Examples to support this theory are aplenty: Tobe Hoopers infamous cult horror The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was dug up and slaughtered - excuse the pun - noughties style for a whole new generation of movie goers. It was a box office smash, but next to the original, it was, in my opinion, pretty darn poor. An odd hacked up mess of its predecessor. Granted Jessica Biel in a wet t-shirt running from Leatherface in the finale scenes was vaguely entertaining but the grainy, exploitative edge of the original was utterly lost.

Which brings me to exhibit B: Hollywood does the Scottish chiller The Wickerman. I couldn't bring myself to watch the Nick 'I'm Elvis' Cage update, but judging from the reviews I read on the film, I did well to save my pennies and resist further lowering my view on society/humanity/Gandhi etc, etc. I mean, please, why you would want to, as a director, tackle such an infamous film, one which is considered almost legendary within the film world, and is also quintessentially very British.

Any of you guys see The Ring, the Japanese cult shocker? Me, too. It was stylish and horrific, eerie and atmospheric. See the Hollywood version? Feel slightly cheated and confused? I bloody well did. What was with the horsey subplot and the constant over explanation of the situation? The latter managed to completely override the subtly which made the original so taut and shocking. But, I guess a lot of movie goers want fast and furious thrills, not arty, foreign or maybe slightly dated films. Granted such films have a niche audience, but still I feel like screaming at the directors who remake movies "PLEASE STOP!" There can however be exceptions to the rule, a little hope for all us geeks out there if you will.

I've always thought original is best, but failing this, when doing what's been done before, a touch of love and inspiration to set it apart from the original source can go a hell of a long way. Think Zakk '300' Synder's Dawn of the Dead remake - it was actually pretty good! With lashings of gore, fresh likable characters, a revamped script and a few interesting sub plots - it more than stood its ground next to Romero's original movie. Now, I love Romero, so that's no small feat in my book! Think homage rather than desecration! Perhaps the key here was that Synder broached the film as a fan, with respect and a certain humbleness, not just dollar signs flashing!

In todays quick fix, 'gimme it now' society, remakes make sense. Take a classic film, add a modern cast, a bit of flashy marketing, dumb down any deeper aspects of the original to suit the masses and voila! You, more likely than not, have a reasonable hit on your grubby little hands, with far less hassle. Don't write a script from scratch, just add to one, tweak it and put it out there as 'yours'. Only the hardcore fans are gonna question that and half of them (I'm guilty!) will probably pay to be proven right about how Hollywood ruins everything and will then proceed to rant on for days/weeks/months/eternity, by which time most of their friends and family will be at the point of disownment, so its their loss anyhow!

Regardless of viewpoints such as mine, as long as remakes keep hitting those box office targets, movies are going to get regurgitated again and again - nothing is sacred. Perhaps the saddest thing is that so many people might have their eyes opened to terror which is pure and unadulterated, genuine 'hide behind the cushion' stuff, if only they dared venture past the multiplex.