Live Action Akira to be PG-13

[looneymoon]

Also, I thought all of the X-men movies are fail. But when it comes to adapting comic books, I don't so much mind a few changes as long as the characters and spirit of story is the same. With comic books, there have been so many alternate dimensions, different universes and worlds with the same characters but different plots, stories and history that a film adaptation has the same leverage.

THIS a thousand times over. Long-running comic book stories are more about the mythos than the canon, so it makes it entirely possible for me to appreciate comic-book adapted movies as standalone films (the new Batman movies are the most recent example imo). The same goes for certain things like fairy tales, or other stories that have already been told a million times before (Alice in Wonderland being the first example I can think of).

Akira doesn't quite have that same level of history with regard to its storytelling. So if you're going to re-adapt it, it's best not to deviate too far from the original.

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.

What he said. Unless it's a story that's been told a thousand times over again, it's pointless and offensive to just arbitrarily change it.

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.


...

Why not take that poignant message and make something new instead?

I'd actually be down for an original movie that pays homage to Akira. Hell, I'd probably enjoy the hell out of it so long as it's subtle/not a ripoff. But to actually make that movie and slap the Akira title would be disingenuous.

It looks to me that everyone is always so quick to jump on the racism bandwagon that you completely steamrolled Tres' actual point.

While theoretically we don't exactly know whether or not it's going to white actors in an American setting... it's a pretty safe bet. But that's besides the point since the PG-13 rating already deviates too far from the source material.

I think everyone understands that adaptations aren't bad by definition, but it's pretty safe to assume that this one will fail particularly hard.

 

[Charles Xavier]

You guys reckon this Akira movie will fall into the same fate that 'The Last Airbender' is suffering right now? It's just come out, and already it's getting mauled...sigh...

 

[Makoeyes987]

Why did you even watch it? Did you expect anything else? I haven't seen any of these moves (SF, Dragonball), nor do I intend to see this one.

It's called 'morbid curiousity.' And wanting to know just what you're going to insult before you insult it.

You guys reckon this Akira movie will fall into the same fate that 'The Last Airbender' is suffering right now? It's just come out, and already it's getting mauled...sigh...

If there is any justice in this universe, yes.

 

[Charles Xavier]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but throughout the entire history of cinema, are there ANY films (adapted from comic, books, video games, anime, cartoons etc.) that are GOOD in your opinions?

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but throughout the entire history of cinema, are there ANY films (adapted from comic, books, video games, anime, cartoons etc.) that are GOOD in your opinions?

Personally, I enjoyed The Dark Knight and Batman Begins, and hell, I didn't mind the Tim Burton Batman movies. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is also quite good. I also enjoy most Stephen King novel adaptations into movies, because the movies seem to write an ending that makes a helluva lot more sense than the one King wrote. (I'm looking at you, 1408.)

 

[Max Payne]

You guys reckon this Akira movie will fall into the same fate that 'The Last Airbender' is suffering right now? It's just come out, and already it's getting mauled...sigh...

It's a very likely scenario.

 

[ForceStealer]

Adaptation and mis-rating don't seem to be what's damning The Last Airbender though. Even for all the drama over the races of the actors, it apparently sucks well enough on its on (de)merits.

 

[Strangelove]

The reviews I've read so far didn't even mention the actor's race, I think. Most of it's been shody script, poor job by the actors, and bad direction.

 

[looneymoon]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but throughout the entire history of cinema, are there ANY films (adapted from comic, books, video games, anime, cartoons etc.) that are GOOD in your opinions?

The Godfather. Lord of the Rings. Fight Club. Trainspotting. Last of the Mohicans. Silence of the Lambs. The Dark Knight/Batman Begins. American Psycho. Sin City. Girl, Interrupted. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Stand By Me. Momento. Dawn of the Dead. The Princess Bride. Twelve Monkeys. Little Shop of Horrors. The Ring. The Departed. American Splendour. Ghost World. Scarface. Full Metal Jacket. Blade Runner.

And that was me trying to pick movies that are also critically acclaimed, not simply good in my opinion. So yeah, remakes/adaptations aren't bad byh default and I don't think anyone is trying to argue that.

Also, besides the racefail in this movie, I hope this means Shyamalan will quit filmmaking altogether. The man is a one-hit wonder. Not to mention the plot for the only decent movie he's made (Sixth Sense) was admittedly lifted from an Are You Afraid of the Dark? episode.

