Things weren't so peaceful in the movie buff land when word got out a few weeks ago that Werner Herzog plans to remake Bad Lieutenant with Nicolas Cage in the lead role. Even noted trash auteur Abel Ferrara publicly complained about having his work redone. Bad Lieutenant isn't anybody's idea of a good time: Harvey Keitel puts on a freakishly raunchy performance. Still, it definitely sounds like Herzog's pumped about the gig. Defamer cornered the director in New York today for a few questions about the project, and the responses are kind of amazing. Herzog tends to do a great job of explaining himself, no matter what crazy scheme he has cooked up, but the best part of this interview arrives when the guy claims utter cluelessness about Ferrara's work. Way to stick it to the source material.

To hear Herzog tell it, his version of Bad Lieutenant isn't a remake, although he wouldn't know, since it sounds like hasn't actually seen the original. However, he says that Cage's character's name and the plot are entirely new. Herzog apparently liked the "very, very dark story," written by William M. Finkelstein, and he can't wait to work with Cage (given Herzog's notorious appreciation of Anna Nicole Smith, this last bit actually makes sense). Hearing about Ferrara's discontent, Herzog just eggs him on: "Let him fight the windmills, like Don Quixote." It's a feud made in heaven, almost too good to be true. You might just call it ecstatic truth.

Top: Early poster art for the new 'Bad Lieutenant,' snapped at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

Since Monday was a holiday, I now present you with the rare (but often more interesting) Tuesday Morning Poll. Because Tuesday just doesn't get enough lovin' these days. So everyone seems a tad floored that Rob Zombie's re-imagined Halloween scored $31 million over the Labor Day weekend. Me? I kind of saw it coming. As much as audiences have been turned off by horror as of late (or, more specifically, "torture porn"), it's obvious the genre still has its fans -- especially those searching for some nostalgia. Tack on a director with a name (sort of), call it a re-imagining of the original, and people flocked to see it. Of course, this now means we have officially landed in the re-imagined era. If there's one thing that $31 million haul did tell us, it was that we should expect a lot more films to be re-imagined (or whatever the hell they're calling it) in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if work starts right away on reviving the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises in the same fashion. Heck, imagine how many rumor posts we'll have to write when they start searching for someone to replace Robert Englund as Freddy Kruger?

But it's not just horror that's caught the re-imagined bug. Next summer we're already in store for The Incredible Hulk -- a film that isn't necessarily a sequel to Ang Lee's version, but an updated, re-imagined thingy. Christopher Nolan has already found success with his re-imagined Batman franchise, and now it's just a "wait and see" game as far as what the future holds. And that's exactly what I'm looking to find out from you today -- what does the future hold? Are there other films that are ripe for re-imagining? And what's the difference between a remake and a film that's been re-imagined? Do you prefer one over the other?

So, I ask you: What's your take on the re-imagined era? And are there any films that you'd personally like to see updated and re-imagined for today's audience?

In David Lynch's new Inland Empire (8 screens), an actor is told that the movie he's working on is actually a remake. "I wouldn't have done it if it were a remake," is his angry reply. Not long after I saw that movie, I interviewed director Joe Carnahan about his movie Smokin' Aces. He spoke about some of his upcoming projects, including a film called Bunny Lake Is Missing. "A remake," I replied. "Not a remake," he retorted. He explained how his version would be different from Otto Preminger's 1965 film, which somehow made it "not a remake."

It's a touchy subject, apparently, and yet every other movie that comes out these days is a remake of something: a video game, a TV show, another movie. Sometimes we get sequels of remakes, or remakes of sequels or even more complicated configurations. In my less-than-400-screens realm, we have The Painted Veil (275 screens), which was already made back in 1934 with Greta Garbo. We have Casino Royale (187 screens), which is completely different from the version made in 1967. We have Black Christmas (4 screens), an already forgotten remake of a great, underappreciated 1974 horror film.

