why do people like remakes of classic films?

First of all, those aren't remakes! those are adaptations of books. Whenever someone makes a movie based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film, They're making a new film based on the same literary source material. That's what any version based on the book The Three Musketeers is, not a remake of any of the earlier films but rather a new adaptation of the original source material.

To me, the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and it's original screenplay (one that is not based on any existing source material like comics, novellas and books) like say The Blob, King Kong, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes etc. TRUE remakes in every sense.

It would be like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of the 1931 film or the silent classic Nosferatu, NO they are all separate and different adaptation of the same source material. Another example is the films Last Man on Earth, Omega Man and I Am Legend which are all separate and completely different adaptations of the original source material which have nothing to do with each other. Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels. Calling a new film based on an old comic previously film or a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.


Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy,Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds,Casino Royale, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Manchaurian Candidate, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

Now for reboot.
DEFINITION*:
verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again.
noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer.
This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world. Nolan's films are a separate adaptation as well besides franchise reboot.

Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.

Now, every remake , adaptation and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material. Hell even Escape from New York and Poltergeist new movies are called "reboots" they are remakes and some call the upcoming 2 part IT a "reboot", nope it's another adaptation.

True reboots are:
Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context). It's also a separate adaptation of the book and a direct one, not a remake of the 1967 film. The Amazing Spider-man did the Batman Begins route and ignoring an established series and telling another origin story as if it’s in an alternate universe.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies

To me, the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and it's original screenplay