MOVIE & TV REMAKES... GOOD OR BAD??? *** UPDATED!!! *** (TV & Movie Remakes & Re-Imaging)

Name: dlb74

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	TV & Movie Remakes & Re-Imaging
Date:	30.03.08 (88 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: SOME REMAKES ARE ACTUALLY GOOD...

Disadvantages: A SAD LACK OF ORIGINALITY THESE DAYS...

I felt compelled to put this topic forward when I read recently that the ball is now rolling on a big screen version of The A-Team - possibly due out next year. This one was touted a while ago with people putting forward their dream casting for the all new A-Team... I didn't mind the thought of it originally but now that it's a step closer to becoming a reality I feel less sure that it's a good idea... and brought the question to mind:

TV AND MOVIE REMAKES AND "RE-IMAGININGS: GOOD OR BAD?!?

I thought it would be useful to include TV remakes here too as there are so many of them now. Sometimes they are old TV shows being "re-imagined" for a new generation. Of course, the same can be said for movies now - with shed-loads of remakes coming out on an almost constant basis. The problem is that a lot of these remakes are ultimately unnecessary as the originals themselves aren't very old.

Hollywood seems to be under the impression that these remakes are justifiable as the originals may have been released at a point when the technology for special effects perhaps wasn't as advanced as it is today. The problem with this is that modern special effects are generally fantastic - although there are still effects today (CGI or otherwise) that can look awful. The other concern is that if the remake is deemed unnecessary by fans of the original - will it matter if the effects are good or not?

Falling short of the "fan-boys" who may be up in arms that their childhood has been raped (this is often what they claim), I just generally shrug my shoulders and wonder why we are bombarded by remakes as often as we are. It seems like original ideas are extremely thin on the ground these days and Hollywood studios just seem happy to regurgitate existing movies.

That said, I have seen some remakes that although arguably pointless are actually as good (if not better) than their original. Though needless to say, these are actually rarities.

I suppose it may be fine to take a film from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and possibly the 1970's (depending on the original) and remake them but when we're now getting remakes of films from the 80's and in some cases even the 90's, is the remake bandwagon now out of control?

---------------------------------------- --------------------

Some of the films to undergo the remake treatment include the following:

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR

Based on supposedly true events (and subsequently the Jay Anson book of the same name), The Amityville Horror tells the story of George and Kathy Lutz who, upon moving into a house where an entire family was murdered (112 Ocean Avenue) begin to experience a haunting of an unprecedented scale.

ORIGINAL VERSION (1979):
Starring: James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud and Murray Hamilton
Directed by: Stuart Rosenberg

REMAKE (2005):
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Melissa George
Directed by: Andrew Douglas

Remake better than the original?

Perhaps not better but takes a different spin on the original. Changing some of the scenarios and characters slightly. This is isn't a problem as there are so many questions still hanging over the real Amityville Horror (some being as simple as whether it really happened or was just an elaborate hoax) that this doesn't detract from the film.

In both films, the actual house is the main star - with its eerie eye-like windows lit from behind at night. The house was redesigned for the remake but was still great to look at (the original movie changed very little about the design of the real house).

Both versions are worth a look though it's hard to determine whether or not one version is actually better than the other. You decide.

----------------------------------------- -------------------

THE FOG

Co-written and directed by low-budget king of horror, John Carpenter, The Fog is a good old-fashioned ghost story. It tells the tale of a fishing town called Antonio Bay that is about to celebrate its centenary.

What the inhabitants of Antonio Bay don't know is that 100 years ago, a rich man by the name of Blake wished to set up a leper colony nearby - as he and his crew were sufferers of leprosy. Conspirators decided this was unacceptable and during a terrible fog, lured their clipper ship - the Elizabeth Dane onto the rocks with a fire which acted as a false beacon for the sailors.

All on the Elizabeth Dane drowned and Blake's fortune in gold was taken by the conspirators. The church of Antonio Bay was set up with this treasure and the remaining gold melted down into a large cross that was placed within the church.

On the night of the centenary celebrations, a strange, glowing fog rolls into Antonio Bay. In this fog, are the vengeful spirits of Blake and his crew - who intend to wreak their revenge on the descendants of the people who were responsible for their deaths.

