It’s TRUE OR FALSE – a feature that allows Warped Footage to contemplate the biggest issues in film.
Answering this week’s big questions are Saira Perwaiz, John Murphy and Paul McKenzie.
1. Live-action remakes of classic animated movies are ruining their predecessors.
Saira: FALSE – I think it’s natural to feel – dare I say it – almost threatened, by a live action remake as we don’t want to change a film that holds nostalgia for us. However, I believe it means the children of this generation will get to enjoy a story delivered in a modern way that appeases to the world they are growing up in. To say they are ruining their predecessors is a bit dramatic.
John: FALSE – I think this comes down to your own personal perception. For me, these ‘live action’ versions of stories previously told in an animated format are a celebration of the success of the original, and exist in a different format so as not to detract from their beloved forebears.
Paul: FALSE – I don’t mind remakes. Not at all. The issue I have is more the distinct last of artistic integrity that comes with them. Example being The Lion King, the trailer is a shot for shot match up. I get it, it’s nostalgia. And I would hope that there is something more added to it. I wouldn’t say they are ruining the originals, though. I would even say they make them better as I couldn’t name many that are as good when remade.
2. In order to properly enjoy music biopics, you have to have some appreciation of the featured artist’s work.
Saira: TRUE – Why would you want to watch a biopic of someone who’s music you don’t even like or listen to? The whole point is to get an understanding of their background so you can appreciate them and their rise to fame. I mean, if they had a really jaw dropping tale to tell then maybe you would give it a try but… come on, you need to appreciate their music?!
John: FALSE – I think the most effective biopics don’t rely on zealotry or hardline reverence to a person/band/ historical figure’s work in whichever form it may take. The truly effective pieces in this genre manage find the personal human story behind the myth, which is accessible to everyone – not just hardcore fans.
Paul: FALSE – I wouldn’t say that this is 100% accurate. I think if you know or appreciate the music already it can help smooth some bumps in poor film quality, but if you’re going in solely for the music, then you can just watch a concert film.
3. The Haunting of Hill House is as good as TV horror gets.
Saira: TRUE – I should say I haven’t been exposed to a lot of TV horror besides this and American Horror Story (which I found too stylistic, not really scary and a bit dull) so I’m comparing the two. I believe The Haunting of Hill House is the winner as it taps into emotions such as grief and intertwines them with the supernatural. It was horror with depth. I can’t see how you else you could make TV horror unless it has a bit of emotional depth to it in order to engage with the viewer. The Haunting of Hill House does it so, so well. So, until I’m corrected, I would say HHH is the best TV horror out there.
John: FALSE – This show had six near-perfect episodes, which managed to develop characters in a shifting, time-jumping narrative without compromising the sense of atmosphere, dread and tension that existed from the first frame. Then the last four episodes happened, and all of that hard work collapsed like a sub-standard flan. I personally think the 10-episode order caused it. If this is the start of a Haunting anthology series, I think they can do better. I’d argue season 1 of AHS was more effective from beginning to end, but that’s a story for another day, kids.
Paul: UNDECIDED – Have not seen the show, but I’ve heard mixed reviews (see above).
4. Toy Story 4 could become an unwanted blemish on an otherwise perfect series.
Saira: TRUE – Andy has said goodbye and Woody has gone to a new home. We need to move on. A small part of me has hope it won’t be a complete disaster and I do have a fondness for the Toy Story films, but for the most part I think….ugh, for the love of everything Pixar: leave it be.
John: TRUE – I am really worried about this film series being damaged by an unnecessary 4th part. We had the perfect arc of Andy and his toys’ journey over a remarkably long period of time for a trilogy to be released in. This reeks of them wanting to maintain brand recognition with a younger audience.
Paul: TRUE – It’s a risk that doesn’t need to be run. There were two previous points when this franchise could have ended: firstly, after the credits of Toy Story 2, which was a perfect ending; secondly, the scene in the furnace in Toy Story 3.
5. Watching films at home is a less engaging experience than going to the cinema.
Saira: UNDECIDED – I think it depends on your circumstances. In my experience watching a 1.5 hour film at home normally takes me around 5/6 hours due to constant interruptions and I just cannot enjoy it fully. For me, the cinema is pure escapism where I can give the film my full attention. Having said that, I think if you have the time to watch a film then it can be an engaging experience, no matter where you are.
John: FALSE – I would take this on a film-by-film, visit-by-visit experience. So much of your enjoyment is dependant on the behaviour of fellow patrons. That being said, does anyone want to watch The Force Awakens on VOD for the first time, or at midnight, giddy as a schoolgirl like I did? This is too big a question for a yes or no. I’m not playing. So there!
Paul: FALSE – I think this depends on audience participation and the genre of the film. I think the cinema itself helps to keep you in the ‘moment’ for the film, but loud or rude audience members can take you out of the film just as much as your dog jumping on the couch.