Why don't you like remakes or reboots of movies or Television programs or shows ??

after watching the remake of Willy Wonka-----how can you ask that? 

Gene Wilder should have SUED. 

and then Johnny Depp goes and ruins Tonto, too., in The Lone Ranger. 

I mean, stop the guy before he ruins another classic. !!!!

Been there done that, let's see something new.
Also, too often the reboot/remake is not faithful enough to the source material.

Is it really asking too much for writers to write something new instead of just copying and pasting something from 20-50 years ago and just changing a few details?

If people like a show or movie then they don't want to see it change.  They don't want a, possibly inferior, version to be made.  And if they like a film they often won't see a reason for a new version. 

We've also seen a proliferation of these remakes and reboots in recent years.  They used to be a more rare.  In the early days of movies you would have different films made about existing material, like a couple different films of Henry V, or the Gunfight at the OK Corral.  But it was rare to have a movie itself, which was an original story, get rebooted or remade (a prominent exception is A Star is Born which was remade four different times over he years).  But in recent years, remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations of existing material, has become more common.  The reason has to do with ballooning costs of movies and the more competitive entertainment market.  It's riskier to make a film and so studios will try and reduce that risk by choosing to make an adaptation of something which already exists, and which has a built in fan base.  It's seen as less risky to, for example, make a sequel to the beloved 1980s film Coming to America rather than do an original comedy film.  But while this might make sense for any given film or tv franchise, I think the proliferation of these remakes and reboots has left some people tired, and wishing that Hollywood had some original ideas.

They're cheap, gimmicky schemes to sucker us into giving away our money, and to make up for the fact that Hollywood is lazy, and long sense, fresh out of ideas.  None of them are near as creative or imaginative as the originals.  I would settle for them if they were half as good, at this point.  They're a straight waste of time, and we even know it as soon as we see the over-hyped trailers trying to get us excited for them.  

I consider them an insult to the artform of filmmaking.

Generally the original one is much better.

Because they're lazy, and they're an attempt to fix something that ain't broke.

Entertainment is the business of giving people what they want, and nobody asked for those reboots.  Ghostbusters, Nightmare On Elm Street, Poltergeist and The Magnificent Seven were all just fine,. and didn't need any re-branding.

Because there is always an exception, there is one exception:  Scarface.  The original was done in 1930-something, and though the setting and characters changed in 1984 it's basically the same movie with almost the exact same scenes.  The 1984 remake was absolutely epic.  If lazy Hollywood producers and directors want to reboot a film, they should be forced to watch 1984 Scarface and take notes on why THAT is how to re-do a movie properly.

I was not aware that rap music was over when I wrote that business plan nor was I aware of all the 30 year investigations involved in it. The thought of that stresses me out severely. I thought rappers had a deal or something got out of trouble and their problems with the government we're finished. MTV kept that from the public.