10 Reality Shows That Deserve A Modern Revival

Reality television has a reputation for pushing the boundaries of social acceptability, which is probably why it’s the most derided genre of TV. From social experiments to extreme game shows to rich people behaving badly, reality television allows us to feel like we’re witnessing the full spectrum of human behavior. Whether unapologetically trashy or more educational in nature, these shows have a way of inspiring discourse.

Is there such a thing as a golden era of reality television? It depends in part on when you came of age, but many would argue it was the early 2000s, following the success of “The Real World” in the ’90s and the slew of outrageous MTV and VH1 shows that arrived in its wake. The year 2006 marked the beginning of the “Real Housewives” franchise, which Bravo fans would correctly argue changed the reality TV show landscape forever. Many of these shows feel so stuck in time that it’s hard to imagine them playing in the present day.

But what if they could? What if we revived our favorite reality shows from years past, or those that never got a chance to become classics? Plenty of older shows just wouldn’t make sense in our modern context, but others are ripe for retooling. If we had total control over television production, here are the 10 reality shows we would want to bring back to life.

There are so many classic MTV reality shows we think of fondly, but not all of them should be given a second life. “MTV Cribs” was amazing, but celebrity Architectural Digest videos basically serve the same purpose now. Instead, our vote goes to the speedy dating show “Next.”

“Next” aired on MTV from 2005 to 2008. Each episode follows a single person, man or woman, as they go on blind dates with a few different people. The potential dates are confined to the “Next Bus” while they wait for their turn to impress that episode’s contestant. If the dater doesn’t like their potential match, they can say “next” at any time, and their suitor has to return to the bus. A gleefully trashy show, “Next” prompts contestants to come up with deranged catchphrases like “I play college baseball, so I can’t wait to show this girl my big bat.”

“Next” premiered years before the launch of dating apps like Tinder and Hinge, but it essentially functions as an IRL version of these platforms, and a modern version of the show could expand on this connection. In the early 2000s, contestants on reality TV shows promoted themselves for fun. Now, with influencers everywhere, contestants on “Next” would likely be savvier about self-presentations. It would still be trashy, and probably cringe, too, but our eyes would be glued to the screen.

Though not at all the first reality show, HBO’s “Taxicab Confessions” was a pioneering series that still feels novel. Created by brothers Harry and Joe Gantz, the show ran on HBO from 1995 to 2006. “Taxicab Confessions” functioned as a documentary series in which hidden cameras were installed in taxis. Real-life taxi drivers, aided by producers listening in, would ask passengers questions, prompting them to reveal deep stories about their lives. At the end of the ride, passengers were asked to sign a consent form, and if they agreed, their stories might appear on television.

Episode content ran the gamut from hilarious to highly sexual to tragic. The focus was on real people telling the world about their lives. In an interview with Mel Magazine, co-creator Harry Gantz noted that they came up with the series while shows like “Jerry Springer,” which often exploited the struggles of people in the margins, were on air. “Instead of making fun of dispossessed people, we gave them an opportunity to tell their stories honestly from their own point-of-view,” he explained.

If remade today, “Taxicab Confessions” would probably have to take place in an Uber or Lyft, given the popularity of rideshare apps over yellow taxis these days. Still, the central premise remains intriguing. Though oversharing has become normalized thanks to social media, folks are still desperate for genuine human connection, especially in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

“Work of Art: The Next Great Artist” is an example of a great idea that never reached its full potential. The show premiered in 2010 on Bravo, the same network that brought us classic reality competitions like “Project Runway” and “Top Chef.” It follows a group of professional artists as they complete challenges and attempt to wow the judges with their raw talent. If they win the competition, they receive a solo exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum and $100,000 in cash.

There wasn’t anything like “Work of Art” on air when it first premiered, but it only lasted for two seasons before it was canceled. Though a novel idea, in some ways, it’s a tough sell. It’s difficult to judge art based on objective metrics, particularly when the artists all had such different styles. In a similar vein, none of the contestants were skilled in every medium, so the challenges didn’t always showcase what they could do.