ORIGINAL VERSION (1980):
Starring: Adrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh, Tom Atkins, John Houseman, Charles Cyphers, Nancy Loomis and Hal Holbrook.
Directed by: John Carpenter

REMAKE (2005):
Starring: Tom Welling, Maggie Grace, Selma Blair, Kenneth Welsh, Adrian Hough, Sara Botsford, and Cole Heppell.

Remake better than the original?

When I first heard that there was going to be a remake of The Fog I simply wondered: Why? Then, when I saw the trailer, I thought it all looked quite good - with some very scary looking dead sailors blatantly on display and the promise of some very good frights within.

It all really added up to the fact that sometimes less is more - in Carpenter's original, the undead sailors weren't really seen full on. This was undoubtedly due to budget limitations and possible problems with make up. However, nowadays with the advent of CGI, you can show those vengeful spirits in all their hellish glory. If only Hollywood would realise that just because they can do this, it doesn't mean that they actually should.

----------------------------------------- -------------------

DAWN OF THE DEAD

Now, don't ask me why but I've always loved a good zombie flick. George A. Romero is undoubtedly the master of the zombie flick. He's notably famous for his 'Dead' series. Namely: Night Of The Living Dead (1968), Dawn Of The Dead (1978), Day Of The Dead (1985), Land Of The Dead (2005) and most recently Diary Of The Dead (2008).

The story of both versions of Dawn Of The Dead are very similar. It's the continuing story of America being overrun by a plague of flesh-eating zombies - caused by a terrible plague. Meanwhile, survivors of the holocaust take refuge in an abandoned shopping mall. Initially, they revel in the absurdity of their situation but begin to realise that while life as we know it continues to collapse outside, they are essentially prisoners in their unusual surroundings. With hordes of zombies waiting outside the mall and with the realisation that their supplies will run out sooner rather than later it is clear that their fight for survival is far from over.

ORIGINAL VERSION (1978):
Starring: David Emge, Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger and Gaylen Ross
Directed by: George A. Romero

REMAKE (2004):
Starring: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Mekhi Phifer and Kim Poirier
Directed by: Zack Snyder

It can't be said that George A. Romero doesn't have balls. Given that the previous year, the world had gone ga-ga about a little space movie set in a galaxy far, far away, Romero reminded the cinema going audiences that there was still plenty of room left for splatter-fests like this!

The acting is ropey and wooden to say the least but don't we always endure that even in the lousiest of horror flicks just to see who is still alive and (almost) in one piece at the end? There's plenty to recommend as far as the gore goes - not least of all a show-stopping scene which involves helicopter rotor blades and the top of a zombies head. FOR REAL! The zombie was obviously a stunt man with a false top of the head but it gets whipped off by the rotor blades with only practical effects (no CGI back then!). I have no idea what on earth they must have paid that guy but I do know one thing... It wasn't enough!!!

Remake better than the original?

Arguably, yes - though that's just me giving my own personal opinion (which is what of course, this is all about). The acting is of a far better standard in the remake and although it does have some CGI effects, they are also backed up by lots of practical effects and plenty of gore. The great thing is that the CGI never stands out as that. There are still plenty of really genuine shocks to be had (the first time I watched this there were scenes where my mouth literally fell open in disbelief at what I was seeing).

One of the big changes for the remake over the original is that the zombies now move very fast as opposed to shuffling around with outstretched arms etc etc. This was a move that deemed unpopular with both fans of the original and George A. Romero himself. I recall having a heated discussion with a friend about this point. They protested that zombies shouldn't move fast but should be slower and deliberate in their movements. I reminded them that in reality, zombies shouldn't move at all as (as far as we know) the dead don't have a habit of becoming reanimated and fuelled by the desire to eat human flesh. Hell... you decide!

----------------------------------------- -------------------

THE ITALIAN JOB

For once not a comparison of an original and remake of a horror film! Can you believe it?!?

ORIGINAL VERSION (1969):
Starring: Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill (yes, really!), Raf Vallone, Tony Beckley, Rossanno Brazzi, John Forgenham and Maggie Blye
Directed by: Peter Collinson

This extremely popular "crime caper" was a film that I am ashamed to say I hadn't seen until just a few years ago when it was shown once again on a bank holiday.

