much like the tv special within 'scrooged' - only worse

doesn't anyone remember this, more or less, from the hilarious "scrooged"?

in that movie, bill murray's soulless tv executive is putting on a hideous bastardization of the christmas carol story -- which stars buddy hackett, mary lou retton as tiny tim, and the rockettes as villagers. and of course it's meant to show bill murray's fall, his utter corruption.

and now *this* monstrosity is on the air -- no irony intended? it's just too perfect -- it defies belief. [and yet, i'm embarrassed to say, i watched most of it, but in my defense it was such a train wreck that i couldn't look away.]

a couple of questions though:
was it really necessary to distort dickens' simple and touching story of redemption into this hackneyed, overblown, poorly acted/ lit/ directed/ choreographed piece of tripe -- and then add those awful songs to boot?

and dear god, why was it necessary to change the ghosts?

maybe the suits said something like this:

"that dickens: what a hack. i read his original script, and it's, well, *stodgy* and unhip would be the words i'd use. so let's make it more fun. we'll add songs, and dancing. and let's make those stodgy old ghosts a lot more politically correct, you know, *diverse* -- i know -- we'll make two of them female, and the third will be male -- but black. and, best of all, the ghost of the future will be completely visible, and not hooded or scary at all. it'll be awesome!"

sorry about the snark -- i am not usually so unforgiving or unkind but this was just terrible.

and what about the cast? is everyone merely working for a paycheck these days? i mean, it's not that kelsey grammer is so high-brow, nor is the blonde from 30 rock, but geraldine chaplin? it's just so sad.

it's very likely that the version within "scrooged" would have been far more entertaining.