However, these ostensible flaws are part of what made the show interesting. Reality competitions don’t always choose the most talented person to win. How do you quantify talent, anyway? But even if “Work of Art” had a hard time defining great art, it made for great television. The contestants, some of whom were stereotypically pretentious, were so fun to watch, and the show’s depiction of the art world was outrageous. Bring it back, so we can gawk some more.

If the popularity of “The Traitors” is any indication, murder mystery shows will never go out of style. In 2001, Fox tried their hand at an immersive murder mystery experience with the show “Murder in Small Town X.” Though it only lasted one season, it had all the makings of a hit. The show is set in a small town in Maine, where 10 everyday Americans traveled to solve the mysterious murder of the Flint family. They were presented with a group of townspeople and suspects, all played by actors, who gave them clues. The killer sent them challenges, and if they succeeded, suspects were eliminated. Every episode also saw one of the contestants “killed off” by the murderer until one person solved the case and won $250,000.

The show wasn’t renewed for a second season, and though it still has its fans, it hasn’t been well-remembered. The immersive element of the show was part of the appeal in 2001, and it would still make for interesting television today. Advances in technology mean clues could be more high-tech, and the isolation experienced by the contestants could be more pronounced. In the age of social media, viewers could also participate and follow along with the investigation more closely. We’d love to see what “Murder in Small Town X” would look like in 2026.

“The Simple Life” was a great work of art. A trailblazing piece of television from Fox, it showcased comedy through the lens of reality TV. The show followed socialites Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton as they attempted to live like normal working-class people with normal jobs without access to their wealth or privilege. The result is some of the funniest TV we’ve ever seen.

We’ll admit, rebooting “The Simple Life” without Richie and Hilton would be difficult, because their unique charm is so central to the show, but not impossible. (For one thing, the show inspired eight international spin-offs, indicating its broad applicability.) If made today, we would need to brainstorm and come up with some potential replacements for Richie and Hilton. The Kardashians would be an obvious choice — maybe Kylie and Kendall have to go work at Taco Bell? Or we could go younger and find out what TikTokers like Charli D’Amelio would do if they had a normal job. The nepo baby route could be another interesting angle. The possibilities are endless, though the risk of failure is high.

The E! series “WAGS” may sound like another “Real Housewives” spin-off, and that’s not too far from the truth. The reality show centered on the wives and girlfriends (or WAGS) of professional athletes, showcasing their glamorous social circles and the implicit hierarchies. (Once a WAG gets engaged, she moves up the social ladder.) The series began in LA before spawning three spin-offs: “WAGS Miami,” “WAGS Atlanta,” and “Relatively Nat & Liv,” which followed two stars of the flagship series.

“WAGS” didn’t introduce a novel concept, as we had seen this kind of thing before on VH1’s “Basketball Wives.” Netflix also recently tried its hand at a sports-adjacent reality show with “W.A.G.s to Riches,” which essentially served as a spin-off from “Selling Tampa.” The original “WAGS” only lasted for three seasons, with the spin-offs having even shorter tenures, but that doesn’t mean the concept is all used up.

With a more interesting cast and perhaps a different network, “WAGS” could be a surprise hit à la “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.” The show was defined by contradiction, which makes for a head-scratching watch — and we mean this in a positive way. These women ostensibly wanted to emphasize their identities outside of their men, but they were only on the show because of their relationship. It’s not exactly a win for feminism, but, as with the most entertaining reality TV, “WAGS” is ripe for analysis and debate.

Does anyone call annoying guys “tools” anymore? Despite its dated aesthetic, we’d like to revisit this trash reality TV classic. “Tool Academy” aired on VH1 for three seasons, from 2009 to 2010. The titular “tools” were men (and occasionally women) nominated by their partners to attend a sort of “charm school” where they learn how to be better partners. These men think they’re great guys competing for the title of “Mr. Awesome,” unaware of the shocking truth. As they compete in challenges testing their maturity, one tool is eliminated every week, until the remaining tool takes home a cash prize.

