Is Arrested Development: The Movie a Good Idea?

The act of turning a television show into a movie (and vice versa) is always controversial. The risk of hurting the original material is always high, because of the difficulty of pleasing the core fan group while trying to bring in newcomers. It is quite the tightrope walk.

The idea of turning Arrested Development into a movie has been floating around since the series finale hinted towards one, and now it seems as if it could become a reality. As much as I still love the show, and as curious as I am to see what could be done with a movie is it worth the risk of ruining the show in the process?

Many television shows and movies have had successful transitions to the opposite medium. One that comes to mind is M*A*S*H*. The original film was a big success and even garnered an Oscar nomination for best picture. But may would argue that its television run was even more of a success. Its series finale drew in more than 100 million people in 1983 (compared to the finales of Seinfeld and Cheers which drew in 76 million and 80 million, respectively).

Another successful transition was Sex and the City to the big screen from the small screen. While it lacked the critical success of the television show, the film went on to gross over $415 million worldwide. The success of the film is clearly a direct result of the shows extreme popularity once it was syndicated. Syndicating Sex and the City allowed it to be seen by more than just the few HBO subscribers.

There are also the transition failures like Twin Peaks. A groundbreaking television show that was well-written, had quirky characters and had a cult following. Sounds a lot like Arrested Development doesn’t it? Well, yes, it does and that’s why Arrested Development: The Movie scares me. Once Twin Peaks went off the air at the end of its second season, a film was then made to tie up all the loose ends. The problem is that the film was a complete failure, not only did it leave a terrible taste in mouths of some of the show’s fans, but it didn’t bring in any new fans or convince enough of the show’s fans to even bother seeing it. Some of the original cast didn’t even return (including the star of the show Kyle Mclaughlin) turning off the fans the even bothered to see it. Twin Peaks has had a few runs of syndication, but it has never had the success of Sex and the City’s.

Arrested Development averaged around seven million viewers on FOX, and has been syndicated on G4 and it had a few runs on FX while it was still airing on FOX. The show has been off the air for about three years now, and no offense to G4, but not very many people watch that station. I doubt it had a major impact on creating a larger fan base. So even though Arrested Development hasn’t had the post-series success like Sex and the City could it still be a theatrical success or will it turn into an embarrassing placation to the fans and leave a bad light on the best television comedy of all time?

What about the talk that Michael Cera (who is apparently too big for his own good now) requires more money than he did when the show aired, money that the budget may not be able to afford? The movie could be made without him.

Should the movie continue without Cera? Should the movie only be made if all the actors return? And what about the three-year gap? What if the writers have lost the flow of the series? What if there isn’t enough support from the fans to even financially support the film? Should it still be made for the few of us who still love the show? Is the show’s television run too similar to that of Twin Peaks? Does that even matter?

~ by Christopher Shappley on December 14, 2008.