Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" shows up this weekend as an ABC miniseries - the third time it has been remade for television. (And the second time in a month.)
None of which would be particularly surprising were it not for the fact that there's a perfectly good theatrical version of the movie, the 1954 Disney production that starred Kirk Douglas and James Mason.Which begs a question for which there seems to be no satisfactory answer:
Why does Hollywood insist on remaking good movies?
Almost invariably, remakes fail to live up to the originals - particularly when television is doing the remaking of theatrical movies. Generally, made-for-TV productions don't have the budget, don't have the cast and don't have the relatively lengthy shooting schedule that big-screen movies do.
And the results are almost always disappointing.
Think about it for a minute. When was the last time you saw a TV movie remake that lived up to the original?
And sometimes these remakes are so ridiculous they're all but unbelievable. A decade ago, there was a TV-movie remake of Hitchcock's 1941 classic "Suspicion" - with Jane Curtin and Anthony Andrews in the roles originated by Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant.
Really.
That's a rather extreme example, but it's certainly not unusual. Jules Verne's novels have received similar treatment from television. There was a really bad 1987 version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (The cast included Kathy Ireland - need I say more?)
And a couple of years ago, NBC came up with another remake of "Journey" that was so dreadful the network wouldn't even let critics see it before it went on the air.
The answer to why this happens is actually rather obvious. The networks and the producers are, of course, in search of high ratings. And using a well-known title is one way to "pre-sell" a TV movie.
In other words, they're hoping to sucker viewers in and, if they help boost the ratings, the networks don't really care if those viewers go away disappointed.
The concept of remakes is not a bad one, if the second version has something to offer that the first did not. (Disney's 1954 "20,000 Leagues" was, after all, a remake of a 1916 silent film.)
And not all TV movie remakes of theatrical films are bad. Even the Hallmark Hall of Fame series has gotten into the act, with a good 1991 remake of Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" and a good 1995 remake of "The Yearling."
Neither movie, however, was as good as the original.
And you have to wonder why Hallmark would spend a lot of time and money to make something that isn't up to what has already been produced. Particularly when there are other options.
First, there's plenty of original material - whether it be original teleplays or adaptations of stories or books - that has yet to be translated onto the screen.
And second, if you're going to remake a movie, why not remake a bad movie and try to make it better?
Which is not to say that all bad movies can be made better. But there are many that failed because of weak scripts or the wrong casting that could easily be improved upon.
The concept is not entirely unknown. Just last week, ABC presented a TV miniseries version of "The Shining" that was far superior to the bad 1980 theatrical film.
What a great idea - taking a bad movie and making it better!
How unfortunate that it doesn't happen more often.
BACK TO THE SEA: ABC's two-part, four-hour "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. on Ch. 4) is the best TV-movie version of Verne's classic tale yet.
Of course, that's not saying much.
There was a 1972 version that was extremely weak. And CBS's two-hour version, which aired just last month, was remarkably bad - a sure cure for insomniacs.
ABC's two-parter is much better than those.
The outline of the story is fairly true to Verne's novel - up to a point. Young scientist Pierre Arronax (Patrick Dempsey) becomes part of a mid-19th century expedition to locate and capture a sea beast that is interfering with international shipping.
That beast, of course, turns out to be the submarine Nautilus, commanded by the mysterious Captain Nemo (Michael Caine).
Pierre and two of his shipmates, whaler Ned Land (Bryan Brown) and a freed slave, Cabe Attucks (Adewale), end up as guests - or is it prisoners? - on board the Nautilus, leading them on a fabulous series of adventures in a journey that takes them "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
Caine is quite good as Nemo - a huge improvement over the nearly comatose Ben Cross, who starred in last month's version. And Dempsey is likable as young Arronax.
The movie is handsomely produced and is full of special effects that are pretty good for a made-for-TV movie.
But the movie is not without problems. Those special effects, at times, overwhelm the somewhat lumbering plot.
And, rather predictably, this version of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is simply too long. It might have been a really good two- or three-hour movie, but four hours is just too much.
It's padded out with one tiresome story line that involves Pierre's overbearing, obnoxious father (John Bach) and a rather silly love story involving Pierre and Nemo's daughter (Mia Sara).
This is another multi-part TV movie that's probably best viewed by taping it on your VCR and fast forwarding through the dull parts.