• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Child's Play remake

When I heard that he was gonna have red eyes, I wasn't too keen on the idea. Seeing the footage though, yeah, that's nightmare fuel. :funny:
 
‘Child’s Play’ Director Lars Klevberg Reveals How He Changed Chucky for the Reboot

Q: How does this version of Child’s Playdiffer from the original?

Lars Klevberg: When I got sent the [Child’s Play] draft, I didn’t know anything about [the script]. But it didn’t take me long to figure out that this story had something different. It wasn’t a haunted serial killer doll; it was an AI… It was a refreshing idea. It was so smart and [felt of] the time. It integrates the AI [conceit] into Chucky’s transformation and builds everything around that.

The first film was about child consumerism, so is the reboot more about the dangers of technology?

Klevberg: It’s still dealing with consumerism in this one as well; it just isn’t quite as big a deal. But it’s not about the AI itself. That’s not what scary about this one. The scary thing is that our antagonist, our Chucky, transforms through its AI.

What is Chucky’s motivation in the reboot?

Klevberg: When I read the script, one of the first things I recognized was that Chucky was a great character in terms of that he changed. He had his motivations, and it came through his interaction with humans. His way of becoming sympathetic – that was something I really wanted to look into. I viewed the story as a Greek tragedy [for] Chucky… So Chucky having different emotions in this film was important to me.

How does Chucky change?

Klevberg: I don’t want to reveal that… But [Chucky’s] motivation is understandable from his point of view but also to us. We can understand why he’s behaving like that. If you understand the antagonist and his motivations, then you can identify with him. That’s why Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is one of my key inspirations… [How Chucky questions] his purpose once he starts to understand from us human beings.

What’s the impact of aging the children up (from six in the original to twelve here) and having more of them?



Photo by Eric Milner/Orion Pictures


Klevberg: It was a smart choice in the script to include more kids. We have Andy as our protagonist but he has a slightly different motivation and background. But having more kids that become friends with Andy is very interesting because it deals with the core of the story as it moves along.

What are the most important elements of the original that you felt needed to be protected?

Klevberg: I’m a huge fan of the first movie, but that should never be the reason why you do a project. When you’re dealing with a remake with a huge fanbase, you’re touching on something that means a lot to many people. You should be a little bit aware of that from a storyteller’s perspective because there’s a reason why that movie was so popular. It meant something to many people. But at the same time, you need to see what’s written in the script and tell that story. I saw that [the script] was very emotional and scary and had a deeper story underneath everything. I didn’t want to change it, I just wanted to add to the material that was already there.

What is the humor like in this film?

Klevberg: When I read the draft, I thought it was very fun. I would often flip the page, and there would be a great moment. There are horror aspects, emotional aspects but also just really fun moments. It’s not campy, silly humor. It’s all integrated into the story and how our characters move forward as the story progresses… All the Child’s Play movies have some humor to them. But it needed to be integrated into the story. It needed to feel real and hit you so you laugh while you’re having a great time, but not because it’s silly.

How did you settle on the aesthetic look of Chucky?

Klevberg: Chucky’s looked different throughout all the films. For me – I always go off the script. So it came from that… I knew I wanted the audience to connect with Chucky emotionally on every level. He needed to be expressive, and I needed him to have the possibility to change. All those pieces need to fit together for a purpose, and that comes from the script and what the story is about.
Click to expand...
 
Movie Magic Mastery: An Interview With Todd Masters of MastersFX | Horror Geek Life


HGL: Speaking of your company, MastersFX had the honor of creating the doll for the upcoming Child’s Play reboot. Tell us a little about the challenge of reinventing such an iconic character.

TM: Yeah, it’s definitely a challenge. Any time you’re faced with a remake or a redo, or even the slightest redesign, you’re always going to be dealing with an uphill battle. People are going to have their fixed-in memories. Images, especially horror images, or any type of effect that draws emotion, really does kind of burn into the mind. People take ownership of your stuff. Which is what you want them to do. You want them to be emotional about designs. Everybody loves Chucky. So, when I first heard about the project, I was a little reluctant. I had been on Chucky movies in the past, but it was always the same doll design. When I heard that they wanted to redesign it, I thought “well, this is just how it goes.” Everyone wants to keep remaking and revising. The “what worked once might work again” type of stuff. So, it’s inevitable that we’re going to hit some of this stuff. We redid Predator, we’ve redone a bunch of stuff over the years. It’s kind of funny that a lot of these movies are from when I first started in the business. A lot of these ’80s remakes I actually touched way back when. So, it was kind of interesting when Chucky came along.

I didn’t actually work on the originals, but I certainly knew the crew and I knew what was going on behind-the-scenes. For one, it was hesitation; two, it was an honor to be chosen to do it; three, it was horrifying because I knew the schedule was going to be tight. The big part is that we like challenges. The producers really wanted it to be a practical thing, it seemed wrong to try to do something like that digitally, so it was kind of cool to go that way. It was a really intense build. We made a lot of puppets, various puppets to do various things. We did do a lot of the sculpting in the computer. When the script came it, I gotta say, it was shocking how great it was. Not to say we don’t expect good scripts, but we do read a lot of mediocre stuff, especially remakes. Sometimes they’re a little soft. I thought this script was really really good. Then I met Lars (Klevburg, director of the new Child’s Play), he flew over from Norway. The big thing with the script was that it really isn’t the same movie and there’s a reason, a real story reason, that he looks different. That kind of got me interested in it in a different way. It wasn’t like we were trying to take the original design and soften here and round there and do things like that. It is a totally different thing. I think people will understand that when they see it.

