...for starters, noone in Hollywood should be allowed to touch any film for a re-make until they have proven they can actually make a film to begin with.
That film would be one that:
DOES NOT appeal to dumb teens who think anything that has happened before 1975 is, like, unknown, you know, and stuff.
Actually has a script that is: intelligent, well-thought through and has wit in it (if need be, they can look up the definition of wit.)
DOES NOT RELY DESPERATELY ON a 'big' name for said film to be considered sellable (see 'dumb teen' point for clarification.)
DOES NOT rip off (and, inevitably stupidify) major portions of a better film in the pursuit of the "target demographic..."
...and for anyone who thinks this is incorrect, I refer to some studio hack who was asked about the fact that the stinker "Pearl Harbor" was in fact a second-rate soap opera, despite the, well, hard-to-ignore Japanese attack on the place that was featured in the ads.
His answer: along the lines of, 'well, it's not really about the attack on Pearl Harbor, it's a love story...'
In other words, even one of the most memorable moments in US history would be too boring if told without the usual syrup, despite the film having at least as many explosions as any of Arnold's epics.
I rest my case
C.