My worst dream has come true. Disney is remaking the awesome (PG-13) movie Adventures in Babysitting. What my favorite director (Chris Columbus) directed to be wonderfully PG-13 and hilarious, will be written by the same people who wrote Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. I have to say, most of the humor in the original movie (which I am not quoting ;)) was PG-13, and so was the basic plot! The plot of this movie revolved around something PG-13!


And guess who is taking over Elizabeth Shue's role as Chris? Raven Symone. Honestly, this movie looks very flawed.

And who can possibly replace Anthony Rapp as Darryl? Rupert Grint? He hasn't been cast, but he looks almost like Anthony Rapp did, meaning he's probably a shoe-in. No way, man. No way. Darryl is Anthony Rapp, not Rupert Grint, just like Brenda is Penelope Ann Miller (By the way, Brenda's gonna be played by Miley Cyrus. Brenda is very panicky, can anyone who's seen the original movie imagine Miley Cyrus as Brenda? I can't.)

You don't remake a PG-13 movie from the 80s with Mr. Jimmy Neutron as the writers. You don't have Raven Symone take over a role originally played by Elizabeth Shue. BLASPHEMY, I TELL YA!

And to top it all off, Raven is not only starring in it, but she's producing it.


Is anyone else as outraged as I am? :mad:

They are about to ruin one of my favorite movies, the movie my mom saw millions of times and still sings along to Babysitting Blues (Do you think Raven's gonna keep Babysitting Blues in the movie?).

Please don't tell me I'm overreacting, if you saw the movie (the original movie) you would understand.

I think it's OK as long as the old movie is still staying.

its just a movie calm down :)

I know it's just a movie, but the old one was so wonderfully fantastic, they could at least do it justice and keep the rating! Or the plot!

I guess they've finally run out of '80s horror movies to remake (I mean, seriously: The Fog?) and so now they're switching to family films.

But are they going to keep the babysitter's famous (non-family-friendly) catchphrase? You fans know the one I mean.

I just saw that movie 2 weeks ago it was cool why ruin it.I think it will be a bomb if they make a remake just in my opinion.

I guess they've finally run out of '80s horror movies to remake (I mean, seriously: The Fog?) and so now they're switching to family films.


Isn't that the truth.. Did people finally run out of original ideas that they have to re-make so many movies? - half of which shouldn't be touched. (Halloween, Mr. Zombie..) Then again, sometimes the remakes aren't too bad, even though it seems totally wrong (Willy Wonka)..

I say it again,but you don't have to watch the remake!It's not like they'll take the old version away and force you to watch the new one;)!

Your wrong it's not a remake.

Further Adventures in Babysitting (2008)

it is a sequal.

Your wrong it's not a remake.

Further Adventures in Babysitting (2008)

it is a sequal.
That's even worse.

I have never seen the movie, but by your posts, I would connotate that it was a good movie.

You are right though, some movies just shouldn't be re-made while others should.

~Tomorrow~

About the non-friendly-babysittier catchphrase? If it's not family-friendly I doubt it's staying in. But if they get rid of the Babysitting Blues, I will absolutely stay away from it, it would be totally outrageous, The Babysitting Blues is one of the best parts?

And for those of you that have seen the original, I doubt the thing with Darryl stealing... something is gonna be taken away.

And if it's a sequel, why would they make one? Movies like Adventures in Babysitting should be left alone, to be seen and not remade, made a sequel to, yada yada yada, especially after 20 years.

Bumpy! I ask all of the people who haven't seen the original (And are allowed, some of the stuff is pretty mature, like the reason the illegal car-salespeople are chasing the kids) to watch it as soon as you can, and not be fooled by the bubble-gum remake this will probably become.

About the non-friendly-babysittier catchphrase? If it's not family-friendly I doubt it's staying in. But if they get rid of the Babysitting Blues, I will absolutely stay away from it, it would be totally outrageous, The Babysitting Blues is one of the best parts?

And for those of you that have seen the original, I doubt the thing with Darryl stealing... something is gonna be taken away.

And if it's a sequel, why would they make one? Movies like Adventures in Babysitting should be left alone, to be seen and not remade, made a sequel to, yada yada yada, especially after 20 years.
Sequeling is not remaking so shut up about that part.
So, who cares? It's a movie. Calm down or I'll flip my lid. They are making a perfectly good movie called Hairspray go down the drains, too, but I'm not being a bone head about it, am I?

