According to The LA Times Eisner is set to direct the latest remake. And it sounds, thank goodness, as if the film will be sticking to the original creep-fest's script, about a mother who telepathically communicates with her mutant babies, causing them to kill.

Here's the original synopsis:

A man tries to uncover an unconventional psychologist's therapy techniques on his institutionalized wife, while a series of brutal attacks committed by a brood of mutant children coincides with the husband's investigation

The film is slated for early 2010, which means we won't be short of any remakes this year. What with The Crazies, The Creature from The Black Lagoon, Wolf Man and others

Larter is in talks to play Virginia Lake, the "strong but feminine" woman at the heart of the show, says Gratzner. She'd be starring opposite Joshua Jackson, who's playing pilot Paul Foster.

And the new movie is already planned as the first installment in a trilogy — the first screenplay is written, and the second and third movies exist in treatment form. The movie's aliens will still be evil organ-stealing bastards, and they'll be humanoid instead of District 9-style creatures. It sounds like a recipe for exciting G.I. Joe-style schlock, but apparently that's not the goal.

Gratzner, a veteran special-effects worker, tells Forbidden Planet:

What I want to do with UFO is what Christopher Nolan did with the Batman franchise, or Martin Campbell did with Casino Royale. UFO is not a spoof, or a parody or a kids' movie. It's a pretty dark story, actually…it is not a show for young children.

You could argue, of course, that both Batman and James Bond had a track record of being dark and tackling adult themes before those films appeared, whereas UFO has a track record of this:

Great pep talk: "You're doing a fine job — a man's job. But you don't have to do it any better just because you're a woman [in a Lady GaGa costume.] And don't forget, you're a very pretty girl." And then they make the other woman stand with her leg raised , in a silver miniskirt. When she tries to move, they're like, "Hold it right there." As she says, "Not the most flattering of pin-ups."

Anderson's first live-action science fiction series, before Space: 1999, UFO is a delightfully campy adventure show about SHADO, a secret organization that fights evil organ-harvesting aliens. The moonbase staff all wear purple wigs and shiny silver outfits, and the music is jazzay, sixties style.

On the other hand, reading between the lines of Gratzner's interview, it sounds like he really wants to make something closer to J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, keeping a lot of the concept design and silly outfits of the original, but with a smidge more character development and slightly more serious plots. But he's namechecking Batman Begins and Casino Royale because they're the gold standard for reboots right now. In any case, an Abrams-esque remake could be an attainable goal, and could actually do quite well amidst a swarm of Nolan-wannabes. Fingers crossed! [Forbidden Planet]

MTV managed to ask Cameron about reports that he and veteran screenwriter Salermo were collaborating on a new film, and he explained that it's not Salermo's Kurosawa-themed unproduced screenplay Doomsday Protocol. Rather, Cameron is producing a Salermo-scripted remake of Fantastic Voyage, in which a team of scientists shrinks themselves and goes inside an assassinated diplomat, on the brink of death, to perform emergency surgery on a blood clot in his brain.

As MTV points out, this remake could have way better special effects than the original — although Raquel Welch surely counts as a special effect. And also the improved special effects could be a double-edged sword, since the temptation to focus on cool animations of leukocytes instead of actual story could be pretty overwhelming. Plus, it couldn't possibly be as great as these gems:

For those previously unaware of this televisual masterwork, Martin Landau is John Koenig, commander of Moonbase Alpha, humanity's outpost on, yes, the Moon. After a nuclear explosion, the Moon gets knocked out of orbit, sending Koenig and his intrepid crew on an incredibly odyssey through SPACE… in the year 1999! The title admittedly leaves this point somewhat unclear, so I wanted to take the time to spell that out.

Now, some might ask why such a series needs remaking. Indeed, some might even argue television producers should put the limited resources available for science fiction shows into making bold, new programming. Those people have apparently willfully ignored the way the entertainment industry has operated since...well, since forever, really. Anyway, the Space: 1999 intro is the grooviest thing in television history, and by itself should earn the entire show a second chance.