The Italian Job is the story of Charlie Croker (Michael Caine on top form) - a mobster newly released from prison who is lured back into his old way by Mr Bridger (Noel Coward) who runs a criminal empire despite already being in jail.

The story follows Croker as he assembles an odd-ball crew to help him carry out a daring heist in Turin. The target being gold bullion that is carried in reinforced vans and protected by an armed escort. The way they plan to do this is by causing a gigantic traffic jam and striking while the city is in chaos. The getaway from the scene is planned in great detail and involves the use of modified Austin Mini Coopers. The result is scene after scene of incredible car stunts and chases as the police try to catch the robbers - but fail due to the speed and size of the Minis allowing them to get into all sorts of incredible places during their escape - culminating in an incredible drive through the sewer pipes of Turin!

The film is full of memorable quotes - including the infamous one where Charlie Croker is overseeing a practice run on blowing open the doors of the security van. However, the blast is much bigger and trashes the van they were using.

Charlie Croker: "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

The film ends on quite literally one of the best cliff-hangers you will ever see. If you haven't seen this film then I won't spoil it for you. All I will say is this...

"Hang on a minute, lads. I've got a great idea..."

REMAKE (2003):
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Jason Statham, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Donald Sutherland and Seth Green
Directed by: F. Gary Gray

The remake is not so much a remake of the original film but a re-imagining, I suppose. There are a few character names that survive from the original - namely Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg) and (John) Bridger (Donald Sutherland).

Unlike in the original, Croker and Bridger are friends in this film and plan a heist that is to be Bridger's last before his retirement. The gold heist takes place in Venice (presumably set-up this way so that there was an Italian connection in the film that made the use of the title The Italian Job make any sense) but does not go according to plan due to a member of the team double-crossing them and stealing the gold.

The remainder of the film takes place back on American soil a year later as the team track down the traitor and plan to steal back the bounty that was originally theirs.

Remake better than the original?

Certainly not better (as the ending of the original alone makes it worth watching) but just... different. Don't get me wrong - it's still a very entertaining film and let's be honest... did you read the cast list? There are some very big-hitters from Hollywood in this film - and thankfully, they're all ones that can act! Good times!

------------------------------------------ ------------------

NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN

Good god! please don't get me started on this one... This unofficial James Bond film (not one of the official MGM/United Artists/EON Productions films) is actually a remake of the official 1965 Bond film, Thunderball.

It was made following legal wrangles over the writing credits and film rights to the original Thunderball by Kevin McClory. After years of battling Ian Fleming and United Artists in the courts, he finally got permission to act as executive producer in the remake of Thunderball - to be called Never Say Never Again. The title supposedly due to Sean Connery saying after Diamonds Are Forever (1971 - 12 years before he reprised the role of James Bond) that he would never play James Bond again.

ORIGINAL VERSION - THUNDERBALL (1965):
Starring: Sean Connery, Claudine Auger, Adolfo Celi, Luciana Paluzzi
Directed by: Terence Young

Bond is sent to a health farm by M - who feels 007 needs to shape up (is this actually part of a plot from a Bond film?!?). While trying to recuperate at the clinic, Bond is targeted for assassination and actually survives two attempts on his life!

Believe it or not, the health clinic sub-plot is key to Bonds discovery of a SPECTRE plot to steal nuclear bombs by hijacking a bomber and crashing it into the sea.

What can you say? It's another dastardly plot from yet another villain seeking world domination. Of course, I would never dream of ruining the ending for you - as you'd never be able to guess it anyway... *cough!* *cough!* *BOND WINS!*

REMAKE - NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983):
Starring: Sean Connery, Kim Basinger, Max Von Sydow, Edward Fox, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera, Bernie Casey, Alec McCowen and Rowan Atkinson

Remake better than the original?

Hell, NO!!! I remember I liked this film when I was younger as I saw it was James Bond and got excited. Only now can I see that it's a second-rate Bond film despite the return of Connery (who in all honesty was getting too old to convincingly play 007 by this point - ironically a lesson that wasn't learned by the makers of the "official" Bond films by the time Roger Moore's era came to an end) and some other fantastic and capable actors being in the cast.

