I didn't see where anybody billed it as an "improvement" on Shakespeare. Just trying to do a different take. Don't see what's illegitimate about that, provided it's done well.
I have spent a lot (too much) of my life around such people - believe me, they believe they are improving upon Shakespeare, that the Bard is too stuffy, distant, and remote for our age and that only educrats and artistes who understand what's 'relevant' to kids can be trusted to 'interpret' his works for the present generation.
One can always debate what's a good 'interpretation' and what's mutilation, but we should far sooner trust the works that have come down to us from Shakespeare than the kind of lightweight pretenders who think they know better how to write a play.