And make no mistake, folks, this is a show that completely blew its first chance. If the original Battlestar Galactica was an attempt to turn Star Wars into a TV show, then Space: 1999 basically tried to do the same thing with 2001: A Space Odyssey. As you might imagine, they failed at this absurdly lofty goal. The physics at the heart of the show's premise were utterly laughable – no smaller luminaries than Isaac Asimov and Harlan Ellison considered the notion that the Moon could be blown out of orbit and then cross interstellar distances in weeks the most ludicrous thing they'd ever heard of. The show's early attempts to kick around obscure philosophical points in the context of the celestial void soon devolved into the endless chases and mindless action sequences of, well, the original Battlestar Galactica, only minus all of the iconic stuff with the Cylons.

As such, Space: 1999 shouldn't be remade because there's something brilliant there so much as because it would be such a wonderful challenge for its makers. After all, the show already has one absolutely massive stumbling block, and it's right there in the title. Who in their right mind is going to accept a science fiction show set ten years ago?

And even then, what exactly is the premise of Space: 1999? At least Battlestar Galactica has a simple enough setup and goal – humans fight Cylons, Cylons wipe out humanity, survivors go in search of fabled lost colony, the Earth. It's maybe a little silly on paper, but as the recent series showed, it can be the basis for gripping television. On the other hand, Space: 1999 was never too sure itself of what it was precisely about – people on the Moon get blown out of orbit, weird stuff happens for no discernible reason, weird stuff continues to happen for reasons that are somehow even less discernible than the first set of reasons. It was all a bit too abstract for its own good.

So, let's make it about something. Instead of focusing on the Space part, let's do something with the 1999 part. We have one huge advantage over the show's creators back in 1975 – we actually know what happened in 1999. A new Space: 1999 could be the ultimate nineties nostalgia show, exploring all that delicious Clinton era angst through the spectacularly ridiculous prism of a moonbase that's been blown out into deep space. It wouldn't even need to be a radically different world than our own; just one where the Apollo missions lasted long enough to set up a now antiquated, largely forgotten moonbase. (It's not all that implausible - like anyone remembers the International Space Station even exists.)

Think of it! Instead of just having bizarre metaphysical mind trips inside something called "a black sun", the new Space: 1999 crew can have bizarre metaphysical mind trips while debating Monicagate! And trading Seinfeld quotes! And complaining about how Saving Private Ryan got totally robbed by Shakespeare in Love! And trying to get Windows 98 to work! And assuming the economic boom will never, ever end!

Make no mistake - 80s nostalgia is almost over, and 90s nostalgia is on its way. We're already running out of 80s culture to obsess over, so we're going to have to relive the nineties one way or another. So I have to ask: if we're going to put up with an insipid recreation of nineties life, why shouldn't it be set on a runaway moon hurtling into the vast and dangerous cosmos? Honestly, that sounds like a fair assessment of what happened after 1999 anyway. Keep the original theme tune, and I think we've got ourselves a winner.

The Hollywood Reporter announced yesterday that Fessenden, who has worked mostly on limited release thrillers like Wendigo and The Last Winter, would remake the 2007 film, about a woman who, with her husband and adopted son, returns to her hometown to fix up the orphanage where she grew up, only to find her son befriended by the ghosts that haunt it. The original film, which was also produced by del Toro and directed by his protege Juan Antonio Bayona, received critical acclaim upon its release, and great success with audiences worldwide.

New Line bought the rights to remake The Orphanage with del Toro back in 2007, and now it seems likely we'll see that remake in the next few years. And with the American remake of the 2008 Swedish vampire film already scheduled for a 2010 release, it's apparent that studios believe these foreign horror films are a sure thing — at least when they're in English.

