a halt so MacGyver can figure it out, whatever the script calls for. (Need to find a missing terrorist who is somewhere on the planet? She'll tap into every security camera in the world and use facial recognition tech to find him! Need something else that'll make the mission too easy? Sorry, it's encrypted behind a Tor network.)

Like Lenkov's other show Hawaii Five-O, the tone here is fun first. It pairs nicely with Five-O, which will follow MacGyver on Friday nights. Reboots are a tricky thing to pull off. You don't want them too new to lose the spirit of the original and you don't want them too old to feel dated. CBS's MacGyver falls right in that safe zone in the middle.

I'm still trying to remain optimistic, but I have to admit, these reviews are definitely lowering my expectations quite a bit.

I don't really let reviews influence me anymore. They most often point out valid flaws, but that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy it (even despite all the flaws)...

For now, I expect the reboot to be 40-and-some-minutes of entertainment, but nothing more (and nothing less).

I think this is what i feared. A bland show camouflaged in action sequences, cocky one liners and hip hop.

That one's an interesting review - not from a "big" name like Variety or Hollywood Reporter, but still more precise and accurate (I think) without judging it too much as a fan: http://www.yourentertainmentcorner.com/?p=..._medium=twitter

Sadly, it's protected in a way I can't copy-paste the text from there; you have to click on the link.

These reviews was what I was expecting to be honest. Lets see if the quality of the show will be enough to secure a full season.


I'll watch the pilot to then give my opinion on the product.

I am not too nervous as all the reviews for Gotham praised it as s show true batman fans will love. My guess is they were either paid a lot of money to say that or they hate batman fans and wants them all to suffer either way after three episodes of Gotham I was out and I stopped letting reviewers make up my mind.

another one from Collider: http://collider.com/new-tv-shows-fall-2016...tter#speechless

On the surface, MacGyver is everything CBS probably hoped it would be: It is inoffensive, it will fit in well with their Friday night lineup, and the brand name recognition will probably hook some viewers who wouldn’t otherwise be interested. Unfortunately, while lead actor Lucas Till (X-Men: First Class) is charismatic as Mac, his voiceover and the tone of several parts of the show would remind viewers of another, better recent CBS show that was cancelled: Limitless.

The pilot, directed by James Wan, at least keeps things entertaining on the action side; however, even with a near-complete retooling, some characters feel like the ones you’ve seen before on other recent CBS shows like Scorpion (the hope is that the show moves beyond that). Of the pilot’s characters, Eads’ Jack Dalton and Spiridakos’ Nikki may be the most interesting. Some nods to the original series that starred Richard Dean Anderson are peppered within, though one can hope that the theme music borrows more from the original than the temporary track that came with the screener did.

It’s probably a good thing that this new MacGyver makes an audience recall other CBS shows rather than parodies like MacGruber; as it stands, it should do okay with general viewers, but there’s still hope that someone can use a shoelace, some bubble gum, and a Pez dispenser to evolve the show into something a little more original. – Craig Byrne

From tvguide.com

http://www.tvguide.com/news/macgyver-cbs-reboot-review/

"Reboots are a tricky thing to pull off. You don't want them too new to lose the spirit of the original and you don't want them too old to feel dated. CBS's MacGyver falls right in that safe zone in the middle."

Review by NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/arts/tel...istry.html?_r=0

(...)

Richard Dean Anderson carried the original series with charm and moxie. Lucas Till, as the 2016 version of the title character, doesn’t make much of an impression in the premiere, which involves a bioweapon that has fallen into bad hands. It’s nice to see George Eads of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” back on TV as Jack Dalton, one of MacGyver’s partners in disaster prevention, but the show is bogged down by its premise.

Somehow battling baddies with “little more than bubble gum and a paper clip,” as the show’s website says, seems out of phase in the digital age. The 1980s were still within shouting distance of the era when people were expected to change their own oil and fix their own lawn mowers. Today far fewer can or would want to. Watching MacGyver try to gadget his way out of a predicament just makes you think, “Isn’t there an app for that?”

