OK, before we start: Yes, I realize the mere existence of a remake does not magically cause a rift in the time-space continuum to destroy the original. You make consider that point duly noted. That said: What the shit? How would you even begin to remake Videodrome? First problem: Assuming they stick to the general plot (i.e. TV executive gets "programmed" as a weapon through the technology of Videodrome), what's the visual metaphor that takes the place of the videotape? Video in 2012 is mostly consumed via streaming on Youtube or Netflix or cable - there's no physical media that is associated with the abstract concept of "video" like a videotape was in 1982. Second: Never heard of the director. He's apparently a commercials guy. Which doesn't mean he'll be automatically bad, but a great deal of the pleasure of a Cronenberg movie is his cold, controlled directorial style. Which leads to the third problem... Third: Effects. This is on my mind because I recently rewatched Videodrome for the millionth time, and what's particularly striking about it is how Cronenberg (via the ridiculously great technical skills of Rick Baker and the other technicians) recontexualizes the then-current progress of special effects work. Think of something like An American Werewolf In London (which Baker worked on just before doing Videodrome) - it's a great movie, but the effects are contextually in the same place as they would be if you did the same movie in the 40s. The effects work are for transformations, in other words. But in Videodrome, the effects break out of merely being monster-makeup. In Videodrome, reality itself breaks down, so anything can be transformative - a TV set, a videotape, human flesh, etc. There's no way in hell they'll do a remake with all practical effects, but to this old fogey CGI just doesn't work as well for that kind of movie. CGI effects don't possess the weight of practical, especially when it comes to body horror. So that whole element of the movie gets lost. And finally: Videodrome is a hugely subversive movie. Let's skip over the sexual sado-masochism of the original - imagine trying to get a scene like piercing Debbie Harry's ears and licking the blood off the pins into a movie today - and instead concentrate on the underlying themes. There's a sly bit of misdirection in Videodrome where the brain-tumor-causing signal is originally transmitted via a repugnant broadcast of torture and violence because those images make the brain more receptive to the Videodrome programming, which at first seems like Cronenberg biting the hand that feeds him. (It's pretty brave to comdemn the very audience who would watch a movie like Videodrome for watching it.) Later on, though, it's revealed that the Videodrome signal can be transmitted under anything, even a test pattern. It's not the content that effects physical and mental changes in the viewer, but the medium itself. (Videodrome, in that sense, is clearly a nod to another famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan.) Even better, it's possible that the Videodrome signal isn't even a bad thing, depending on how you interpret the movie. Is James Woods just an assassination flesh-tool, or does he actually undergo a transformation to the next evolutionary stage? Now, does anybody think a remake will touch any of that thematic depth? Bah, humbug. I say. BAH HUMBUG.