On the face of it, my opinion is "Of course, sure, why not have a remake?" Even if it gets screwed up and isn't faithful to the original, it's not like it takes away my ability to play the originals. It's literally a no-lose situation: Either Larian will do a good job and introduce a bunch of people to these old games with updated graphics and 5e mechanics (which I don't care what anyone says, are vastly superior to 2e), or they'll do a bad job and I'll just play the originals.

If the question is "Could they DO a good job with a remake", well....

First, let's get the graphics question out of the way: I think the painted backgrounds of BG are many times gorgeous. I'd miss them if they were gone and replaced by the BG3 style, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.

Second, as to whether they could do a good job, well that depends on the BG in question. To me there is a HUMONGOUS difference between BG1 and BG2.

Like look, I loved BG1 when it came out, but it's rough. It's REALLY rough. To me, you can't really see the seeds being sewn that would influence WRPGs for decades until the second game. Companions are really quiet and for the most part non-interactive in BG1 (I have to assume because of the assumption that so many of the would be experiencing permadeath.) Combat is janky and cheesy as fuck, and especially early on so ridiculously unfriendly that you are basically outright encouraged to take advantage of the jank. Dungeon design is basic (until some of the expansion content) and sometimes notoriously bad (the final labyrinth come ON).

So yeah, actually, I think Larian could VASTLY improve BG1, especially when it comes to combat and gameplay, and I say this as someone who is a humongous critic of how Larian handled 5e in BG3, lol. BG1 really is that basic; it was a very different time, when frankly the standards of gaming were much, much lower. (Though the games were also much much cheaper to produce.) I think even if Larian changed a LOT of things - combat, reduced number of companions, fleshed them out with their own writing, added adventures, etc - it would be good. The ONLY thing I'd worry about them changing, and the one thing I definitely would not WANT Larian to change, and would really WORRY about them changing, is the core plot. Larian has a flaw in writing (to be fair, I don't think it's unique to them, but they are particularly bad about it) where, at least to me, it comes across as horribly immature, the way they try to make everything SUPER EPIC right away. Like compare the beginnings of BG3 and BG1:

BG3: You're on a fantasy SPACE SHIP and then DRAGONS ATTACK and then YOU GO TO HELL WHOOOOAAA all within the introduction cinematic of the game.

BG1: The intrigue of seeing your foster father murdered, fleeing, dodging assassins, and slowly getting drawn into a mysterious iron crisis in the region.

BG1 is exciting, but it's much more grounded - and to me that makes it more interesting. In the original series, when you actually got to GO to Hell eventually, it felt more special. In BG3 it seems totally mundane because you went there in the first thirty seconds of your adventure and then even when you left you had your own personal archdemon teleporting to you personally to chat with you at level 2. Going through the initial series, from the start of 1 all the way to the end of ToB, gives to me something that I think BG3 could never achieve, because of Larian's storytelling: A sense of epic progression. Going all the way from fleeing from wolves and worrying about the mundanities of what's going on in an iron mine, to having demigod levels of power and standing on equal footing with liches and dragons. So Larian can write characters, they can write sidequests (indeed I think some of their sidequest adventures especially in act 1 in bG3 were great!), they can update the graphics, they can update the combat, and I think they could do a good job (because frankly if we're being honest, the bar in the original is really low for most of these things.) But I would NOT want them to touch the core plot.

BG2 is where it gets tricky. Because to me, at least, there was a humongous, massive jump in quality between BG1 and BG2 in almost every aspect of the game. Even updating the mechanics from 2e to 5e becomes tricky (because a lot of the plot elements of BG2 actually reference or rely on the idea that high-level wizards are nigh-unstoppable and insanely dangerous in a way other classes are not - and this reflects a second edition reality, not a fifth edition reality.) But setting quibbles like that aside, I consider character and plot writing in BG2 to be far superior to BG3 (and it's not like I think BG2 writing is perfect, either. I am open to the idea some people could improve on it. But from what I've seen, I really do not have a lot of faith Larian could do this.) BG2 is also where the combat starts getting better, though it's not because jank no longer exists, but rather because your characters are now powerful enough that they don't have to rely on it and so combat does not feel so ridiculous. Overall I think the 5e system would still be an improvement if implemented in BG2, but less so than it would be in BG1. So for BG2 there's less room for basic improvements, I'd miss the background paintings more, and I'd worry a lot more about Larian's "personal touch" on the character and plot writing.

So in the end, BG1? Go for it. BG2? ehhhhhhhh...