That makes sense for arcade or PC games that were ported and down graded, but for example console specific titles were made for their hardware.  When playing Super Metroid I never wished it looked better because that was the definitive version of it.  I guess these days many people may look at consoles through PC lens of wanting 1080p/60fps so fair point there Ruler.

During the dvd generation there were superbit collections, now we have mastered in 4k rereleases.
Director's cut and extended versions are a regular occurance.

Plus now we have all the complete edition re-releases for the movies that get split up in parts.
I waited for the hobbit trilogy to come out as that was bound to happen anyway. No point in buying the seperate movies. Now the extended editions are coming out seperatly first, with likely an extended trilogy to follow afterwards.

And movies go to true 24fps instead of using interlaced 3:2 pulldown filter for 30 fps (60i), or running 4% faster for 25fps (50i)
ps2 games could run in 480p btw, but sure they get big benefits as well. However many were made to look good on CRT tvs, which is something the remasters can't replicate. That's also why a remaster is most beneficial for those as running a console designed for CRT on an LCD screen looks pretty bad.

The benefits are the same from sub 720p sub 30fps to 1080p60, GTA5 on ps3 and ps4 is a huge difference. Yet you didn't miss any detail in the ps3 version, while with a dvd movie you had the choice of pan & scan or letterbox. Both not able to show all the detail that went into making the movie.

That only counts for 2D games but upscaled in progressive scan looks just as good, its a mater for preference but 3D games have to be displayed on lcd

But, the only reason they get away with it is because they are different purchase decisions. Its nothing alike... despite opinions here who say that its the same or have their own justification for the videogame remasters. It clearly isnt. The purchase of a movie is more of an impulse buy than a videogame. That is completely because of the price difference.

In relation to games remaster is just a prettier word for port

Just here to support your point. If the game is just from 1 generation before, the graphical difference is not very big just a resolution and frame-rate update, and its most likely just a cash grab, there is little reason to create the remaster except reduce the risk by not investing in a new title. When it is an old game like Ducktales or Grim Fandango I don't have any problem, the originals are hard to get, most likely you cannot go and buy a copy of the game or the console to play it, so a remaster is a good thing.

Depends, have you not seen the Criterion collection? Prices of $32 to $50 for a remastered movie. Upto $180 for a collection of old movies.
Criterion collection is like Nintendo games, they seldom go down in price. I've been waiting for over a year to the Qatsi trilogy to go below $70, first released 1989, remastered in 2012. Normal remastered (or ported) collections fare better, still you're hard pressed to find deals like we had last gen, or halo mcc, rare replay, even the Uncharted collection nets you 3 games for the price of 1.

Remasters are more established among movies, with games they're still finding their place, optimal price point and the best approach.

Well, it's a good way to make money because people continue to buy them so they keep making them

Sure. But those are the exceptions not the general rule.