The last review has maybe the most idiotic complaint that I've been seeing from people since the reboot was announced. Who needs MacGyver as long as everyone has a smartphone and can just Google their way out of problems?

I guess we can officially call the digital age the age of over-reliance on technology and helplessness. It's as if H.G. Wells' depiction of the future in The Time Machine is coming true.

We shouldn't forget who these reviewers are (that work for sites like Variety or Hollywood Reporter).

There's a reason why books, movies or TV-Shows aimed at mostly female young adults like e.g. "Twilight", "Divergent" or "Vampire Diaries" get bad reviews anyway, no matter the quality - they're reviewed by white guys in their forties or even fifties. Of course they won't enjoy young and pretty people in high school on pages and screens.

I'll say the reboot is also mostly judged by white guys who grew up with classic MacGyver and can't watch the pilot episode without drawing parallels to the original. I don't want to imply that guys in their thirties can't give a decent review ;-). But I'm a white girl in my thirties and I doubt I could give an honest review after a screening of the pilot. My review probably wouldn't help to earn many new, young viewers or to reel in fans of the original.

I doubt that the reboot will be better than the original, yet it can still be fun. But I think to enjoy it, you kinda have to accept a young protagonist and that it's set in modern times with cell-phones and technology. It feels like most reviewers watched the episode with a feeling of "this can't be good anyway".

I'm curious if a 20-year-old white guy (or a 20-year-old female) who's never seen a single episode of the original or who grew up with modern TV shows relying on technology and working along the typical team formula would have the same verdict on it...

I hope this new version of Mac doesn't become a new Scorpion.
I've seen the sneak peak and I think it is missing the lone-wolf style and it seems to have too much "party" style.

This post has been edited by T3chieBrain on 21 September 2016 - 07:56 AM

The lone-wolf aspect is definitely gone. The creators of this show confirmed that a while ago. Mac has a team this time around.

The lone-wolf aspect is definitely gone. The creators of this show confirmed that a while ago. Mac has a team this time around.

It's sad, as the lone-wolf aspect allows the writers to explore other aspects of character's personality.
MacGyver was never about the missions. The old show was about his creativity and humanity.
And he would never allow his fellows to bring ou hold a gun near him.

Let's see how they deal with the critics, I'm not exited for next friday but I just hope to have fun and who knows... in any case we have to respect the dedication and effort they are putting into this show.

According to Lenkov, one of the goals behind giving him a team is actually to alllow the writers to explore his character more than the original series did. It makes sense if you think about it: The more characters he can interact with regularly, the more depth the writers can give him and his relationships.

I think they fully intend to keep his creativity intact, so I'm not worried about that. It sounds like this reboot actually will have more MacGyverisms per episode than the original series did. I'm not sure how they're handling his humanity. I still want him to be a caring, humane person, but I don't want the show to feel as preachy as the original series sometimes did. So a bit more focus on the missions, and a bit less focus on the moral lessons, would be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Review by Cinemablend: http://www.cinemablend.com/television/1558..._medium=twitter

(...)

The new MacGyver is a series with the potential to win big or spectacularly flop in its return to primetime. As it turns out, MacGyver 2.0 is perfect for what it is: a mostly family-friendly Friday night show with a lot of adventures but not a ton of plot.

(... Minor Spoiler Alert!...)

The MacGyver pilot is surprisingly straightforward for an episode that features a main character narrating a bunch of crazy ways to save the day with regular household items. Fans of the original MacGyver should be tickled to see that Mac busts out his handy dandy paper clip at a few key moments. The reboot ran the risk of either sticking too much with the old school methods of improvisation or relying too heavily on modern gadgets to get the jobs done. The pilot does a good job of balancing the importance of technology in 21st century crime-fighting with Mac's love of using office supplies and cleaning agents to best his opponents.

Possibly the most successful element of the MacGyver pilot is the way that it uses a team dynamic to battle the bad guys rather than just relying on Mac in the field. Mac definitely does most of the heavy-lifting when it comes to cracking safes and escaping explosions, but Jack, Nikki, and Riley are all essential at various points. Even if Mac is the hero, he needs backup to survive as a secret agent.

