Is there ever going to be one? I mean seriously. There has been a Brady bunch movie, and a Beverly Hillbillies movie, and movies about many other TV shows, so where is the movie about the most famous sitcom of them all? I wonder if there is ever going to be one.

Do you mean a documentary style movie? If so they made one around 2001 with Dawn Wells, Russell Johnson, and Bob Denver hosting with several reenactment scenes by new actors.

Or do you mean a straightforward movie adaption of the series, from shipwreck to rescue? If that's the case I'm not so sure it'd be a good idea because they'd have to get new Hollywood actors and writers. Whenever Hollywood gets involved with classics you can usually bet they won't do it right and won't be faithful to the charm and class of the original series. That is to say it probably wouldn't appeal to fans of the original show besides the curiosity factor.

Do you mean a documentary style movie? If so they made one around 2001 with Dawn Wells, Russell Johnson, and Bob Denver hosting with several reenactment scenes by new actors.

Or do you mean a straightforward movie adaption of the series, from shipwreck to rescue? If that's the case I'm not so sure it'd be a good idea because they'd have to get new Hollywood actors and writers. Whenever Hollywood gets involved with classics you can usually bet they won't do it right and won't be faithful to the charm and class of the original series. That is to say it probably wouldn't appeal to fans of the original show besides the curiosity factor.


I heard rumors many, many years ago, around the time of the Brady Bunch and Beverly Hillbillies movies, but obviously nothing came to fruition.
I agree that no attempt should be made now. Too many years have passed, and current writers are too used to doing snark to likely understand or capture the original appeal. Let's hope they leave well enough alone.

I heard rumors many, many years ago, around the time of the Brady Bunch and Beverly Hillbillies movies, but obviously nothing came to fruition.
I agree that no attempt should be made now. Too many years have passed, and current writers are too used to doing snark to likely understand or capture the original appeal. Let's hope they leave well enough alone.

^^this

Or look at the next best thing, the (1992?) show "Woops!" which took the same feel - the silliness and farce, and revamped it from being deserted castaways to sole survivors of nuclear Armageddon. It's a fun show, but even by 1992 audiences did not want the same style of show anymore.

FOX, which made WOOPS, also made a show a few years ago that was very similar to "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In". They nailed the feel and comedy while being its own self, but mass audiences just didn't tune in.

Now I understand why reboots are attempted, perhaps. Taking the same style/feel as influence for something new and modern that fits today's society doesn't always garner the same overnight success. Which is almost ironic, so many reboots ditch the original feel and try to do something different and end up looking bad while making the original come off worse in the process!

Meanwhile, everyone says "Hey, that old show is great, how come nobody's ever done anything like it since?"

:crazy:

They've been talking about a theater Gilligan's Island movie since the 90s or even earlier! Remember Jim Carrey was supposed to be Gilligan & John Goodman the Skipper?

I agree it shouldn't be done now because Hollywood has gone insanely liberal to the point that it wouldn't even resemble the original cast!

They've been talking about a theater Gilligan's Island movie since the 90s or even earlier! Remember Jim Carrey was supposed to be Gilligan & John Goodman the Skipper?

I agree it shouldn't be done now because Hollywood has gone insanely liberal to the point that it wouldn't even resemble the original cast!


Hmm.....

Gilligan the complete idiot - White male. That's OK.

The Skipper - Hawaiian, because the boat came from Hawaii and having a white guy would be racist.

Thurston Howell III - evil greedy rich white guy who is the butt of every joke Gilligan isn't - perfect!

Mrs. Howell - Strong independent woman that is really the brains of the marriage and secretly gives Thurston's money away to left wing causes.

Ginger - The movie star. Hispanic. Coochie coochies all over the place

Mary Ann - Middle America's sweet innocent tattooed lesbian

The Professor - The smartest one by far. Black woman of course. Why would you aks?

Not just that but I bet they'd make Mrs.Howell Hawaiian or black just to push their agenda as FAR as the possibly can!

That cast is unacceptable. There has to be a transgender on board. Maybe Mary Ann could be Martin.

Also, the name Gilligan's Island...I dunno. It probably needs to be named after a more acceptable character. Maybe Skipper's Isle.

One other thing...Mrs. Howell couldn't be called Lovey. No, let's call her Brains.

