Stop trying to be a smart arse by correcting shit that makes no difference. A movie was made on the book as the original movie. Then a newer version was brought out. Thus creating a re-make.
A remake implies that they were making the same movie again. It's not a remake if they weren't basing it on the movie. It's a separate product from the Gene Wilder film.
Saying it is a remake is like saying that Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a remake of the animated "The Lord of the Rings" that was made back in 1978, even though the two are rarely associated, or that The Dark Knight is a remake of the 1960's Batman TV show, because both are based on the comic books.
And it actually does make a difference. When people start thinking of the new film as a remake of the older film, people forget that both are adaptations of the same book, and so the book doesn't get the recognition it deserves. This is important because it was Roald Dahl that had all the big ideas, that crafted the story and characters, and so he needs the recognition he deserves.