Remakes and Art - The Toy Story Dillema

[Jeric 46,884]

Character counter go home -- you are drunk 

I had no idea what to title this. Ok, that works. Just some thoughts I had about something. 

Ever since I was a teen (and likely before) through to today, entertainment media and critics tended to repackage the same joke/critique -- it took a flavor that basically went like this, 'That there is nothing new in Hollywood'. Sound familiar? Remakes, reboots, sequels, you name it. Article after article film aficionado's claimed that the state of Hollywood remaking classics was a harbinger of its own death. Hyperbole and histrionics about the lack of any new 'artisty' were as plentiful as the tepid reviews. They aren't wrong that success breeds repetition, and I am not going to dispute that  I mean, how many comic book films do we have today? They are still popular (and on the whole fun and enjoyable). Some re-imagined films had some merit to them. However, a few films that came out in the late 90's and early 00's did something that that drew the ire of many critics and fans of the original. Lucas became a long process of retooling his original Star Wars Trilogy to better match his vision. Some were cosmetic changes, others were character altering pieces. Around this time was Gus Van Sant's recreation of Psycho. For those that don't know, it was an attempt at recreating the Hitchcock classic -- shot for shot. This wasn't the Mummy, or Skull Island -- new tonally different takes on earlier versions. This was a direct reproduction with modern equipment. It was reviled. People (rightfully) questioned the purpose of a nearly identical remake. They claimed that some of the old school touches helped make the film a classic. It currently sits with a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes. 

I never questioned the critics on the backlash. I saw the movie itself and honestly agreed it seemed superfluous. I moved on with my life as even the worst film has never done me a personal injustice. However it popped into my head earlier today, because a very unlikely and unrelated thread discussing graphics in gaming. I found myself asking if the criticism's of updating old films like Star Wars or complete copy-pastes like Psycho are mostly about not wanting to touch something precious from the past that should remain unchanged. Is there a valid reason to update a film? Then I thought of one classic that made me pause, unsure for a moment. The original Pixar film Toy Story. First, let me get out the horror I feel from the fact that I am calling Toy Story a classic. That should be criminal -- I am not that old yet! Anyway, mid life crisis averted for now ... Toy Story. 

I watched this recently. It's story and humor are still worth while and hold up well. The animation, while vaguely nostalgic, is dated. There are scenes that look ... bad. Of course this was insane back when it came out. It blew all of our minds when we first laid eyes on Woody and his plastic and cloth cohorts. But, the animation is old. So I wondered, what if tomorrow Disney announced plans to redo Toy Story visually. By that I mean, only update only the visuals, the renders, the textures ... and leave all the story elements and alone. The same sound we be reused. No 'special edition' scenes. Basically Toy Story would look on par or better than Toy Story 3 and later animation. What side of the fence would you be on. Would you be upset that they messed with a classic? Would you be all for the updated visuals? If you were against it, would you take a page from Star Wars fans and grin and bear it hoping that they at least preserve the original older animation? Does the fact that the medium is CGI make it any different in a sentimental way than ... say ... Casablanca, Ghostbusters, or any other treasured film from your past? 

I will tell you that I am honestly uncertain there is a difference between making adjustments to Toy Story and what Lucas did with Star Wars. I would expect the same outcry, yet I can see the appeal with a refresh that I didn't with Star Wars. Basically, this is one I am uncertain of my own opinion -- and in the process I am actually reevaluating my own views on how I approach the Special Editions of the Holy Trilogy. Purists have a point (some actually like the artifact of film), yet you know that if they pulled it off many would actually appreciate it. 

TL;DR So where would you stand on updating visuals in older films? Leave the films be, or 2.0 them?

[SugarCoatxMarblePie 701]

Its like videogame HDs and remasters. If theres a strong enough demand or nostalgia for it its worth doing even if alot of people don't go along with it.

For example StarCraft Broodwar is coming back in Remastered form. Just visual and audio enhancements basically, but the same visuals and audio generally. I think its a fine sight for sore eyes, like, who wants to look at a pixelly mess, the brain feels better with higher detail stuff, especially if they are going to stare at it for hours and hours.

Another thing is Stuff like The Wizard of Oz got recolored. Or black n white movies got colored. Its the same principle, it breaths new life into it.

[Pinkie_Pi 348]

A prime example for me that shows an example of good idea/ bad idea is in the Romero Dead movies.

Good idea: 1990 Night of the Living Dead remake directed by Tom Savini.  It was an update and it still kept close enough to the original to be the same movie.

Bad idea: 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake directed by Zack Snyder.  I should have been called something else that was inspired by Dawn of the Dead. 

I'm ok with digitally remastering, cleaning things up a bit, and splicing original footage, but leave the original.  Also, I feel that some movies are the best the way they are.  I'm ok with a color remake of Night of the Living Dead, I would be outraged at the suggestion to colorize it.

