License costs based on actors or their estates is very significant in this case, not just in title. This difficulty has been discussed in the past. The key dominator was Christopher Lloyd.

Remakes of this title would sell well, the number of years between the original, makes the "reboot" viable today.

Marilyn (Taxi) is a very poor example of justifying pinball licensing, because it was unsuccessful.
Williams just "went ahead" and attempted to use her image in 1988, and their bluff was called by her estate.
Roger Sharpe reported WMS management did not want to pay her estate via negotiation (as production was already in full swing), and hence the color, text, and image were changed. Hence, the 200 samples, and a handful of added playfields.

Regarding licensing, Beatles pinball was never successful in acquisition during the 1960s and 70s at their height through Bally, and Bally did the next best thing by copying certain aspects for their game "Beat Time" in their straight line artwork, which absolutely wanted to be released as the Beatles. However, Bally was smart enough to not start a war with Northern Songs Ltd. Yoko Ono was not a decisive factor, costs of licensing were. I don't recall off hand who managed the licensing at Bally without reference during that period.

The TAF deal with Roger Sharpe were originally used via the first movie with the Paramount Studios, not heavily influenced by individual actors specifically or even the original creator, Charles Addams (estate), which would be much more common today. Roger Sharpe reported back in the late 90s (after production) how fortunate that they were able to acquire licensing rights in terms of reduced complexity, as this really was remarkable in inclusion of success. This is something that that has changed significantly with licensing of any older property. Negotiations with all actors and estates would be required. The Christopher Lloyd anecdote was was provided in discussion with CGC in consideration of a remake as part of "the A-title list".

Black Hole potential licensing was nixed after Disney wanted too much money for the license, and hence Gottlieb decided to go their own route with design/artwork and save money. The 1979 movie and 1981 game have no relationship. The discussion was very short, as the Gottlieb management was not interested in heckling. The remanufacture of parts has never been a major issue for Gottlieb games including Black Hole, as long as the maker stepped forward first to Gottlieb Development LLC, provide a high quality product, and did not try and side step licensing. Things such as pop bumper caps have been made several times.

I cannot speak for KISS, as after the original Bally game was made, I never followed the band, trends or licensing aspects for this property.

I don't know why people would suggest that pinball enthusiasts are not familiar with history, as we were collecting and involved in the industry. Do we need Mr. Sharpe himself who is still very much still still involved in licensing, report on the status of the changes today? The licensing "net" today is much, much tighter than it ever was from the 1960s-1990s. The level of blurred lines of copyright, likeness, and trademark infringement was absolutely ridiculous in the past. Manufacturers went as far as possible to cut corners, today they just get caught even quicker due to social media.

Some enthusiasts forget that there are collectors that been involved in the hobby so long (30+ years), they already figured out of what was not exclusively about playing or CQ, but the direct history. Learned in time, if time permits.