Tooling around online this morning, I came across a cutesy little story on Variety in which Robert Vernini tells us (with a wink and a nudge) which recent films will eventually be remade, who will star and how the whole thing will go down. He begins in the year 2012 where, according to Vernini, we will see a new version of Volver set in New Orleans, and starring Halle Berry. Ooohh, and Dakota Fanning takes over the Anne Hathaway role in a remake of The Devil Wears Prada (with John Travolta in drag as Miranda Priestley), while the Olsen twins attempt an updated version of The Holiday ... but the project gets canned when the girls keep forgetting who is playing who.

Having fun yet? Next up is the year 2017, where Steven Soderbergh remakes his own The Good German -- but this time, he finds a way to digitally add in performances by Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Berman and John Hodiak. After Happy Feet: The Musical hits Broadway, folks think it's time to bring that box office beast back to the big screen. Al Gore teams up with Aardman for An Inconvenient Truth: The Animated Musical, with Billy Crystal as the voice of Carbon Dioxide. And, whaddya know, Ms. Fanning is back -- this time as director -- for a remake of Dreamgirls, rewritten to follow the story of the Dixie Chicks.

It keeps going from there -- 2032 and 2057 make appearances -- and the remakes turn even more bizarre (Flags of Our Grandfathers?), but it poses an interesting question (one I shall ask you): Which of todays films have the potential to be remade in five, ten or twenty years from now?

Say it ain't so, Ben? According to a scoop Dark Horizons picked up, Ben Affleck is interested in remaking Play Misty for Me. The 1967 film was Clint Eastwood's directorial debut, and is probably one of the only Eastwood flicks that could be remade without people immediately cursing the heavens above. Affleck, who I happened to catch last night at an early screening of Smokin' Aces (sorry folks, but I'm not allowed to talk about that film, apart from the fact that it was annoyingly delicious), is supposedly in talks to produce and direct the pic. Right now, it looks like Jason Smilovic (Lucky Number Slevin) will pen the script, and Eastwood himself might even attach himself as producer -- I guess to make sure Affleck doesn't muck the whole thing up.

In the original, Eastwood played a DJ who has a one-night-stand with a woman only to later discover that she was an obsessed fan, hell-bent on going all Fatal Attraction on this cowboy. No word yet on whether Affleck will follow in Eastwood's footsteps and also star in the film, but those of you who are curious about the dude's directing skills won't have to wait much longer, as Affleck's first attempt behind the camera, Gone, Baby, Gone, is due out next year. While I'd be interested in seeing a contemporary version of Fatal Attraction Play Misty for Me, I would like to see a film that reverses the roles. (Does Hard Candy count?) How do you hardcore Eastwood fans feel about this one?

Not long ago, we told you how that big-screen remake of the television show Dallas had hit a roadblock, losing everyone in the cast with the exception of John Travolta. However, at the time, most expected filmmakers to re-cast the pic with some less expensive talent and jump right back on schedule -- I believe the exact words from Variety were, "Robert Harling's script may be tweaked, but a major overhaul is not planned." Well, now it appears that so-called "major overhaul" is very much a major reality.

According to Hollywood.com, filmmakers have decided to toss Harling's script to the curb after a few focus groups in the Midwest found the thing way too dramatic. In fact, they wanted a lot more of the funny. Therefore, the script will be re-written as "a show-within-a-show" type comedy. Oh, but it gets worse -- some folks are comparing this latest version to the big-screen TV remake of Bewitched, which starred Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman. And with that, I think it's officially time to kill this project. Production was supposed to start this month, but was delayed until January because of the recent disappearing cast issues. Now, with a total re-write on the way, I expect Travolta and director Gurinder Chadha to drop out and send this puppy back to the drawing board.

What do you think about this new direction? Should they scrap Dallas completely? Were any of you really looking forward to this?

