Filmmakers have been paying homage to Hitchcock for decades, yet there have been very few out and out remakes. The man was a master at his craft and frankly "mainstream" America has been exposed to only a few of his films. There are so many people that won't give a film a chance based on the fact that it's in B&W alone. A remake will never take anything away from the originals, and may actually spark some interest.
The Psycho remake was pretty pointless, I agree, but I just don't understand how angry people get when a remake is produced. The "golden age" of Hollywood is largely a myth. The studio system pumped out just as many misses as hits. Remakes and sequels have been a part of the Hollywood machine for quite some time. And for a simple reason. They make money. Maybe Hollywood is creatively bankrupt, but I'd rather that then they simply be bankrupt.
I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis. I'm not ready to condemn a movie based on the simple fact that it's a remake.
I think whether or not a remake is going to be good as well as successful may lie in the film maker's intent. Just like with any other movie.
Here's a short list of remakes I thought were good in no particular order.
Dawn Of The Dead
Last House On The Left
The Hills Have Eyes
And of course, The Fly and The Thing.