Io9 just posted an article “Some 1980s and 1990s Movies That Actually Should Be Remade.” No. Seriously. No.

They claim “Everybody knows that remakes are a plague and an abomination,” yet go on “Nobody complained when John Carpenter remade The Thing, after all. …Here are 20 beloved (and not so beloved) films of a quarter-century ago that actually should be remade.”

The Thing was good because it was a remake of an obscure old 1951 film The Thing from Another World, and because it was John Carpenter. Remakes are never good, especially when the original is still fresh enough in popular consciousness to demand direct comparison. Check out this list of The 25 Best Movie Remakes of All Time. With a couple exceptions, it seems like a list of pretty mediocre films. And the original source films are very obscure. I didn’t even know half of those were remakes, or at least have never seen the original, so in that case they don’t really claim the consciousness as a remake.

But check out this io9 list and tell me which would likely be improved upon by a remake? There are a couple I will accept because the original film was under par (Lawnmower Man, They Live), but others failed the first time around and just aren’t good enough to deserve a remake (Virtuosity, Meteor Man). They might have a cool central idea, like AIs and cybercrime, but don’t remake the pathetic old film, just make a new film on the same ideas and be free to create anew.

Is it so hard to come up with original material? At least if the film industry really can’t come up with it’s own stuff, it should stick to just adapting successful novels. Comics maybe they should leave alone, too…