I think when you make a remake you face a dilemma. If you make changes in the story people will critize them and say that you made changes just to make changes, and also there will be lovers of the orginal that will say how dare you change this or that and so on. However if you make everything exactly the same as the original, then what was the point of making the the remake? All you did was make the same film again. Not meantion how people can't but help compare the performance of a certain actor in a certain role in the original to another actor playing the same role in the remake.

I think the worst remake I ever saw was the tv version of High Noon. For some reason either couldn't or wouldn't use the music from the movie and this is one of those stories that really needs its music. In this case it helps to build the suspense. Without the music it just isn't right.

Some remakes do succeed, the remake of BenHur won 11 oscars for example. The classis Maltese Falcon staring Humphrey Bogart is really the third version of that film. And from what I know, the first two versions pale in comparison.