I've noticed a couple of trends: First, the number of television shows getting not so much spinoffs or reboots, but sequels. Second, a lot of fussing about older shows that haven't "aged well". So I'm dusting off my Entertainment Soapbox.
A casual list I threw together while pondering this blog post includes: Roseanne/The Conners, How I Met Your Mother/How I Met Your Father, Boy Meets World/Girl Meets World, Full House/Fuller House, That 70s Show/That 90s Show. In the case of Big Bang Theory/Young Sheldon, we have a prequel series. Many of the complaints I see from viewers are along the lines of "they're pushing a liberal agenda" or "they've betrayed the original". (All writers are pushing an agenda, whether we know it of not. See my previous rant on that subject.)
I think, at least in certain cases, these complainers are wrong. The Conners seems very much in the spirit of the original - only the political climate has changed. It was okay for Roseanne to encourage young DJ not to be racist, but now that he's married to a black woman, that's offensive. The character of Gina has a history with the family and seems to be as well written as any secondary sitcom character.
A sequel series that does seem to be guilty of "pushing a liberal agenda" is That 90s show. There's been a lot of talk among fans about timeline inaccuracies, but I don't let that bother me much because the original show's timeline was wonky as hell and because some of these questions might be explained eventually. My problem stems from Ozzie. The rest of the gang is as well written as the original in the first season, and are racially diverse, but poor Ozzie seems to exist simply as "the gay boy". I'm all for diversity, folks, but I don't want it to be the entire character!
Now let's talk about the aging problem. Personally, I think the entire sitcom genre is based on less-than-perfect characters. We laugh at the character's faults, which are of course blown out of proportion for comedy. We should keep this in mind when discussing what is or isn't offensive.
One that hasn't aged well and does have a sequel in How I Met Your Mother/Father. The character of Barney Stinson alone gets a lot of the "not aging well" press. Some viewers note that Ted was an unreliable narrator and had reasons to paint Barney badly. I stopped watching HIMYM when Robin and Barney divorced, and I've not seen HIMYF at all, but I hear that Barney has appeared - so maybe they can redeem him somewhat.
The sitcom I loved that gets hate for not aging well is Friends. Homophobia in particular is rampant in the show, but a lot of it comes from Chandler's own insecurities (remember, exaggerated for comedy). Now, suppose they were to make a Friends: The Next Generation. The offspring of the original gang - Erica, Jack, Emma, and Ben were all born during the run of Friends. On his spinoff, Joey mentions that Phoebe and Mike had at least one child. If we want racial diversity, Joey could have married or adopted any ethnicity. If one or more of the core group is LGBT, that gives Chandler a chance to deal with his issues and redeem himself.
I guess what I'm getting at is that these sequel series, if done well, can correct some of the problems with older shows. But, again, these are sitcoms and by definition shouldn't be taken too seriously.
