I just saw that they've made a remake of John Carpenter's 'The Thing'. Which to be honest, I don't get.
So, I kind of understand the idea of remakes. Although I think it's a bad sign that our culture is slowly eating itself like Oroborous, in some cases I get it. After all, 'The Thing' is itself a remake of the much older 'The Thing From Another World'.
But this is the thing that I don't get. 'The Thing From Another World' was an old, campy, black and white B movie. Some good parts in it, but lots that's not so great. I can get why someone would look at that film, see what is good about it and want to improve it in a remake.
'The Thing', on the other hand, is pretty much as good as it's ever going to get. Not that it's the best movie ever made or anything, but as far as that story goes I don't really see how it can be done any better.
In other words, I think it's fair enough to remake a bad or at least a flawed film. A film with a kernel of good in there that has been overshadowed by various forms of crapness. By why take a great, classic, genre-defining movie and remake that ? I mean, what do you expect to do with it ?