The storyline is very similar to that of Thunderball - right down to Bond being sent to a health clinic by M. However - given that Bond was now middle-aged and obviously not so young and dashing any more, it wasn't so unbelievable that M would send Bond somewhere to shape up.

There are so many things that are (in my opinion) wrong about this film... not least of all the absolutely awful opening titles (no silhouettes and shadows of dancing, naked ladies... awww!!!) and a simply awful, awful, AWFUL theme song!

However, I hate to say that Never Say Never Again does have a great line in it that I still think is spot-on. Bond is drinking at a water-side bar when Fatima Blush (What kind of name is that for a Bond girl to have? It's not even rude-sounding! Maybe if her surname was Bush it would have given us the titters we'd want!) water-skis up the ramp of the bar (really!) and lands in Bonds arms (really!)...

Fatima Blush: "Oh! How reckless of me. I made you all wet!"
James Bond: "Yes... but my Martini is still dry. My name's James."

"My name's James"? Did they not win the rights to use the famous "The name's Bond... James Bond" line? I know I have an immature, in-your-endo... sorry... innuendo filled mind but surely if you wanted a good nudge-nudge-wink-wink line from Bond, I would have written it like this:

Fatima Blush: "Oh! How careless (I've dropped reckless as it sounded naff) of me. I made you all wet!"
James Bond: "Yes... Now how about I return the favour? The name's Bond... James Bond."

Smut aside, the last thing I'll say about Never Say Never Again is that it was directed by Irvin Kershner - who most famously directed what is regarded by most to be the best Star Wars film of them all - The Empire Strikes Back (1980). Imagine going from the dizzy heights of making one of the best sequels of all time to directing this dross... However, he also directed a not-so-good sequel too: Robocop 2...

Right... Rant over! Moving swiftly along...

---------------------------------------- --------------------

THE OMEN

ORIGINAL VERSION (1976):
Starring: Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, David Warner, Patrick Troughton, Billie Whitelaw, Harvey Stephens, Leo Mckern and Martin Benson
Directed by: Richard Donner

The Omen tells the story of Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) - an American diplomat based in England - and his wife, Katherine (Lee Remick). When Robert is informed that their new son has died in childbirth, he is also told of another baby boy who has been abandoned and could be secretly switched in order to prevent heartbreak and trauma for Kathy. Reluctantly, Robert agrees to this - unaware that this other child - whom they name Damien is in fact the anti-Christ.

As the story unravels, a sinister nanny named Mrs Baylock is hired by the Thorns and unbeknownst to them is fully aware of who and what Damien really is - and becomes a protector to him - willing to keep him safe - whatever the cost.

There are lots of twists and quite a high body count in the film - none of which I will go into for those who haven't seen either version of The Omen.

It's directed by Richard Donner who has directed so many brilliant and varied movies over the years - including Superman (1978), The Goonies (1985), Lethal Weapon (1987), Scrooged (1988), Lethal Weapon 2 (1989), Lethal Weapon 3 (1992), Conspiracy Theory (1997), Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) and the newly restored Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006) among many others.

The other thing I simply have to mention about the original version is the orchestral sound track - composed by the late, great Jerry Goldsmith. With suitably ominous choral chants as well as lighter pieces, it is one of the most impressive and disturbing sound tracks you will ever hear.

REMAKE (2006):
Starring: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite, Mia Farrow and Michael Gambon
Directed by: John Moore

When I first knew of a remake of The Omen being made, I was torn between thinking "Why?!?" and being excited. I have always really loved the original version so tried to keep a very open mind regarding the new version.

The storyline and characters are all more or less identical to the original version - and anyone who has seen the original will pretty much know all the directions that this film will go in - even before they happen. That said, when I first watched it in the cinema I thought exactly that on so many occasions... "Ah... This is the bit where such and such happens..." I felt really smug in thinking the film couldn't throw any curve-balls at me - but I was wrong. There are a few times when the thing you think you know is going to happen does happen - but in a slightly different way from the original. A few of these new surprises and frights admittedly come from sudden jump-scares - whether they be audio or visual.

