Reunion movies have always been a challenge. Capturing the essence and the magic of a series they are trying to continue is always hit or miss, with little to no middle ground.
I was excited when I heard this TV movie was in the works as I really enjoyed "I Dream of Jeannie" (and still do, albeit through reruns). When I heard Larry Hagman wasn't returning, I wasn't that phased (I was just thirteen at the time), I thought "Dallas" "ruined" Hagman.
(I later come to respect Hagman on his declining to reprise Tony Nelson. While his "Dallas" schedule was said to negate his availability for this sequel, he allegedly indicated when offered to reprise, "What's old, should stay old." He wanted to be known for a diverse career and that was okay. With the way this movie turned out...maybe the original should have been left alone.)
But when I saw the final product, I felt there was something missing in this sequel. No, it was not Hagman, but the magic that made the series a hit and drawn viewers.
Even if Hagman returned, we still have this disappointing fare; the actors/actresses are only a fraction of what makes a great TV show or movie. I don't fault Wayne Rogers for taking on the role, but it was hard to convince fans that he was Tony Nelson plus the poor writing of the movie didn't help.
Then you have the ending; I'm not sharing what has already been posted, I don't know what the writers were thinking, but it was really a blow to Jeannie fans and as was said, it didn't align well with the (just as lame) follow up movie.
Reunion movies to hit TV shows are/were a great idea. Unfortunately writers have/had their work cut out for them to make a very watchable fare. And most found less-than-satisfied audiences.
Regardless of which actors reprised their roles or otherwise, the writers should have put more thought in this reunion movie.
I was excited when I heard this TV movie was in the works as I really enjoyed "I Dream of Jeannie" (and still do, albeit through reruns). When I heard Larry Hagman wasn't returning, I wasn't that phased (I was just thirteen at the time), I thought "Dallas" "ruined" Hagman.
(I later come to respect Hagman on his declining to reprise Tony Nelson. While his "Dallas" schedule was said to negate his availability for this sequel, he allegedly indicated when offered to reprise, "What's old, should stay old." He wanted to be known for a diverse career and that was okay. With the way this movie turned out...maybe the original should have been left alone.)
But when I saw the final product, I felt there was something missing in this sequel. No, it was not Hagman, but the magic that made the series a hit and drawn viewers.
Even if Hagman returned, we still have this disappointing fare; the actors/actresses are only a fraction of what makes a great TV show or movie. I don't fault Wayne Rogers for taking on the role, but it was hard to convince fans that he was Tony Nelson plus the poor writing of the movie didn't help.
Then you have the ending; I'm not sharing what has already been posted, I don't know what the writers were thinking, but it was really a blow to Jeannie fans and as was said, it didn't align well with the (just as lame) follow up movie.
Reunion movies to hit TV shows are/were a great idea. Unfortunately writers have/had their work cut out for them to make a very watchable fare. And most found less-than-satisfied audiences.
Regardless of which actors reprised their roles or otherwise, the writers should have put more thought in this reunion movie.