But won't a remake of The Orphanage so soon after its original US release feel like a retread? Maybe not where the box office is concerned. The Orphanage earned ten times more abroad than it did from its US release, and New Line probably hopes to replicate the film's foreign success at home. So why not simply give these foreign films a bigger marketing push in the first place and avoid the cost of remaking them? It's likely another example of studios playing it safe with stories that are already hits instead of taking risks on fresh scripts. As Bayona himself said after his film's release:

The Americans have all the money in the world but can't do anything, while we can do whatever we want but don't have the money...The American industry doesn't take chances, that's why they make remakes of movies that were already big hits.

[The Hollywood Reporter]

An MGM spokesman told us the project is still on track — though not for a 2010 release, as reports initially suggested. The rep said that the studio had told distributors at an event a couple weeks ago to expect the movie in 2011. He said director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, The Fountain) and screenwriter David Self (Road to Perdition) were still working on the script, and that no casting had been completed.

The new Dynamite Comics Robocop title announced this week is only the latest of many Robocomics, so Robologists shouldn't pore over its pages expecting details about the plot of Aronofsky's movie, the MGM spokesman said, though he added that he wouldn't be surprised to see another comic tie-in once the movie is released. He didn't have anything else to add about the movie, only that "Darren and David are working on it now, and we look forward to seeing it in 2011." And so do we.

The Marshall rumor comes from Bloody DIsgusting, which cites a "100% reliable source" for the buzz that the Doomsday and The Descent director is close to signing with 20th Century Fox to helm Predators, a movie that reportedly involves a team of commandos facing down a whole race of the dreadlocked aliens. Robert Rodriguez, who co-wrote the script, backed out of directing it last month but will still produce. The film, which may or may not feature a return-visit cameo by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is due in July 2010.

Now, we may have gone a bit overboard in our enthusiasm for Doomsday, but then, so did Marshall in directing it. We hereby endorse him for the Predators gig. In fact, if he doesn't get the job, heads will roll. Then again, if his Predators is anything like Doomsday, plenty of heads will roll if he does get the job.

McFarlane tells MTV News that he'd like to cast DiCaprio in his remake-that's-not-a-remake. Not that DiCaprio would play the undead antihero. "The main character isn't Spawn, per se, it's the guy chasing Spawn," McFarlane told MTV News. That is, DiCaprio would play a detective — but a new character, not fan faves Sam or Twitch. McFarlane said the film would play as a Godfather-like crime drama in which DiCaprio's character would come to discover that something supernatural and diabolical is going on beyond the usual cops-and-robbers stuff.

Why DiCaprio, who McFarlane says was always in the back of his mind for the role? "It's a big wish, but his dad was a big fan of underground comic books and he came from that," McFarlane told MTV. "It's not a big special-effects movie, it's a character movie, so I could shoot it in 40-50 days and you don't have to budget that much time."

No word, of course, on whether DiCaprio is actually interested or available, or whether comic book readers might not prefer to see someone a little more, um, rugged hunting down Spawn. Still, given the shift in focus, we won't be the first to holler, "YARM!" Your mileage, however, may vary.

So wait, why reboot Star Wars? I'm sick of the reboots. Movies are getting as crash-happy as my Macbook.

Oh, whine whine whine. Too many remakes, sequels and reboots. "Poor me, the entertainment industry is trying to pander to me by recreating the entertainments of my childhood, or in some cases my grandparents' childhoods." I know, it sucks to be you. But look at it this way: a lot of these entertainment franchises need the occasional reboot, because they've been running for decades and are struggling to run the latest firmware. "Women's lib" made Wonder Woman go BSOD several times in the 1960s, and more recently she's been as crash-prone as a J.J. Abrams airplane.

Actually, Star Wars is the perfect example of what happens to a long-running franchise that doesn't get rebooted. You keep adding more and more trendy stuff to the mix, piling on extra chunks of mythos and bits of backstory, and inflating the importance of minor characters until they overwhelm the narrative. (Jango Fett?) It's not the creators' fault, necessarily. It's just what happens when you try to keep a complex universe running for decades without restarting.

