9 Reasons The 'Dirty Dancing' TV Remake Is A Terrible Idea

We hope this remake stays in the deepest, darkest of corners.

On Wednesday, it was announced that "Dirty Dancing" is getting the remake treatment (again). 

ABC greenlit a three-hour musical version of the 1987 film, and all we can say is: WHY? Have we all learned nothing from "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights"?

The original film is a camp classic complete with steamy love scenes and political undertones. In our opinion, it shouldn't be subjected to this cruel remake treatment. Here's why: 

1. No one could ever replace Patrick Swayze

The key to making a "Dirty Dancing" remake is finding the right actor to take on the iconic role of Johnny Castle: sexy dance instructor/enemy of corners everywhere. What made Patrick Swayze such a unique commodity in Hollywood was his ability to make falling in love with the "bad boy" character the right choice. Those puppy-dog eyes didn't hurt either. Who are they going to cast in this one? Justin Bieber?

2. We're not convinced Abigail Breslin is Baby material

Sure, Abigail Breslin has done a great job transforming into Chanel no. 5 on Fox's "Scream Queens," and she charmed us all as Olive in "Little Miss Sunshine," but we just can't see her in the role of Baby. Jennifer Grey brought a complex mix of innocence and maturity to the character that we're just not sure Breslin can match. If you ask us, trying to replace Grey is a losing battle. 

3. There's no way they can top the line: "I carried a watermelon." 

Diehard "Dirty Dancing" fans will know that this scene is one of the most ~iconic~ in the entire film. It's the beginning of a beautiful, forbidden relationship, and no one will ever be able to make it better. 

4. They're turning it into a musical. 

Yes, "Dirty Dancing" had music in it, but it was not a musical -- that only happened later. And when are TV networks and Hollywood bigwigs going to realize that not every show needs to get the musical treatment? If you're going to remake a classic, do it right or don't do it at all.  


5. And it's three f**king hours

Part of the reason "Dirty Dancing" became a classic was because it was a simple, sweet and relatively short story. Clocking in at 100 mins, the movie wasted no time on extraneous sub plots or ham-fisted political overtones. This remake, on the other hand, will have a three-hour-long running time. Three hours of what? Unnecessary drama and protracted dance sequences? If Hollywood is going to ruin our childhood, it might as well get it over with quickly.


6. Kelly Bishop

Bishop played the mother to Jennifer Grey's character, Baby, as well as the "Gilmore Girls" matriarch, with delicious bitchiness. If she's roped into this mess, expect the producers to get a talking-to that goes a little something like this ...

7. They already tried remaking the movie for TV, and it didn't go so well

That's right -- in 1988, a short-lived (read: one season) TV series based on "Dirty Dancing" aired, starring Patrick Cassidy and Melora Hardin. We'd say that the fact that no one remembers it is a pretty good indication of how terrible it was. 

8. They also tried making a sequel that -- surprise! -- was a flop

Remember "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights"? Yeah, we'd rather forget about it too. The film currently has a 22% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and according to Box Office Mojo, its total domestic gross didn't even surpass its production budget. Need we say more? The film did, however, give us a Johnny Castle cameo, so we guess we can give it that. 

9. Chris Judd proceeded to further bastardize the original with his 2006 reality show 

Remember Chris Judd? J.Lo's ex-husband? Still no? Well, he hosted a reality show version on WE for one disastrous season. Take a look below -- the promo is cringeworthy. 

Please, ABC, keep this remake deep in the corner. 


Also on HuffPost:

Celebrity News & Photos