[Jeric 46,884]

39 minutes ago, CuriUndersXeno said:

Another thing is Stuff like The Wizard of Oz got recolored. Or black n white movies got colored. Its the same principle, it breaths new life into it.

 

10 minutes ago, Pinkie_Pi said:

I'm ok with a color remake of Night of the Living Dead, I would be outraged at the suggestion to colorize it.

Curious you both mentioned the colorizing of film. If I remember correctly, that was the first hint of this debate I heard ... back when I was a kid. Like Pinkie_Pi I would likely be annoyed if one of my favorites was colorized. At least I was certain of that ... then something odd happened a year or so ago. 

And artist took old famous black and white photos and painstakingly made them color. Not only that, but the artist cleaned them up dramatically. The effect wasn't the Ted Turner uncanny valley tinting.  It looked almost perfect. Seeing historical moments brought to life in a way that made them less foreign actually gave them a different sort of power. 

That isn't a completely equivalent example, but it was something that made me wonder if I was missing something from such a hard line approach that comes from, "no, this isn't right -- away with your colors!"

[Pinkie_Pi 348]

Ah, but black and white film doesn't fade to sepia tones like old photographs.

[Zyrael 1,473]

I'd say go for it. You could have the old version of toy story, and a remastered one. As long as you don't do what lucas did and make the remastered version the only option available. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Zyrael

[Jeric 46,884]

2 minutes ago, Zyrael said:

I'd say go for it. You could have the old version of toy story, and a remastered one. As long as you don't do what lucas did and make the remastered version the only option available. 

I'd agree with that. Considering I would sell half my soul for the unaltered originals on Blu Ray. The other half is unfortunately owned by Marvel because I made a deal with Mephisto to get Thrawn back in the canon. 

[Vulcan 3,256]

For me there are a couple factors that make a good reboot...or Modernization as it were.

But I feel the most important is Consistency to the Core Elements, This is one that time after time, writers/Directors/Designers tend to forget,

and also the reason why DC can go through multiple reboots through the years while still maintaining it's fan base. 

 

For instance, In the recreation of Psycho, They didn't take into account that the "lack of color" was actually an important core element 

to the Franchise. They didn't realize, or perhaps just didn't care,  that Hitchcock CHOSE to create the film in Black and White, 

when color had readily been available at the time. When you add the color, It no longer feels like Hitchcock....It's just no longer "Psycho" 

 

Now back to the original topic, Would I support a Toy Story visual remake? It depends.

If they just gave it the exact same character design as Toy Story 3, Then I'd be all for it. 

But I don't believe they would, they'd change something. They might give buzz a more chiselled  appearance or 

They might subtly change the  hue of Woody's Hat, Whatever it is,

It would seem unnecessary to them but It would change how most would enjoy the movie. 

 

(Wow I ranted for quite awhile... o_o) 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Coffee

[CypherHoof 26,483]

Not convinced to be honest. Most of the cost of the creation of the new movie would be the same regardless, so why not spend just a little more, split the original movie into parts, then interweave new material to give more depth and insight into the story while still keeping key scenes frame-for-frame as a homage to the original? That way, you get maybe three movies out of one movie's worth of source material (thinking of what they did with the Hobbit here, especially when you get to the extended director's cut versions) and still have something to give to fans of the original beyond "it looks prettier" (plus of course, as a side bonus, you can make a version with just the original scenes in their updated form, and it won't even take up any space on the media as it is just a different index onto the same resources)

[Brony Number 42 10,093]

What if you took someone who never saw the movie and showed them both versions. Would an objective view, unbiased by nostalgia, prefer the updated version?

There was a DC animated movie Superman /Shazam on Bluray a couple years ago. There is a short movie, made with modern animation techniques, but the story tales place in 1970s. So they made the movie look like it was done in old film. It has dust and the color is washed, like you are watching a movie from 1970. I hate when movie makers do this. The story has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the time. It turns the movie itself I to a meta-art piece. The story becomes less relevant.

[Dreambiscuit 11,342]

 

I would not update older films with newer effects because the state of filmmaking at the time these films were made is a matter of history. With Star Wars, seeing what they did in the '70s and '80s is miraculous. The original trilogy still stands up today alongside any movies in the world. When I watch these movies I always go with the originals because the old physical effects look better to me. George Lucas once said that old films aren't forgotten; they're abandoned. This is one of the few things I've ever disagreed with him on. I can understand his point of view as an artist and innovator, but history matters too. There's a nostalgic element that people want when they revisit these movies. It speaks of the time, place and circumstances of their creation. Not everything has to look like to overpolished digital monstrocities that fill the theaters today. This era has its good points, but so do the decades that came before and none of them has the monopoly on good filmmaking. Let them all stand on their own feet.