Remake Despondency

Reasons to make a remake:
1. If the first one was bad but the story had potential
2. If the first one was good but too loaded with pop culture from another time or place to make sense for this audience
3. The first one was good for its time but the special effects sucked and you can do better

But why in the world would you try to remake something that's already good?

I put to you the example of Death at a Funeral, which is a modern British comedy that Americans remade with Chris Rock. What was wrong with the first one?

And now my current peeve, Arthur. Can you really cast anyone but Dudley Moore as Arthur? I'm not saying the new movie is going to be bad even if it does star Russell Brand, but what in the world do they hope to accomplish in making another one? (article)

And what about State of Play? I just rented the British one from the library and it's really good! I had low expectations. I only rented it for the reason I bought Tuesday--Life on Mars sentimentality as it is John Simm and Philip Glenister together again. But even though the genre is not my cup of tea--a political thriller--it's actually really captivating. And what a cast! You've got the chief of police Philip Glenister versus head of the newspaper Bill Nighy. What a combo. And then you get the stars John Simm and David Morissey, plus Kelly Macdonald from The Merry Gentleman, James McAvoy from Wanted, and Simm's buddy Marc Warren. What do you need to remake it with Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck for?



Film Industry, we know you've already sold your soul, but just stay away from Hitchcock and Jimmy Stewart movies, okay?