Eventually, your once-shiny universe gets to the point where you have to shut it down forever, or do a hard restart. And there's too much money in these old juggernauts to shut them down.

But... But... George Lucas will never go for it!

He will, once he runs out of money. It's just a matter of time. Those life-size solid-gold Yoda bidets don't pay for themselves, you know. (With the proximity activation, and the voice that says, "Wash your bottom, you will." That's expensive stuff.) All it'll take is another few insane Star Wars projects, like another big-screen Clone Wars movie and another three Star Wars TV shows that he's financing out-of-pocket. Chances are, he's already completed a few thousand scripts for his live-action Star Wars show, which takes place between the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy and probably includes a whole set of episodes about Jar Jar Binks visiting the Ewoks.

Eventually, Lucas will need some walking-around money, and the studios will put pressure on him, and someone will come up with an offer he can't refuse. It'll probably allow him to keep his original version of the galaxy far, far away chugging along. It'll be like the Ultimate Marvel Universe, or Smallville: a new reimagined version of the franchise, even as the original version keeps trundling. Call it Star Wars: Extreme. Or Star Wars: Ultraspace. Or maybe Star Wars: Even Farther Away.

Okay, so the Star Wars reboot is inevitable, if not imminent. What makes you think it could possibly be a good thing?

It could be horrendous, sure. But it doesn't have to be, and that's what this primer is about. A few years from now, when Lucas and the suits are having meetings about creating Star Wars 2.0, there are a few simple rules for how to avoid a painful Stepford Wives or Planet Of The Apes boondoggle. (Probably not including Nicole Kidman is a good place to start.)

The good news is, Star Wars has a good solid structure underneath all the crud that's been layered on top of it in recent years. At heart, it's a strong adventure story with a very simple Joseph Campbell-inspired throughline. The original Star Wars is the movie that reinvented entertainment, and forced all of those other franchises to add new features, or reboot altogether. To this day, when people reboot other franchises, they're aiming to make them more like Star Wars — blatantly so, in the case of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek.

So if some Hollywood exec is reading this, and contemplating rebooting Star Wars, the best advice we can give you is: make it more like Star Wars. With a new lick of paint, and less baggage.

Here's the longer version of that advice, in the form of eight simple rules for reinventing our beloved saga:

1) Keep it simple. Just keep reminding yourself that the purpose of a reboot is to jettison dead weight, and don't feel obliged to bring in all the extra crud about Trade Federations and midichlorians. There's the Empire, and the Rebellion, and the Force has two sides: light and dark. Stay within the lines, and give us a cool story about good versus evil, and trusting your feelings, and relying on your friends. Batman Begins scored because it gave us the essence of Bruce Wayne: the tragedy, the grief and powerless rage, and then the quest to become something bad enough to counter the darkness.

2) Keep the sense of joy and dread. Okay, I've dissed both the "hero's journey" and science fiction's obsession with "sense of wonder" before, but there is something to be said for a story where a young person starts out in a small world, and then comes out into a gigantic universe, full of moon-sized battle stations, princesses, space fights and massive ice planets. Of all the stuff that goes into "coming of age" stories, it's perhaps the most universal, since it's about leaving home. And then you find out that you're actually way more connected to this deep history that went on before you were born, because your dad was a Jedi knight. There's plenty of great stuff there.

3) Get back to the characters we care about. It sounds basic, but that's how J.J. Abrams revitalized Star Trek. Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader. The classic characters. And here's a suggestion: Anakin Skywalker's dismal progression, where he starts out as a promising young Jedi only to be seduced to the Dark Side? That is what flashbacks or prologues are made for. You could even intersperse Anakin's journey with Luke's, as Luke learns more about his father while he grows into his powers. And speaking of heroes...

