I see the roster of up-coming re-makes and see titles such as TNT's SALEM'S LOT and think, "Why? The original was just fine, thanks." I began to condemn news of the forth-coming "Time Machine" remake until I decide that maybe it could work, as today's special effects could improve on the somewhat quaint ones in the original (good in their day), and maybe the filmmakers would stick to Well's plot more closely, especially the ending. But I'm not optimistic because I've seen most remakes concentrating on fast editing and explosions and shallow characters and bullshit. Case in point: these atrocious remakes of William Castle films (which weren't exactly classics themselves but at least had chuzpah and atmosphere)...and THE HAUNTING and PLANET OF THE APES just have me scratching my head. If put in the right hands, there might be some films - even ones that were good originally, that could be improved upon, but ONLY IN THE RIGHT HANDS. It looks like Peter Jackson has done right by LOTR, whereas Bakshi pretty much ruined it with bad rotoscoping and a truncated ending. But what else? We don't need hacks like Michael Bay being entrusted to remake something like WAR OF THE WORLDS or some MTV debutante screwing with FORBIDDEN PLANET 2003. We need more screenwriters who actually understand character development and dialog, without using the "F" word fifty five times in two hours. We need directors who don't fall back on staccato editing in order (try to) to disguise their crappy plot development (i.e. ARMAGEDDON). So, having spoken my piece, I ask: What film, given the right combination of writer, director, editor, etc., might be in line for a re-make?