In fact, one of the ARSC suggestions was acted on by Congress. The law only directed that a study of repealing §301(c) be undertaken by the copyright office, but that is progress nonetheless. The report, as I understand it, is expected later this year, before Marybeth Peters retires.
...The nature of the work is that it's a fanpage, designed to promote the original work and to provide commentary on it...
Your statement quoted above seems to be conflating the nature of the work (2nd factor) with the purpose of the use (1st factor, which you discuss later as well). The "nature of the work" in the second fair use factor refers to the nature of the original work, not the controversial one. The nature of the work is that it is highly creative (despite being a remake), rather than factual, and is not yet published (see Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises 571 US 539 at 563). In this case, the second factor would probably go to the plaintiffs, except where some of the information that is used may in fact be factual.
I still think you're right in that fair use for the fan page itself is pretty much a slam dunk (though some of the fan art may not be), but they're not likely to win the second factor.