The 5 Most Pointless Movie Adaptations of TV Shows
We have to admit, the huge success of The Simpsons movie leaves us conflicted. We liked the movie, but hate the fact that its box office has guaranteed about 150 more slap-together TV show remakes over the next few years. We don't need to remind you of the track record these movies have "¦ but we're going to anyway.
Here' the worst of the worst:

The Dukes of Hazzard remake is the manual our descendants will consult when they want to understand how to utterly destroy a treasured memory. It's hard to pity an inanimate object, but after 90 minutes of this painful "comedy" you start planning ways to rescue the General Lee. Plus, a movie that makes the experience of watching Jessica Simpson in denim cut-offs anything other than awesome is doing something terribly wrong. You can't blame Simpson for being a terrible actress; she reacts the way any modern 'starlet' does when faced with something she can't do: by taking off her clothes and soaping herself with sudsy water. It' as if Simpson believes the mere sight of titties will distract the male mind from any criticism and focus purely on the titties instead, which is a titties titties of titties. Titties titties, titties, titties. Titties, titties, titties.
The Alleged Improvement: Johnny KnoxvilleThe original Duke brothers were the embodiment of camaraderie. In Luke, Bo literally had a cousin, a friend, a brother and a devoted husband. The Jackass crew, on the other hand, laugh when their friends injure themselves, as well as when they are gluing their own pubes to their "friend'" face. So, if the word "friendship" makes you think of a member of Jackass then we hate to break it you, but you were bullied to pieces as a child. The original Luke and Bo pulled off the greatest television scene ever with a jumping car, a bow and a stick of dynamite tied to an arrow. Anybody handing Johnny Knoxville an explosive-tipped projectile had better be ready with a bomb disposal expert, a flashlight and the world' bravest proctologist.

Charlie' Angels: Full Throttle single-handedly saves the first Charlie' Angels film from appearing on this list, by virtue of being a horrendous sequel to an awful remake of a terrible '70s TV show. The original TV show survived in the dark days before the Internet when men were prepared to sit through 30 minutes of lame karate chops because the leading ladies thought 'bra' was just something frat boys call each other. These days you can't get through a shampoo commercial without at least side boob. And with the Internet, you can choose four pornographic words at random and find a site dedicated explicitly to that, and also that with goats. Like the rare Betamax-eating Dodo, the ecological niche of this show has disappeared.
Alleged Improvement: Cameron Diaz! Lucy Liu! Drew Barrymore!Sexy women from the modern era where 'hairstyling' doesn't mean sticking your head in a blender full of mousse! Surely, they'll be better than three '70s actresses who looked like they'd just finished filming a porno with the male members of ABBA. The downside is that modern big names have rights, piles of money and legal teams who can file "Breach of Contract" paperwork just by thinking about it. Thus, the exact boundaries of how much silky actress skin could be shown were more strictly defined and carefully guarded than North Korea's borders. Once the critical component of 'casually jiggling' is removed from Charlie' Angels all you're left with is the plot. We could write a better plot by sticking a pen and paper in a tub of Jell-O and shaking it around. Or have Drew Barrymore write it with the pen wedged between her titties. But, don't let that image detract from the sheer fact that titties titties deficient in the sense that titties, titties, titties. Titties, titties, titties, titties? Titties.
PS: If you ever replace Bill Murray with Bernie Mac, you'd better be doing some kind of Schindler' List thing where you're saving good comedians in a dark, totalitarian comic-killing future. No offense to fans of "Man-that-guy-talks-in-a-funny-way!" humor, but damn, that shit is whack.

Pretty simple, really. You have an actor, Will Ferrell, starring in a movie adaptation of a TV show, in which he plays an actor, who in the movie is set to star in a TV adaptation of the same TV show the movie is an adaptation of. There are so many levels of meta here we're surprised that half way through the movie they didn't replace Will Ferrell with Will Arnett.
We'll never know how many writers or rewrites that script went through before they arrived at this one. We're going to guess it happened after about the 25th revision, at about three in the morning, right after the writer had a nervous breakdown. Maybe this script is what he did instead of climbing up in a tower with a rifle.
Alleged Improvement: Academy Award-winning actress Nicole KidmanThat' right, she wins the Oscar in 2002 and by 2005 she' starring in a remake about a remake of a show America forced off the air in 1972. We're trying to figure out at what stage this project still seemed like a good idea, and we're thinking it was about half a second after her agent said the words, "Nicole, we're looking at a project with Will Ferrell. It' ..."

