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.








I 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
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.
ReplyCharlie'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.
1 is bullshit. Transformers has had several successive shows and continuities over the years of varying quality, the movie series being just another in a long line. The fact that most people didn't know that (partly due to bad scheduling) is why the f*****g films needed to be made - the viewing public needed to be hit over the head with the knowledge that Transformers is still around.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesNow, the complexity of the CGI giant robots made a lot of the toys suck, but it did prove that CGI giant robots could be convincing. This was harder than it sounds due to the last time we saw them on the big screen - MMPR the Movie and its CGI versions of the Ninjazords.
You are retarded. That is all.
Cool story, bro.
except you should stop and think. does the plot include anything besides slow mo and boom?
totally agree with all of these.
ReplyWhat I find funniest is the Zoolander "Blue Steel" expression on both Colin Farrel and Jamie Foxxxxxxxxx's faces
ReplyThe success of those crappy Transformers movies remains an unsolvable mystery. Bay is so connected with the military, it HAS to be some kind of experimental mass hypnosis device.
ReplyI tried typing in four words that directly had nothing to do with each other or porn and I got german reality television for my first choice. Porn was far in the back at third.
ReplyI should have went with Bing. Damn you, Google! Damn you!!!
Michael Bay missed the point in Transformers? There's a point besides giant robots blowing s**t up and fighting? Cos as far as I know all three of them delivered that in spades. It's mind boggling how it has become chic to hate, just scathingly f*****g HATE, a film adaptation just because it isn't an exact replica of the source material.
Reply Hide All See All 9 Repliesjust a pointer: we hate it not because it's nothing like the source material, but because it's a steaming pile of shit. Just, you know, generally. Shit.
It's mind boggling how you can be so f*****g stupid as to not understand people have different tastes. Dumbass.
Transformers was awesome! Transformers 2 sucked all sorts of ass! And did they make a third one?!? After the toilet that was 2 we'll pretend not
There isn't a point beyond robots blowing s**t up and fighting - but instead we got s****y actors because CGI is expensive. Terrible actors being the focus of a film instead of giant robots just makes it obvious how terrible those actors are.
To be fair, the 3rd Transformers movie was probably the best of the series, for whatever that's worth. But still, it needed more titties.
It's not chic to hate a crappy movie 'cause it's crappy, it's just the way it is. Those three movies you refer to were so bad I could only watch part of the first one. I glad I never paid to see them.
I believe the point was "Less than a third" of it was that stuff.
Like 60% focused on Shia lebouf's character and a good 15% on other annoying humans who just were not that entertaining. Shia manages to come across as nerdy, whiny,and yet still a fit jock who'll steal your girlfriend.
If he wanted to improve it there are several things he could have done. Waited for Buscemi and not settled on John Turturro. About 80% less Shia, make the Spec ops actually, you know, WORK, and...actually get rid of Sam, or shia or... whatever, entirely and just put Megan Fox with the Army Ranger guy...Lennox, I just looked him up. Take 1% of the CGI budget to hire a competent comedy writer. Voila, vastly better movie, that still makes 700 million dollars.
Honestly without Sam most of your plot problems would disappear. Shia lebouf oozes anti-charisma and the, what you can call a "storyline", was repeatedly hobbled by the need to build it around him at least in part.
...And maybe more titties. Everyone loves boobs.
Part of the real problem of these movies is that Optimus Prime and Bumblebee are the only robots you can identify in robot form. All of the others look too much like eachother and lack the distinguishing characteristics of the cartoon characters. It gets confusing when you don't know if the robot punching out the other robot is the goodguy or the badguy.
The second movie makes it worse by devolving into a 90 minute sex joke.
Originally there was a plot. Michael Bay took a complex, multi-layered series and movie, and turned it into "Robot hits and other robot then explodes! And there are boobs!"
i so much frigging agree with #1 , it is like making a terminator movie focus totally on sarah connor instead of the terminator himself or only making the terminator appear in action sequences and that is it.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesAre You talking about the steaming pile of s**t that was the The Sarah Connor chronicles?
Hey, the Sarah Conner Chronicles rocked if only for Summer Glau and Shirley Manson.
Lena Headey was hot, too.
The robot footage cost a mint. There's more of it in the sequels, which had bigger budgets, but the problem with going live action with giant robots and listening to so-called experts is you end up being told that in order for your designs to look realistic and convincingly alien they have to be something that can only be rendered by ILM. Which is so expensive that even with the film's budget it couldn't be done for a whole lot of the film. Besides, a basic part of Transformers was to show the alien beings interacting with humans. This is harder than it sounds, and probably the show to best pull it off was Transformers Cybertron.
Michael Bay would have put Sarah Connor in a bikini for the whole movie
Anthony yerkovich created Miami vice
ReplyMichael produced the TV show.
Somebody forgot to include Spy Kids ripo...eh, I mean Thunderbirds.
ReplyThunderbirds was an actual show at one point. Not that it was good. 'Cause it wasn't. Not really.
Screw off. The original Transformers movie was great. The 3rd is to apparently. Should've stuck Revenge of The Fallen on the list.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesTo quote Daniel O'Brian, THAT f*****g RULED! It had titties, texplosions, robots, and Shia Labeouf died for like two minutes.
Indeed. Watching Shia die made up for so many flaws. I can put that scene on youtube loop.
Fuck! Shia "I make money being lame" LaBoeuf dies??? I've got to watch this film.
Revenge of the Fallen had Jetfire. You take that back! The 3rd has an unsatisfying ending because the publishers of the book adapation (which has an alternate, more satisfying one) shot their wad early.
Revenge of the Fallen could have ended with Shia Labeouf dead and I would have gone back to watch it fifty times. Instead, I'm still trying to decide if I can sue Michael Bay to get back the money I blew on a ticket and popcorn.