Is this version utterly pointless then? Well... No... It does have some interesting features that are worthy of mention. This version takes place firmly in todays world - emphasising how some of the dreadful things we have seen in recent years (9/11, the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the Indian ocean tsunami) are being noted by the Catholic Church as fulfilling prophecies about the rise of the anti-Christ. This is an interesting spin that for obvious reasons wasn't in the original film.

The other very interesting fact about this version of The Omen is its theatrical release date: June 6, 2006... 06/06/06... 6/6/6... Yes... You get the picture... Of course, there's no doubt this was a marketing ploy from the studio but in all honesty, a great one nonetheless. However, if what recent studies into "the number of the beast" carried out at Oxford University in May 2005 suggested that the correct number is actually 616. Ironically, the studio would have possibly still have had enough time to change the release date to January 6, 2006 but let's be honest... 616 just doesn't have the same ring to it as the old established 666.

Remake better than the original?

This is a strange one as it's arguable if this is really a remake, a reimagining or a retelling. I have to say it's actually no better or worse than the original. Perhaps the fact that it's more of the same served in a slightly different way will undoubtedly put some off. I personally enjoyed it so I would recommend it. Just don't blame me if you think it's awful!

------------------------------------------ ------------------

WAR OF THE WORLDS

I simply had to add this one to the list! (The) War Of The Worlds is based upon the H.G. Wells novel of the same name. The story deals with an alien invasion of Earth from Mars and is one of the most famous science fiction novels ever written.

ORIGINAL VERSION (1953):
Starring: Gene Barry, Ann Robinson (No... Not THAT one!)
Directed by: Byron Haskin

This 1953 version of the film relocates H.G. Wells' story from England in the early 20th Century to southern California. When a meteorite crashes in the hills on the outskirts of the town, a famous physicist - Dr Clayton Forrester goes to examine it.

It soon becomes apparent that this "meteorite" is in fact a pod carrying the first of many Martians sent from the dying world of Mars to vanquish our own Earth for their own.

The Martians quickly build war machines which they use to cut through the primitive defences of man-kind. While the war machines in the H.G. Wells novel were tripods, due to difficulties in recreating them effectively, the war machines were completely different. Often referred to as being visually reminiscent of a swan and/or manta ray shape, these war machines appear to float (although reference is made during the film that they are carried on three invisible (presumably electric or another, possibly Martian energy source) legs.

If you haven't seen this version of the film and don't think the Martian war machines sound very scary then you should definitely check it out. They are still actually very frightening (in a similar way to how the Daleks in Doctor Who are still genuinely fearsome) as they appear to glide over the landscapes - destroying anything that stands in their way. The sounds they make are also pretty terrifying - making all manners of hissing, clicking and humming sounds - especially as they prepare to let loose with their devastating heat rays...

Run for the hills! The Martians are coming!

REMAKE (2005):
Starring: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Justin Chatwin, Miranda Otto, Tim Robbins, Gene Barry, Ann Robinson (NO! Still not THAT one!!!) and Morgan Freeman (voice over)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg

When I read in Empire magazine (AKA "The Monthly Bible") a few years back that Steven Spielberg was due to direct a remake of War Of The Worlds, I got very, very excited about it. Being a fan of both the original film and a majority of Spielberg's work, I just couldn't wait. It was also reported that Tom Cruise was due to star in it, I felt happy enough about that as I actually think Cruise is a fine actor and is often underrated due to goings-on in his private life.

Fast forward a few years later and upon release of the film, I ran out to the cinema to see it. The story this time is set in modern day New Jersey and focuses on one family's attempts to survive the invasion from another world. This particular family has its own particular issues pre-invasion that make it essentially more difficult for them at points during the film.

Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a struggling blue-collar worker at the Brooklyn docks. He is divorced with two children - ten-year old Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and rebellious teen Robbie. When Rays ex-wife and new husband drop the children off with him for the weekend, it seems that it's going to be another relatively normal weekend - with Robbie giving his father lots of attitude and Rachel trying to diffuse the situation.

