It's fun watching people who haven't played this game try and discuss it. There is more than just a graphical upgrade; there's new abilities, a new control system, a few expanded & new areas, all new music (although Metroid 2 didn't have much in the way of music), so you're completely wrong about your assumptions.

My assumption is that it is a remake of the game. I make that assumption from the title the authors of the game gave the game.

Am I wrong in my assumption?

A remake vs what you described are quite different. What you described is more like if someone colorized Steamboat Willy and called it a day.

I didn't describe anything, I asked a question. Let me phrase my question again:
If all that the Metroid remake was banking on was nostalgia for the original game, is it worth it?
If instead, it was adding something to it in a significant way (and I don't just mean graphics), is it necessary that it be called "Metroid" anything? Why not just make a totally different game inspired by Metroid 2?

A: It's hard to have nostalgia for such an obscure release; most people are nostalgic for I and III, II was considered a black sheep in it's time.

B: Okay, you try making up a concept that is completely original that isn't clearly inspired by something else. That kind of originality is a once in a lifetime thing. There's a reason why Metroidvania exists as a term. It specifically defines itself as a way of being.

I didn't say don't make something clearly inspired by something else. But there is a huuuuge gulf of difference between "inspired by" and a "remake". Sure, it may have improved graphics, and improved ideas (I'll take your word for it, as you say, I haven't played the game), but AM2R is a remake. There are many "metroidvania" games out there. Nobody is going after them. Many of them are inspired by Metroid games, They aren't remakes of them.

There's nothing "evil" about what Nintendo is doing with this. Nintendo owns the Metroid IP and can do whatever it wants with it. The first main question here that I see is, "Is Nintendo's aggressively confrontational stance against fan projects good for consumers?"

The second question -- one that ties this into similar cases of disputes, like with Star Wars or Star Trek -- is to what extent does Nintendo have cultural ownership over properties such as Metroid, or Zelda or Mario?

Regardless of what you think the answer to these questions may be, a company like Nintendo lives and dies on the passion and zeal of its fanbase -- a fanbase that also loves to express itself through art, music, games and movies...and games.

Nintendo may think its saving face and protecting their brand image/identity through moves like this, but it'll only be a matter of time before Nintendo (as well as Sega) alienate enough of their fanbase that the only ones left to support them will the die-hard religious faithful.

The hope for Nintendo is a nice sentiment, the problem is that they're literally at the point where it's only the hardcore supporting them. Another Wii-U screwup and they'll probably face a stockholder revolt. L:

'Evil' according to the law, maybe not. However they constant over milking and over protectiveness is quite annoying.

The purpose of copyright is 'to stimulate the creations of works and arts' if I recall right 'by giving the creators sole ownership over their creations for a limited period of time'. Copyright was never intended to last forever. And ownership over an IP was never intended to last forever either. Corporations though decided they could milk a franchise indefinitely, and has some very annoying consequences not letting us be creative as every possible thing we write as been done before and possibly stepping on someone else's copyright, trademark, or patent.

As for if their aggressiveness is bad. Thousands, millions of people are being burned by Nintendo's attempts to protect their copyright/IP/Trademarks. And each person they burn is another person less likely to buy from them again. Sure there's billions of people to make money on, but as Nintento is working their way to obscurity they are making an even larger measure to burn as many bridges of their fans and customers as possible, seeing it only as 'hardware and software sales' as their bottom line, rather than the love of their work and hiring them on. Fan works I think shouldn't be bought out, they lose the creative and individual stance they had when it's no longer a fan project and just another part of the larger corporate entity.
This seems likely. Unless they really get third party on board and dedicated to making games for their system, it's going to likely flop again. They might be just as obscure with their marketing too, and it's 'just another 3DS accessory' as it might turn out with the NX.

Me? I'm done with consoles and Nintendo period. Maybe they will calm down and learn from their mistakes in the decades to come...

Yeah, but:
1) It wasn't a commercial title; was made from fans to fans.
2) From something someone doesn't sell, someone other who sells doesn't have loses.
3) Most content was original. Even the in-game creatures themselves.
4) Years of hard work and dedication, talent and inspiration, a real gem was born; if N or any N is interested in profit, they should be smart and they themselves put it on market! But destroying is actually pretty much easier than actually WORKING, INVESTING and taking risks, you see...
5) Let's discuss Sega and SOR-Remake, once again. Sega wasn't planning to USE the IP, they had it abandoned for more than 1 decade straight. Sega itself closed down the studio in Australia, which was working on retro remakes of their oldies and dusty IPs. That game was a brilliant masterpiece. And sega casually crapped on it, even though they were formally informed from the developers beforehand and seemingly allowed it to be. It's engine was made from scratch and it had NOTHING drawn from originals (other than names and copyrighted stuff).

Good to hear, because it was attitudes and words such as "goes full Konami", "cunts", "evil sharks" and "sacrilegious" that confused me as to that, and lead to my initial post here.
In either case, I don't think debating the level of aggressive confrontation Nintendo has against fan projects is meaningful, and whether it is good for fans is relevant. I mean, so if a fan project was made with THIS much love and effort, it'd should get a pass, and Nintendo's stance is bad for consumers, but slightly less, then Nintendo is within it's (moral?) right to stop them, and their behaviour is good for consumers?

Considering that most of the people resposible for the creation of the Metroid series are still alive and working for Nintendo, and that Nintendo is still releasing Metroid games (regardless of how poorly they are received), I'd say "to the full extent". But I'm not sure I get the relevance of the question. What does it mean to have "Cultural ownership"? Taking your Star Wars example, I could agree that whether George Lucas thinks Greedo shot first, or the existence of midichlorians, for example is irrelevant to us in the larger cultural surroundings of the Star Wars universe. He is (or was) no longer the authority on the "legend" of Star Wars. But that doesn't give us the right (I'd say morally as well as legally) to recut the movies in an attempt to create something we believe is "better" (such projects totally exist, and unsurprisingly, were taken down, even though they may be still available online).