On paper, you could go in a couple of different directions with a Miami Vice movie and come out the other end with a decent flick. In the spirit of the Brady Bunch Movie, you could celebrate the dated kitschy-ness that embodied the original TV counterpart and make a pretty funny movie that puts Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx in dangerously bright Armani jackets. Conversely, you could take already established characters and make a fairly decent buddy-cop, action flick. Going in a third direction, you could be Michael Mann and shit all over the iconic TV show that you, yourself, created by sticking two, ego-driven superstars with no business appearing in a film together and top it off with your interesting-to-no-one-but-you style of dark, in-your-face filmmaking.
Alleged Improvement: Adding gritPeople generally remember two things about the show Miami Vice: ridiculous, now-hilarious pastel suit jackets, and the warm, sometimes homoerotic, chemistry between Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas. Not only were the pastels removed, but thanks to Michael Mann' "style," the entire movie was so fucking dark and gritty, you could barely tell who was Crockett and who was Tubbs. Speaking of whom, the reassuring "buddy" feel that accompanied the show was completely absent from the movie Vice, and you got the impression that Farrell and Foxx genuinely hated each other. They didn't enjoy one another' company on screen and rarely made eye contact. You half expected them to turn their guns on each other. Not that you'd know which cop to root for if it did come down to that, as there was zero character development and the whole thing looked like it was shot through a rusty window screen.

Transformers are giant kickass robots that fight and blow up things, then transform into awesome vehicles that also fight and blow up things. The 1986 animated movie makes up a fair fraction of the soul of everyone who was a boy at the time. It takes hard work to screw up that concept, but as Street Fighter and House of the Dead have proven, some directors are prepared to work extremely hard when their Dark Lord, Who Is Satan commands them. Watching Optimus Prime prancing around the house for a nerd who can't command a chihuahua with a broken leg? It's like watching your dad get beaten up at a softball game. We're not saying Michael Bay turned the '80s icons of awesomeness into a bunch of retarded, grunting dumbasses out for cheap laughs but, well, there was that one scene where Bumblebee pissed on a guy so we guess we are saying that.
Sure, the movie made a billion dollars at the box office. The commercials were awesome, and how were we supposed to know it was bad if we didn't actually go see it? Twice?
Alleged Improvement: Focusing on puny humans instead of the giant incredible wondrous Robots in Disguise.As you may detect, we consider that a mistake. There are only a few things humans can do that robots can't, fewer that normal people want to watch, and none that you can show in a kids' movie. After the human-centric Transformers and the disaster that was Pearl Harbor, you have to ask yourself: Does Michael Bay miss the point so spectacularly as a statement, or is it some kind of medical condition? Is he this off-point in daily life? Does he need someone to help him aim at the urinal? In any event, we've prepared this simple test: Michael, if you're making a movie about GIANT TRANSFORMING ROBOTS, and less than one-third of the movie actually contains GIANT TRANSFORMING ROBOTS, you may have made a mistake.








Well I enjoyed the Dukes, the Angels and Miami Vice. It's not Citizen Kane but fun to watch.
ReplyWhat I want to do, is combine the parts of the Transformers movies where only the robots are fighting/talking/doing stuff, and then re-release it in theaters.
ReplyIt would be a sell-out people.
Yeah but you would also get a sell out if you if you kept the movies as they were and included a character in every scene calling the audience watching it idiots. It just wouldn't matter.
I gotta tell ya, man. If I never read or hear another person defending how thoroughly Michael Bay s**t all over the Transformers mythology, IT WILL BE TOO SOON! Some people, their expectations are so dismal that it wouldn't surprise me if they'd applaud a film about a cell phone vibrating on a desk for two hours.
ReplyAccidentally hit thumbs down. The only reason I can't call Michael Bay the worst director I know is because I've seen a Uwe Boll film.
I am so glad they brought up Transformers!!!! Michael Bay is either pure evil, or literally the biggest idiot on the face of the earth.
ReplyThe white one. Root for the white one.
ReplyWhatever, I thought the first Transformers movie was awesome. The rest can suck it.
ReplyAmen to #1. Why people accept Optimus Prime taking orders from a buffoon teenager is beyond me? Optimus Prime might as well be saying "whoop-see" in a high voice when he stumbles outside the house, crushing the potted plants and ruining the lawn.
Replyum hate to break it to you and the author but humans were still a big part of the series, in fact they were used to drive the story which without the humans was just robots shooting at each other and missing....robots miss more often then they hit still don't get that....I have no problem with how the movie was constructed for the first one, it wasn't spectacular but it wasn't terrible. The 2 after that got a lot of attention they did not deserve. 2 was so bad i didn't even see 3 until it had been on dvd for several months and i gatta tell you WOW it looks fake much worse then the first 2. the first one may not of had robots very often but when they did it was awesome they fit into the environment well, in two I can't really judge what is going on because of terrible editing and shake cam shots, so i can't really judge how bad or good the effects are. but three it was distracting how badly the cgi was done in places.
The Dukes movie was just awful, I agree; but has anyone watched the reruns of the original show? I guess it's human nature to assume something that was balls-awesome when I was eight years old will forever be balls-awesome. I think I noticed that Daisy Duke was always wearing pantyhose under her shorts, and I was thinking about how she's in her sixties now- ouch.
ReplyI laughed, mostly at willie nelson but even johnny had a few good lines in there. But I agree that people s**t all over this movie without taking the source material into account. someone else should a been bo though, all I could think every time something happened was "STIFLER FUCK!"
I agree with all but the Miami Vice one, especially since you put that instead of Inspector Gadget or scooby doo, or even Star Trek:Generations.
ReplyThe Dukes had Willie, I liked him.
ReplyI think this article is ready for part 2,3, and 4
ReplyI think #3 and #2 should switch spots, there is no way that Bewitched where they were remaking the show within the remaking of the show and the actress who plays samantha was an actual witch... I'm sorry, but I thought it was a stupid idea.
ReplyI saw the first Transformers in the cinema, the second in an airplane, and the third i may never see. Im not even a US citizen - the US Army PR guy who had full creative control and Bays lipmarks all over his rump would agree with me: id be wasting both our time. Why would an Australian need to wach a three hour US Army recruiting commercial?
ReplyBecause the US Army's awesome?
While Transformers was a s**t movie (why was everything yellow? Seriously!), I have to say that I did like the IDEA of it starting out by focusing on the humans, then shifting to the robots. It's been a good way to introduce the general public to the idea, even if it was handled incredibly poorly.
ReplyI always thought it wouldve been so cool if there was no human dialogue. I mean with dialogue, Sam Witwickys Sitcom subplot of a life is strained and overly drawn out and stupid. If that whole plotline was telegraphed with silent movie miming and reactoon shots it would have saved thousands in film footage, been ten minutes long, and blown pretentious critics away. Only the robots shouldve had any dialogue. Short, action packed, and mind blowingingly memorable. nobody would have complained about the godawful writing then.
The list should be expanded to include: Sgt. Bilko ; Car 54 Where Are You?; The Avengers and The Saint.
ReplyIf it doesn't have Unicron, it ain't a Transformers movie
Replythe only problem with michael bay's transfromers movies is that the role of humans is extended past running in terror from the giant robots beaing each others nuts off.
ReplyAlso there making a Battleship movie... f**k fuck f**k fuck f**k fuck f**k fuck f**k fuck f**k fuc kfuc kfuck f**k ufkkfuckf kcfuckc kkkcufuck fffffffffffffffll f**k HOLLYWOOD
Well since "Clue" was such a smashing success...
Isn't Transformers all about, like, giant robots transforming and beating the crap out of each other and causing explosions? Especially the explosions? I mean, when it comes to explosions, you can't be wrong with Michael Bay.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesBut, to everybody's own taste. I personally liked the movies for what they were, and that was action movies with transforming robots kicking the crap out of each other while causing explosions. It's not like there weren't any better movies out there that year that didn't get the deserved attention or something. I mean, I'm pretty sure there were enough better movies that got more viewings or something, or at least the attention they deserved, at least that year.
I need some good sleep, I don't even know what I typed back there.
Apparently you like explosions
i love explosions, and you absolutely can go wrong with Micheal Bay. his explosions bear the same relationship to real cool action pyrotechnics as aniseed lollies bear to chocolate coated raspberry straps, as dingy ad infested porn sites do to sex, as Die Hard 4 does to Die Hard 1.
you like explosions. Mike Bay likes making everything slow motion and flammable.
I always felt the worst tv show movie adaption was Inspector Gadget. I mean, Matthew Broderick as Inspector Gadget was just an awful choice, and the movie was absolutely garbage. It's like they didn't even try.
ReplyThey didn't!
Charlie's Angels is an awesome movie, doesn't take itself serious, yet it takes itself serious. f*****g perfect.
Replyexcept the watching it is like chewing on a piece of tinfoil.