> I also can't believe it's for marketing purposes. After all, anyone who considers "Dinner" a good film is probably sharp enough to stay away from an Ashton Kutcher movie. So what's the point? Sometimes Hollywood confuses me.

I have the exact same questions about the forthcoming race-reversed remake of The Honeymooners. I can't imagine that anybody who cares about The Honeymooners would care about any form of it without Jackie Gleason; Art Carney and Audrew Meadows are only slightly less impossible to imagine recast. So why bill this as The Honeymooners instead of an original creation whose characters are inspired by The Honeymooners, much like the highly successful Flintstones cartoon?