Starting with 1960's The Magnificent Seven (a remake of The Seven Samurai) and culminating in the recent spate of adaptations of Japanese and Korean horror movies, Hollywood has often looked to Asia for new ideas. But rarely do we see it go the other way -- at least, not in any sort of official capacity. But Sony Pictures Classics will distribute the new film from acclaimed Chinese director Zhang Yimou (Hero, House of Flying Daggers), and it's a remake of the Coen Brothers' first film, Blood Simple.

Fans of the classic children's book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH were treated to animated version in 1982, retitled The Secret of NIMH. Except in the movie, there were some significant changes, like the addition of magic and mysticism, and a lot more deaths. Well, that may be rectified, since a new film adaptation of the book is in the works, one that will likely be a combination of live-action and computer-generated animation. If that had been an option back in 1982, they probably would have just done that the first time, as they would have with every other talking-animal movie made in that decade. We made a list of the animated classics that need an updated go-around, either because they didn't do the book justice or because a new version would make them that much cooler.

You've seen them on DVD store shelves, and they've made you do a double-take: The Da Vinci Treasure. Sunday School Musical. Snakes on a Train. They certainly look and sound familiar, and that's the point. They're all movies by The Asylum, a production company that made low-budget horror movies until they realized that their sales spiked whenever they themed, timed and named their releases to coincide with mainstream theatrical films. Four years later, they're turning out at least one tie-in film, or "mockbuster," per month in addition to films with no tie-in, but usually some crazy premise all its own. This week, their newest movie, The Land That Time Forgot, hits rental stores and Redboxes near you, so we talked to producer and Asylum co-founder David Michael Latt about their business model, the C. Thomas Howell connection and how Mega Shark met Giant Octopus.

Stephen King is not only one of the most prolific, best-selling and -- in this writer's opinion -- most talented authors of our time, he's probably the author who's had the most movies based on his work, right up there with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and whoever writes all of the books those Lifetime movies are based on. Beginning with Carrie in 1976, nearly all of King's books, novellas and short stories have been adapted for the screen or for TV miniseries, and now we've received word that one of his earlier adaptations, the franchise-spawning horror film Children of the Corn, will be re-made. And that got us thinking -- as great a writer as King is, a lot of the movies based on his work are terrible, or at the very least wildly inaccurate. King doesn't seem to mind the latter ones, but we certainly do. Here are a selection of King films, good and bad, that need do-overs.

Apparently, the problem with movies based on video games isn't that they're never given the script attention and directorial skill that they deserve. No, apparently, the video games are just too new. Old video games have more nostalgic appeal, so more people will go to see them, right? That must be the thinking behind this latest bit of news, that Lorenzo Di Bonaventura will be producing an Asteroids movie, based on the video game about a ship that sits in the middle of the screen and blows up big asteroids, forming smaller and smaller asteroids. Considering that there were two big, competing asteroid movies about a decade ago, and two competing TV-movies about it this year, was it really worth the four-studio bidding war? Hell, is the word "asteroids" even copyrighted? Since we can't imagine what the film will bring to the table that we haven't seen already, we've come up with a list of classic video games that we're much more interested to see on the big screen.

The trailer for I Love You Beth Cooper may make it look like your standard teen comedy, but there's just something about it that I can't put my finger on. Sure, it follows the same "beauty and the geek" pattern of films like Can't Hardly Wait, but the premise, the sets, the characters... something about it just screams "1980s" to me. I'm getting a little bit of Who's That Girl?, but I'm mostly getting a lot of Weird Science, which is, well, weird, because the film does not appear to involve two teenagers creating the perfect woman using their computer. (Although, if two nerds were to build their ideal woman today, she would probably look a lot less like Kelly LeBrock and a lot more like Hayden Panettiere, if not exactly like her.)

While the late, great Michael Jackson is most famous for his music, the man loved to make movies about himself and his songs, and as a megastar he had his pick of some of the most respected directors of our time. Granted, not all of the films were very good, and most were simply long-form music videos, but all were jam-packed full of enough ideas to make a feature-length movie out of. In honor of the man, what say we get today's hottest directors to remake his films? (We'll leave the challenge of recasting the Jackson role to more talented casting directors than ourselves.)

While all of the attention is on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen right now, this August will see another 1980s toy property come to the big screen: G.I. Joe. Sadly, you may not recognize anything but the name, because visually it seems to have very little in common with the most popular version of its mythos, and unsubstantiated rumors have been circulating that the director, Stephen Sommers, has been pulled from editing the film. How did this happen? How did G.I. Joe, one of the most basic, straightforward concepts in 1980s children's television, become such a nightmare?

Now that news has broken that Sean Penn is taking time off to focus on his family for a while, that leaves the Farrelly Brothers' highly anticipated (by me, anyway) Three Stooges movie down a Stooge. They still have a Moe in Benicio del Toro, and a Curly in Jim Carrey, but the whiny, red-headed, curly-haired Larry is back to square one. While some sites have been suggesting everyone from Robert Downey Jr. to Matt Damon to fill the role, we can think of only one man who deserves it as much as Penn: Mel Gibson.

So America is really excited about this remake of The Taking of Pelham 123... right? Aren't they? Well, maybe they wouldn't be so excited if they knew that this was the second time they've remade it! The last time was a 1998 TV movie starring Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio, and although that sounds frickin' awesome, we haven't seen it, so we can't say for sure. We'll assume that it was horrible, which is why they decided to remake it yet again. There are a lot of remakes out there like that -- ones that are not only worse than the originals, but actually worse than most films, thereby necessitating yet another remake just so we can get the taste of the last one out of our mouths. Here are ten movies we loved whose remakes we simply can't stand, and could use a third (or fourth, or fifth) attempt to put a new spin on things.