Let’s be real. Remaking a masterpiece is a gamble that rarely pays off. When ABC announced they were tackling a Dirty Dancing 2017 movie adaptation, the internet didn't exactly throw a party. Fans of the 1987 original—a film that defined a generation and made Patrick Swayze a god—were skeptical. Rightfully so.
Remakes are tricky.
💡 You might also like: For the Love of Ruth Movie: Why This Modern Retelling Still Hits Hard
Usually, they either try too hard to be a carbon copy or they stray so far from the source material that they lose the "soul" of the story. The 2017 version, directed by Wayne Blair, landed in a weird middle ground. It wasn't a shot-for-shot remake, but it also couldn't quite escape the shadow of Kellerman's Resort.
It was a three-hour musical event. Think about that for a second. The original was a tight, sweaty, 100-minute coming-of-age drama. Stretching that into a three-hour television slot with commercial breaks changed the entire pacing. It felt less like a summer fling and more like a marathon.
The Casting Gamble: Abigail Breslin and Colt Prattes
The biggest hurdle for the Dirty Dancing 2017 movie was always going to be the chemistry. You can’t just manufacture the "Baby and Johnny" magic. Abigail Breslin, an Oscar nominee for Little Miss Sunshine, took on the role of Frances "Baby" Houseman. Breslin is a fantastic actress, honestly. But critics and fans were harsh. They felt she lacked the dancer’s grace that Jennifer Grey brought to the role.
Then there was Colt Prattes.
Stepping into Patrick Swayze’s shoes is an impossible task. Prattes, a professional dancer known for his work in Pink’s "Try" music video, definitely had the physical chops. He could dance circles around most people. But the brooding, wounded-yet-tough energy of Johnny Castle? That’s a harder thing to capture in a made-for-TV script.
The dynamic was different. In the 1987 film, the tension was palpable. It was about class, sex, and the 1960s cultural shift. In the 2017 version, it felt a bit more polished, a bit more "Disney-fied," despite the heavier themes of the era.
What the Dirty Dancing 2017 movie Actually Changed
One of the most controversial decisions was making the movie an actual musical.
In the original, the music was the backdrop. It was the atmosphere. In the remake, the characters actually sing the songs. Hearing the cast sing "Hungry Eyes" or " (I've Had) The Time of My Life" changed the vibe from a gritty drama to a Broadway-style production. Some people loved the update. Most purists found it jarring.
The 2017 version also tried to flesh out the side characters. We got more of a backstory on Marjorie Houseman (played by Debra Messing) and her crumbling marriage to Dr. Jake Houseman (Bruce Greenwood). It gave the Houseman family more depth, showing that Baby wasn't the only one going through a transformation that summer.
They also updated the ending.
The Ending Nobody Saw Coming
If you haven't seen it, the Dirty Dancing 2017 movie includes a "where are they now" framing device. We see Baby in the 1970s. She’s at a Broadway show. She’s married (not to Johnny) and has a daughter. She runs into Johnny, who is now a successful choreographer.
It was a bold move.
The original movie ends on the high of the lift—a moment of pure, unadulterated triumph. By adding the 1975 epilogue, the remake basically told the audience, "Hey, that summer romance was great, but they didn't end up together." For many, this felt like a betrayal of the romantic fantasy. For others, it was a realistic take on a teen summer fling.
Why the Critics Weren't Kind
Reviews were, to put it lightly, brutal. Rotten Tomatoes currently has the film sitting at a dismal critic score. People pointed to the lack of "heat." The dancing, while technically proficient, lacked the raw, "dirty" edge that gave the original its name.
There’s a specific scene in the 1987 version where Johnny and Baby are practicing in the water. It’s iconic. In the remake, it looked a bit too clean, a bit too choreographed. It missed the frustration and the genuine effort.
But it wasn't all bad.
Nicole Scherzinger was a standout as Penny. Her performance was widely praised as one of the highlights of the film. She brought a certain gravity to the role that honored Cynthia Rhodes' original portrayal while making it her own.
💡 You might also like: Why the cast of Highschool of the Dead Still Rules the Zombie Genre
The Impact on the Legacy
Does the Dirty Dancing 2017 movie ruin the original? No. Of course not. A remake can't take away the 1987 masterpiece. What it did do, however, was introduce the story to a younger demographic who might not have seen the original.
It sparked conversations about the themes of the movie that are still relevant today:
- Bodily Autonomy: Penny’s subplot regarding her illegal abortion remains a heavy, vital part of the story.
- Class Warfare: The divide between the "bunheads" (the staff) and the wealthy guests at Kellerman’s.
- The Transition of the 60s: The shift from the safe 50s to the turbulent late 60s.
Even with its flaws, the remake stayed true to the fact that Dirty Dancing isn't just about dancing. It’s about a young woman finding her voice and realizing her father isn't the perfect hero she thought he was.
Making Sense of the Remake Phenomenon
Why do we keep remaking things? Money, obviously. But also nostalgia. ABC knew that millions of people would tune in just to see how they "messed it up" or if they could capture lightning in a bottle twice.
They didn't capture the lightning.
But they did create a version that felt more inclusive and gave more screen time to the women in the story. Debra Messing's character wasn't just a background prop this time; she was a woman facing her own identity crisis. That’s a win, even if the "Time of My Life" lift felt a bit shaky.
The reality is that Dirty Dancing 2017 movie serves as a case study in why some films are untouchable. You can recreate the steps, you can hire great actors, and you can spend millions on production. But you can't recreate the specific cultural moment that made the 1987 film a phenomenon.
How to Approach Watching It Today
If you're going to watch the 2017 version, you have to go into it with the right mindset.
Don't compare it to Swayze. You'll lose. Instead, look at it as a separate musical adaptation. It’s more of a "tribute" than a replacement. If you like Glee or High School Musical, you might actually enjoy the theatricality of it.
🔗 Read more: A Warm December: Why This Sidney Poitier Gem Is The Soulful Romance You Probably Missed
If you are a hardcore fan of the original, you might find yourself shouting at the screen. That’s okay too. Part of the fun of remakes is the debate they spark.
Actionable Insights for Fans and Viewers
- Watch the original first: If you're one of the few who haven't seen the 1987 film, do yourself a favor and start there. The remake makes more sense (and its changes feel more significant) when you know the source material.
- Focus on the supporting cast: While the leads got most of the flak, Nicole Scherzinger and Debra Messing actually turned in solid performances that deserve a second look.
- Look for the 70s Epilogue: If you want a "realistic" take on what happens after the credits roll on a summer romance, pay close attention to the final ten minutes of the 2017 version.
- Check the soundtrack: Even if the singing in the movie didn't land for you, the recorded tracks have some interesting modern arrangements of the classic 60s hits.
- Support the upcoming sequel: Lionsgate has been working on a "real" sequel featuring Jennifer Grey. If the 2017 remake left a bad taste in your mouth, the upcoming theatrical sequel is the one to keep an eye on, as it promises to return to the original timeline.
The Dirty Dancing 2017 movie remains a fascinating footnote in the franchise's history. It was an ambitious, albeit flawed, attempt to modernize a story that many felt didn't need modernizing. Whether it's a "total disaster" or "just a different take" is ultimately up to the viewer, but it certainly proved one thing: nobody puts the 1987 original in a corner.