The Outsiders Remake? ?

First off you need to understand I was SUPER PREGNANT T minus 34 days. SO I wake up at night, sometimes for a few minutes other times for hours. I have a few tricks to aid me in my awake time but it amazes me what my mind is doing on it's own.
Like last night, I had a movie score in my head, as I went for my nightly pit stop I think I even pit stopped to the rhythm of said movie score. But could not remember for the life of me the movie. When I woke up again, it came to me Harry Potty movie one. Really, my life was moving at the sound of Harry Potter.
Well then I went on a great head journey of other great movie songs. I landed on Stevie Wonder- Stay Gold- From The movie the Outsiders. The song was amazing and by the time he really starts going and the credits roll up the screen tears are flowing, at least for me.
So then my mind took another route- what if they remade the movie the Outsiders?
Historical notes of importance: The novel the Outsiders was written by S.E Hinton and published in 1967; The movie was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and was released in 1983.
Here is my slowed down stream of thoughts:
1. Who would play the lead characters? The original movie features some really hot up and coming male actors including C.Thomas Howell, Matt Dillion, Ralph Macchio, Patrick Swazye and Tom Cruise to name a few. All were only slightly known in movie circles, no one had made it "big"; in fact some I am not sure Tom Cruise had speaking lines. Part of the draw back in 1983 was that you were not tied to the actors. We have moved to a place in cinema where knowing the actor is 3/4 the reason we show up. I am not sure if this unknown actor phenomenon could be replicated.
2. A major theme in the movie is CLASS- the greasers vs. the socs (socialites). The greasers being the poor, mostly white working class kids while the Soc where the upper class kids who were portrayed as having no cares in the world. Since the writing and filming of the original, I think our cultural ability to talk about class has all but dissipatedy. Most people do not even have a lens or the language to talk about class, social economic status, etc. In fact, we are such a culture of excess that even poor kids think they need $100 Nikes so how do you get those who refuse to have nothing but everything to see into a world of those who only have what they need? We have mot managed to do this even slightly well in real time/real world, I am unsure a movie that calls class out so blatantly would work.
3. Race:Ralph M. is the only real brown character in the movie- race is not really outlined in the book; in fact they are all white Oklahoma boys. In a 2010 version, how if at all would race play out. Would the two groups just be mixed and we as viewers asked to be colorblind? Again our cultural paradigm has shifted to make race and class synonymous- ghetto has come to mean poor and black while suburban has come to mean white and middle class;once race is added into the mixture the layer cake only gets thicker. It makes the story richer but not sure it makes the movie more tangible for the current audience.
4. Gangs and Violence: In the book and movie, the Socs gang nearly kill a Greaser by drowning,another greaser stabs and kills one of the Soc gang members with a knife, some type of violence happens to Matt Dillon character and finally there is also a RUMBLE- hand to hand combat fight- at the end of the movie. First off, adding the racial element in with the violence also creates another spin as black males are all gun toting gang members, right? SO moving on... I believe that all the violence which matched the world at the time they were written and filmed would automatically increase to reflect the 2010 time frame meaning more violent and gun filled. Violence is the not only anticipated but expected by movie goers today. Violence in all it's formats has become a momentary afterthought- many people do not even see it anymore. We are almost as at a place where if there is no violence there is no movie. In the original, the violence was not used as a center piece to tie lose ends but used as a way to send the story unraveling even further- I think a 2010 audience would only see the violence.
4.And Finally time frame and context: Do you take the script and reset it into a new time or do you analyzes and discern themes and re write using the core elements...?
I am torn on this point BUT I know that it would make a huge difference for me as a viewer. We can not go back to the rumble fight and community gangs of the past- they no longer exist. However, we can not go forward burying children because gun play is seen as fun; imprisoning brown boys for life because drug selling is the only economic outlet in the community, or questioning, detaining and deporting anyone with dark skin after we have created the largest self manifesting/supply and demand labor system on their backs.
In the end Susie ( yes S.E. Hinton is a woman) was writing about life in small town Oklahoma, about the young men she saw in the early 1960's when so many questions lay open ended- pending war draft and racial dynamics to name a few. I think a key theme would get lost in a remake which is the view of young men as more than bravdo; a view of young men being depth filled, growing, changing individuals- one of the first shining examples of male adolescence on paper and on screen.
So I open the floor, what are your thoughts...?
I think we can not go back but I am cynical and I was up at 3:00 am. Please share your thoughts open and wild!!