The show lives up to its name. The men on “Tool Academy” are, in fact, huge tools. We hope these men have grown out of their tool-ness by now, but what about the tools of today? It would be fascinating to see what kind of men would be nominated now, and how they might differ from tools of years past. For one thing, discussions of mental health have become much more common, and even if men don’t attend therapy themselves, they’re more likely than ever to use therapy-related language. Are today’s boyfriends better than they were 15 years ago? Only another season of “Tool Academy” will reveal the answer.

Yes, PBS had its own reality show, and yes, it was perfect television. “Frontier House” was an old-school survivalist show, and by that, we mean it was survival in the 1800s. The series followed three American families who spent five months living in a remote area of Montana as if it was 1883. They resided in tiny log cabins and were permitted no modern conveniences.

The result was a fascinating piece of television. The families began to dissolve — one couple appeared near divorce at one point. Another family, the Clunes, did everything they could to cheat. The teenage girls used honey bottles to sneak in their Herbal Essences shampoo. Bizarrely, 9/11 also happened during filming, and the producers gave the families newspapers to stay abreast of the news.

Though society in 2026 is very different from what it was in 2002, the premise of the show could remain exactly the same if it was rebooted today. The fact that we are much more dependent on technology now than we were at the dawn of the millennium would make the challenge more difficult and the drama even juicier. Imagining a modern family losing access to their cell phones for five months, much less any other modern conveniences, is distressing enough. This is one social experiment we’d like to see repeated.

Despite how close we may or may not be getting to a real-life end of time, apocalyptic TV remains just as popular as ever. Normally, we like to keep our global catastrophes in the realm of fiction, rather than experiencing them ourselves. But in 2009, the Discovery Channel created its own apocalypse. “The Colony” followed a group of 10 people thrown into a post-apocalyptic scenario and forced to survive. They each had different jobs and skill sets, and they had to work together to procure water, food, and electricity. Unlike “Survivor,” in which contestants compete against each other, participants on “The Colony” were not competitors, but instead collaborators.

The show ran for two seasons, the first of which was filmed in Los Angeles, and the second in Louisiana. The premise of the show was fascinating, and it’s easy to get invested in the outcome, but the show had its shortcomings. One of the challenges the contestants faced was from outside raiders (played by paid actors), who threatened the colony and sometimes stole their supplies. Because these actors couldn’t actually commit violence, this element of the show took away from the overall sense of realism.

We’d love to see a reboot of “The Colony,” in which these issues could be easily redressed. The question of “How would you survive in a zombie apocalypse?” is timeless, and we can imagine contemporary viewers getting totally invested in the outcome.

“Fear” was one of MTV’s most brilliant innovations. A paranormal reality show, “Fear” sent contestants into supposedly haunted locations with the promise of a cash prize if they were brave enough to spend a couple of days there. The simple premise resulted in some amazing footage. Contestants were primed to be scared; they were left alone in hotel rooms for 48 hours, made to sign distressing waivers, and taken to the haunted locations blindfolded and with bags over their heads.

When they arrived at the site, the contestants were totally alone. They had cameras and microphones affixed to their chests, with production nowhere in sight. Producers didn’t need to create gimmicks or tricks — these eerie locations and the feeling of being isolated scared the contestants plenty. At one location, all six contestants quit, and they had to bring in another group.

Though the show was a hit, MTV canceled it after two seasons. Budgetary concerns were the primary concern. Though it may seem like a relatively lo-fi production. The technology they used cost a lot of money in the early 2000s. Storing the hours of footage from each contestant’s camera was extremely pricey, for example. Today, filming for cheap (and storing video files) is much easier, and viewers’ thirst for frights is as strong as it was 20 years ago. We’re ready to see “Fear” return to our screens.