The recent Psycho was a shot-by-shot remake of the Hitchcock original (*Some things should just be left alone, and I think Hitchcock is one of them, but...) And I believe this was the only time this shot-by-shot remake technique was ever attempted, and, so, I think that precludes the connotation of remake, since a remake necessarily involves some reworking of the original to qualify as a re-make. That's why I think the new Psycho needs its own new term. (I'm not saying all old classics shouldn't be touched...just certain ones...I enjoyed the Jeff Goldblum version of the SF classic, "The Fly," as much as I liked the Vincent Price original, for instance--and the Jessica Lange King Kong was an interesting treatment. But there's been recent talk of remaking Casablanca, and I say, 'no!no!no!...leave that one alone!' And, for instance, how could you redo The African Queen without Hepburn and Bogart?...why bother? And a stage adaptation of a movie is one thing, like The Wiz, from The Wizard of Oz, and that's fine...but I've heard new whispers about an Oz film remake...oh, no, they wouldn't dare, would they?...perish the thought...shudder.
But as far as a term, FF, I've always heard remake...then there's "a reworking", and sometimes you'll hear, "an updated version." Sometimes retelling. But I can see the nuance you're attempting to capture here, and it's a bit evasive to put a finger on.
And many theatre classics have been restaged...in the theatre it's a restaging...Shakespeare, of course, being the foremost example. I recall there was even a famous production of Hamlet staged in business suits in a modern setting (might've been an Olivier production, but I'm not sure)...but it was still Hamlet.