 

[Ghost X]

I thought 300 was a good adaptation too. Not the best movie in movie history, sure, but about 20 minutes were enjoyable at least.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

The Godfather. Lord of the Rings. Fight Club. Trainspotting. Last of the Mohicans. Silence of the Lambs. The Dark Knight/Batman Begins. American Psycho. Sin City. Girl, Interrupted. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Stand By Me. Momento. Dawn of the Dead. The Princess Bride. Twelve Monkeys. Little Shop of Horrors. The Ring. The Departed. American Splendour. Ghost World. Scarface. Full Metal Jacket. Blade Runner.

Good list.

 

[Charles Xavier]

Not to stray too much off topic, but if anyone's seen it, what did you guys think of the live-action Yatterman (directed by Takashi Miike)? Did you guys think it was awesome, mediocre, or just sucked balls?

Now would that be at least a GOOD adaptation of a anime/manga or not?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

You can only deviate so far from the source material before it alienates fans ...

Then they need to stop being so anal and silly.

More often than not, fans demanding "respect for the source material" and "recognition of the value of art" are actually demanding a wet dream rather than the creation of more art.

Remember the people utterly incensed by "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" because "Batman would never let someone die (even though he has)" and because "even a young, unseasoned Batman would never lose his cool and beat the shit out of someone the way he beat the Joker during the interrogation in TDK (even though Batman has totally lost his cool in every media's depiction of him)"?

I really don't trust the buck to stop at purist fans.

... and wastes the time of viewers expecting to get a glimpse of what the franchise in the title is supposed to be.

And you're assuming that this is how such a film would be marketed? Are most remakes/adaptations marketed in such a way?

No that should not be the expectation.

No, Mako, I won't support your lifestyle choice of expecting objects not to fall when you release them.

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.

Because it could only be a weak or nonsensical story if it isn't a panel-for-panel or frame-for-frame remake of the manga or anime, right? I mean, look how bad the LotR films sucked with Jackson choosing to emphasize the theme about the Elves having the option of abandoning the race of Man.

Elves at fucking Helm's Deep! Blasphemy! BLASPHEMYYYYYYYYYY!

Whereas the "Watchmen" movie, which stuck extremely close to the original comic, was flawless, right? I mean, it didn't fail on any level at all!

If they want to do something unique so bad, make an original film.

You heard it here first, peeps! No more Spider-Man or Batman anything outside of what already exists.

Certainly they will never have anything relevant to say to anyone if rebooted again. Forget how many artistically and financially successful alternate universe versions of them you have witnessed over the years -- if you liked any but the original, you were mistaken!

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.

Yes, "popular." Because "Akira" is just the talk of the anime scene these days. =|

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.

Pretty sure I'm not defending this production, sugar tits. Pay attention to the discussion on the table.

Why not take that poignant message and make something new instead?

You might as well be arguing that they should just rerelease the anime -- or hell, let's take it a step further: a filming of someone turning a page of the manga every ten seconds -- to theatres. Fuck that.

If there's an appropriate, ready-made vehicle for carrying those ideas -- which also might benefit from a new vision of it being introduced -- I say giddy-the-fuck-up.

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.

Wait. You think the first two "X-Men" movies were bad? You just lost all credibility in this discussion.

I like how you ignored all the good adaptations that have come out of Hollywood, by the way. Not a fail debate tactic at all.

Also, I thought all of the X-men movies are fail.

Oh, God, not you too, Dac.

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.

So, really, no more Spider-Man or Batman then?

I think Tres has already agreed with you that this movie will almost assuredly suck. It seems to me that what he is countering is your collective apparent point that an adaptation is impossible. That changing things while keeping the same message - especially if those changes change who the story appeals to - is essentially blasphemy.

His point is that such an adaption is entirely possible and not by definition offensive. That fact that this adaptation will suck isn't the point.

Take every Disney movie ever, for example, they adapt an existing story (frequently shakespeare), and make changes to appeal to a different audience (children) but deliver essentially the same message. Over the years they have done this with varying degrees of success, but there have been successes.

It looks to me that everyone is always so quick to jump on the racism bandwagon that you completely steamrolled Tres' actual point.

