Why make a remake?
For money.
Take a cult classic that actually has some personality and flavour to it, make a crap new film as a "remake" and rake in the profits.
It's the worst kind of scum. Soulless, avaricious and it defecates upon the original.
Let's have Damian Hirst remake Van Gogh's Sunflowers with Rabbit Intestines. Mmmmm, classy. And yet, it'll make a fortune.
There is an inconceivably vast difference in the Art world between something that is genuinely entertaining or thought-provoking, and something that is a sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual, disingenuous cash-in and it GREATLY offends a lot of artists to see a hack be lauded and praised because of industry nepotism and viral marketing!
I am offended because they cheapen the artistic merit by even being considered to be the same caliber as others who have put real passion into their work.
It is not art, it is poor entertainment and it is a sickening mockery of any form of quality.
THAT is why people hate such tasteless garbage as hollow remakes and your opinion actively damages and hurts the people trying to create something valuable. Hollywood will continue to produce this fecal matter if people continue to watch it and it turns a profit.
It's the American Dream; rampant consumerism turning art into industry. "Manufacturing innovation". It's a sham and it's a joke.
Edit : @TheCheshireKhajiit : Yeah, Kurt Russell is definitely one of my favourite actors from that era. I thoroughly enjoy John Candy's films too. Let's hope they don't try to remake those with some obnoxious turd like James Corden taking his role.
I'll probably not watch the new movie either. Out of protest.