The written composition is made to be adapted - ie played by an instrument. In playing the instrument, just as an actor acts in a play, there will be variation and in instances of improvisation. That is the nature of music. Just as I've not argued that a play must only be acted once!

You must've missed out on at least a half of my post, then.

Didn't I make a clear distinction between a written score, and a RECORDING? Like, the score is the play/script, the recording is the movie?
A composer writes his own composition, performs it, records it, and may or may not release a score (if he doesn't, people will make their own). It's not "meant to be adapted" in any way.

At least not any more than a director might find it cool if his movie gets remade, or reimagined, somewhere down the line (as it seems to be a popular trend nowadays).

But they really can't "remake" it.

Well, neither can you a movie.
It's already been made, and it's here to stay. Has Jackson really "remade" King Kong, if a song cover can't be called a remake, either?

This is clearly highly offensive to you.

Who ever said anything about "offensive"? I just don't see any purpose, or sense.

I do think a script is fundamentally different from a written play. Certainly a script can be treated similarly as a written play.

Well, a play is written as a finished product that is to be adapted by directors and actors.
A script is part of pre-production (well, not technically, but essentially) aimed at making a specific film - things can be easily changed and altered if something works better in a movie, or with the hired actors.

At the end of the day, though, both can be adhered to word by word, and both can be altered during execution.
With the play, adhering is easier because if something about it stinks, you can still blame the author, as you're just doing your job - and altering is harder, because it involves a lot of issues concerning the writer's intellectual property, the director's responsibility of "presentingt the original work" to audiences, etc., all things that don't exist with a script.

And both can be taken and adapted into something new.
A play was written for that purpose, a script, you can still "strip out" and make something new out of it, even if it's already been done.

What if you've got a movie where half of the dialogue was improvised, and then you read the script, and find actors that can also improvize over it, but completely differently - wouldn't that be worth a shot, too?

Again, a music analogy:
The play is the official score published by a composer.
The script is what a band might write down, before they try it out, practise and record it in the studio.

Normal "covers" mostly aren't based on buying a score at the store. It's taking the ALREADY FINISHED SONG, and making it into something new.

"Maybe because True Grit is an adaptation of a book?"
Oh...

Well, so are Willy Wonka and Apes. So your "bad examples of remakes" were also book adaptations ;)

"So what remakes did you enjoy or not enjoy, twooffour?"
Well I just named 12 Angry Men, but then I had the revelation ;)

King Kong is neither demeaning, nor absurd, nor uncreative. And all it took for it to be this, was... good ideas and execution.
Doesn't that really say everything about your "media shouldn't be remade into the same media" maxim, that should be said?