Powered by i.TV
November 24, 2014

Headache-inducing news of the day: a Magnum, P.I. movie?

by Bob Sassone, posted Jan 24th 2006 11:59AM

Magnum, P.I.Oh, now they've gone too far.

The crazy "let's remake an old TV show and put it on the big screen!" mania continues. Magnum, P.I. is coming to the big screen, and it now has a writer and director. It's Rawson Marshall Thurber (Dogdeball).

I have absolutely no confidence that this will be a good movie. Nothing against the director. I'm talking about the whole concept of remaking TV shows for the big screen. To put it bluntly, who the fuck wants to see a big screen Magnum movie without Tom Selleck? Maybe he'll be in it, but I seriously doubt it. They'll go younger, hipper, edgier, with rap on the soundtrack (see also: Miami Vice).

Studio execs are clueless. The reason why certain shows are beloved in the first place is because of a specific time, a specific place in history, a specific cast. It's not that Charlie's Angels, the original show, was such a great concept or plot, it's that it was that three specific actresses and the 1970s. People liked it back then because of the T and A, and they like it now for the nostalgia/kitsch value. Bringing it back and just putting three other actresses in it? That's why it sucked. Same with The Fugitive, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Spy, and a ton of others. 

(Hell, this Magnum flick might turn out to be a good "movie," but it won't be Magnum, P.I.)

And the worse part? This pretty much means any future TV reunion movie with Selleck, Hillerman, Manetti, et al has no chance of ever becoming a reality.    

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

8 Comments

Filter by:
Patrick

I agree with you that a big part of what makes a classic show "classic" is the timing.

I'd much rather they make a movie with DIFFERENT characters that happens to be about a Hawaii-based private eye. I'm sure there's more than one PI in the 50th state, after all. Let Magnum and company rest in peace (and in our memories) and let some ORIGINAL idea get someone's attention!

January 26 2006 at 11:50 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mpeng

Bring back Simon & Simon, Three's Company, Love Boat, Fantasy Island (sounds like a porno movie), Gilligan's Island, etc...

January 24 2006 at 4:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Paulie

Okay, say this is inevitable, and it's from the folks who brought us Dodgeball.

Does this give us:

Vince Vaughn as Thomas Magnum
Owen Wilson as Rick

Ben Stiller as the Bad Guy?

Who do you get for TC and Higgins? WHO?!

I just hope there are plenty of Vietnam flashbacks.

As much as I love Magnum (when's Season 3 coming on DVD?), I think this has a slim chance of being a bit of fun.

January 24 2006 at 3:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Gnash

As perhaps one of the biggest unashamed fans of Magnum PI, I too concur - I think that a Magnum PI movie is a bad thing even if George Clooney was tapped for the role (which I understood was discussed at one point).

Let sleeping dogs lie. Magnum PI was a phenomenal show - don't spoil it with a half-baked modernized remake.

January 24 2006 at 1:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Erica

I never saw the original series of The Fugitive, but the movie with Harrison Ford was actually a really good action thriller.

January 24 2006 at 1:06 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Akbar Fazil

quoting kip:
"wasting the talents of Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville."

HAHAHAHAHAHA thank you for one of the funniest things ever.

Now, the TV show to movie thing is not ALWAYS a failure. It just mostly is. Aadams Family and it's sequel were fine films. I actually enjoyed the first Charlies Angels film for its style presentation. The Fugitive was an enjoyable romp. So all in all it's not entirely bad. But I do agree, a Magnum movie without Selleck would be terrible.

January 24 2006 at 12:37 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
kipster200000

I concur. 100% suckage at its best to move shows over to the big screen that have been out of view from the main stay for so long. If they couldn't make this same film in 1989 or 1990 what is to say that t will be good now? I think its because this seems to be due to a couple of things:
1.the removal of the TV Movie from the various networks that has caused so many of these horrible films to come out. Starsky and Hutch is the outlier as it is very fun to watch, but come on, the Dukes of Hazzard, critically acclaimed as one of the worst movies of the year and wasting the talents of Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville.
2. Brand recognition is already there! Why spend the time to develop a new concept wher echaracters have to be developed when this has already occurred within the TV show enviornment. Looser scripts can be tossed because they know that there is a particular audience of 30 somethigs who watched these shows as 8 year olds and marvelled at the fact that they were jumping a car across rivers and how indestructable the General was. Yes, I was one. Yes I used to love the Dukes when I was 8 but have you ever caught yourself rewatching somethign and relizing what a turd the show was? Watch some of the old Duke boys shows to really make yourself sick.

I guess people won't stop making these moveis so soon we'll see Cagney and Lacey, the Ateam, Knight Rider, Mr Belvedere, etc. Oh where oh where has Hollywood gone!

January 24 2006 at 12:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
doc

I would disagree on one small point. It was the 'four' specific actresses on Charlie's Angels. Don't sell Cheryl Ladd's contribution short. She wasn't an original angel, but was on the show longer than Farrah and ended up being my favorite. If you want to sell Shelley Hack and Tanya Roberts short though, you'll get no argument from me. :D

January 24 2006 at 12:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners