Live Action Winnie the Pooh and the Slow Death of Art.

[RJ 17]

Good evening.

First of all: yes, that's actually a thing. Disney intends to make a live action rendition of Winnie the Pooh.

Beyond that, I was browsing some of my favorite channels on youtube when I came to CinemaSins and by extension CinemaSins Jeremy who has posted a video a couple days ago expressing his thoughts on the matter. Not just on a live action Winnie the Pooh, specifically, but rather on the ramifications of what all these remakes and rehashes and reboots and reimaginnings are leading to.

For your reference:


Long story short for those that decided to skip the video, he believes that we're effectively killing our artistic creativity (specifically in terms of cinema, but broadened out to other forms as well) for the sake of just making money. He laments that due to constantly remaking things from the past, it will become increasingly rare to see anything remotely original or new, comparing such a situation to the cultural and artistic stagnation seen in the movie Idiocracy.

What do you think? Do you agree that we're heading down a slippery slope that's leading to the slow death of original creativity and artistic abilities? Or is this just a cynical overreaction because there's still artistic value in taking works from the past and adding your own creative take to it?

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

I'm gonna say the latter. Yes, there's seems to be a lack of "originality" in the film industry, but all I want is to watch a good movie and have a good time, regardless whether it's "original" or not. You can have a remake or reboot that's still good or adds a new creative take on a pre-existing story. I'm not saying that's the case 100% of the time, but there's nothing wrong with the idea of remakes or adaptations. We've been doing that for decades, centuries even, with Shakespeare plays, A Christmas Carol, or even simply retelling old stories, legends, and fairy tales. A lot of these stories have been retold countless times, helping to keep them alive for future generations, and some people like to put their own spin on them to help make them more interesting and expand possibilities. Hell, I have my own ideas for pre-existing stories, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

I never really cared if they're was done just for money, that to me is rather superficial reason to dismiss something, like blaming "overhyping" or annoying fanbases on why you don't like a movie, stuff I can easily block out if the movie's still good.

Is there too much of that these days? Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they will all just be bad cash-ins or that that there'll never be original or creative films in the future. Also, just because a movie is new and original, doesn't mean it'll be good.

I don't know, I don't see much to worry about. I think it's me being too much of an optimist.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Disney has barely had a scrap of originality. Pretty much all their classics are either adaptations, remakes, or loose ripoffs. This isn't unusual.

 

[Risingblade]

It's an overreaction, originality will return once the market demands it.

 

[Spider RedNight]

I dunno, the last Winnie the Pooh movie Disney made actually made me laugh for most of it so I'm not as cynical as I should or could be for a live action version.

So yeah, I think it's an overreaction. To say that art is dying because Disney's recycling something (again) just means you think art's been dying for a looong time since Disney doesn't really take the whole "make our own things" concept very well

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh bother...

People got mad because of Winnie The Pooh's off-screen execution on Red Dwarf. I don't think this is going to be received well.

 

[Twintix]

I believe that people sometimes forget that original isn't a synonym for good. I'd hold off on moaning about how awful the movie is until it's come out. Do I think it's unneccessary? Yes. But so are a ton of things that I enjoy; Video games, manga, candy...We don't need these either, but damn it I love them anyway.

I say it's a cynical overreaction.

I'm not a huge movie buff, mainly because I find a lot of movies to be very same-y and because more often than not I find myself irritated by the characters, but that's just me. I'm just not that into movies; It has little to do with the movies' originality or lack of it. An unoriginal movie can still be enjoyable, you know?

Unless it's TRON: Legacy, but that just stems from me being super-disappointed in it. Fuck that movie for making me excited for it, and fuck the lack of awesome bike duels.

 

[Bat Vader]

I kind of agree with the guy but at the same time at least to me he comes off as really pretentious and insulting. I'm sorry but I can't take anyone seriously when they try and use generalizations to back up their argument. He's basically calling everyone who saw Transformers 4 idiots. You can't judge a person's intelligence by one movie that they see.

He also says that truly creative people can't get funding. That's why Kickstarter and IndieGoGo exist. They are for creative people to get funding for their projects. Will they always get their funding? No, of course not. That is their best chance though.

The guy has some good points but to me he comes off as critical and insulting especially of others.

 

[likalaruku]

How can they make a live action Winnie the Pooh? Use real animals? Because all of the animals are Christopher Robin's stuffed toys. Oh, I know...It will have animated stuffed animals mingling with real people in the real world. Outside of Roger Rabbit & Cool World, that's usually frowned upon by our generation.

 

[mad825]

How can they make a live action Winnie the Pooh? Use real animals? Because all of the animals are Christopher Robin's stuffed toys. Oh, I know...It will have animated stuffed animals mingling with real people in the real world. Outside of Roger Rabbit & Cool World, that's usually frowned upon by our generation.

