As many of you know, I am a pop culture and sci-fi fanboy. Like most people that describe themselves as such, I have a list of movies that I feel were I in charge would have been so much better than the tripe hollywood normally shoves down our throat. If I ever wind up with a few million to spend, I may just go and re-make them.
My big pet peeve though, is "adaptations" or the slightly trendier term "re-imaginings".
It's not that I think that the filmmakers somehow set out to make a bad movie, it's just that in most cases it's pretty obvious that the screenwriters and directors of these films have no (if any) filmiliarity with the source material or a firm concept of what made the source material brilliant.
Cases in point (From my list):
Superman Returns (I've thought a lot about this... Bryan Singer let the film fan in him supercede the comic fan. God willing, Sam Rami will never make the same mistake.)
Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes (Which I actually loved... but it totally lacked the hard hitting 'should humanity even be allowed to survive' angst which was at the heart of the original)
The Hulk (Bruce Banner is a tourtured enough soul without having been abused as a child by papa.)
The original "Punisher" Movie (do I need a comment here?)
Batman Forever (warning sign: when the director does an interview saying with a streight face that "Batman shouldn't be dark... who decided that he needs to be all gritty? Whatever happened to the Batusi, anyway?")
The Godzilla movie with Matthew Broderick (Which would have been a great monster movie if someone had told the cast that it wasn't a comedy.)
So, now that MTV has reported that the guys writing the new Star Trek movie see it as a 're-imagining of the franchise' I'm more than a little nervous.