I was dissapointed SO SO bad!
I was so dissapointed! anyone else agree? i mean,it was so stupid! they could have made it so awesome. they messed up big time!
Ashley
Would you care to explain the reason you were disappointed?
share
MovieChat Forums > Rescue from Gilligan's Island (1978) Discussion > I was dissapointed SO SO bad!
Are you trying to imply the original series was brilliant or something??? It's GILLIGAN'S FRICKIN' ISLAND for Chrissakes!
Insert pretentious signature here
[deleted]
I'm so disappointed that you misspelled disappointed twice!
shareWell, the idea that they get resuced is fine with me. That was touching. It was just the second half that I didn't care for. The whole stupid business with the Russian spies trying to retrieve the disc that Gilligan has around his neck was just dumb. You knew they'd fail each time. Why didn't they try to really show the castaways reaction to the updated civilization or maybe have them hunt down those individuals who visited the island and left them there to rot for 15 years and terrorize them? That was an idea that was discussed and I think it would've worked fine. An example would be Ginger going to audition and the producer is Harold Hecuba. She realizes that and tells him, "Remember me? I'll give you a hint: Neither a borrower nor a lender be, do not forget, stay out of debt." Then Hecuba realizes it and *beep* his pants with fright and Ginger advances menacingly upon the blowhard. Or maybe she runs into Eva Grubb, who tried to steal her career. There were so many ideas it is amazing that Sherwood didn't think of anything better. I will say this. The Castaways TV-movie was better. I especially loved Gilligan talking to Robbie. Here Gilligan was acting like the father figure and that was good.
shareWell, seriously, what can you do after they are rescued? The entire series was about trying to get OFF the island. I thought there were a few good points, like the scene after they are rescued and they realized they were not going to be together anymore. And the Skipper and Gilligan visiting everyone to get their documents signed showing how all of the castways have adjusted to life in civilization.
I do like your idea of visiting all of those people who left them on the island. They could have done a whole series of cross overs with Matlock suing them for millions!
If I was starnded on a desserted island with Mary Ann in skimpy outfits, why would I want to get rescued anyway?!
[deleted]
I agree but I have found most reunion movies to be hit or miss affairs--mostly miss.
share[deleted]
...or Wrongway Feldman.
Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast
Or how about the jungle boy. Gilligan really cared for that boy as well as the Howells. They could have had Gilligan mention to Howells about tracking him down and see how he turned out. They may not have been able to get Kurt Russel but if they can use a different actress to play Ginger they could have someone else play a one shot character.
"Why didn't they...maybe have them hunt down those individuals who visited the island and left them there to rot for 15 years and terrorize them?"
I can't believe how stupid some people are! Didn't you see what a low budget the producer of this TV Movie got? As if they were going to be able to afford Phil Silvers, Hans Conreid, Zsa Zsa Gabor, etc.
It was simple, corny, loveable and stupid...just like the series. And it had the "see the characters 15 years later" and the "get the castaways off the island" plots done. That's all they needed for this movie.
can't believe how stupid some people are! Didn't you see what a low budget the producer of this TV Movie got? As if they were going to be able to afford Phil Silvers, Hans Conreid, Zsa Zsa Gabor, etc.>>>
Again I will say it. If they can recast a different actress to play a main character, Ginger, than they cast a different actor to play a one shot character. They did not need to get Phil Silvers they could have gotten someone to play the same character and just filled in back ground information.
OK, they pulled it off with Ginger. But then if they replace Zsa Zsa and Silvers, two totally recognizable faces, with affordable B grade actors you would be complaining that if they couldn't get these unique, one of a kind, memorable character actors they should have gone a different way.
Also, this was a reunion TV movie. What sort of a reunion is it when half the characters in the movie aren't the originals?
I am not saying it would have been awesome I am just saying it could have been done.
The movie was not that low-budgeted for a TV movie and may have been above normal budget considering they had six "name" players (if not stars) in the cast and might have had a seventh with Tina Louise had she signed on. And it was a major ratings hit in 1978 albeit perhaps the worse reviewed TV movie ever and compared unfavorably even to the original series which was hardly a critic's favorite.
I think they should have cast an older actress as Ginger, Judith Baldwin was just too young to be in that cast. I'll bet someone like Mamie Van Doren would have jumped at the chance to play Ginger.
I agree the movie is disappointing, it's nowhere near as funny as the original series (which is goofy and very silly but still highly likable). Most of the TV movie reunion movies for any of the 60's series are not very good because they either don't have the same writers or they make them only semi-comedies apparently not believing a sitcom can stretch into two hours.
Totally agree Judith Baldwin was too young.
But I cannot see it as having the budget to carry the island's more memorable visitors Phil Silvers, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Hans Conried and Vito Scotti as well as Jim Backus (he would have cost a lot) and the others.
Sure, it was nowhere near as good as the series and was just another weak reunion movie, but it was still watchable and fun.
Like I said b4, what is a reunion movie if all the actors are different?
But would anyone really care that a different actor played Phil Silver's character or the jungle boy. They would be more interested in seeing the cast of Gilligan's island together again and not be worried if someone else played a one shot character.
Totally! Phil Silvers and Zsa Zsa were "one shot characters" but very, very memorable and distinctive. It would it would have been a huge disappointment to have someone else in the role so I think much better to go for a different story.
share
I had been thinking about this topic in regards to the show Star Trek and you are right. Kahn was a one shot character but I would not have wanted anyone else but Ricardo Montablan to play him in Star Trek Wrath of Kahn.
I'd be interested in:
1.(Rory Calhoun's) Johnathan KIncaid to see how he'd been doing since 1967 (when he siad Gilligan Gilligan in astraightjacket0
2.(Vito Scotti)'s Prof.Boris Balinkoff, to see if he was a still a monkey, find out about the haunted house on that other island..
3.(RIchard Kiel)'s Ghost.."offshore oil rights!
4.(Sterling Holloway's) Prisoner..wait..he never VISITED the goddamned island!
5.That robot!
yup...it's bad. I mean...it's...it's...it's so bad.
But it's Gilligan's Island..so thats okay.
do do do de da da da
well at the time--it rated its sox off at 54--according to sherwood--the networks wanted another series in 78-told sherwood to work on one--sherwood stunned looked at them--couldnt believe it--told them the actors are old now--they cant do physical comedy anymore--so to compromise--he did another 2 movies-the show shouldnt of been cancelled at the time--its all too late now--they left on top-simon
share[deleted]
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY-- PplRPopCulturesBltches
YES -THERES A BUNCH OF vids on yt about sherwood schwartz discussing the 2 famous shows he created-the same thing happened on Lost in Space-when the show was cancelled in 4th season-billy mumy tried to revive it years later-so not to leave it in limbo-but the creator irwin allen had a policy of not trying to revive and visit those old shows-and at that time-he was into creating producing-big budget disaster movies..but theres a common thread to all those tv shows--they stand up well-nearly 50 years on-simon