Okay, what is it that I'm doing that's making me a bonehead? I'm voicing my opinion on something that is absurd. You're not "being a bonehead" about Hairspray because you choose not to say what you think, so don't tell off others who do. It's not my personal enjoyment that I'm worried about. It's the fact that people who DON"T like Raven will hear about this movie when it comes out, and automatically think the original is the same stupid-ness. The kids who DO like Raven will see it, and automatically think some stupid remake is better than the original one. You want proof of this? I have a friend, who saw Son of the Mask. She calls it The Mask, and when I tell her to watch the 1995 one, the one that doesn't use fart jokes to be funny, she tells me someting like "Well, ya can't beat the 2005 one, trust me." And sequeling might as well be remaiking, because they both ruin what the original had, and they will both either make the audience seeing the new one think the original is horrible as well, or that nothing can beat the "awesomeness" of it.

Bring
Up
My
Post

See above ^.^ Still enraged here!

Dsiney hasnt had a original Idea in years , Why start now.

^.^ Well they could at least leave the good movies alone, instead of ruining them with horrible actors and writers!

bumpity bumpity bumpity!

*cough* *cough* Another way for Disney to make money, premote their stars, make more money, pay their stars more, make more money, something to put out there and make more money oh yeah and uh...Another way for Disney to make money! *cough cough*

Exactly. Personally, I have a LOT of trouble imagining Raven taking on the role of Chris Parker. She has a bit of talent, but not enough to strech beyonf the realms of Disney Channel.

*cough* *cough* Another way for Disney to make money, premote their stars, make more money, pay their stars more, make more money, something to put out there and make more money oh yeah and uh...Another way for Disney to make money! *cough cough*

I see a lot of making money in there.. Hmm.. Why is that? Oh yeah, Disney is a company. That is what companys do. Make money and grow. (Good companys anyway.. :rolleyes:) I do not blame any company for wanting to grow.

I don't blame them for wanting to make money, I blame them for ruining a great movie.

Bumptastic!

Raven Symone was tolerable on the Cosby Show when Rudy got too big and hairy to be considered "cute", but it's all been downhill since then. I honestly can't think of a more annoying actor than Raven these days. She has an absolutely terrible style of blatantly begging for laughs with her desperate and over-the-top delivery and the fact that people enjoy watching her manic and completely unfunny behavior disturbs me. Hollywood, for the most part, is lazy and unoriginal and unfortunately the Walt-less Disney company doesn't do far enough to distance themselves from the trend of remaking anything that was once slightly successful or even just a little nostalgic. It sickens me, as does this recent decision to mess with classic 80's cinema.

So rant on, sister. Rant on.

Thank you! Somebody finally feels exactly how I feel!

*cough*bump*cough*

I never saw this movie, but I really want to. From what I've heard, it's amazing.

I hate how Disney is taking their stars OUT of Disney Channel, sticking them in the "Real World", and then their lives get messed up.

Face it, people. Britney Spears in considered a "Disney Star", look at her now!
It's an issue in itself, so please don't comment on the above sentence, it may not be G-rated.

I don't think it's right to all of a sudden come with the so-called "amazing" idea to make a sequel, either.

Disney stars are already in the real world. Disney cant or should they shelter their young stars that is not their job.As with What happend with the stars that appeared in the Disney productions, They are responsible for their own actions and choices they make.

Well, I think Disney Channel is trying to tell kids that it's important to be popular and liked. I find it stereotypical sometimes. Like the environmentalist on Hannah Montana. They all hate her, but never give a valid reason other than something along the lines of "Ew, she likes nature!" And remember Lizzie McGuire? One of my "friends" (*cough*backstabber*cough*) said she wanted to be like Kate because "She controls the school." Why was there no one ever willing to stand up to her and tell her what a witch she was? Because it simply wasn't allowed.

If it is supposed to be Disney and have people from Jimmy Nuetron, Raven Symone, and Miley Cyrus working for a remake of a PG-13 movie? No offense, but thats just kind of weird Imo.

Yeah, it is. That's why I'm gainst it. It's not just weird, it's horrible.