Either someone drugged him or Luke Wilson is looking to get "in tight" (if you know what I mean) with Jessica Simpson, because the actor has reportedly joined the cast of Blonde Ambition, a "loose remake" of the 1988 film Working Girl. Yeah, so I guess when they decide to remake a fantastic movie with a horrific actress in the starring role, the safe terminology from here on out will be "loose remake." However, fact is the only thing loose about it is, well ... let's continue, shall we?

According to producer Justin Berfield, Blonde Ambition (wait, wasn't that what Madonna named one of her tours?) will indeed be Simpson's next film, and production is supposed to begin as early as November 27 in Shrevport, Louisiana. This will also mark Simpson's first leading role in a film, and she'll have pretty big shoes to fill seeing as Melanie Griffith scooped up an Oscar nomination for playing the same character. Oh, and if you think this thing can't get any worse, Andy Dick (who co-starred alongside Simpson in Employee of the Month) is in negotiations to play an "evil" secretary. (Man, what's next -- Rob Schneider signing on to play himself?) Story revolves around one woman's journey from the bottom to the top of a corporate empire. They're currently eying a summer release.

Sorry, but I have to ask: Does anyone think this will be any good?

[via Coming Soon]

In a move that I find rather interesting and fun, Michael Caine will be playing a different role in the remake of Sleuth, a film in which he originally starred back in 1972. Kenneth Branagh is set to direct, while Jude Law will take over as the character Caine once played.

Based on the Anthony Shaffer play (with a script by Harold Pinter), story revolves around a thriller writer (Caine) who, upon losing his wife to a young hairdresser (Law), decides to hatch a complex revenge plan. In the original, Caine played the hairdresser and Laurence Olivier played the writer. Pic marks the second time Law will be taking on a role once owned by Caine, having also starred in the 2004 remake of Alfie. Hmm, I guess we can now officially call Jude Law a young Michael Caine.

Friends have asked me why Hollywood would remake The Omen, a film remembered fleetingly, if at all, for a few images of terror, Gregory Peck, and the pulsing, moody Carmina Burana-like score, an Oscar-winner for composer Jerry Goldsmith. Their concern is a slightly embarrassed mix of indignation and curiosity: Their attitude is that if movies they remember fondly don't need to be remade, what justifies a return to The Omen, which wasn't very good the first time?

But remakes often happen to correct significant errors with original films, namely that they didn't make money for the right people. Why should Dr. Seuss's estate alone profit from How the Grinch Stole Christmas? Can't Ron Howard get some of that sweet Who-ville coin? And so, we get remakes -- even remakes of films as marginal as The Omen.

But then again, if pop culture is often a indicator of how people are actually feeling -- if there's a link between the stories on the front page of the New York Times and the books at the top of the Best-seller lists in the Book Review section -- then we can see that supernatural claptrap with one foot in the Dark Ages and the other somewhere around the End Times has been selling pretty good recently: The Da Vinci Code, the Left Behind book series. So at the beginning of John Moore's version of The Omen, footage from 9/11, Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami provokes plenty of long, serious looks from The Vatican's top men, who've met to decipher symbols from the Book of Revelation with a series of PowerPoint slides...

Ok, hands up if you're surprised by the news that The Weinstein Company is going to make a movie version of Knight Rider. Yeah, that's what I thought -- I see three hands. Despite the fact that, thus far, big-screen versions of TV classics (using the word loosely, in some cases) have for the most part not only been critically lambasted but also box office failures, Hollywood seems to have a wild hair about the concept, and are clearly determined to beat that horse until its good and dead (while I sit here and gleefully mix my metaphors). Weirdly, the IMDb already has a listing for the film, starring David Hasselhoff -- a project that must be either dead or made-up.

What's going to be even more fun that then inevitable "If The Hoff's not in it, I'm not going!" versus "OMG! Owen Wilson would be so great in this!" debates is the fact that TWC apparently see this thing as having "franchise potential." Come on -- what's better than a whole lot of movies about a talking car?