I'd argue that the Amazing Spider-Man wasn't a remake at all — it certainly wasn't a remake of Raimi's film. It was a new film based on the same source material (50+ years of Spidey comics). It's like saying Raimi's movie was a cash grab remake of the 60s TV show.

It's not you, but I'm answering to this one because I get tired of seeing similar complaints all day every day. Original movies get made. There've been remakes since film began. Shakespeare's plays were remakes. And if they do cancel a massive blockbuster based on a previous property, they're not going to replace it…

Still eye candy... especially compared to that wallpaper.

Yeah, I got banned from my neighbours house for saying fart and not fluff, like they did, when I was 8. My argument then? Fluff sounds way more disgusting.

Hopefully. Those Cornetto movies and Paul were, arguably, derivative (you could also argue that they were successful homage — or in parts, both).

I actually liked FF 5 and 6, a lot — and hadn't expected to because, well, I thought the first FF was dumb and hadn't seen any of the others. But FF6 is really not all that loud and explody (sure, there has to be some of that in a car movie but there's certainly much less than, say, Into Darkness).

The odd movies generally follow unexpected success/hype/acclaim — TMP after Trek suddenly became popular in syndication, III (which wasn't that bad for a bridge) after hit II, V after hit IV, etc. etc.

Michelle Tanner?

So why does Khan surrender himself when he hears Sulu's about to fire the torpedos? And he didn't replace all their innards — because later on they explode (but don't completely destroy the Vengeance4Vulcan!.

Thing is — as you said, the vast, vast majority of child molestations and abductions are committed by someone the child already knows.