subnoizejuggalo, Remakes shouldn't ONLY be of good movies. Where do you get the idea that it should only be of good movies? I mean, some of the best remakes are of very bad or cheesy original movies(Hills Have Eyes, The Fly, The Thing). If you deem "People Under The Stairs" to be bad, then that means it should be considered for a remake even more, at the least, to make it BETTER(which is what remakes SHOULD do). Shocker, for instance, which was made with the intent of becoming a series, but never got famous because a LOT of cheesy ass special FX. I heard that Craven hired a team, but they pulled out in the last minute, so he had to pull a bunch of favors from some of his FX friends and with what little money they had left, we got really bad FX. And note it wasn't the year the movie was made(1989), cause Dream Child(NOES) was made the same year, and had GREAT FX. They could do so much more now with Shocker, and probably leave it uncut(Craven's original was minced by the censors, and a lot of nudity and gore were cut out). THAT could be a GREAT remake. Then, if it turns good, it could FINALLY become it's OWN series, just like Craven wanted.