Where is remastering going these days?

Here is something that bothers me to bits when it comes to watching films. The way I tend to lay it out is this:

• You are presented with a copy of a film. This copy may be on an older viewing format such as the VHS.
• You are then presented with an updated copy. You notice that there is something different about the image, sound, and effects.

Where am I going with this? The way in which films are remastered, of course.

I understand the need for an improved viewing experience which may include clearer sound quality and tidying up the colour. I am fine with these types of practices. What I do not understand is the way in which some restoration companies do the remastering.

Let's take a look at an extract from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Peter Hunt, 1969). This comparison video takes a look at the colour palette for the Special and Ultimate Editions of the film. It's amazing how different the image looks within these two versions. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkDGlngvw4

What did you think of that? I personally dislike the way it looks in the Ultimate Edition. For one thing, the scene was shot during the day (the setting being a late summer's day). The light is still bright and sunny in the scenes after the pre-titles and it's still sunny. The fact that in the Ultimate Edition it appears much "colder" and darker makes the change pretty superfluous since it is still pretty sunny after the said scene. So why go through the pains in altering the image to such a big extent where it is not consistent with the other images?

This is another comparison extract, this time from "The Terminator" (James Cameron, 1984). It focuses on the sound this time round. You needn't watch the entire thing, though; the first few minutes are more than enough to understand it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xykcul_the-terminator-1984-original-mono-audio-track-vs-remixed-audio-track_shortfilms

How strange was it to listen to updated sound effects overlaid on to such an old film? For me, it takes away the original feel of the film. It doesn't feel like I'm looking at something from 1984. The original sounds were perfect, so why update it with a more modern sound palette?

Last but not least is a comparison between the original and updated versions of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (George Lucas, 1977). This time, it's centred around the visual effects. Again, you only need to watch the first few minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faBFPENMbg

Good? Bad? Or in-between? I personally see CGI additions in almost any old film as an anachronism for it once again takes away the original look and feel of the film. Again, it doesn't feel like I am watching something from 1977. 

Giving a film a dodgy colour palette is something that can bother me, but even worse is "updating" the films' own sound effects and visual effects. I think it can confuse viewers as to what is the "original" print of the presented story, which is a shame because one will have barely any insight to what it might have originally looked like when screened at the cinema. And if you are going to update something with objects which have little relation to what is going on in the film's story, then you may as well call it a day and consider how it might affect the viewer. 

No-one has to be force-fed anything they disagree with. So why do filmmakers and restoration companies feel the need to do all this? Is it for the money? Their own self-satisfaction? I wish I knew the answer.