The show could probably do without Mac's narration, although his continuing voiceover works better than some of the early exposition dumps. Mac falls into a classic pilot pitfall by explaining a mission to his team after they had already begun the mission. MacGyver will need to find a way to use the narration to better incorporate exposition in the future. Given that this is the pilot and pilot episodes for series are notoriously shaky, however, we can probably give the show a break for falling short a few times in its premiere.

The cast is strong enough. There are no powerhouse performances coming out of any of them, but nobody really fell short. Lucas Till strikes the right balance between lightness as a man who loves solving problems and seriousness as a man tasked with saving millions of lives. George Eads pulls off the best comic relief of the pilot as a muscle man who is as effective in the field as he is ineffective with charming ladies. The episode makes the wise move of keeping Jack from seriously hitting on the women of the main cast, so he comes across as funny rather than sleazy. Sandrine Holt is solid as DXS boss Patricia Thornton, and Tracy Mays could be fabulous as Riley as long as she is able to see past her mop of hair. Tracy Spiridakos strikes an ambiguity as Nikki that could serve her well in the long run.

If there is a weak link among the cast, it would have to be Justin Hires as Wilt Bozer. To Hires' credit, however, the writing for Justin in the premiere is pretty terrible. The pilot episode makes sure to mock his job as a fast food operator before the hour is up, and it's clear from his very first scene with Mac that the show is going to dumb him down in order to keep Mac's secret safe. Hopefully Hires will get more to do than make waffles and be oblivious as Justin in the future of the series.

MacGyver is an inoffensive series with crazy adventures, vehicular chases, and a guy who can make anything out of nothing to save the day. There are enough laughs and scares that the series may be worth watching even if it's not especially engaging. In fact, MacGyver could be a winner for anybody looking for a family-friendly series. The pilot is probably a bit too explosive and violent for the youngest of viewers, but there isn't much in the way of swearing, and most of the adult elements were present via implication rather than demonstration. Parents may want to give the episode a chance before letting kids tune in, and they almost certainly want to clarify to the youngsters that MacGyver is definitely a "Do not try this at home" sort of show. Still, it could be fun for the whole family.

All in all, MacGyver is a perfect show for folks looking for an easy series on a Friday night that doesn't require a lot of thinking but has enough excitement to hold attention for an hour. Even if it's not the best new series of the 2016 - 2017 TV season, it may find a nice niche in its time slot.

Review by SF Chronicle: http://www.sfchronicle.com/tv/article/Retr...#photo-10916151

(...)

The two elements that earned the show a decent if not spectacular following were Anderson himself and the cool applications of science in every episode, which, for the Boomer audience, probably made them think of the old “Mr. Wizard” shows but with action scenes.

The CBS update, premiering Friday, Sept. 23, is largely faithful to the concept of the original series. This time, though, Angus MacGyver is a baby-faced hottie played by Lucas Till who implies a fondness for bondage scenes with his girlfriend, is afraid of heights and probably owes his life as much to his colleague and constant protector, Jack Dalton (George Eads), as to his own ability to do almost anything with a bent paper clip.

The original Mac reported to Peter Thornton (Dana Elcar) in the super-secret organization known as the Department of External Services. The new Mac reports to Patricia Thornton (Sandrine Holt).

The premiere episode is OK but not much more. There’s a lot of action, fleet camera work and an annoying, anachronistic voice-over narration by our pretty hero.

Yes, there are cool science-based tricks that are explained through onscreen labels and narration.

But here’s the thing. The core audience of the original show was satisfied with comparatively rudimentary science. The information superhighway was basically a cow path compared with what it is today. The fact that Mac can take a copper wire and wrap it tightly around a piece of iron, turn it into a magnet and interfere with a thug’s earpiece reception is kind of ho-hum for a 21st century audience.