Sometimes I think I could go gay just for you, Force.

But comic series like X-Men keep updating their characters and stories, whereas Akira has just the one version of the story with just the one version of the characters. So it'd be nice if they went with those.

With the exception of the two different versions found in the anime and manga you mean?

What he said. Unless it's a story that's been told a thousand times over again, it's pointless and offensive to just arbitrarily change it.

There wouldn't have been a thousandth retelling if there weren't a first.

Also, besides the racefail in this movie, I hope this means Shyamalan will quit filmmaking altogether. The man is a one-hit wonder.

I thought "Unbreakable" and "Signs" were great, in addition to "The Sixth Sense."

Those weren't adaptations, they were retellings, just like the aforementioned films Tres brought up.

The amount of black people I ever shook hands with is two.

The amount of black people I've ever spoken a few words with in real life is one.

I don't know any of you guys, just your posts on the internets, which makes your ethnicity a minor detail.

Simplistic stories lead themselves to adaptation. Works of media such as novels, OTHER movies, comic books, and video games, do not.

And the award for most retarded post I've ever seen on this forum goes to ...

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

But seriously, aside from everything else wrong with that statement, Mako, that it came from someone who has been advocating a FFVII remake for the better part of a decade makes me chortle.

 

[Max Payne]

I can't believe you're actually advocating adaptations that are nothing like what they're adapting. What is even the point in that? If that's what you're doing, why even keep the name? Why not just say it was inspired by that work, instead of trying to make a ripoff that winds up something completely different?

I always figured the whole point of adapting films was exposing more people to the source material and what made the film so awesome, how is something that's absolutely nothing like the original except in name supposed to do that?

Also, can we stop the condescending and the insults for a bit please, it's gotten really obnoxious on this board, let's try and have a conversation like adults for once. I lost interest in your post the minute it got littered with two facepalm macros. I'm all for silliness and jokes, but this is supposed to be an actual discussion/debate here.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Then they need to stop being so anal and silly.

Because it was just fans who panned Dragonball Evolution, SF: The Legend of Chun-Li, and the two foot long list of shitty cash ins, right? I mean, hell, every Nintendo fan in the world saw that Mario Bros. film and caused it to fail, not just casual film goers too.

They fucking suck and blaming the fans and not the shitty nature of the film won't change that.

More often than not, fans demanding "respect for the source material" and "recognition of the value of art" are actually demanding a wet dream rather than the creation of more art.

And ironically its the films that can stay close to the source material that usually do better than the reimaginings that are so removed, they look completely unrecognizable.

Remember the people utterly incensed by "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" because "Batman would never let someone die (even though he has)" and because "even a young, unseasoned Batman would never lose his cool and beat the shit out of someone the way he beat the Joker during the interrogation in TDK (even though Batman has totally lost his cool in every media's depiction of him)"?

No, I don't, and that's a fail analogy. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight stay so much closer to the themes of the source material of the comics than shit like "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever." Those two films murdered the film franchise thanks to Joel "cocksucker" Schumacher doing the shit you're talking about and falling flat on his face.

And you're assuming that this is how such a film would be marketed? Are most remakes/adaptations marketed in such a way?

Actually yes. They are. When most directors or script writers talk about their motivation for remaking or introducing some franchise to the big screen, they talk about how they want to introduce the series to a new generation of fans or some bullshit. That's what the writers for DB Evolution said, for example.

No, Mako, I won't support your lifestyle choice of expecting objects not to fall when you release them.

LOL whut? I have no clue what you're talking about, because most of the time, I expect such films to fail and most of the time I'm right. That Avatar: The Last Air Bender being a prime example. I expect these shitty adaptions that only loosely resemble their source material to be made of ass and fail from the get go. Because history has proven me right most of the time. Hollywood can't do it. The good adaptions listed here (the ones crossed out are ones I don't know of or haven't seen):

The Godfather. Lord of the Rings. Fight Club. Trainspotting. Last of the Mohicans. Silence of the Lambs. The Dark Knight/Batman Begins. American Psycho. Sin City. Girl, Interrupted. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Stand By Me. Memento. Dawn of the Dead. The Princess Bride. Twelve Monkeys. Little Shop of Horrors. The Ring. The Departed. American Splendour. Ghost World. Scarface. Full Metal Jacket. Blade Runner.