To make it acceptable by today's lack of standards, everybody would have to be hopping in the hammock with everyone else. Enough to make sure it has a TV14 rating.

Adam Sandler and Chris Farley were rumored to play Gilligan and the Skipper when the movie was being talked about in 1994-1995. I'm not a Sandler fan so that wouldn't have been good for me.

I think a movie would probably need real star power in the Gilligan role. Maybe not so much in the other roles. I'm not sure who would play him. You need someone who projects innocence. Rick Moranis could've done it in the '80s. I know Josh Gad was rumored more recently to be part of this movie. But I'm not sure about him as Gilligan. I think you need a skinny Gilligan and a fat Skipper to keep the style of that classic comedy duo. If Gilligan is an unknown, then the rest of the cast should be a strong ensemble of recognizable actors.

They could naturally make the island and the situations more intense with a bigger budget and better directing. There's a lot of opportunity to make things look good on the screen. They should take a more adult approach to some of the comedy to make it feel like it's adding more depth to the series. They definitely should deal with some of the unexplored, but often wondered about questions about the original series like the sexual tension among the castaways. But they definitely have to keep the physical comedy and pratfalls.

I know Sherwood said his next Gilligan reunion movie would've been a murder mystery. Maybe this movie could have someone attempting to murder the castaways and them trying to figure out who or what it is. It would probably need several subplots also including trying to fix the boat, searching for supplies on the island and encountering threats, dealing with a storm, etc. while the castaways are trying to learn to get along.

Schwartz's son mentioned a few years ago that midget Kevin Hart was going to play Gilligan. He was NOT joking.

Hopefully that's no longer being considered because there would a REVOLT among many GI fans if that happened!! Why not get Anthony Anderson to play the Skipper then??

Why not make the ENTIRE cast black to satisfy nutcase, race OBSESSED liberals??

Sherwood said in 2008 he wanted Michael Cera as Gilligan and Beyonce as Ginger. In 2019, Lloyd mentioned "Steve Martin as Mr. Howell, Beyonce as Ginger, Jeff Bridges as Skipper and Kevin Hart as Gilligan."

I think Skipper and Gilligan have such an iconic, memorable look that they need to cast actors who resemble them and they'd have to wear the same clothes. They could probably get away with casting some actors who look different from the other characters if they wanted to without capsizing the movie. If they're putting stars in the other roles, then I'd say go with a more unknown actor for Gilligan who looks like Denver. If they had a star like Jim Carrey for Gilligan, then they could use lesser known actors for the other parts.

Sherwood said in 2008 he wanted Michael Cera as Gilligan and Beyonce as Ginger. In 2019, Lloyd mentioned "Steve Martin as Mr. Howell, Beyonce as Ginger, Jeff Bridges as Skipper and Kevin Hart as Gilligan."

I think Skipper and Gilligan have such an iconic, memorable look that they need to cast actors who resemble them and they'd have to wear the same clothes. They could probably get away with casting some actors who look different from the other characters if they wanted to without capsizing the movie. If they're putting stars in the other roles, then I'd say go with a more unknown actor for Gilligan who looks like Denver. If they had a star like Jim Carrey for Gilligan, then they could use lesser known actors for the other parts.

I remember reading in the late 90s how Jim Carrey is well suited to play Gilligan & I'm pretty sure he agreed to do it but that was over 2 DECADES ago & now he's WAY too old looking. I mean he played an almost 80 year old Joe Biden on SNL!

Remember they've been talking about doing a big screen Gilligan movie since the 80s but it's never happened! IF they ever do this they MUST get people who look like the Gilligan & Skipper or many fans will revolt. Beyonce as Ginger is fine although even she's getting up in age for that.

Remember John Goodman was supposed to play the Skipper? Now he's too old for that too.

Just trying to look up skinny comedy actors who might be able to play a part like Gilligan, most of the ones I'm finding are in their 40s, like Charlie Day.

Thinking of Dobie Gillis, which reminded me of Archie, I looked up who plays Jughead on Riverdale. His name is Cole Sprouse. Although he "suffers from" looking like a soap opera star, he looks like he might be able to pull off playing a geekier character. One Gilligan's fan site even came up that had him cast for a remake. He's 28, same age as Bob Denver when he started. He's 3 inches taller than Gilligan so you'd need a Skipper who was at least as tall as Alan Hale's 6'2".

https://moviefanfictaion.fandom.com/wiki/All-New_Gilligan%27s_Island

At any rate, if not this guy, you'd probably want to pore over all the shows with teens and twentysomethings and see who you could find.

