If It Ain't Broke...

Okay, here we go. I have a thing to start blogging about: pointless film remakes.
Now, I'm only mentioning it because my son has been raving about the new Clash of the Titans movie with Sam Worthington and all I can think is "what was wrong with the original?"
alright, maybe that was a dumb question, but it got me thinking about why people decide they need to remake, reboot or update a film just because the original is, say, 20 years old?
I think remakes fall into one of three different camps:

• The original film was so good that the director/studio felt that a remake would be a surefire money-maker;

• The original film was so unutterably tacky/crude/dumb/plain boring that the director/studio decided that a remake would be a chance to improve on the first outing;

• The original film (either good or bad) was one of the director's favourites as a child, and ergo, a remake would update his/her vision.

So, we end up with:

• Films that were nowhere near as good as the original (as well as outraging fans);
• Films that were as tacky/crude/dumb/plain boring as the original (as well as outraging "fans");
• Films that cause the director's career to nosedive and spend his/her winters in Vancouver making TV movies based on books by Barbara Taylor Bradford.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against film remakes as an art - I know that many people work long, hard hours making movies, often with little or next to no credit. I just don't see the point in a frame-for-frame, shot-for-shot, line-for-line remake that just has different actors (or worse, the same actors).

And in case you're wondering, yes, Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Psycho is prime on my list of if it ain't broke... films.

Well, here we go... my first attempt at blogging. I thought, well, if the other half can do it, then so can I. And now I have absolutely NO idea what I'm going to blog about. Didn't think that one out very well, did I?
Any suggestions?