IT wasn't immediate that it was a mistake.

The animals gathering, their hooves and fur and feathers all realistic in the early morning dawn. Very nice. The impressive GCI, well, that's captivating.

Oh, here's Rafiki and what's that he's got? Ah, Simba. Quite right. All quite right so far, not too terrible a waste of a Thursday evening.

But why was it so... flat?

When it comes to films I cannot bear a remake. But for The Lion King I broke my own hard rule because this remake involves Beyonce and I would trot over hot coals for Beyonce. The notion of Queen Bey as a lion was an intrigue too far to resist.

Disney, as it is with too many of its classics, remade the The Lion King for a modern audience using CGI, which makes the characters intensely life like. For someone whose childhood was punctuated by a series of much-loved Disney films, their soundtracks memorised by playing the accompanying cassette tapes on endless loops, seeing Simba and Nala played by 'real' lions was off-putting to the point of sucking the emotional resonance out of the story.

It's somehow easy to go along with a talking lion when that talking lion is clearly fiction. But when the film looks like Sir David Attenborough should be narrating it, it's too implausible to take the singing fauna seriously.

So, the memory of a favourite film ruined. And for what? The 2019 The Lion King adds absolutely nothing to the story of the original. It makes more money for Disney, of course, but what was the point otherwise?

Ditto Mary Poppins Returns. Yes, ok, I've already broken my remake rule this year. My excuse is that I couldn't remember seeing the original Mary Poppins so it was as new for me... and a sequel isn't quite a remake.

Again, a mistake. It didn't matter how spit spot lovely Emily Blunt managed, she wasn't Julie Andrews and I couldn't bear it. Even with no complete memory of the original film, A Spoonful of Sugar seems to have taken up residence somewhere in my brain and isn't for being evicted by any modern CGI fake magic.

The film industry has been remaking its output for more than 100 years now; we’ve suffered live action remakes, retellings, reinvention and reboots.

Some have suffered more than others. So many Scrooges, Musketeers and Mowglis.

Let us hope last year's A Star Is Born - the third telling - is the last, unless someone would like to try to make reparations for Bradley Cooper's  all-male fantasy onanistic retelling of the classic.

Not only the movie remakes: there's also the endless regurgitation of the likes of Spiderman, whose origin story has been told, told again and then told once more for those at the back nodded off into their popcorn.

Filmgoers have got to know why they’re buying a ticket, they like to be reassured that this will be a decent investment of an evening out with the guaranteed return of a good time. What better than to see something you already, play it safe, enjoy the ride in the comfort of knowing exactly what twists or turns are coming around the bend?

Anything, just about anything better, would be the response.

People get themselves het up about spoilers. You see some raging barneys on social media when someone has revealed a plot point in an as yet unseen but anticipated show. Yet somehow the movie remake, a two hour spoiler, is completely acceptable.

But then studios - with vast sums of money at stake and huge budgets - also need to know they will see a return on their investment so demand shapes supply.

And so we have Dumbo redone in CGI, decades after its original 1942 release. We have The Lion King, Mary Poppins. The absolute travesty of an Aladdin remake - imagine thinking you could better the inimitable Robin Williams as the Genie. Jeez. Some things should be respectfully left untouched.

Disney has very recently announced it is remaking Night At The Museum, a 1990s literary favourite with every possible drop squeezed from it. We also have a Home Alone remake to look forward to - three films just aren't enough, it seems - while the second part of Stephen King's IT is due for release this month, itself a remake.

It is fascinating that there is enough box office ka-ching to fuel the endless remakes. If you loved something the first time round then why would you want to see it reimagined? Why watch your favourite characters be manipulated or even mauled by someone doing a lesser job.

Much has been written about the current youth fascination with Friends, which is a nice example that sticking to the original works just fine. Ditto the enduring appeal of the original Dumbo. Sharing a film - not a remake - across generations is an act of binding, of bonding.

The Disney obsession with taking these beautiful originals and updating them with CGI feels also insulting to modern children. It comes with the suggestion that children will not be able to enjoy the original 2D hand drawn films without some additional bells and whistles to zhuzh it up.

Perhaps because it's personal, this current round of remakes feels particularly cynical. The glut of 90s do-overs is designed to appeal to those of us in the age bracket who will be attracted by the nostalgia of the piece and who will have the disposable income to spend on it.

Surely Toy Story 4 was devised on just that reasoning. Lure them in by preying on their precious memories and then play them for their cash.

While remakes are part of cinema history, it feels like nostalgia is being used as a manipulating factor just at a time when nostalgia is at its most effective. A trip down memory lane is cosy and reassuring and are if a £9 cinema ticket can buy you comfort, wouldn't you snap it up?

Nostalgia is a terrible motivator - whether in politics ("Take back control" anyone? "Make America Great Again"?) or popular culture. It's a false promise based on a false premise.

These remakes deny a new generation a cast of characters to grow up with, a crew that marks their unique place in time, while keeping 90s teenagers in a false loop of youth.

It's time to take our fingers off the rewind button and start hitting fast forward.