Kevin's Watch

That is what I was really after here - films that would stand being remade as opposed to films that should be remade. I accept the caveat that on past performance any remake is a questionable venture - but there are [at least I think there are] films where one can omagine past wrongs being righted.

One problem in assesing the quality of the general output of films is the absolutely subjective nature of our judgement. A short glance through past topics on this forum will supply ample evidence that when it comes to films one mans meat is another mans poison. A few years ago when I had much more time than now I watched a film a day for maybe five years. For a while I got very good at seeing the quality of films even if I didn't much like them - but it was very much dependant on the volume of films I was seeing and now I watch maybe only one or two films a week I seem less in tune with the art than previousely. The output of Hollywood seems to have been pretty formulaic and unadventurous for a good while now and thats a shame. A matter of risk and bucks I guess.

nice guy peter wrote: Also - there must be badly made films out there that deserve to be remade in the hands of a more competant director.

I think this is the key point... when most people think of movies to be remade, they think of movies that were successful in their time but now seem dated.

Instead, we should focus on movies which were absolutely horrible, but had a good premise. You know, things like Shyamalan's "Last Airbender," which could have been amazing, but wasn't.

I will Remake "the secret of NIMH"