Oh how true it is.
Well now that I have a more thorough explanation, I can see we're not on exactly opposite ends. I too, don't believe that remakes are bad; Ocean's Eleven was an excellent remake for instance, and I prefer the 1988 version of The Blob to the original. In fact, sometimes remakes are SUPERIOR to the originals:
Greatest remake evar.
However, as you pointed out, a remake can only transcend the limitations of the original when you have the right person at the helm such as Nolan or Cuaron. But the problem is that directors with vision, talent, and loyalty to the source material are few and far between..and the current administrations involved in remakes traffic in glossy explosions of familiar properties rather than innovative perspectives.
Should a film with Clockwork's longevity and influence be remade today, it would inevitably be beset with the sort of problems I listed at length, and to that end, the remake would not only be pointless, but also draw attention from the superior original. It would make things worse, not better. Case in point, I was REALLY looking forward to the remake of The Wicker Man. Why? because while I thought the original had one of the best horror stories of the 20th century, I always hated the look of it; you could tell they didn't have a lot of money and the film looked more amateurish than it should have. Unfortunately, the remake went on to suck more ass than Sasha Grey in a felching video and let me down in a way that showed me that an adequate budget often doesn't come without a bigger, more unendurable price. The same thing with the remake of It's Alive; the original had a great social commentary on the effects of pollution, but suffered from the limits of 1970s money and FX; the remake had a better look, but absolutely NO political depth and as a result, the flawed original remained superior to the remake.
Now maybe in a different decade or cultural climate, it could work. But at the same time I also question the validity of doing so. A film that requires certain topical considerations (i.e. technology, specific period politics, etc.) often requires a remake to make the story relatable to a different climate: WarGames, for instance, could certainly do with modern-day computer technology...as long as fans of the remake wouldn't mind ANOTHER remake 20 years later to update the hardware.
But a film that has a very unique and specific look and appeal might actually LOSE power by being remade. I worship Kubrick--this is true--but I agree that he had flaws and his talent compensated for it. That said, his interpretation of A Clockwork Orange, however dated and unfashionable as it may be today, is nevertheless so outstandingly different than other movies that utilized the same aesthetic that I think it transcends its own datedness. How else would it survive it's peers? People who haven't even SEEN Clockwork Orange still recognize the Droogs and the visual references because the images are so powerful. Straw Dogs and Dirty Harry haven't retained their once iconic power to anyone except film historians.
Perhaps in some way MacPhisto your argument is sound. However, if you accept that your idea is a good one, and that Clockwork should be remade, you have to ask yourself this:
Would the remake be as well-made, well-remembered, and have the same longevity as its predecessor?
I would say that unless the answer is an unequivocal "yes", it should be left alone. Not on a general principle that "remakes are bad" but rather on the principle that "some films are too good to deserve bad remakes."
P.S.
Jaws could benefit from the animatronic advancements of today...but would it be worth tarnishing the original, and drawing attention to the shortcomings of the remake just because the shark looks MORE fake today than it did 35 years ago?
, but in Clockwork orange I like the way it was filmed, costumes and make up: all very original. Plot: I still don't know wtf was happening in that movie..it might be because movie is all oddtwisted like that or because my English sucks 