4) Admit that Han Solo is the hero as much as Luke. That's the other thing J.J. Abrams' Star Trek did right: It treated Spock as the hero, just as much as Kirk. We all knew, all along, that Spock belonged in the top spot alongside Kirk, but the series had never quite admitted it before. (Probably due to Shatner's ego, among other things.) Han Solo deserves a similar elevation. Like Kirk and Spock, Han and Luke are the yin and yang, except that they go in opposite directions. Han Solo regains his altruism and optimism, just as Luke is shedding his innocence and becoming more of a hard-ass. Bring Han Solo's journey to the fore, and don't be afraid to make him more of a jerky antihero at the beginning, so it'll feel like a real arc. (And yes, that means Han shoots first.)

5) Don't be afraid to make some changes, to bring it up to date. So you're inevitably going to make some changes to the storyline, like maybe making Obi-Wan less of a lying prick. Or maybe you'll want to add more depth to the early scenes of Luke on Tattooine, to show what he's leaving behind, and flesh out his dreams of joining Biggs and Wedge in space. Other changes I might make to the first film might involve having Leia pilot an X-wing in the final Death Star attack, and elminating all the incest-vibes with Leia and Luke. (Not to mention the scene where Vader is menacing Leia, and there's some definite sexual tension. Eww.)

6) A truckload of fanservice makes the revisionism go down. But you're worried, inevitably, about getting bags of bantha poodoo on your doorstep if you make any alterations to the sacrosanct franchise. Fans can be unforgiving murglaks. But they're also very susceptible to bribery. If you throw in lots of references and nods to old stories, then you can do anything. You can blow up Vulcan. You can even make Spock's mom Winona Ryder. You can have an evil assassin cult train Batman. It's all good. You just have to throw in the Kobayashi Maru, Henri Ducard and all the stuff that fans salivate over, and they'll run with whatever changes you want to make. (Having a decent story doesn't hurt either.) Have Spock quote the best lines from Wrath Of Khan, and fans won't care that the Enterprise looks like the bar at the W Hotel.

7) Restrain your video-game impulses. Any new Star Wars will have to be Imax and 3-D and CG and huge, sure. That's just a given, unless those fads have been replaced by something even bigger and more eyeball-gouging by then. But it doesn't have to feel like a video game. The original Star Wars inspired a million video games — because it felt so real and got your adrenaline pumping. It wasn't just the special effects, it was the crazy you-are-there feeling of the Millenium Falcon's gun turrent swinging around, and the stars whizzing past as Luke shot at tie fighters. Try to keep that sense of realness, and actual peril, and genuine thrills. Not so much with the fakey rollercoaster shit.

8) Get a real writer. Please. In addition to feeling invested in the characters, we have to buy into their conflicts and quote their snappy dialog. Seek out one of the legion of Joss Whedon apprentices and press-gang him or her. I'm thinking Drew Goddard, who moved on from Buffy to write Cloverfield, and is now directing Whedon's Cabin In The Woods. Or Jane Espenson. Get someone who can do characters and banter and insane high-stakes drama, and turn him/her loose on the saga of Luke, Leia and their crazy aging biker dad. And may the Force be with all of us if you fail.

Top image from Carlos Number Two on Worth 1000.

Screenwriter Dan Milano comes to the project with the kind of comedy background that gives me some hope for this project. He co-created and voiced the title character on the cult classic Greg The Bunny, and he's currently writing for the geeky awesomeness that is Robot Chicken.

The 1986 film follows the adventures of Johnny 5, a military robot who develops a personality after a lightning strike and goes on the run from his creators with the help of an animal-lover and Steve Guttenberg. David Foster, one of the producers of the original Short Circuit, will also be producing the remake, and he stressed the film will be acknowledging the massive strides the robotics field has made in the last twenty-three years:

"We're bringing Number 5 into the 21st Century and taking advantage of the improvements in robotics that are so massive that robots are now performing heart surgeries in hospitals."

