Of course, the trick is not remembering you've watched it first time around....
I understand it happens more with age.... :D
(Recognise it myself, increasingly often!)
I suppose what you have to say to yourself is what would this film have to do to be better than the original and do justice to the literature? If we can't answer that question then the chances of the film meeting expectation is slim... It also raises the bigger question: are we fair to remakes or do they have it coming for trying to make a quick buck without going through the hard work of coming up with something original?
Sometimes a remake is made so that the rights can be retained (e.g. the latest Spider-Man movie), other times they're unnecessary but very high earners or sometimes you get a very good creative team together that can do a property justice.
A remake will naturally be looked down upon, I think. People who don't understand the movie industry will be unaware of the issue about the rights and licenses, those who care about the properties will either wish for a continuation of those that have come before or will find it goes against that source material and so on.
But can you blame studios for trying? Really? Look at what the biggest blockbusters are bringing in right now. The Avengers, the Batman movies, the Twilight series and so on. You're talking astronomical sums of money.
All good points. I have to be honest and say that I had low expectations of the movie and was pleasantly surprised with certain aspects of it. Could have been much better (for me personally) but it didn't exactly fall on its ass either. : )
I enjoyed it just as much as I did Solomon Kane, I thought it was closer to the source material and Momoa was decent, the story could have been polished more and the ending was cringe worthy but with more financial backing a sequel could be quite good. In the end, I was entertained which is all I expected.