I'd say these re-designs are inaccessible but people would get the wrong idea; inaccessible usually means not accessible to people who have handicaps of some va

I'd say these re-designs are inaccessible but people would get the wrong idea; inaccessible usually means not accessible to people who have handicaps of some variety, and that doesn't accurately capture the problems with these re-designed websites: They're not accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of how able they are, unless they're the designer themself. They not only blindly assume you have the latest web browser technology and are willing to use it, heedless of security concerns and basic propriety, on relatively minor sites, they assume you've crawled up inside the designer's head and therefore see the site the way the designer sees it. Which brings me to why sites "All Look The Same" (kind of a stupid thing to say, but I'll not fight it): It's a design language, something where designers and users can agree which elements do what, what affordances they have, and, therefore, how to use the site to get what they want from it. None of the re-designs follow that. None of the re-designs are respectful of anyone else. These re-designs are a bad parody of design work, and make designers look bad by association.