If they can find the money, they will. If they don't think they can make money (as in, it's an untested original script) then they won't spend it.

I understand they have budgets but if they can pull something off, they'll find the money.

Just bought the newer versions of Conan The Barbarian, Total Recall and Dredd last night and enjoyed all of them. I still have the originals, which I also love (well, not so much Judge Dredd), so remakes don't bother me. Studios still put out plenty of original films that are garbage so I don't see what the big deal is.

IMO Noomi Rapace did a better job in the original, it was as if she became Lisbeth Salander. Also the lower budget of the original gives it a more gritty feel. The remake looks too polished (like all Fincher films) and cost $100 million while the original cost $13 million.

yeah I never could figure out where the money went on the remake.

With some films you are told it had a budget of 100 mil and you think, "yeah, I could see they utilized the finances quite well. It looks like it cost that much." Other films are more like, "I think the producers put half the money up their nose or paid off some bookies because that money certainly isn't translating to the screen."

The Fog remake was meh to me.

Remakes can be good, only if done correctly.

Guys, this Archie guy is scaring me. My asshole is hyperventilating out of fear that he's just an advanced spam.

I just don't trust his judgement. A "meh" Is usually around a 3 to 5 out of 10. The Fog remake was a 1/10 or, at most, a 2 out of 10 movie.

This is.... sig-worthy. If only I didn't have my sig filled with the single stupidest post on DVDTalk in the last 5 years... if only.

Ganesh lives in your signature!!