I challenge anyone to ask themselves not is a remake 'done well' or 'technically superior' or whatever but in fact 'was it NEEDED'? What was the mind-set of the people involved in the decision to remake a film or to make an old television series into a film?? Was it that they saw something inherent in an original work that might have been overlooked thus leading them to want more people to see it? Was it simply a matter of 'I could have done better-ness'? Or was it just the allure of a studio cashing in on a name in the vain hope that no matter what swill they produce and stamp a familiar name on it that they can probably win their opening weekend boxoffice before word of mouth gets around?

I could go on and on about my feelings for this practice. There have been some remakes that I've liked- but very few. Were I a paid filmmaker (not just an amatuer one) though I don't think I'd even WANT my name on a remake project. After all you'd already have huge expectations against you and rarely do you get a chance to prove yourself as a filmmaker. If a director, writer, etc want to prove they can make good product than they should prove it by making an original product. And the sheer volume of recent remakes, especially in the horror genre, create diminishing returns for the whole industry. Audiences get sick of them and eventually will go to them less and less.

Anyhow, its Christmas eve and I save more bitching and writing for later.