In a style similar to beloved character Jesse from the Fast Show, this week I have mainly been watching the Chronicles of Narnia. The "original" BBC version from 1989/1990. Its ropey, the costumes were clearly made on a charity shop budget, the monsters are clearly men in suits. The animation is clearly just drawn on in the editing process.

And yet, its absolutely fantastic. Not just because of a sense of fuzzy nostalgia, but because it more closely follows the feel of the books, that sense of polite English civility being plunged into an epic battle between good and evil. Something that the producers of the more recent Hollywood films would have done well to pick up on.

Likewise the Nicholas Cage remake of the Wicker Man is largely regarded as one of the WORST FILMS EVER MADE™. The clunky screenplay and failure to pick up on the original's sense of paranoid ennui made for desperately dull viewing. And that is perhaps why it bombed so significantly. But is it? The new versions of the Chronicles of Narnia have after all made hundreds of millions in box office and DVD sales. And they likewise missed out on something that the original had. Not to say that they are bad movies, they just miss something that the BBC versions did.

So, the real question behind all this is: what's the point? If a film has been made before why try to better it just because you have more mastery over CGI?

And yet I find myself in a pickle of paradox of a conundrum of a state. I actually really enjoy the "re-imaginings" of pre-existing stories and films. And I don't know why.

For example: The Italian Job. Re-imagined as a completely different heist movie with slightly newer minis and Mark Wahlberg. At the time of its release, a large number of people in unison seemed to cry "what's the point?" Of course missing the point that it was a completely different film, just with the same name (for no apparent reason). And Edward Norton, Charlize Theron and Mos Def were superb in it. Similarly with Tim Burton's versions of Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland. Both heavily based upon pre-existing works, re-jigged with Burton's own creative edge. Again, not held in the same amount of critical esteem as I hold them. Why? Because they dared to be different. Had they just remade the stories I argue the critics would have despised them even more.

And yet I love them. They exist in pre-conceived worlds, telling different stories around the characters, bringing out their different aspects. But they are by no means the same film. In the "new" Alice, the Mad Hatter seems to be genuinely MAD for the first time on screen. And consequently a little bit scary because of that. The cards are sinister in their expressionless following of orders. Helena Bonham-Carter's Red Queen is the tyrant that the Disney version or either of the TV versions has done justice to. She is, in essence, the Kim Jong Il of Wonderland.

What does all of this rambling eulogy mean? Nothing really. Suffice to say I like re-imaginings but genuine remakes just seem a bit pointless.

Any thoughts from the Massive?