Instead we only get the safe and family friendly cookie-cutter versions tuned for mass consumption. Big media corporations want to play it safe to ensure profitability, but other creators would be free to experiment in all other sort of narrative and stylistic directions.
I might argue that this phenomenon is too a byproduct of copyrights. In a world were everyone can create interesting things on any IP, there's no market for cookie-cutter adaptations. People watch cookie-cutter adaptations and remakes because it's the only way to experience the characters and worlds they like. If they had another option they probably just skip the reboot and go watch the new take from a different studio or director.
Consider that Greek mythology or Irish fairy stories are basically different stories in the same "cinematic universe."
But... that universe isn't a monopoly. Many authors contributed. Stories were tailored to different audiences.
The cliche blockbuster remakes are corny because they are, but the concept of remakes, universes and sequels isn't bad.
Pygmalion (Greek myth) -> Pygmalion (Shaw play) -> My Fair Lady -> She's All That
Hamlet -> The Lion King
The Odyssey -> O Brother Where Art Thou (and countless others)
Emma (Jane Austen) -> CluelessCopyright has a chilling effect too. My wife is an art historian and publishes academic papers and books on contemporary art. Many times the artists are still alive and she’ll need their permission to reproduce an image of their artwork.
Technically, reproducing something for commentary or criticism, especially in an academic or educational context, would fall under fair use. But no publisher is going to risk having to defend that in court, certainly not for an academic work that isn’t going to make any money, so in practice you have to obtain (often expensive) reproduction rights from the rights holders.
What I don't understand why people seem to think Disney alone should benefit from existing works, and nobody else. Or that copyright being restricted to a single entity is the best way to ensure "good" works being produced.
Take Max and Dave Fleischer cartoons of the 1920s and 1930s. They'd star black singers like Cab Calloway, make references to LGBT subculture, premiere immigrants, Jewish characters, and the full spectrum of society. They were engaged with integrating live action and animation and experimenting with the film as art form.
Compare that to say Walt Disney, the most whitewashed family friendly content.
And it wasn't just "Hayes code", there's something deeper in how people want to relate to their entertainment. Adventurous narratives that challenge people's assumptions doesn't seem to be what people are looking for when they are relaxing from a hard day
On the digital world we are all about finding unique niches and unique needs, but in media we are mostly stuck with "the big studio that makes the thing that appeals to most people as possible". That's ok, but it's only one way of approaching the market and the audiences. It would be nice if other people would be able to test other things also using the same worlds and characters if they wish so.
You can see how that won't fly with politicians, especially American ones: "Then some innocent kid might get hold of Black Cinderella, who is into bondage and S/M, and be ruined for life! Won't somebody think of the chiiildruuunnn!"
Currently the limiter to how much I actually consume something from the public domain (it's not much) is not my access to the works themselves, but my time.
The movie was also a commercial failure, I'm not sure we would end up with so much junk if it doesn't sell.
It would be way better if economic system favored many smaller competing studios producing a lot of different stuff. Better then one or two big ones, doing essentially same or similar movie again and again.