CGI mate.

Spoiler: like Paddington bear

I'll say this a thousand times before I die;people will ***** and moan but it will still sell millions at the box office.

 

[Evonisia]

I get his point, mostly, but I think it's ridiculous that he's taking on a company who has barely ever decided to be original (films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? are the exceptions that prove the rule). Plus he comes off as very condescending to the general public, as if it's a crime that people like Transformers 4.

"Bad original ideas are better than rehashed fuckery".

I think I'll still take the actually good new version of Cinderella over a crappy film that thriving on its originality. Hell, does that mean that the other classic Disney movies like Sleeping Beauty, the animated Cinderella or Snow White are worse than the original films the Nazis were putting out during the 30s? And what about Maleficent? That's a new story (technically, it's very Wicked-esque) that uses the original Sleeping Beauty as a jumping off point to think about new ideas. Hell Aurora has more of a character in Maleficent.

Besides, you can get creative stuff out of familiar ideas or outright adaptations of other works.

Without Godzilla there would be no Pacific Rim.
Without the legend of Faust there would be no Doctor Faustus.
Without Ayn Rand's work there would be no BioShock.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, yes, the film industry is concerned with making money. Which is why it's called the film "industry".

OTOH, we seem to be going through a bad bit at the time.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err he kind of late to the party, I mean Moviebob mention that already in the past (sometime around of before Pacific Rim came out as he was supporting that film since it was original).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

We have only ourselves to blame. They wouldn't make these movies if they weren't 100% certain they would be able to sell them like so many other loaves of hot bread.

 

[Lilani]

Good evening.

First of all: yes, that's actually a thing. Disney intends to make a live action rendition of Winnie the Pooh.

Beyond that, I was browsing some of my favorite channels on youtube when I came to CinemaSins and by extension CinemaSins Jeremy who has posted a video a couple days ago expressing his thoughts on the matter. Not just on a live action Winnie the Pooh, specifically, but rather on the ramifications of what all these remakes and rehashes and reboots and reimaginnings are leading to.

For your reference:


Long story short for those that decided to skip the video, he believes that we're effectively killing our artistic creativity (specifically in terms of cinema, but broadened out to other forms as well) for the sake of just making money. He laments that due to constantly remaking things from the past, it will become increasingly rare to see anything remotely original or new, comparing such a situation to the cultural and artistic stagnation seen in the movie Idiocracy.

What do you think? Do you agree that we're heading down a slippery slope that's leading to the slow death of original creativity and artistic abilities? Or is this just a cynical overreaction because there's still artistic value in taking works from the past and adding your own creative take to it?

I think it's interesting to lament at a live-action Pooh movie being a sign of dying creativity in Hollywood when the original animated Pooh films were also adaptations from the books by A.A. Milne, lol. And those movies came out like over 40 years ago. If adaptations and rehashing a are a sign of the end times for film, then things were going downhill when they released like the third remake of King Kong sometime in the 50s.

Disney is definitely riding this profitable train of live action remakes, but they're also investing in new ideas as well. Wreck It Ralph, Frozen (yes adapted from a fairy tale but definitely with their own spin on it), and their upcoming princess film to revolve around a Hawaiian character. And as for their remakes, I fell like they're giving over their ideas to some pretty creative people, and a wide range of filmmakers with a wide range of styles. Tim Burton's Dumbo remake will definitely be nothing like this, that's for sure.

So yes, safe bets have always been the bread and butter of Hollywood blockbusters, but I don't feel things are any worse than they have ever been. We're also gaining greater access to smaller films through digital distribution, so even though studios are bigger than ever, it is also easier than ever for small filmmakers to get their films seen by a large audience.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Eh, he kind of lost me with the Idiocracy reference. I'm getting tired of people turning to it constantly for their "look at those sheeple" moments.

Thing is, this is nothing new. Remember the 80's and 90's when Hollywood was churning out live action remakes of classic cartoons like Popeye, Rocky and Bullwinkle and Casper up the ass? Pillaging the public domain and making it their own has been Disney's bread and butter since pretty much the beginning, yet nobody seemed to complain about that.

I'd say the majority of entertainment throughout history has been derivative in some form. The fact is that people tend to gravitate towards certain themes and elements in stories, thus they're more likely to return to them. Don't get me wrong, I loathe most live-action remakes, but I'm not going to proclaim the death of creativity over it.

"We're going to expect to see Star Wars shit...books, cartoons, TV shows, movies...out the ass."

...You mean like how it's been for the past twenty-five years or so?

 

[Nailzzz]

A CGI version of Winnie the Pooh? I can't be the only one looking forward to this simply for all of the CGI nightmare fuel this will likely provide. I'm sure we'll get some pretty epic gifs out of the deal as well. Sure, it will probably be absolutely terrible for a movie, but I'm sure those of us on the internet will make great use of it.

