Netflix revealed last April that it would be producing a reboot of the popular ‘90s sitcom “Full House.” The new show, “Fuller House,” was released on Feb. 26.

Old fans had been anticipating its release for months; millennials who grew up watching the Tanner family and friends were excited to relive their youth and see the beloved veteran characters along with bright new members of the cast.

In the first episode of ”Fuller House,” it wasIL obvious what the producers were trying to accomplish. Between trying to appeal to a new, young audience and a group of matured, loyal fans, the actors seemed to be trying too hard for a mediocre payoff. The old jokes and punchlines were cringe-worthy and out of place, and the “new” storyline was cheap and washed up.

The “Full House” reboot is not the first of its kind. In fact, it’s a sort of indicator species within the Hollywood ecosystem. In recent years, the movie industry has seen an influx of remade movies and shows that mimic the exact problems with “Fuller House:” recycled storylines and awkward nostalgic moments carelessly thrown into the scripts.

Movies like “Vacation,” “Jurassic Park” and “Dumb and Dumber” all got their respective remakes in the last few years, and shows such as “The X-Files” and “Boy Meets World” made their ways back on to the small screen.

Besides Hollywood’s recent lack of creativity and originality, the appearance of remade movies one after another is an example of our generation’s nostalgic dispositionIL . This is coming from me, the girl who owns every season of “Boy Meets World” on DVD, but even I acknowledge that shows belong where we left them — and that “Girl Meets World” was the worst thing to ever happen.

Producers know that fans will jump at anything that gives them the satisfaction of reliving their glory days, so they don’t need to do anything particularly special to hold their attention. Sure enough, these remakes do relatively well in the box office despite getting mixed reviews. Both “Jurassic World” and “Dumb and Dumber To” were ranked number one in theaters during their respective weeks, while “Vacation” came in second. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=newline15.htm

These producers seem to be remaking these movies and shows just for the sake of bringing them back to life; they don’t add anything new or distinguished. They’re cashing in on the notion that die-hard fans will be loyal to their favorite childhood show or movie regardless of the quality of its resurrection.

But the moviegoers are just as much to blame. Producers will keep bringing these movies back from the dead as long as we keep showing up atIL theaters. The problem is we don’t know when to cut the cord; we are so fixated on the prospect of reliving the past that we will take any pathetic memory that is thrown at us and run with it. It wasn’t enough for the Tanners to end their tenure on a high note; we have to know what happened to every tertiary character that appeared on the show so we too can have our happily ever afters.

Not only are we encouraging an era of mediocrity in the film industry, we are depreciating the original shows and movies that were cherished enough to get a remake in the first place. Thanks to Disney Channel, those “Boy Meets World” DVDs are now collecting dust.

There comes a point whenIL we need to keep the past in the past. Sure, “Fresh Prince” was a great show, but it belongs to a different era. We would be cheapening the whole franchise by remaking it just to get a few hours of reminiscent gratification. Even more so, unless producers have a serious plan to make it even better than the original, it’s obvious their motives are to harvest the profits from a sad attempt to make washed up actors relevant again.

As for the Tanner gang, let their new show be a lesson to leave the remakes and spinoffs to the worthier candidates — I’m looking at you Saul Goodman — and to limit our nostalgic satisfactions to scrolling through our middle school albums on Facebook.

Isabella is a freshman in ACES.

[email protected]