If they want Tim Burton, they have to agree to his terms. If they make a BEET2 film without Burton, no one will go see it. That fanbase is as loyal as ever.
The entire aesthetic, from the gallows humor, the stop motion setpieces, and the ghoulish visuals is ALL Burton. Anyone else attempting to replicate it would be disingenuous derivative imitation beef (see: all reboots post-2015), and the sophisticated audience sniffs it out eventually.
If Tim Burton's terms include bringing on John Christopher Depp, II to play a supporting role alongside returning stars, and the WB wants to ever make a successful, reverent and proper sequel to "Beetlejuice" (which, yes, still holds up today), then they have NO choice. They MUST work with Burton AND Depp, END OF STORY. I only hope it costs them their prettiest of pennies to pay their salaries.
"Wonka" I always assumed would go without Burton or Depp, as it's been far too long in-development without either of their involvement along the way, and the prequel route typically requires another actor ("Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd" all over again--BUT WHAT DO I KNOW?). However, now that you mention it, it would be 50 times, nay, 100 times better with them than without (I mean, $200M+ domestic box office? AMAZING! Better than Tom Holland's ~$60M take will be!).
But like I said before, Warner Bros. clearly has no interest in quality filmmaking, and therefore no interest in making money. That's not me even saying that. I'm just echoing Christopher Nolan's sentiments. If they want a streaming service, they'd better start making streaming content--which means they are out of the business of making timeless cinema altogether.
It seems the rest of Hollywood is on the same page, hence THE NEW BABYLON IS DEAD!
Seriously, don't frame the debate in a way that just grants me an effortless win. It's rather boring, you predictable pathetic human.