I'm going to just go ahead and assume that means the new Johnny 5 will perform a wacky heart surgery at some point in the film. Foster also stressed the robot's iconic design will remain the same. That presents an unusual problem, as that design is now recognizable to younger viewers as that of Wall-E, raising the very real probability that audiences will think the new Short Circuit is ripping off Pixar. Foster dismissed this potential problem with a shockingly upbeat attitude:

"We think of 'Wall-E' as an extended trailer for our film, because it's the same face."

You know, it takes almost unimaginable chutzpah to dismiss a movie as beautiful and powerful as Wall-E as nothing more than a promo for the Short Circuit remake. Between Dan Milano's comic pedigree and David Foster's comments, we just might have the most exciting pairing of a funny writer and an insane producer since Kevin Smith and Jon Peters teamed up for Superman Lives. If nothing else, I'm guessing some good stories are going to come out of this.

[Variety]

Brad Copeland (Wild Hogs,Arrested Development) is writing the remake of the alien and boy family flick. The movie, which didn't really find its audience until it was released on VHS, is about a young boy who syncs up with an shiny UFO, with a liquid staircase.

Because of his connection to the UFO, the young lad gets transported into the future and evil government scientists pick him up for "experiments." Together robot alien and boy escape, and try to find a way back home, to the past.

While I don't mind Copeland's involvement, after watching the recent Race To Witch Mountain reboot, I can't help but think this remake will be all guns and explosions. Which isn't really what this film is about. At it's heart, it's a simple journey between a boy and his mechanical alien friend, trying to find their home. No doubt they will muddy it up with excessive violence and chase scenes, between jets and the UFO.

[The Hollywood Reporter]

And here's a bonus poll. Now that we've gotten all the possible use we could out of the time-honored phrase "raping my childhood," what can we replace it with?

While it may not be a prequel or remake, it sounds like Straczynski's flick will tell us more about the Krell aliens who made the ultra-powerful psychic tech of the original film. He told MTV News:

[When coming] up with the Krell backstory and who they are, I sat down with some of the nation’s best minds in astrophysics and planetary geology and A.I. and asked them — based on what we know now — what will a million years from now look like? The goal is to put things in there you’ve never seen before.

Also good to know he's got some science consultants on board. I would love to see a movie about the Krell civilization and what happened to them.

Thankfully, the remake will also remain true to the spirit of the original by trying to look as cutting-edge as possible. No retro stylings, says Straczynski:

At the time it was made it was cutting edge. They weren’t trying to be ‘retro’ — they thought they were right on the cutting edge. People that went to see that film saw things they had never seen before. What we have to do now is have this one be as innovative now as the original was then.

Forbidden Planet is one of those great, generic adventure stories that could get remade a million times and still be fun. You've got robots, an alien world, seriously scary alien tech, a vanished civilization, plus a mad scientist and his nubile daughter. What could go wrong?

J. Michael Straczynski Promises Something No One Has Thought Of [via MTV News]

In the new version of TDTESS, astronauts aboard the space shuttle find a transparent sphere, which they bring aboard. But then it escapes from them and joins thousands of other spheres, on their way down to Earth to collect specimens of plant and animal life.

Meanwhile, we meet Helen Benson, a scientist played by Jennifer Connelly, and her whiny kid Jacob, who wants to play violent video games all the time because his father died in Iraq.

And then an enormous energy sphere lands in New York, and Keanu steps out, surrounded by American soldiers, guns at the ready. Keanu gets shot, and his pet robot comes out. But allegedly, the robot is called "The Totem," instead of Gort. It walks on all fours, shoots its destructo-ray, and then stands upright when it's done, like a totem pole. Or something.

Klaatu/Keanu goes into hospital and escapes in a military uniform. He befriends Helen and her son Jacob, and they help him meet up with Mr. Wu, another alien from Keanu's planet who has been monitoring Earth for the past 30 years. For some reason, Mr. Wu is based out of a McDonald's. And we learn that because of global warming and other environmental catastrophes, aliens have decided we're not fit to survive. So they're going to wipe out the planet.

