tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010783581342890664.post6503913477884850793..comments2008-09-08T08:23:57.713-07:00mathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330034568070762732noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010783581342890664.post-62532609373467622712008-09-08T08:23:00.000-07:002008-09-08T08:23:00.000-07:00Thirded!mathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330034568070762732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010783581342890664.post-46532991512390963702008-09-06T08:10:00.000-07:002008-09-06T08:10:00.000-07:00Yes, it's common nowadays to ask "why don't they remake the bad ones", so it's interesting to see someone actually doing that, rather than ruining a much-loved masterpiece.kelvingreenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010783581342890664.post-21246816495809020032008-09-05T18:11:00.000-07:002008-09-05T18:11:00.000-07:00You know, I'm not a huge fan of remakes, but I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of taking a horribly executed film (like <I>Plan 9</I>) and trying to find the good movie that was buried in there to begin with. It seems like a much more rewarding exercise than remaking an already well-made film for no other reason than to update the effects (or whatever would be the point of remaking, say, <I>The Andromeda Strain</I>).<BR/><BR/>This is pretty much the same argument I used to defend <I>The Island</I>. I'm not saying <I>The Island</I> was good, but <I>Clonus: The Parts Terror</I> was an interesting concept that was not executed as well as it could have been, so is a logical candidate for remake.plahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00503015422341841588noreply@blogger.com