To say that “Fuller House” has crushed my hopes and long-lived dreams of a successful “Full House” reboot would be a gross understatement. Not only did the pilot episode (within six minutes and five seconds to be exact) shatter my high expectations, it annihilated them into dust, leaving me with nothing but the gut instinct to shut off my Netflix and cry inconsolably into my pillow in the wake of such an epic childhood disappointment. Yes, it was that bad.

I, like every “Full House” fan, was really rooting for this reboot. I grew up watching the beloved ‘90s sitcom with the Tanner family and their adorable taglines (such as “you got it Dude!,” “How rude,” and “Have Mercy”), delightfully cheesy storylines, and predictable adolescent/familial/love dilemmas with the accompanying moral lesson. And, to be sure, you definitely get all of that in “Fuller House.” I mean really, the whole premise is exactly the same, only gender-reversed. You’ve got DJ Tanner all grown up in her thirties, struggling to raise three young boys in the wake of her husband’s death, when her best friend, the always eccentric Kimmy Gibbler, and younger sister, Stephanie, move in to help her with the strains of single parenthood. Sounds familiar right? It’s a regurgitated storyline from 25 years ago, the only difference here being that Kimmy (whom I like to think of as a less funny, more annoying Joey) has a daughter, Ramona, who adds on to the newly assembled household. Right off the bat, the plot and character makeup overtly lack originality and substance.

It seems glaringly obvious that the writers and producers of this show are exploiting an entire generation’s tenacious and abiding devotion to “Full House,” to market the success of a widely demanded series sequel. Yet within minutes of watching “Fuller House,” it hits you that everything feels, well, wrong. In general, the entirety of the show is just so so forced. And this goes beyond the spectrum of simply trying too hard. “Fuller House” enters into a whole new territory derived of predictability wrapped in clichés, wrapped yet again in more painfully predictable dialogue and plot. It is at best a weak attempt to appeal solely to the ‘80s/’90s sitcom nostalgia that has gripped an entire generation. Yet “Full House” is not the only offender in the field of failed revamps. Another popular ‘90s sitcom, “Boy Meets World,” fell victim to the same sad attempts at creating a successful show on the basis of nostalgic aesthetic alone. Much like “Fuller House,” the “Boy Meets World” reboot, “Girl Meets World,” featured a gender reversal with the same outdated and imitated plot and character list.

I get it, I really do. Producers see an audience’s voracious hunger for “the good old days” of television and run with it. Yet somewhere in between, they completely lose the concept of originality and relevance. Somehow Stephanie Tanner, who is now a grown woman in her thirties, saying her trademark “How Rude,” is neither cute nor plausible. Having Joey, twenty years later, still attached to his Woody the Woodpecker doll, is not only ridiculous (and slightly creepy), but an insult to the good name of his original character. Then there’s the fact that there is an obscene amount of dancing on this show, including a particularly painful Bollywood Dance number, as well as a preponderance of outdated and irrelevant references that boast complete overkill.

So if you’re looking for a trip down memory lane in the form of cliché plots, extraneous dialogue, and sub-par acting, then “Fuller House” is your show. If you’d rather maintain your pristine vision of a cherished childhood TV show, then I’d say skip it and just go back to watching reruns on Nick at Nite.