If they brought back Keaton and Burton, I'd watch it. Keaton hasn't aged horribly, and under the make-up, I doubt the passage of time would be noticeable at all. I see no reason to bring back the Deetzes or Maitlands. Their story is done, and Alec Baldwin looks nothing like he did in the '80s.
Too bad they didn't get this off the ground before Sylvia Sidney passed away.
Lots of movies don't and didn't need sequels. Honestly, Star Wars didn't need a sequel when it was just called Star Wars. John Carpenter didn't really think that Halloween needed a sequel but did it anyway. Wes Craven didn't want a sequel to A Nightmare on Elm Street to be made. Did Night really need a Dawn of the Dead? What would have happened if Paramount had stopped at Star Trek the Motion Picture?
Sequels aren't usually necessary, but can be a fun and new way to visit favorite characters or worlds.
Now, when studios throw away everything that made these characters and worlds what they were away but give them the same name... well... that's less like me visiting an old friend and more like trying to replace an old friend with someone completely different because they have the same name.