The Nostalgia Filter is a Liar, the Remake is Always Better

The other day I had a conversation with a friend where we were reminiscing about good times from our childhood like playing Tony Hawk, Crash Bandicoot, and Spyro the Dragon. We eventually moved on to Dragon Ball Z, and he brought up how he hadn't seen it in so long, but that it was still his favorite show. <br><br>I then had the bright idea of telling him that since we both had some free time, we should watch it. Now before you call me a bastard, I knew full well that both Dragon Ball Z Kai and Dragon Ball Super were out. However, he seemed to have a strong emotional attachment to Dragon Ball Z, and I wanted to respect that. <br><br>Now, this is obviously a bit of a tangent, but I think it has a lot to do with my overall point. I didn't want to tell him that Dragon Ball Z was a bad show, because it was his fondest childhood memory, and I think that made me look at it through rose-tinted glasses. <br><br>When we were actually watching the show, I noticed how painful it was to get through just the first episode. It was excruciatingly slow, the voice acting was terrible, and the animation was at times cringy. I then had the bright idea of suggesting Dragon Ball Z Kai, and he was immediately put off by it. He said that it wasn't Dragon Ball Z, and that it ruined the spirit of the original. Now, I don't want to badmouth my friend, but he seemed to be in the minority, as it has a 91% approval rating on IMDB, and Kai was quite literally just a better version of Z. <br><br>After that, I started thinking about other remakes, and how they can be viewed as a cash-grab. The best examples of this are live-action Disney remakes. I think they're all terrible and completely pointless. That was until I saw that Aladdin and the Little Mermaid had a very high approval rating on IMDB, with Aladdin receiving a 7.6/10 and The Little Mermaid receiving an 8.0/10. While I haven't seen either of these movies, it got me thinking as to why remakes are made, and if they should be viewed as cash-grabs. <br><br>In my next conversation with my friend, I suggested a few more remakes like Dragon Ball Super. Now that was something he was OK with, but I was still met with intense skepticism. He had been burned by so many remakes before, and I started to think about how remakes have been a staple of entertainment for a very long time. Shrek 2 is one of my favorite movies, but it wouldn't have been possible without the existence of the first Shrek. <br><br>George Lucas is often seen as a pioneer of remakes, and the Star Wars prequels are one of the best examples of this. Star Wars is in my opinion one of if not the most iconic franchise of all time. The prequels were designed to set the stage for the original trilogy, but in many ways, they are an extension of the original trilogy. The original trilogy ends with Return of the Jedi, but the prequels are a way for Lucas to add onto that story. While they aren't the most highly acclaimed movies, they're still widely enjoyed and widely popular. <br><br>But what do remakes mean for the original? Do they ruin the spirit of the original? Do they replace the original? The answer to all three of these is no. The original still exists, and will continue to exist regardless of any remakes. <br><br>Remakes are a way for creators to reimagine the story they're working on. They can make changes to better fit their overall message and vision. They can improve upon the original by fixing any plot holes or inconsistencies. They can enhance the overall quality by using better filming equipment or better voice actors. <br><br>As creators, we always have a vision for our work, and sometimes the first iteration of our work isn't a perfect representation of that vision. That's why we revise and edit. Remakes are just an extension of that. We get to see how the creator's vision evolves over time, and we get to see how they interpret their own work. <br><br>In conclusion, the nostalgia filter is a liar, and the remake is always better.