This is a good recent podcast interview with Lloyd Schwartz where he gets into a lot of detail on his plans for the Gilligan's movie and why they've had trouble getting it made.

https://podbay.fm/p/classic-tv-and-film-celebrating-the-golden-age-of-television-and-movies-then-and-now/e/1608069600

This is a good recent podcast interview with Lloyd Schwartz where he gets into a lot of detail on his plans for the Gilligan's movie and why they've had trouble getting it made.

https://podbay.fm/p/classic-tv-and-film-celebrating-the-golden-age-of-television-and-movies-then-and-now/e/1608069600

Wow! They've been trying since 1988 & have had TEN different scripts! There's been too many differences with the studios. Plus it didn't help other TV shows to movies failed like CHIPs & Baywatch.

He mentioned both Michael Cera & Kevin Hart. Michael Cera would make a good Gilligan but no way Kevin Hart who looks NOTHING like Gilligan. Not even the same height.

I seriously doubt it ever gets done as too much time has elapsed. Plus considering how politically correct Hollywood has gotten it's probably better it doesn't get done unless they honor the original show.

I'll talk about a few of the TV-to-movie adaptations where both were in live-action here, going back through the '90s. One common theme is bad reviews combined with bad box office.

I've never seen the TV series or movie CHIPs, but I don't remember that series having any serious popularity in syndication and it seems all but forgotten now. Same situation with The Man from U.N.C.L.E. from a few years earlier.

With Baywatch it seems to me the number one problem with the movie is that Zac Efron and The Rock are front and center on the poster. Where were the babes? They should have had at least one female lead front and center there. That one may have broken even with foreign grosses counted in. The A-Team made about the same money 10 years ago and all the stars ended up saying it made some money but not enough to do a sequel. Dark Shadows made a little more but on a much higher budget and may not have been profitable.

Land of the Lost is one from about 10 years ago that might be a closer analogy to Gilligan's. Even with a big comedy star as the lead, it was a flop. The TV show was definitely popular with young kids but obviously not watched by as many adults as Gilligan's. And the kids who watched it probably "outgrew" it rather than still liking it as an adult. Get Smart is in a pretty close category to Gilligan's and was one of the most successful TV sitcom film adaptations of them all. Star power and possibly a true fan-base for the original series saved it from average reviews. The general meh reaction to the movie seems to have prevented a sequel from happening though.

Honeymooners from 2005 was a very low-grossing flop, which should be a warning about reimagining a show with the demographics of the main characters changed. Dukes of Hazzard from the same year was in the "break even" category. People seemed excited for it and gave it a big opening weekend but were disappointed with the quality. Will Ferrell also did Bewitched at that time with Nicole Kidman which failed on a budget that was probably too high. Miami Vice grossed a decent amount but its budget was likewise way too high. Starsky & Hutch was also around that time and looks like it was a modest success. Ben Stiller's star power seemed to help it and it also got good reviews. 21 Jump Street 1 and 2 were huge hits for similar reasons. Sex and the City 1 and 2 were also massive hits, but it's an advantage when the movie still stars the original cast. X-Files 1 was a hit with the same advantage of the original cast but the 2nd one 10 years later lost a lot of steam.

It's difficult to even remember that they made some of the following movies, but these are more failures: I Spy, Wild Wild West (budget too high to be profitable), My Favorite Martian, The Mod Squad, Lost in Space, Leave it to Beaver, The Avengers (Steed and Peel), Sgt. Bilko, Car 54, Where Are You? and McHale's Navy. This is starting to show how few pre-1970s TV shows with any residual popularity at all are left to adapt besides Gilligan's Island. The Munsters might be another one, but it seemed to have traded away a film possibility for a long stream of TV reboots.

SNL adaptations are almost in their own category, partly because their characters are always played by the original actors. But other than Blues Brothers and the first Wayne's World, which were huge hits, the other ten or so have been disasters. They've only tried one in the last 20 years, which also probably shows how badly SNL has done at creating any breakout characters since the '90s.

