Eh, don't remind me of Cedric the Entertainer. He is about to try to do Ralph Kramden. Ditto Omar Epps for Ed Norton. Blasphemy, I tell you!

Thing is, I think Cedric is hysterically funny at times. I just think the absurdity of casting is the problem. In a way I am starting to see why they are doing the honeymooners the way they are. They are trying to do something in a totally different way, which as "Dave" would say, is ok with him. I am sure it will be funny but I am not so sure it will be uniquely funny or original. Old jokes bore me.

I wouldn't mind Hollywood flipping through old TV guides for ideas if they would do some genuine reinterpretations of the material. Say, an anime version of Banacek or Madigan in Supermarionation.

What I don't want to see is Eight is Enough unless everyone knows kung fu and plot developments require the sequel to be named Six is Probably Enough Too.

Ditto on Sideways. Someone needs to point out that Giametti and Madsen's characters are drunks. This is why they've made a mess of their lives, this is why no one likes that dude. Madsen gets a pass because we all like cute drunk chicks, at least until they throw up on your pillow.

Personally, I wanted to kick the shit out of him just because I could have been watching The Incredibles. Throw in what a pathetic drunken douchebag he was and you've got good goddamn reason to just beat his ass.

The main problem with sideways other than the fact the theme of "Even pathetic people need love" is that the characters were just not freakin' likable. AT ALL. Madsen got nominated for a film she spends maybe 15 minutes in. It is ridiculous. I think the film fails mostly because you couldn't feel anything but disgust for these guys. You just didn't care and started hoping they would die. That is never a good thing.

The extent and range of Ben Affleck's acting abilities can be summed up with one word: Mallrats

Ben needs Kevin Smith directing, otherwise he's hopeless.

As they say in Team America

I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school, He was terrible in that film. I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part, He's way better then Ben Affleck. And now all I can think about is your smile, And that shitty movie too, Perl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Fer cryin' out loud, is it too frickin' much to expect frickin' Hollywood to come up with something frickin' ORIGINAL for a frickin' change? IS IT?!!

Hawaii Frickin' Five-O, the Frickin' Movie. You have got to be frickin' kidding me.

Starring Ben Affleck, no less. Ben Frickin' Affleccch. The no-talent bastard that defiled Jennifer Garner. Bleh.

What are they going to remake next, CHiPs? I suppose they'll talk Affleccch into starring in that as well...

Sorry. I'm trying to moderate my language, given Ace's newfound sensitivity to such things, but with all the FRICKIN' silliness coming out of Hollywood these days, its FRICKIN' difficult to do that...

Actually, Favreau would be an exceelent choice for Danno.

"What are they going to remake next, CHiPs?"

Have you seen the trailer for "BeWitched"?
Nicole Kidman as Samantha and Will Ferrell as Darin.

I really can't get enough Nicole Kidman though.

Don't forget "The Simpsons" movie, which they are finnaly going to make 7 years after the show stopped being funny.

What I hate is that these movies think making an old idea campy = quality entertainment and lots of yuks.

Most of these remakes have been of the 'wink, wink' variety - good for a few laughs but overall, one just gets tired of the same stupid gag over and over again.

Remaking "classic" TV series ("classic"=whatever was on the tube when the Hollywood execs were growping up) as big-budget films irks the hell out of me on about eight different levels.

One question, though: can anyone remember an occasion when this concept actually worked? I'm not talking about producing a great film--that's way too much to ask. But none of the remakes I can remember were even halfway decent. Most, actually, were total disasters. And financially, they run the gamut from barely profitable to mega-flops. I can't believe they keep producing these remakes when the idea seems to be such a consistent recipe for sure-fire disaster.

It's worked a few times, Utron-- The Brady Bunch Movie comes to mind. But admittedly, that's far and few between.

As for the profitability, remember-- we're usually not talking about $100 million movies here. El-cheapo knockoffs in the $10-$40 million range have to *really* tank to not turn a profit for a studio. Hollywood rarely loses money until they start making really big movies.

Director Kevin Smith was trying something new, it didn't really fire on all cylinders, but I enjoyed myself for two hours in a theater.

I still laugh myself silly when I watch Dogma. I thought Affleck was good in that. Of course, it had Jay ans Silent Bob in it, so that alone guarantees it will be good.

What's worse, Movie versions of TV shows, or TV versions of movies?

My picks for:

Best Movie to TV show --> MASH
Worst Movie to TV show --> Animal House

Best TV show to Movie --> StarTrek Wrath of Khan
Worst TV show to Movie --> Charlies Angels

I'll go along with you on best TV to movie, MoN--I'd forgotten all about Star Trek. The Addams Family was another pretty good adaptation.

For the worst, though: Have we so quickly forgotten The Flintstones, complete with Rosie O'D. as Beth--uh, Betty--Rubble? Incidentally, a quick google revealed that that waste of film took in $350 million worldwide, so Dave's right about the profitability of these remakes. One more proof that there is no God.

I don't know why H'Wood insists on making these shit movie versions of mediocre TV shows. There are hundreds of books (mytery and otherwise) out there that would supply good starts for movie scripts. But that would require someone to read a book, instead of watching old TV reruns. I'm not a snob: these books aren't "literature." But at least they have somewhat compelling plots and characters. Why are there so many crap scripts getting made into movies?