I think I'd prefer a world where there were fewer remakes and adaptations of existing franchises, and people focused on coming up with new things instead. I'm not suggesting that copyright should be extended for that purpose.
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.
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.
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.
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.