Looking more into the '90s, The Fugitive and Maverick were successes, showing again how much good reviews and the right stars help. It also seems to help when people can remember liking an old series, but it hasn't been heavily airing in reruns, so people have built up some pent-up demand to revisit it. The first two Charlie's Angels movies were also huge hits but the recent reboot/restart was a major flop, probably due to featuring much less famous and less sexy stars than the '90s films.

Addams Family was one of the hugest hits, but the sequel saw a big decline. Dennis the Menace was a success, helped by a low budget. Beverly Hillbillies cost about the same but was break even at best. Brady Bunch made about the same money as Hillbillies. I don't know what Brady's budget was, but it must have been low enough to be profitable since they cranked out the sequel a year later. It "feels" like Brady had more of a life on home video than a lot of these other ones did too. Naked Gun (Police Squad) managed to be a hit for 3 movies in a row, a very rare track record for any comedy franchise, but that barely qualifies as a TV adaptation since most of the audience probably never saw the TV show.

More recently, Equalizer 1 and 2 were hits but, again, most people seeing them probably weren't familiar with the TV show. Another recent and very big hit was Downton Abbey in 2019. Entourage was less successful a few years earlier. Apparently a Sopranos prequel movie is upcoming this year. Fantasy Island last year was a flop, but also a weird concept of reimagining the franchise as a horror movie. I'm sure no one would want to see Gilligan's Island turned into a horror movie either.

Of course Star Trek is arguably the most successful TV-to-movie adaptation, especially judging by just how many films have been made. Its major advantage was using the original TV cast but the reboot with a new cast did well too. It's also the rare franchise that goes back and forth between TV and film continuously. Mission: Impossible is the other gold standard among TV-to-movie adaptations, again showing what good reviews with the right star power can do. M:I also shows off the full advantage of what an increased budget can do to distinguish a movie from the TV series. The Muppets also had a lot of success in movies, if you consider puppets live-action.

One interesting thing is just how few 1980s TV shows have been turned into movies. The '60s seem to have had by far the most with a steady decline after that. I don't know if that has to do with more TV adaptations in general being made in the '90s, when '80s shows were still too recent to reboot, or the types of shows in the '60s being seen as more fertile for the big screen. However it certainly seems there are still some good candidates from later decades to be adapted like Three's Company and MacGyver. Maybe the problem is '80s shows don't have many "high concepts." There were so many family sitcoms only differentiated by who was starring in them. Perfect Strangers might be another one that could work as a movie based on the concept. There might be potential for Alf if the character is thrown into a much crazier situation than living with an '80s sitcom family.

Overall, the last 10 years seem to have seen a lot less "retro" TV adaptations. The '90s seems to have been the boom decade, although the 2000s were fairly active as well. Good reviews for these movies seem to be hard to come by but whenever they get good reviews, the movies usually do well. Star power seems to be an important factor in making the movies hits. If someone headlines the movie who has a reputation for good action or good comedy going in, it helps a lot. However, some of the movies have done well with just good casting, when the new actors really are a good visual match to the original cast (Addams, Brady). The relative power of the brand name also makes a difference, but it can be a little tricky judging which brand name still has popularity in the present day. Just being a hit show in the original run doesn't necessarily translate to popularity now. And sometimes the brand doesn't matter at all if the movie has its own intrinsic appeal.

Ultimately the track record shows why Gilligan's Island: The Motion Picture looks more like a gamble than a slam dunk. On the other hand, it's a little amazing that it never got made given how much stronger its brand name is compared to some of the ones that did get made. It's possible that being on the air so much worked against it. There's no reason to go to the movies to see something you already see at home every day. Because it didn't seem as dated as other shows, there wasn't a huge demand to see it updated for the present day.

We may be getting to the point where there is more of an appetite to see it updated, but we're also fighting fading knowledge of the show itself among young people. It seems like Lloyd Schwartz's approach is more or less right: get a lot of big stars in the movie and give it a big budget to distinguish it visually from the series. But the big budget should make the studios nervous since that's the thing that prevented a lot of these previous middling adaptations from being profitable. And of course with the movie industry struggling due to COVID, it makes a big-budget film that isn't a guaranteed hit even less likely.