Oh God Why??

Battle of the Bulge had some good acting and nice speeches in it. Otherwise, it is not worth remaking. As posted on other threads, this movie is near the top of the list for movies purportedly about actual events that present those those events with grotesque inaccuracy.

It is rare for movies that attempt to cover major military campaigns to either cover those campaigns with even moderate accuracy or in a way that allows us to connect to the participants being portrayed, much less succeed at both of those efforts. I can think of a few that I think did a reasonably good job:

"Gettysburg,"
"The Longest Day," and
"A Bridge Too Far."

All three had to leave out an enormous amount of detail and major parts of the campaigns that they covered.

War films that work well on a critical and theatrical level are almost always reduced to small unit coverage. We need to focus on a small group of individuals. If the film, or mini-series tries to look at several marginally related individuals, we feel disconnected. If those individuals are thrown about in a series of battles within a campaign, the audience does not connect. Just ask the enormous number of people who love "Band of Brothers," but were hugely disappointed by "The Pacific."

For what it's worth, I appreciate both of those mini-series but I find BoB to be more fulfilling, more satisfying than TP.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.