See, I don't particularly agree. I'm not whole-heatedly against remakes. I appreciate and sometimes welcome new interpretations of good material.
In the case of Halloween, a remake that possessed high levels of ambience and suspense could have been incredible. We should have gotten something that, like the original, treated Michael Myers as The Shape of evil, a force of nature that operated with no foreseeable rhyme or reason. The scary thing about Carpenter's Halloween is that it appeared to be nothing more than a random stalking. No familial bloodlines introduced, per say. Instead, Zombie attempted to make Mochael out to be a real character with feelings and motivations. It was just incredibly misguided and felt more like a ****** sequel than a return to form for the franchise.
A hypothetical remake like the one I described wouldn't even have to utilize all of the characters from the original like Zombie's did, aside from Loomis, Laurie, and Michael. There was no ****ing need to have Lynda say "See anything you like?" again, or have Loomis recite his famous speech from the original. Things like that are what make a remake pointless.
This isn't the best example but it makes sense for my argument. Think about Disturbia and Rear Window. Disturbia is essentially a remake of Rear Window, but no quotes, characters, or specific moments are completely recreated. It had a different look and feel from Rear Window and it was updated for modern times. Despite all the differences, it still shared the same core ideas of the film they were basing it on. A Halloween remake that utilized the core principles of Carpenter's original, but still veered off into some unexplored territory, would have been sick.
