I just want to add my own expansion of this list of four "don't" items for horror movie remakes.
You left out numbers five and six from your otherwise excellent column. In the spirit of film criticism and ensuring that future "remakes", "reboots", and "re-imaginings" are not so awful, here are my two contributions to your "don't" list.
5.) WATCH THE ORIGINAL UNTIL YOU KNOW IT BY HEART. The problem with most remakes today is that it's painfully obvious that the film-makers never bothered to watch the original movie or television series, except maybe a token episode or viewing to get a general idea of what is being sold during the pitch.
What's always missing from most remakes? The story and character elements that allow the audience to be pulled in, to care about the characters and what happens to them. In the original "Halloween", we identify with the character of Laurie Strode because she is written more realistically than conventional stereotypes. She isn't some one-dimensional character obsessed with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, although it is quite clear that she does think about them and that she does want to try them — she is just really, really shy, too much so to act on her desires. What's more, whereas Laurie's friends are thoughtless and careless, she is responsible. She cares deeply for her charges, having a clear mothering instinct, and always puts their safety ahead of her own. These character traits made audiences fall in love with Laurie Strode, and Jamie Lee Curtis' portrayal was a perfect fit.
Compare that to the second, "remake" half of Rob Zombie's otherwise entertaining update. (I actually liked the movie, though I acknowledge its flaws.) All the elements that originally made the character of Laurie Strode identifiable with audiences, and therefore worthy of our sympathies, are gone. She's shallow, obsessed with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and she'd rather be doing anything than babysitting her annoying charges. Had the director-writer had time enough to devote to an adequate remake, he could have corrected this crucial mistake by devoting more time to character development for Laurie Strode, fleshing her out so we can care what happens to her. But he focused on fleshing out the origins of Michael Myers, so we were treated to a surprisingly nuanced story in the first half that, while typically over-the-top — it is a Rob Zombie film, after all — nevertheless portrayed attention to detail and gave us characters we can actually care about, such as Debra Myers, who was played by a very talented Sherri Moon Zombie. Still, for all the development of the characters in the first two acts, those in the third act were typical slasher fare we couldn't wait to see killed off.
And that's just from someone who was really and truly a fan of the original "Halloween". It's obvious that J.J. Abrams and Michael Bay never saw "Star Trek" or "Transformers", perhaps not even a token viewing. Likewise the awful writers, who decided it wasn't necessary to bother getting things right so that fans of the original series — without whom there would be no $100 million reboots — would be able to enjoy re-acquainting themselves with their childhood favorites.
If you're going to remake of a television series or of another movie, first be a fan who knows the original material inside and out. Make the film with the intention of using it to reintroduce the originals to a whole new generation of fans. Make the story plausible, solidly written, with characters that aren't reduced to one-dimensional stereotypes we love to hate. And that brings me to...
6.) WRITE A GOOD STORY. The flaws in the rebooted "Star Trek" are too numerous to name them all, but I'll name a few. First, no self-respecting science enthusiast believes that a nova, or even a supernova, can destroy an entire galaxy. For that to happen, we'd need a chain reaction the likes of which could be generated by the center of our galaxy exploding. Instead, we are subjected to horrendously bad science that does nothing but insult our intelligence. A mysterious red liquid, a drop of which can implode a planet or a supernova, thus creating a black hole? There is no known substance or natural phenomenon capable of doing that. It is one thing to take a concept and ask the audience to suspend its disbelief so we can get into the story. But these plot devices were beyond insulting, especially to science geeks.
Then, of course, there is the reduction of beloved characters to one-dimensional brats who whining, arrogance, and caricatures of the originals really make one wish for Gene Roddenberry to rise from the grave to start writing again — because it's painfully obvious that few people today know the first thing about writing characters and stories into which audiences can invest emotional attachment. So we have a Hikaru Sulu who looks and acts more like a martial arts nerd than starship navigator, a Leonard McCoy who is all grouch and no compassion, a Spock who is uncharacteristically emotional (even before the destruction of Vulcan), and a James Kirk who is all arrogance and none of the charisma William Shatner brought to the role.
No story can succeed without good character development — who is your protagonist? What make him tick? What does he do for a living? What drives him? A pretty face only takes a movie so far, and then the actor or actress has to get by on talent. And all the talent in the world can't compensate for a cruddy story with weak characters. Which brings me to #7.
7.) CGI DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER MAKE A MOVIE GOOD. CGI can, when done properly, add to conventional special effects to create a truly wonderful and enjoyable movie-going experience. But rely too much on it, especially from people who haven't got the talent to make the CGI effects look realistic, and you're asking for trouble. Conventional effects are better in the long run because they give something tangible for actors to react to, and interact with. CGI can and has been used to augment conventional techniques, such as animatronics and makeup. See "Jurassic Park" for an example of when the combination works really, really well. But CGI can't carry an entire film, a lesson George Lucas should have learned when he made his prequel trilogy. Another example of bad CGI is the Ang Lee-directed "Hulk". The character's green giant alter ego was too cartoonish and too bright for the evironment it was placed in. Learning from that SFX disappointment, the makers of the Ed Norton vehicle "The Incredible Hulk" went with a more subdued, more realistic monster, and although still a bit too cartoonish, nevertheless remained more realistic than its predecessor.
8.) NEVER THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE AUDIENCE. YOU CAN'T TAKE ONLY WHAT YOU THINK ARE THE 'GOOD' PARTS AND LEAVE OUT WHAT YOU THINK IS IRRELEVANT. The reason Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin can't make a watchable film to save their lives is because they think all that's needed to make a good movie is a hundred million dollars and a cast of all-stars. Not so. You actually need a story, and it has to have a premise that is believable enough for the audience to suspend its disbelief. The characters, as mentioned, have to be well developed so they are not caricatures nobody can invest sympathy in. Reliance on CGI effects and big name actors alone makes for a movie that will be forgotten within a couple of years, whereas the original is more likely to endure in the minds of the public. The originals had things modern films don't, and it's because of those that they have succeeded so well in being remembered decades after their making. You can't simply cherry-pick what you think are the 'good' parts, that is, the BAM-WOW! action, and leave the meatier aspects of storytelling behind as junk. We like the original "Halloween" so much because of the story and the characters, and because the writers knew what went into making for good stories and good characters. Michael Myers is more than simply a man in a repainted William Shatner mask and overalls. He is evil on two legs, and his primary victim is three-dimensional. Freddy Krueger is scary because he is a monster before his death whose resurrection in the dreams of his current victims only unleashes the full brunt of his evil. His victims are, like Laurie Strode, believable enough that audiences can invest their sympathy. Wes Craven, taking a page from Alfred Hitchcock, created a perfect storytelling setup that started us off with a main character to invest emotional attachment only to kill her off half way through, forcing us to identify with another. It's that kind of storytelling, and that kind of unsettling of audiences, that make for good, enjoyable movies. The SFX are like icing on the cake, but if the icing only covers so much feces, audiences will reject it. The sad part in today's "remake" mania is that Hollywood thinks so little of its audiences that it can keep doing this and get away with it forever.
