Retelling stories isn't new--are we supposed to suddenly stop what's been happening since about the third story was told? Is it because there's more and more money in it that it becomes a worse offense?

Remaking movies employs lots of people, which is a good thing, but I'm still going to sympathize with screenwriters who can't original scripts produced because it's not a guaranteed moneymaker. There's nothing wrong with making money -- Hollywood is a business like any other -- but they claim that they aspire to art, too. In which case, take some of your profits and support some independent filmmaking where nothing blows up and ninety percent of the audience doesn't already know what's going to happen.

Hollywood used to rely heavily on popular novels and plays. And a book could be filmed over and over (The Wizard of Oz, anyone?). Series of movies could be built around a single character -- think of Nick and Nora Charles. Or, if you'd like a series character from a novel -- James Bond.

Even where there was an original idea, Hollywood didn't shy away from using the same plot multiple times. Example: Young single women pool their resources to rent a nice place so they can meet and marry wealthy men. That's How to Marry a Millionaire. And Moon Over Miami. And Ladies in Love.

Don't get me wrong. Hollywood did (and probably still could) ring some interesting, or at least entertaining, changes on used ideas. (Is anyone going to diss The Philadelphia Story because it was originally a play?)

I think entertainment has changed. Before 1980 or so, when a movie left the theater, it was gone unless you were lucky enough to live in a city that offered film festivals. The same basic idea with TV, although you might be able to catch a TV show in a rerun, or if the show was successful, syndication. Since then, as VCRs gave way to DVDs and DVRs and Netflix and Hulu, the old stuff isn't gone. You can schedule your own Thin Man marathon, pretty much whenever you want.

And the point of that was ...?

As far as I could tell, the point was, if you make Norman large and physically threatening looking and Marion almost waifishly tiny and desexualize her, it kinda changes the visual narrative into something much less interesting.

Wasn't Rebecca itself a conscious attempt to create a Jane Eyre type story, though?

Maybe. That doesn't have anything to do with how good the original film adaptation was.

Or maybe spend less on special effects, CGI, big names, etc. - the movie would need to generate less income to make a profit.

I miss the old "B" movies.

I think the idea of "adapting" the game Battleship into a movie is incredibly ludicrous

They did, in the '70s. It was called Midway.

Series of movies could be built around a single character -- think of Nick and Nora Charles.

They are also from books!

Series of movies could be built around a single character -- think of Nick and Nora Charles.

They are also from books!

Goddamn Harry Potter. Did you know they were BOOKS first?

I just meant that he named Nick and Nora and then also someone from a book.

I can't see the point in remaking something that was done nearly perfectly the first time around

Well, many MANY people thought the miniseries of "Tinker, Tailor" was perfect, but the film remake added some wonderful layers.