I've just finished seeing Carpenter's original movie, from the 25th Anniversary DVD, just because I wanted a comparison with both films fresh in my mind. By the way, I actually saw the original "Assault on Precinct 13" AFTER seeing the remake! When you invert films like this, some differences become very interesting and worth exploring.
I think that great stories and popular (cultural) myths, as developed in the 20th century, thanks to radio, TV, cinema, as well as more traditional literature - now supplemented with comics - have a boldness about NOT delving into details concerning the main characters.
Remember Superman? There was no big introduction for him in the first series.
Look at "Dune" - it throws you into a world of majestic proportions, where things have a strange order, and you can't delve on the details, 'cause you have to follow the characters. Same with "Lord of the Rings"... unless you've read "The Hobbit" you have absolutely no introduction to the characters. The list can go on.
The problem is, when people don't have strong ideas of their own, they look at ways to take what already exists and make it theirs, or at least put a strong personal print on it... a small minority does it for other reasons (as a tribute, for instance). I think that the problem was already visible in the increased cultural appetite for sequels (in famous films, there was often times a return to the roots, see "Psycho II, III etc.") After a few good years, a new fad appeared: prequels. Remember the great dissapointment called "Star Wars 1, 2 & 3"? Even "Dune" (the book) was "extended" ridiculously into the past by a new series of novels, penned by Herbert Frank's son...
Now we are (again!) at the stage of the remakes. Granted, one generation (30 years) has passed since this version of the myth was told for the first time, and it can be retold to people who might not have been treated to the original. Unfortunately, the new version has also all the characteristics of the world we currently live in - a multitude of details, constant agitation, different body language and way of talking...
The reality is that the details often ruin the arc of the story. You must leave room for imagination, you must draw the reader or the spectator inside the story, otherwise it's a case of "not seeing the forest because of the trees". Or... you can make lots of details available, but discretely, in the background. Since we're in a computer forum - does anyone here remember the lasting impression made on you by the large vistas and open spaces available for exploration, but lacking any importance for the scenario of the game? You could finish the game once, following only the predetermined paths, but now there's a curiosity to come back to it later, when you could do a bit more of sightseeing.... same idea, smarter application.