Nah, no need for arguments. Of course, with a more liberal definition you won't get as many "that's not a remake" or vague explanations on why some things are and others aren't. Thrown out the window is the idea that movies based upon existing stories are automatically exempt.

Example:
Beau Geste (1926)
Beau Geste (1939)
Beau Geste (1966)
Last Remake of Beau Geste, The (1977)
Those are adaptations of a novel and even the parody knows they are remakes.

So then we have to get into motivations. Was this particular film made to improve on the existing film or was it just an adaptation of the same work as a previous film? Maybe a few can be proven but the vast majority we have no way of really knowing.

I dunno. It seems like splitting hairs. Outside of Psycho, which was a gimmick and not intended to be like a normal remake, I think most remakes do tend to try to be different than the original when they can. That's not enough to say, "That's not a remake." Nor just because they were more faithful to the book. Remake can refer to just remaking the story itself rather than remaking the movie, itself. Maybe one is a more "pure" form of remake, but ultimately it's still the same thing.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Oh, well. too each his own. I've made whatever point I intended. We can agree to disagree.

(Bumping this old thread because remake-itis is still in full swing in Hollywoodland)

Peter Jackson's King Kong is the only remake of the past few years I would put in the "good" category.

I thought Dawn of the Dead and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both pretty good.

Did that ever make it out to DVD?

The "live" version of Fail Safe wasn't too bad, considering what they were doing w/ it. Something else I don't believe that has made it to DVD yet

I know a lot of people will disagree w/ me on this but I liked the TV mini of The Shining better than the original.

To go the other way (foreign movies based on US movies) Full Alert (as a remake of Heat) and Jackie Chan's Miracles (as a remake/readaptation of Pocket Full of Miracles) were both pretty good.

I personally thought the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was good. Alot of people didn't, but I thought it added alot of excitement and tension, something the horror genre needs more of this generation.

Spielberg's War of the Worlds wasn't bad.

OP, you are asking if the remakes were good, not if they were better than the original.

As such, I'd happily say that:
Ocean's 11
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
King Kong
Freaky Friday
The Ring

were all at least "good" in my mind.

Without having seen the source material, I'd even say The Pink Panther is "good" for what it is: a family comedy. I'd rather see that movie twenty more times than have to suffer through Are We There Yet? or any other insipid family film.

Lets go back to arguing about what a remake is. The ring is a remake of a foreign film, not a hollywood film as the thread is about. King Kong, War of the Worlds, and Charlie and the Chocolate factory are not remakes because they are re-interpretations of a book.

Dawn of the Dead - The remake is actually very entertaining, unlike the original.

King Kong
Ocean's 11

The remake was great I admit, but the original was superb. Tense, atmospheric, gung ho stupidity at odds with intelligent survivors, good dialogue, Tom Savini, Ken Foree and it was most definately an inspired zombie movie... Fair enough it looks a little dated, but in 20 years DOTD 2004 won't hold up half as well as the 77 version does 20 years on...

Don't get me wrong, I loved the remake. It was definately entertaining, well made and had atmosphere but it lacked the heart and brain that the Romero version had. The original was a statement about pop culture and the remake was pop culture...

Plus the remake had no Argento music!

If you can deal with Nick Nolte, I love The Good Thief (remake of Bob le Flambeur). It's not as good as the original, but I certainly think it's a "good remake," Neil Jordan is pretty stylish.

I disagree. Just because two movies are based on the same source material does not automatically make one a remake of the other - and that has nothing to do with "constraining" the question.

How about the remake of The Stepford Wives?

I'm surprised The Thomas Crown Affair hasn't been mentioned.

Heat is a remake and is considered superior to the TV film that preceded it.

For recent movies, these were two that also popped into my head.

No love for the recent remake of...

Pride and Prejudice

isnt "The Long Goodbye" a re-make of something? I love that move...Elliot Gould was never better...and the cat...how can you not love the cat...?

King Kong is based on what book, then?

the Script Of The Original King Kong of 1933

I'd say Invaders from Mars and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Anytime there is an independent source from a different medium, by definition it is not a remake. Sure there might be homages to earlier film versions (i.e. The Thing titles, actors from previous movie making appearances). But each director or writer interpets the source material in a different sense and goes from there. The original source for Batman is the comics, everything else since that point has interpreted the comics a different way. Same thing with Wonka, and War of the Worlds.

The original source for King Kong is the 33 movie, so that makes Jackson a remake.

Van Sant's remake of Psycho is a "super remake" - its more of a deliberate reconstruction than remake..

Directors who do a movie twice is remake - although I'm not sure if the Man Who Knew Too Much was a book before the movie. In that case, it could be either a reconstruction of the previous movie, or a new take on the source material. If there is no earlier source, its a remake.