The show is rather flat overall. No matter how much Mac implies what fun he’d like to have with a pair of handcuffs and a willing female, the show is a cold procedural and not much more. Sticking it on Friday nights adds a further challenge to the show and makes us question its intended demographic.

At least do something with Till’s hair. He might seem at least slightly more real and perhaps even minimally credible in the role if he didn’t look as though he shares a hairdresser with Miss Piggy.

So, this is probably exactly what RDA meant when he said Mac wouldn't work now. I think they could make it work, but sounds like they need better MacGyverisms to me, and that's just a start!

These reviews are mostly making me feel just how I did when we first heard about the remake - rather flat and no personality compared to the original. Still, we shall see, well eventually when I can actually get to see here in the UK!

Ouch, that one's harsh: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ma..._medium=twitter

(...)

This reboot isn’t terrible — though at moments perilously close to terrible — as much as irrelevant. As the latest demonstration of TV’s slavish devotion to the past, “MacGyver’s” pilot makes no case for why that past — or why this one — should be exhumed. It does, however, make a compelling case for why it shouldn’t.

(...)

To rebuild the show required a character rebuild, too. But that’s difficult if not impossible. So on to plan B, which apparently means you “MacGyver” it with the TV equivalent of chewing gum and paper clips. You know: Exploding boats, bad guys with English accents, biological super weapons, and racy double-entendre sight gags accompanied by explanatory dialogue, like “no one’s better on the keyboard.”

Some of the dialogue is so ghastly even Anderson would have insisted on a Smithee pseudonymin in the credits. For example: “That dress may look dangerous, but trust me, the woman inside it is way more deadly.”

A few of the critical “makeshift” moments defy logic, if not ridicule.

Is the new “MacGyver” beyond hope? Hardly. CBS is a patient network, and the cast is good. Till’s got charm and his on-screen bromance with Eads is one of the few elements that actually works. But patience and bromances won’t save this. A smart, compelling, up-to-date rethinking just might.

BOTTOM LINE MacSilly, MacNonense, MacDumb. Take your pick.

So, this is probably exactly what RDA meant when he said Mac wouldn't work now. I think they could make it work, but sounds like they need better MacGyverisms to me, and that's just a start!

These reviews are mostly making me feel just how I did when we first heard about the remake - rather flat and no personality compared to the original. Still, we shall see, well eventually when I can actually get to see here in the UK!

Ok, so maybe MacGyverisms need to be more inventive nowadays, but that doesn't mean the concept is passé and irrelevant. Having Google or apps or a smartphone doesn't make every internet-browsing average Joe a genius or a scientist. MacGyver's abilities should be treated almost like a superpower, doing things no layman should be able to pull off just by searching "life hacks" on their phone. However, don't flush the "ho-hum" MacGyverisms just because they seem simplistic, because if there is a simpler solution to a problem, there's absolutely no reason to go for an over-complicated one.

I guess since the concept of MacGyverisms isn't really new for TV shows anymore, people declare it as dull if it doesn't go "boooom" or something...

True, why make a complicated one if there's an easier solution? The Magic of the MacGyverism wasn't that they were loud and flashy all the time, but the fact that MacGyver new when to use what and how.

YT-Review by Matt Fowler (IGN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5SK_MUv6oY&feature=youtu.be

One thing to consider is the original probably wasn't a critically acclaimed show when it first came out either. But it wasn't critics or ratings that supported the original, it was the cult following it developed, similar to the original Star Trek.

And in spite of the hateful reactions Supergirl garnered before it even premiered(reactions that are very similar to the spiteful, mocking and dismissive responses the internet is giving MacGyver), it also developed a strong fanbase and it was renewed for a second season.

I think that our forum here has the number of members and is as active as it is (including adding new members every day!) says a lot for the original series. I wonder how some of the younger viewers will take to the MacGyverisms, but I know my two sons, aged 19 and 10, sure like the original series (especially seasons 1 and 2). I think if you take this as sort of an American James Bond, with the action associated with it, instead of our beloved original series, it might really take off. I'm the biggest skeptic there is on the new series, but the previews Dash has been putting on has even me excited to see how it goes.