Even when dealing with a "live action version" of something we're dealing with a remake/adaptation. Even the film versions of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" are adaptations, with some things emphasized, some downplayed, some omitted, some added, etc.
You can only deviate so far from the source material before it alienates fans and wastes the time of viewers expecting to get a glimpse of what the franchise in the title is supposed to be. It doesn't have to be perfectly parallel with the original but for God's sake, make it something similar.
That should be the assumption we take with anything like this. Did anyone really expect the "X-Men" movie to be an exact recreation of any particular comic or storyline?
No that should not be the expectation. Yes, changes will occur but when you go to see Akira, you should be prepared to see a reasonable facsimile of the story on the big screen. Not some diatribe that loosely borrows elements and themes from the original and uses them as an excuse to expound their own weak or nonsensical story.
If they want to do something unique so bad, make an original film. Its so damn tiring seeing filmmakers cash in on franchises because they're safe, and using them as springboards to launch their own fail ideas wrapped in the safe cushion of whatever is popular.
If anything, remaining too true to source material is a bad thing. It's not only a waste of a potential new vision of the older material, and it's not only inherently less interesting, but it also means you aren't saying anything new.
Waste of potential? No the waste of potential are filmmaker hacks being too chickenshit to write something new AND original. That's the waste of potential. If you're gonna do an adaptation of something already made, then stick to it. Vary it up a bit, but goddamnit if I'm going in to see Akira, show me Akira. Not some US cultural appropriation bullshit wrapped up in an anime story. That's PG-Fuck You Fans-13.
And, again, if you want to say something poignant and speak to a different culture than before, while not always necessary, it doesn't not make sense to adapt the material to the other culture.
Why not take that poignant message and make something new instead?
Why Dacon takes offense to that suggestion I don't understand. I'm not saying that one should completely disregard every last thing about the source material and still slap the same title on the new product if they so wish. I'm saying that if one has remained true to the spirit and relevance of the original work and reuses plot elements or characters while saying something similar to a different culture and adapting the work to that context, I don't see a problem with reusing the title.
THAT'S WHAT HOLLYWOOD DOES TRES! I can count on my hands how many good film adaptions of franchises there have been within the last 5 years, and that's sad. Most of the time, they suck. Hard. Hollywood has no talent at all adapting shit to the silverscreen that wasn't intended to be there. You're speaking as if we haven't had to watch through dregs like Dragonball Evolution, X-Men Origins, the X-Men Trilogy, Hulk, Catwoman, Street Fighter: The History of Chun-Li, and the other mounds of horseshit that get shoveled out of Hollywood.
Obviously there are different standards to be met depending on the nature of the work. You're going to have a different idea of what "remaining true to the source material" means with "Dragonball" than you are with "Akira." One lends itself to nerdrage over changes more than the other, as one really doesn't have anything to say beyond the geek details of what it is.
Which is why some things shouldn't be adapted by Hollywood in the first place. If I want to watch a Dragonball movie, I'll look at one of the 15 damn movies that have already been made and stay true to the franchise. Its superfluous.
)
