I think it depenRAB on the film, why it's being remade and what the difference between the original and the remake is.
When the original is popular, has been deemed a classic(?) and is very successful then not only why remake it as it's a success, but more importantly why are you adding things that aren't needed in the update?
When you look at the films of the 60's and before there was no sex, no swearing, minimal if any nudity and often no or little blood. Remake it now and you will ahev at least one of those, probably swearing.
On the commentary for Goldeneye, the Director was talking about the scene at the start. Bronson and Sean Bean gunning down soldiers as they ran through the door. He spoke about blood and the fact there wasn't any. Until he mentioned it I hadn't noticed. He said it was discussed as there would hav been lots of it but it was decided that there hadn't been lots of blood in the Bond films before and tehy would keep with that policy. There wasn't lots of complaints when ut was in the cinema that there isn't blood, there wasnt when the DVD was released and isn't now. the same way people don't complain that there isn't lots of blood in Goldfinger, Live and Let Die and the rest. What this shows is blood isn't needed to tell the stories. Now in the Craig films the blood is creeping in more and more in an attempt to make it "realistic" despite there not being a demand for it.
Here is the one of the problems. If they remake an old film that was popular and suceesful without it, why is it in the remake? The same with swearing. If the film was a success without anyone even saying crap, why does it have to be in the remake? Is the film better because people say shit?
LOTR Director wanst to remake The Dambusters. Other than the question, why? The other question is how much are you going to put in there that isn't needed? no doubt their will be extended dogfights in the air because that is "exciting" and the explosions will be ridculously bigger because we can do that on computer. But is it required?
isn't all that stuff defeating the object of the film which is to tell the true story of what happened. In the end will people be walking out saying they were heroes and it's incredible what they achieved or will they be saying that air battle was amazing?
Putting aside the fact it's black and white and the acting may look wooden, the film would be a flop in the cinemas now as it would be considered slow and boring. If this film gets made it's going to get "sexied up" a lot with overlong battles, probably an unnecessary love story with an even more unnecessary humping scene, some swearing, more graphic violence and blood as someone gets shot through the cockpit window.
None of that stuff is needed, The film works as it stanRAB, so why does it have to be in a remake?
You can argue that if the original was a flop or went startight to video/DVD these things would improve the film and make it work better, but not when it's a big success and popular. That happened for a reason so leave it alone.