It was a crazy build, I think we managed because we have a great crew. We didn’t do a lot of the sculpting phase. A lot of these practical FX, there’s quite a bit of work done in sculptural form. Our studio has really welcomed a digital pipeline, so there is a lot of sculpting but some of it is in the computer. I think that also saved our bacon a little bit. It allowed us to change sizes on the fly, like if Lars wanted it 5 inches higher, we could do that. From the very beginning, that was one of our big questions. How big is this damn thing? It’s kind of silly when you see a young kid carrying around this massive doll. Of course, it has to be big to hide all the stuff, but still it shouldn’t be this massive thing. It’s gotta appear like something that’s marketable and desired by children. So it gave Lars a chance to really study that. I think we outputted 4 or 5 different sizes of the doll, in full clothing and everything.
Click to expand...


HGL: When it comes to the integration of digital and practical FX, what are the advantages of working with both approaches?

TM: Great question. It’s kinda funky because practical FX and CG/digital FX have this weird relationship in that each methodology has it’s own good side and bad side. It’s assets and liabilities. One thing I noticed years ago is that the assets of one appear to be the liabilities of the other. For example, CG has a really hard time feeling real and believable. It’s hard for actors to act against tennis balls, etc. Where practical feels real pretty quickly. You make something practical look real and perfect pretty fast. It looks real because it is real. Actors can see it, they can react to it, and directors can direct it, if it’s a person in a suit for instance. Practical’s big liability is that it has to abide by the laws of physics. You can’t just bring a puppet on set and say “physics do not apply!” (laughs) you still have to stage it and move it. Digital doesn’t. Digital can set the amount of gravity it wants to have. So, there’s a handshake between the two methodologies which makes them really nice to stitch together.

We started doing this aggressively a few years ago. It comes across in some interesting ways. Some people really buy into the fact that they’re looking at something completely believable. It doesn’t have a tell, CG sometimes has a tell, you can kind of see something’s coming. CG, of course, grows better and better and practical FX grows better and better, too. We’re starting to see a lot of filmmakers see the power of practical FX in a different way. So, we’re doing a lot more of that. Not only on set has it changed, but even in the way we build things. We’ve embraced a digital companion through the entire process. For example, on Chucky, or Predator, or a couple others we’ve just done. We’ve used digital outputs for certain things we just can’t quite do, or least do easily with our hands.

We just did a bug monster and we wanted these cool texture patterned eyeballs. That would suck to sculpt (laughs). We’ve done it before, but with the computer we can do a bunch really fast and we can have choices. Then we will sculpt the head by hand. It’s about mixing the methodologies.
Click to expand...


HGL: Lastly, as you already hit on, the Child’s Play films have a rabid fan base. What might you tell fans of the original Child’s Play series who may be hesitant to trust a new vision?

TM: The script actually wouldn’t make sense with the same doll. It really wouldn’t. The script is a big component. I can’t really say the details of what that is. I think it’s already been leaked that its a very corporate-based entity that is involved. It’s much like how Starbucks evolved their design over time. They simplified it. It’s kind of the point of big corporations. You look at Starbucks now, it’s kind of lost the small coffee house feel, it’s just become this conglomerate of brown liquid. If you look at their logo and their whole image, its gone from being comfortable and homey to being a little more brutalistic and cold and more “get the **** out of here” (laughs). That’s not the narrative for Child’s Play, but it had a lot of the corporate attitude to respect in the design.

The first doll was triggered by something else and it was what was required for that narrative. The other thing to keep in mind is that Chucky is always an *******. Part of the reason we love Chucky is because he’s an *******. He kind of does and says a lot of the things we’d like to say and do but can’t. That’s another thing that I think is funny about how the response has been going. Everyone is responding like Chucky is an *******, which I think is exactly what the studio wants. That’s sort of the point. The reason that you’re emotionally connected to Freddy, or Chucky, or any of these characters is that the story and the design just work together. They just kind of function as one. We couldn’t do the same design. Fans want it, but sorry, it just wasn’t in the cards. It had to be a new design for a number of reasons. And if they don’t like it, it’s not supposed to be anything but a doll (laughs).

It’s kind of cool that people are already responding. It’s like a few years ago when they had that blue dress thing going. Everyone is like “that’s a grey dress” or “that’s a silver dress” or whatever. In a way it’s kind of cool that Chucky’s kind of messing with people already, I kind of like that. The face design was from Einard Martinson, a designer, one of Lars’ people. We took his 3D files and just printed right from there. They really came in with a plan, so I think you need to see it before you judge it. It’s really hard to tell with what’s been released and I think people are going to really like what they see. It’s not the movie they think it is.
Click to expand...

image.jpg image.jpg
image.jpg
 
Well I appreciate his breaking it down for us.
 
I wonder what happened to the original doll?

 
Two tracks of McCreary's score, which includes his own take on the original theme from 1988.




Awesome stuff!
 
If they make a sequel I want them to pull a T2 and have a new Chucky doll actually be good and protect Andy from a new evil doll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hunter Rider
Child's Play Remake in the Works
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
Holiday
Holiday

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,550 (members: 19, guests: 2,531)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,568
Messages
21,992,184
Members
45,788
Latest member
drperret

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"