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
The Departed
And of course, The Fly and The Thing.
no offense intended.