I have to say that I agree with James to the extent that a remake does no harm to the original, as long as the original is still available. In the much-vaunted studio era, it was common practice if a remake was planned to try and suppress any showings of the original versions, even to the point of destroying prints and negatives. That's no longer the case, so the previous versions will still be available even if a remake is made. A remake doesn't "insult" or "diminish" the original.
The only musical remakes being made recently are the live TV versions, or the live-action Disney ones, like that recent Beauty and the Beast.
As you can see I'm now trying to approach the topic of film 'remakes' by questioning what is 'the original'. I'm now viewing this from a jazz musician point of the view; In most cases 'the original' is the source material. So in music that is the actual sheet music and NOT any recordings of the song.
All jazz musicians understand this but rockers and I get into it especially now that the internet has made all the various forms of music (recording, transcriptions) available at our fingertips. Too many rockers will say 'that is NOT how it is played' or 'this song is in the key of F'. Well the sheet music is in the key of G but the most common recorded version, was done in the key of F. Which is 'the original'.
So what rockers tend to mean is 'that is NOT the same way as the recording I know'. A jazz musician just says 'oh, I see you changed those 4 bars to,,,,'. Hey they may even say 'I don't think that works', but that is 100% different than 'that I NOT how it is played'.
All of the above applies to movies with the exception being movies based 100% on a written for the screen outline and screenplay.