I didn't care much for that comment

I'd say this is the most self-important comment in the entire thread.

A bad remake does not ruin the original. I do not understand that mindset at all. At least with film adaptations of books I can understand fans being anxious because if the movie is bad there will likely never be a good version of the story on film... it's generally a one-shot deal. But with remakes, you already have a good movie, so the failure of a remake doesn't affect anything. Unless you're an investor, you really lose nothing, and remakes tend to result in better DVDs and increased exposure for the original. God knows I'm glad the Aeon Flux movie was made, because until that damn thing was announced it looked like we'd NEVER get a decent box set of the original series.

And Linn1, I'm aware that most of them are crap. Most original movies are crap. Most people are not genious, most people are not visionary, and hell, I'd argue a good chunk of filmmakers aren't even competent. Remake or original, this holds true. But without remakes we wouldn't have the redone Ben-Hur, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, The Maltese Falcon, or countless others. There are plenty of films with untapped potential, or possible alternate viewpoints or themes to explore, and the best remakes take advantage of this. They act as a supplement to the original, not designed to replace what had been laid down but to investigate it further.

Yes, sometimes it's just Hollywood stripmining the past for profitable ideas, but that doesn't mean remakes should be written off entirely. It all comes down to intent and execution, just like anything else.

I've always wondered how this decade will be seen years from now especially now that we're near the end of it. If people thought the 80s was bad for its sequels, wait till they get a load of one of remakes.