Are mostly the exceptions to the rule. Gems among a mountain of shit. They do their own thing, but they stay close the source material and its themes. Frank Miller being the head of his own film adaptions definitely helps keep the quality in check while allowing for whats important to be put on the screen as well.

Because it could only be a weak or nonsensical story if it isn't a panel-for-panel or frame-for-frame remake of the manga or anime, right? I mean, look how bad the LotR films sucked with Jackson choosing to emphasize the theme about the Elves having the option of abandoning the race of Man.

Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, were alright. They deviated but it was to be expected considering how huge the source material was, and the length of the story. It can't be helped in matters such as the story's length. As for his additions in regarding the Elves, him placing emphasis on one aspect of the story, doesn't mean he's deviating from the source material. Film adaptions ahve leeway to do that. I'm talking making shit up or just changing things arbitrarily that were never present in the story in the first place.

Elves at fucking Helm's Deep! Blasphemy! BLASPHEMYYYYYYYYYY!

They really had no reason to be there but whatevs.

Whereas the "Watchmen" movie, which stuck extremely close to the original comic, was flawless, right? I mean, it didn't fail on any level at all!

No film is flawless or perfect, but it certainly was one of the better comic book film adaptions done, because it didn't fill itself up with meaningless crap. It stuck to what the story was about and told it. No one gives a shit about the filmmaker's BS when they want to see the works of ANOTHER creator. Let Watchmen be Watchmen, and write your own shit if you want to convey your own ideas.

You heard it here first, peeps! No more Spider-Man or Batman anything outside of what already exists.

With how shit Spiderman has been past the first film, nothing of value would be lost. As for Batman, it could go for one more movie and then they should probably stop that too. Honestly, film adaptions of shit should probably stop anyways because they all become derivative and shit in the end. If they're gonna be done, creator input should be included at the very least. It shouldn't be spearheaded by some asshole who has no clue what the franchise is even about, and who's sole interest is just catering to the common denominator in order to maximize studio profits. If its just about money, its stupid.

Certainly they will never have anything relevant to say to anyone if rebooted again. Forget how many artistically and financially successful alternate universe versions of them you have witnessed over the years -- if you liked any but the original, you were mistaken!

What relevant message came from DB Evolution. Please. Enlighten me, numb nuts. What social commentary or message came from SF's shitty film adaptions? What good did they bring into the world that was not present before their celluloid graced us with their presence on the silver screen?

What hole was filled in filmmaking when Batman and Robin was released? I seriously need to know what you're talking about.

Yes, "popular." Because "Akira" is just the talk of the anime scene these days. =|

You goddamn right it is. It's only one of the most well known and culturally significant anime and manga ever done. It is and always will be popular.

Pretty sure I'm not defending this production, sugar tits. Pay attention to the discussion on the table.

I KNOW you're not. I'm attacking your ridiculous assertion that shit should be remade and to hell with the source material. It's stupid.

You might as well be arguing that they should just rerelease the anime -- or hell, let's take it a step further: a filming of someone turning a page of the manga every ten seconds -- to theatres. Fuck that.

LOL you and your exaggerations. No. If film adaptions are to be done, let the original creators have a hand at the creative process. Let them do something that while different, still stays true to the original themes and story of the franchise. If they wanted to do a Dragonball movie, they could've threw some cash at Toriyama to get his input, animated it, and done something unique. Hell, the film adaption of Dragonball, "Dragonball: Mystical Adventure" was entirely different than the original manga and anime series. Yet it still held the same themes and basic storyline principles. It was an enjoyable movie in its own right, while still staying true to the basics of the series. They didn't have Goku as some white teenage high school student. Difference doesn't hurt until its so foreign you're left asking what the hell's the goddamn point.

If there's an appropriate, ready-made vehicle for carrying those ideas -- which also might benefit from a new vision of it being introduced -- I say giddy-the-fuck-up.

WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE SAME GODDAMN STORY RE-TOLD 13 DIFFERENT TIMES BECAUSE NO ONE FEELS ARSED TO BUILD A NEW VEHICLE FOR SAID IDEAS. THAT'S STAGNATION, NOT INNOVATION.

