But that's the point... I think you're failing to appreciate the art of the movie itself. I have no problem with remakes, although with few exceptions, they usually don't come close to the quality of the originals. The 50's Ben Hur being an exception as it seems to me a better movie than the 20's version. But otherwise, cinema is filled with attempts at "re-imagining" a classic that fail utterly.
To put it another way, it's like saying the 1922 Nosferatu is a bad movie because it's a silent film with hokey acting. If you can't appreciate the art of it, it doesn't mean it's a movie that needs to be made "better".
I was referring to his intentions as far as acting and dialogue, not necessarily the FX, as we all know George keeps tinkering on them (usually to good effect, as I also stated, if I'm not mistaken)
See, that's the problem. Cinema is more of an art form than a car or an appliance. You don't go around updating the Sistine Chapel or Warhol's Campbell's cans, they are what they are and you either appreciate the artistry in them or you don't, regardless of the fact that they were done in different times with different techniques.
Another example, I find the slow, deliberate movements of the alien in the first film far more effective and terrifying than the jumping around of the AvP movies, regardless of their "artistic" merit. An alien running around and jumping all over the place would look completely out of place in the original, the ame way as a super kinetic and fast fight would look out of place in the original Star Wars.
At any rate, I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree.