Give me more Kelly Taylor

Bringing back “90210” was the best idea the CW had after kicking “7th Heaven” off the air. Based on ‘90s series “Beverly Hills, 90210,” the spin-off captures all the drama of the original with a modern twist. New characters and fresh drama take over West Beverly (although admittedly, Jennie Garth returns with appearances as Kelly, and Shannen Doherty even makes a few cameos).

Besides providing some classy entertainment, “90210” has done one seriously fabulous thing — bringing back interest in the original. Had I not heard about the possibility of a spin-off, I would have never logged on to CBS’ website and proceeded to watch seasons one through four back-to-back. Nor would I have glued myself to SOAPnet from 10 a.m. to noon, or from 4 to 6 p.m. to catch up on the early ‘90s drama I had missed. “Breakfast in Bed” would’ve never been an option, either.

Let’s be real, my life just wouldn’t be wholesome without my daily Brandon Walsh fix — I can’t be the only one feeling that way.

Maybe I’m the rare exception that adores the newest clans journey through the halls of West Beverly almost as much as I enjoyed Brenda and Kelly cat-fighting over Dylan McKay (I am human, the latter is my priority) — but I don’t think I am. I think there is a large number of viewers out there who are afraid to voice their passion for the latest edition of The Blaze because they’re afraid that it’ll make them sound like sell-outs.

But I’m here to say get past that — the show is new and not trying to replace its predecessor. If it was, “90210” wouldn’t be coming back for season two, nor would audiences be so receptive of the high school drama.

— by Rachael Lander

Keep angst in the ‘90s

When I was just a wee Hawkeye, I acquired a pair of second-hand shoes that said "Beverly Hills, 90210" on them. Even at that tender age I knew the show was lame and refused to wear them. Needless to say, my position hasn’t changed much.

Honestly, what is with the resurgence of ‘90s TV shows? Haven’t they exhausted themselves enough already? Evidently not — the new season of “90210" premiered last Tuesday and the subsequent squeals of high-school aged girls could be heard ’round the world.

These shows ended back in the Clinton presidency for a reason — the Aaron Spelling TV era was over. A quote from "Cocktail" sums up my feelings more eloquently: "Everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn’t end." That being said, why do studio execs and producers feel the need to resurrect the same themes and characters?

The answer to this is lack of imagination and sheer laziness. Come on Hollywood, you can do better than this! In an age where viewers get excited about the prospect of Bret Michaels picking a "life-partner" (i.e. a three-month one-night stand), I guess a scripted show that reached maximum success in the ‘90s seems like a viable option. But come on, the only discernible differences between the original and the latest version are presumably better hair and the addition of cell phones and iPods.

— by Dana Judas