At some point, we get the scene where everything in the world stops and chaos erupts, but supposedly it's not as cool as in the original version.

Klaatu's ship releases an energy field which nearly destroys the Earth. But the Earth survives, and Klaatu dies for some reason. As he dies, he gives a speech about how we need to change our ways if we're to survive.

Missing from the new version are Keanu calling himself Major Carpenter, the phrase "Klaatu Barada Nikto" (which Keanu swore would be in the film), the Klaatu/child interactions at the Lincoln memorial, the Arlington Cemetery and Klaatu's spaceship, and the kid witnessing Gort attacking the two guards and discovering Klaatu is an alien. And the Hugh Marlowe character. [Ain't It Cool News]

Calling the remake "a worthy addition to [Dimension Films'] family film slate" (which includes such family favorites as Grindhouse, Hallowe'en and something called Who's Your Caddy?, proving once and for all that Bob and brother Harvey clearly come from a particularly odd family), the remake will update the technology but otherwise maintain the mechanical hippie themes of the original, according to producer David Foster.

Hopefully, the inevitable future success of the remake - because, really, who could resist that cute ET-schtick-stealing military robot and his hilarious peacenik antics? - will be a harbinger of remakes of other 1980s SF movies starring Steve Guttenberg. I for one have been eagerly awaiting a new version of Cocoon for years.

'Short Circuit's' Johnny 5 still alive [Variety]

As in the original, Bill and Ted are high-school students who are in danger of flunking unless they create a "full presentation" on the subjects of all their classes. They travel through time and meet the historical figures they're supposed to have learned about, including Gandhi and Calamity Jane this time around.

The main differences are that the phone Bill and Ted use to travel through time isn't an old-school phone booth, but something "funkier." Their band is called the Atomic Gorillas instead of the Wyld Stallyns. The script is supposedly full of "hip" pop culture references for today's kids, like Bill and Ted worrying they're going to miss The Dark Knight. No clue whether there's a George Carlin character this time around, or who might play him. There are a lot fewer "Whoas."

I was a lot more excited about a new Bill And Ted when I briefly thought it would feature Keanu and Alex back in their original roles, playing middle-aged stoners who have made a mess of their lives in spite of all Carlin's predictions.

If we have to have a remake, maybe it can do something new and interesting with the concept — like instead of being the saviors of a future world, Bill and Ted are actually patsies, given a time machine by someone who wants to wreck history but doesn't want his/her fingerprints all over it. And then Bill and Ted have to undo all the damage they've done. That would be totally excellent. [Moviehole]

When I started putting this poll together, I was shocked by how many remakes are currently on the slate. Some of them are more definite than others: Jason Statham in Death Race, Brendan Fraser in Journey to the Center of the Earth and Keanu Reeves in The Day The Earth Stood Still are definitely happening. (Oh, and Will Ferrell's Land of the Lost.)

Less definite: Gerard Butler is supposed to be starring in the remake of Escape From New York, with a director TBA, but some reports say Butler has pulled out. (Butler himself said recently he's still considering doing it.) Peter Berg's Dune is in the early stages, and so is Roland Emmerich's Fantastic Voyage. Robert Rodriguez's Barbarella is in limbo, but he's still trying to get it made with Rose McGowan.

Even less definite: The remakes of Logan's Run and Metropolis seemed so uncertain, I left them out of the poll. Oh, and I forgot to include The Greatest American Hero and Scanners, which are also in the early planning stages, in the poll.

I started to make a joke along the lines of, "next they'll remake Westworld or something," only to realize a Westworld remake is also in the planning stages.

So leaving out the super-iffy Westworld, Greatest American, Scanners, Logan's Run and Metropolis, there are still a lot of forthcoming remakes to choose from. Which one fills you with the most revulsion?

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.