Input vs. re-writing by another person are two different things.
These aren't novels. The writer of a movie is just one of many collaborators.
That's true, but the point was made to let us know this unknown guy is re-writing it.
You persist in the arrogance of assuming that if
you haven't heard of someone, that makes them unimportant. Obviously this person
is known to the people whose knowledge is actually relevant here, the people in the film industry who are familiar with his work and consider it worthwhile.
I'm neither suggested fame was what it was all about nor that these writers are infallible, but they made the cult classic and they obviously knew what they were doing. These re-writes you speak of, that I have read about in the passed, are usually done by established people on big films/franchises/potential hot blockbusters.
You keep talking about rewriting as some sort of anomaly or exception, which is not how writing actually works. Rewriting is a
constant part of
any and every writing process.
Granted, what I've known about may not be true across the board, but given the mis-teps on Robocop over and over and over again, you'd think a little more clamp down would be in order.
You're contradicting yourself here.
More "clamp down" would inevitably mean
less creative control by the original scriptwriters and more interference by the studio execs.
That's irrelevant; we're not talking about hypothetical here -- the original film is already iconic.
And you know what? It was the
first credited screenplay that either Edward Neumeier or Michael Miner ever wrote. There is
absolutely nothing in either writer's filmography prior to
RoboCop. So you've just completely shot down your own argument.