I've spent some time reading up on remakes the first time we had this topic around (cf. "proper remake" debate), and the idea of remakes has taken up some more of my time out of pure curiosity. So let me ramble a bit:
Why do people want remakes?
Mostly, to re-live something they've experienced in the past - the old movie you watched as a kid, the "classic" car you drove as a teen, the music you listened to in clubs. All those can be still experienced in their original form, but the frame of reference has changed, so you want the remake to fit in the frame of reference you've gotten used to: Movies have color and better F/X now, cars go faster, recording quality and sound engineering is better. So instead of cruising with that '62 Beetle convertible with the 8-track on full blast down the lane of a drive-in cinema, you'll take the 12-cylinder New Beetle, CD-changers pre-programmed, into a multiplex.
So it's about nostalgia?
Originally, yes. But the buzzword for today's remakes is immersion. Remember Elite? That 80s space sim without dialogue, decent sound, or even much of a story? Remember how you were glued to the screen, thinking up dialogued while shooting at pirates, fleeing police, or picking up the rescue capsule of some merchant who just got blown out of the unfriendly skies? Most people had that kind of immersion experience somewhere in their past, and they don't want to go back there for nostalgia's sake, but to lose themselves completely in a game/movie/song/book/car/fizzy drink again as they were able to in their past. A remake is the attempt to satisfy the yearning for something that cannot be recreated by using the original, because we're not able anymore to be touched by the original as we used to. Or at least the director of the remake isn't.
Are all remakes therefore bad?
Ethically maybe yes. You could compare it to buying the same sort of dog and giving it the same name your dog had when you were a kid. You could teach him all the tricks and avoid all the mistakes you made - but you're spoiling his life while doing it (by not allowing it to be itself), and you're spoiling your own memory, as well as your ability to accept YOURSELF as you are now. But you can almost certainly argue it the other way round.
Aesthetically maybe no. The Ben Hur version of 1959 is way more pleasing than the 1907 original, in any aspect - visuals, sound, special effects, storytelling, actors, set. The Psycho version of 1998 doesn't gain much over the 1960 original, although almost the same technical criteria can be employed. The simple answer: It depends on what the one doing the remake is trying to achieve.
Concerning a WC1 Remake:
I feel that twinge of yearning for immersion - the "What if?"-effect that starts the pictures rolling in your head: A fighter as great as the Rapier in a decent 3D engine - what fun! But I also feel the gnawing doubts - will it really be that much fun? I've recently played some great remakes (technically great), but got tired very quickly because it didn't spark off the old magical moments.
So although I'm unwilling to, I'd have to say: Nice idea, but better not do it. Let the people create new stories using new technology - sequels, prequels or whatever, but let's not try to model the Mona Lisa in Rhino3D.
Now, an updated sprite engine would be something different... (hands the microphone to BradMick..)