When a huge wall cloud appears over the neighbourhood, lightening starts hitting one area over and over again a short distance away - the strange thing is that no thunder accompanies this lightning.

When the lightning stops, Ray discovers that the power to the house is gone. Nothing works - the house phone, his mobile phone and even his wristwatch are all dead. Ray leaves the children in the house while he goes to the area where the lightning hit to see what is going on. En route, he finds that every car in town has broken down at the time of the lightning storm - and he is joined by an increasingly huge amount of townsfolk who congregate where the lightning hit.

They discover a hole in the road - from where a massive mechanical tripod rises. It towers over the terrified and awestruck humans before unleashing a weapon (which I think can still be referred to as a heat ray) which simply vaporises anyone that it hits. Some have said this effect was cheesy but I don't think it is at all. It's a scene that chilled me when I first saw the film and has done on subsequent viewings since then.

Remake better than the original?

In my humble opinion, both films are terrific. Both filled with vastly different thrills and chills. Both films are faithful to H.G. Wells ending to the story. The 1953 version gets away with this much more - whereas I think Spielberg's version should have ended differently or possibly just built up to the end more. As it stands, the ending of the new film is the only thing I dislike about it. It's just too sudden and doesn't fit in with the amazing spectacle that precedes it.

It is worth mentioning that at no point in the new film are the aliens mentioned as coming from Mars. In fact, we never find out from whence they came. I'll just be immature and suggest that they may have come from Uranus...

--------------------------------------- ---------------------

As you can see, there are so many remakes that have been made that it is absolutely impossible to list them here (though I was going to try to add a few more to the list - including Planet Of The Apes, Rear Window, The Ring, True Lies and Vanilla Sky to name but a few - but as this op is already growing at an alarming rate, I decided to ditch them). Unfortunately, the trend seems set to continue. Some of the films that are being remade are already regarded as classics and will undoubtedly cause uproar from the purists and fans of the originals.

Don't say I didn't warn you! Look out for these remakes that are incoming:

Barbarella (1968) due 2009
The Birds (1963) due 2009
Conan The Barbarian (1982) due 2008
(The) Dambusters (1954) due 2008
The Evil Dead (1982) due 2008 (why remake this classic?!? Anyone other than Bruce Campbell in the role of Ash just isn't Ash!!! Why God?!? WHY?!?)
Escape From New York (1981) due 2009
The Fly (1958 and 1986) due 2009 (great... a remake of a remake...)

*** UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! ***

I'm currently in absolute shock about something I've just read over at www.aintitcool.com (for those of you film buffs out there that haven't heard of this site, go and check it out!)... That another unimaginable and wholly bloody pointless remake is on its way...

SHORT CIRCUIT!!!

In the name of God and all that is holy... WHY?!?

I know I'm probably looking back on the original version of this (from 1986) through rose-tinted glasses but I LOVED it back then and own it now on DVD.

I'm horrified at a prospect of a remake of Short Circuit. Why the hell don't they make Short Circuit 3 if needs be?

My blood is now on a simmer... be prepared for it to boil some time soon!

When I read through peoples opinions on this story at aint it cool, there were some people saying ludicrous stuff like if they could choose an 80's film to be regurgitated then with todays special effects etc, that film would be Ghostbusters!!!

Christ!!! Shut up you idiots!!! Don't encourage the lazy squad in Hollywood to take another classic movie and trample over our childhoods!!! Yes - I know I sound geeky as hell now BUT when it comes to films like this that were important to me years back, I feel more affected. Would it really kill these lazy sods to WRITE SOMETHING BLOODY ORIGINAL???!!!???

Phew!!! Rant and update over... As you were...

*** UPDATE ENDS ***

There are also numerous reimaginings/remakes/retellings/rehashes of TV classics out there - including Battlestar Gallactica (which I haven't really seen yet but have heard great things about), Knightrider and The Bionic Woman among many, many others.

If the trend for remakes continues down the road it's currently on then perhaps in a few years time, I'll blow the dust off this op and put it back out there as a reimagining... Until then, thanks for bearing with me and for reading this (what do you mean you just scrolled through it without reading it?!?)...

Derek.

Summary: LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE HERE TO STAY!!!