It's utterly retarded that we need to have the Spider Man film franchise rebooted AGAIN because they feel they didn't get enough money out of fans and movie goers alike, so they're just gonna DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN and hope we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Fucking balls. I love Sam Raimi to death, but Spiderman 2 and 3 need to burn. And I really don't give a shit to see what new bullshit Hollywood wants to throw at me this time.

Wait. You think the first two "X-Men" movies were bad? You just lost all credibility in this discussion.

Anyone with a soul (or knowledge of the series) would think so. So I guess half this board has no credibility.

I like how you ignored all the good adaptations that have come out of Hollywood, by the way. Not a fail debate tactic at all.

I acknowledged they were few and far between. I didn't know I had to start listing all the good ones while talking about why the BAD ones fail. Christ. Strawman, muthafucka.

Oh, God, not you too, Dac.

Yes, him too. He has a soul and a heartbeat, as well.

And the award for most retarded post I've ever seen on this forum goes to ...

YOURS! CONGRATULATIONS! Would you like your pie to the face now, or in monthly installments?

 

[Max Payne]

Point of clarification, I am not against adaptations in general. I am only against Hollywood adaptations of foreign material that are "americanized" for the sake of "relatability" until they are no longer recognizable.

People say asinine things like, the characters' races and the setting don't matter, but that's nonsense. A character's race is a part of who they are, and their race will invariably play some part in how they became who they are culturally pretty often, and the setting is the very same way. A city or state is just as much a character as the people themselves.

You change those things, and you don't have the same story or characters anymore, so there's no point in keeping the same title as what you're adapting. You may as well make a film inspired by those things, versus calling it a faithful adaptation.

 

[looneymoon]

Whereas the "Watchmen" movie, which stuck extremely close to the original comic, was flawless, right? I mean, it didn't fail on any level at all!

The Watchmen movie failed as a standalone, but it was a respectable adaptation. Anyone familiar with the source material would have realized that the story would probably not worked as a film.

Pretty sure I'm not defending this production, sugar tits. Pay attention to the discussion on the table.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. That adaptations aren't bad by definition? I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The issue is that this particular production seems to be going down the road of shit movie ala DragonBall Evolution.

Wait. You think the first two "X-Men" movies were bad? You just lost all credibility in this discussion.

...whatever floats your boat dude, but there is no way you can argue the X-Men films were nothing more than mediocre summer action blockbusters.

There wouldn't have been a thousandth retelling if there weren't a first.

With the first retelling then, tell the story as truthfully as it should be then. If it is then worth being old again, then add some variation the next time. Don't make it a bad delivery of good joke.

I thought "Unbreakable" and "Signs" were great, in addition to "The Sixth Sense."

Signs was awful, Sixth Sense was alright and I've never seen Unbrakable. Those still don't make up The Happening, The Last Airbender and The Village.

Point of clarification, I am not against adaptations in general. I am only against Hollywood adaptations of foreign material that are "americanized" for the sake of "relatability" until they are no longer recognizable.

People say asinine things like, the characters' races and the setting don't matter, but that's nonsense. A character's race is a part of who they are, and their race will invariably play some part in how they became who they are culturally pretty often, and the setting is the very same way. A city or state is just as much a character as the people themselves.

While I agree, I also don't think it's necessarily always true. Certain stories are pretty universal and not really tied down to the culture they originate.

 

[Max Payne]

The Watchmen movie failed as a standalone, but it was a respectable adaptation. Anyone familiar with the source material would have realized that the story would probably not worked as a film.

I thought the Watchmen was a great film :/. I would have preferred a mini series though.

...whatever floats your boat dude, but there is no way you can argue the X-Men films were nothing more than mediocre summer action blockbusters.

Pretty much. They weren't really X-men movies either. They were more Wolverine films featuring the X-men.

While I agree, I also don't think it's necessarily always true. Certain stories are pretty universal and not really tied down to the culture they originate.

Let me put it this way, the minute you go about changing who a character is and where the story takes place, it's not the same story. It's a variation of it, and it's no longer what it was. Certain themes and ideals can be interchangeable, but I don't agree with arbitrarily changing parts of a story to suit a different culture. I dunno, maybe it's a thing about integrity, but I believe a story is the sum of its parts. You change things and you stick them back together, and you don't have the same story. It's kind of retarded to assume that a story about asians is going to alienate an american audience, so you change vital bits and pieces for the sake of that. Especially given the popularity of foreign films in this country.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I can't believe you're actually advocating adaptations that are nothing like what they're adapting.