 

[DementedSheep]

*yawn* this again? I'd wager you had people talking about the death of creativity before we even had movies with books and stage shows instead. Remakes and original content can exist simultaneously, most original stories are heavy influenced by what came before they just aren't using the names and this hardly a new thing. Winne the Pooh was, as far as I know, originally a book anyway. With Disney re-imaginings have always been their thing although to their credit (or not I suppose) when they base something of something else, even their own movies, it tends to be fairly loosely. It's more like taking themes or using a story as jumping off point and then playing with them in a different way. Live action re-imaginings is the latest craze, just like cowboy movies or aliens or crime thrillers, eventually something else will fall into fashion.

How can they make a live action Winnie the Pooh? Use real animals? Because all of the animals are Christopher Robin's stuffed toys. Oh, I know...It will have animated stuffed animals mingling with real people in the real world. Outside of Roger Rabbit & Cool World, that's usually frowned upon by our generation.

CGI mate.

Spoiler: like Paddington bear

I'll say this a thousand times before I die;people will ***** and moan but it will still sell millions at the box office.

Been a while since I seen anything involving Paddington but I have to say sticking toothbrushes into his ears and licking earwax doesn't match how I remember it's tone.

Edit: I looked at the comments and guess I'm not the only one who thought that.

 

[briankoontz]

The center of every empire is artistically barren - that has no ramifications on art in general. The biggest obstacle to art in the future is environmental collapse and the despair, poverty, and social and political chaos that brings.

Art has always existed in a context of continuing human existence - the artist himself might die at any moment but he hopes his art can live on, and since he expects humanity to continue those hopes are rational, to some extent even in a war zone.

But in a dying world where continued human existence itself is in doubt, it's no longer rational for the artist to presume a continued humanity to perhaps appreciate his work - that humanity that artists throughout history have always taken for granted might have only a century or two left. So the value of art declines or rises along with changes to the future expected condition of human existence.

The first serious detriment to art in this sense was the creation and use of nuclear weapons, where it became clear that human existence was contingent upon a restricted use of such weapons. Modern environmental degradation is an opposite addition to this - certain to occur and thus more dreadful but far less immediately destructive. We've added a certain slow cook in an oven to the continued possibility of an obliterative explosion.

Given this, it makes more sense to question the value of art in the modern world than to irrationally presume the value of art and decry the "degradation" of it. This is the core of the problem with critics who continue to live as if the development of nuclear weapons and environmental degradation never happened - they become increasingly out of touch with the reality of the world that "plebians", "stupid sheeple", or whatever the latest derisive term they are using understand very well. The question is not whether or not Michael Bay creates great art - he clearly does not. The question is how much value art has left in the modern world.

We appreciate very much the work of William Shakespeare, over four centuries after he produced it. Critics, so sophisticated they are unable to understand the ramifications of the basic reality around them, ask "who's the next William Shakespeare?" without a hint of knowing that another William Shakespeare is made impossible by a dying world.

 

[briankoontz]

The center of every empire is artistically barren - that has no ramifications on art in general. The biggest obstacle to art in the future is environmental collapse and the despair, poverty, and social and political chaos that brings.

Art has always existed in a context of continuing human existence - the artist himself might die at any moment but he hopes his art can live on, and since he expects humanity to continue those hopes are rational, to some extent even in a war zone.

But in a dying world where continued human existence itself is in doubt, it's no longer rational for the artist to presume a continued humanity to perhaps appreciate his work - that humanity that artists throughout history have always taken for granted might have only a century or two left. So the value of art declines or rises along with changes to the future expected condition of human existence.

The first serious detriment to art in this sense was the creation and use of nuclear weapons, where it became clear that human existence was contingent upon a restricted use of such weapons. Modern environmental degradation is an opposite addition to this - certain to occur and thus more dreadful but far less immediately destructive. We've added a certain slow cook in an oven to the continued possibility of an obliterative explosion.

Given this, it makes more sense to question the value of art in the modern world than to irrationally presume the value of art and decry the "degradation" of it. This is the core of the problem with critics who continue to live as if the development of nuclear weapons and environmental degradation never happened - they become increasingly out of touch with the reality of the world that "plebians", "stupid sheeple", or whatever the latest derisive term they are using understand very well. The question is not whether or not Michael Bay creates great art - he clearly does not. The question is how much value art has left in the modern world.

We appreciate very much the work of William Shakespeare, over four centuries after he produced it. Critics, so sophisticated they are unable to understand the ramifications of the basic reality of the world outside their bubble, ask "who's the next William Shakespeare?" without a hint of knowing that another William Shakespeare is made impossible by a dying world.