I don't think remakes/reimaginings are a good idea in the first place. It was alright at first, 10-20 years ago. But Hollywood is so, so creatively bankrupt at this point they should just stick with sequels if they can't find anybody with an original idea anymore. And if they can't do that, then it's no wonder people aren't going to movie theaters as often anymore, especially me. Trying to remake a beloved classic film is a lose-lose situation financially and creatively.
I'd be a lot more interested in something that was a "Response" to another film or franchise, telling a similar story but with a deliberate twist of some kind. But certainly not the same IP. It may turn out to just be a ripoff, but is a ripoff the same thing as a film which attempts to subvert a particular genre or set of tropes, while telling it's own story? I don't necessarily think so.
There's no shortage of original ideas in Hollywood. Original films, good ones, are made all the time. The problem is that the average movie gowr doesn't want to part with their money without a guarantee. This makes them flock to seeing things they have some sort of familiarity with. The studios share the blame as they will always go with the least amount of rosk for losing money. Original movies are made, but the big ones tend to be franchises. They could control the narrative and just make new things, but investors and financeers don't like the risk that comes along with it.
It's an annoying cyclical problem that puts blame equally on studios and the public.