MovieChat Forums > Starsky & Hutch (2004) Discussion > The difference between movie and series

The difference between movie and series




The series is loved. The movie isn't.

reply

[deleted]

One difference that is like so totally obvious, is that the tv show was much more serious than the film. Another difference is, the guy who played Huggy Bear on the tv show was a wuss, where as Snoop Dog potrayed Huggy Bear to be a much rougher more agressive , dont take no bullshyt type of informant.

Q.)What should be done if a user or a technician gets hurt on the job?
A.)Escalate the problem

reply

"One difference that is like so totally obvious, is that the tv show was much more serious than the film."

Agreed.In fact arguably a little too seriously; it was sitting there waiting round for crew like Ben Stiller et al to give it the treatment it deserves IMO.

reply

This movie is a parody of Starsky & Hutch not a remake and should've carried an appropriate moniker! Something the producers of Starsky & Hutch got confused were the meanings of remake and parody. It made light of the series and characters at every turn. It should've not been called "Starsky & Hutch", the title of the classic movie and the series, but should've had a parody name also.

Furthermore, Since we never got a Starsky & Hutch reunion. I think this movie should've been a reunion movie starring David Soul, Paul Michael Glaser and Antonio Fargas.

I'm still dumbfounded why David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser even participated what little they did. By their very appearance in character the movie (the only part of the movie I liked!) showed it's hand as being a parody!!

Not that I don't like parody movies, I love true parodies, films like Murder Can Hurt You, and Murder by Death and shows like Venture Brothers just kill me.

I wish they would stop making the so-called remakes, reboots and relaunches of our classic films and TV Shows.

Don't make a parody of a classic film and call it a remake!


"Photography is truth. The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second." ~ Godard

reply

One's a cop show, the other is a spoof, what's there to compare?

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't really get why some more serious TV shows are remade as parodies. This, THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, and probably MANIMAL which Will Ferrel is currently developing.

I'd like to see INSPECTOR GADGET remade ROBOCOP style. A dark, violent science-fiction crime drama.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

Just another mediocre cop show that flooded seventies TV before Miami Vice kicked all their asses. Now with crappy top 40 disco and pop tunes; while at that time great classic rock pumped out and the rise of groups like the Ramones and Clash. It wouldn't been better if it was a lot more retro in look and attitude. The movie was entertaining, which is the only thing that really matters.

reply

it was anything but mediocre. it was a popular, long running cop show shown in prime time.

the difference between the movie and the series: Both David & Ken were competent police officers, not bumbling fools like in this.



It’s ridiculous to critique a movie with the argument 'it's not real, so it doesn't matter'

reply

The '70s TV series was, in a sense, a parody. So the 2004 movie was a parody of a parody.

Just another mediocre cop show that flooded seventies TV before Miami Vice kicked all their asses.

Even the actors from the S&H series knew not everything they were doing was stellar --- but you think MIAMI VICE "kicked all their asses" ??

You're being funny, right? If anything, MIAMI VICE was just par for the course.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply