Um, ok, I still can't wrap my mind around what it is exactly that you detest, because, frankly, you're all over the place.

Let's break it down:
A story being retold in a different medium vs. in the same medium.
A story being completely identical to the original vs. somewhat modified vs. radically changed.

Those are completely different, and interchangeable factors. So which is it now?

In one sentence you say you wouldn't like something to be rewritten, or "told differently", the way you brought up, in another, you dislike the "pale imitation" that doesn't try to "interpret the source material".
Seriously, which is it now?

My WTH reaction wasn't to your idea, but to the fact that you brought it up in this context.
So again, would it make things better if Jackson had released a movie trilogy based on your suggest outline? Would it be any "better" than the same released as a book?

"I might want more stories about the characters, but not the same story told differently."
Well, that's the whole answer, isn't it? Some people take interest in seeing the same story told differently. In whatever medium.

As for Charlie, I haven't seen either movie completely, but the original Willy "you get nothing" Wonka was obviously way better than Depp's, so that might be a factor.
Not sure how much I've seen of the original Apes, but what I remember from the new one was the absurd ending, and the lame main actress.

Seriously, in case you haven't already, you might want to watch some of Nostalgia Critic's "Old vs. New", where he compares originals with remakes (or different adaptations).
Most of the time, one of them scores with the better villain, while the other has better supporting characters or the better flow, so it's always kinda hard to tell.

Obviously, it's all just his opinion, but being so radically against remakes, you might wanna watch that stuff :)