That's not what I'm advocating at all.

I always figured the whole point of adapting films was exposing more people to the source material and what made the film so awesome ...

That's one legitimate reason to do so artistically speaking, sure, but it's not the only legitimate reason.

Also, can we stop the condescending and the insults for a bit please, it's gotten really obnoxious on this board, let's try and have a conversation like adults for once. I lost interest in your post the minute it got littered with two facepalm macros. I'm all for silliness and jokes, but this is supposed to be an actual discussion/debate here.

Sure, I can do that. I do want to point out that this thread has been dripping with condescension since it started, though, and that your "lol" posts are essentially macros (example selected because it was in response to a serious post).

And it's not like there was nothing but the macros in my post.

But, yes, since you did ask and I do agree that we do it too much, the rest of this post won't include any.

Because it was just fans who panned Dragonball Evolution, SF: The Legend of Chun-Li, and the two foot long list of shitty cash ins, right?

I didn't say that at all. Those two movies were poorly made period -- and for reasons that have nothing to do with proximity to the source material.

They fucking suck and blaming the fans and not the shitty nature of the film won't change that.

Attacking bad movies I wasn't defending as a response to my post doesn't have any impact on the point I was making. If fans are feeling "alienated" by a new take on something they love (which is really more cool than anything), then they need to take the broom handle out of their collective ass.

And ironically its the films that can stay close to the source material that usually do better than the reimaginings that are so removed, they look completely unrecognizable.

Well, let's look at some examples. I'm confident that for every "Batman Begins," we'll have a "Resident Evil" -- that is to say, for every financially successful adaptation that is very close the source material, there will be one that isn't.

No, I don't, and that's a fail analogy. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight stay so much closer to the themes of the source material of the comics than shit like "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever." Those two films murdered the film franchise thanks to Joel "cocksucker" Schumacher doing the shit you're talking about and falling flat on his face.

Schumacher didn't do what I'm talking about at all.

Actually yes. They are. When most directors or script writers talk about their motivation for remaking or introducing some franchise to the big screen, they talk about how they want to introduce the series to a new generation of fans or some bullshit. That's what the writers for DB Evolution said, for example.

"Marketed" was the key word. When you see advertisements that mention "the acclaimed novel" or "one of the most beloved children's books of all time" then it's being marketed in that fashion.

A filmmaker mentioning the source material in an interview that asks them why they chose to adapt the source material isn't the same thing at all.

Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, were alright. They deviated but it was to be expected considering how huge the source material was, and the length of the story. It can't be helped in matters such as the story's length. As for his additions in regarding the Elves, him placing emphasis on one aspect of the story, doesn't mean he's deviating from the source material. Film adaptions ahve leeway to do that. I'm talking making shit up or just changing things arbitrarily that were never present in the story in the first place.

Which is exactly what Jackson did. Emphasizing some themes that were present in the source involved omitting some things while also "making shit up" like the Elves being at Helm's Deep.

Fuck, look at Arwen in the first movie. Where's Glorfindel? For that matter, look at Arwen's fairly prominent role in the trilogy as a whole.

She barely saw mention in the books between being introduced and being wed to Strider, and the mention she did get between there was just a comment about Galadriel being her grandmother.

So, yes, he did deviate from the source material. He changed quite a few things.

They really had no reason to be there but whatevs.

Them not having to be there is precisely the reason why they did have a reason to be placed there. Again, it emphasized the choice the Elves made not to abandon Man, with immortal beings who had the option to venture to paradise instead sacrificing themselves in the defense of mortals, most of whom would never have such an opportunity.

No film is flawless or perfect, but it certainly was one of the better comic book film adaptions done, because it didn't fill itself up with meaningless crap. It stuck to what the story was about and told it. No one gives a shit about the filmmaker's BS when they want to see the works of ANOTHER creator.

If you've read the graphic novel, the film offers you absolutely nothing. No new perspective on the material, no additional ideas to be weighed through its lens, not even the fun of discussing with others why certain things got emphasized and others didn't.

It's an almost by-the-numbers recreation of the book. The only significant new shit is the nearly superhuman feats every damn character performs -- and that doesn't help it since it makes the genuine superhuman feats that Veidt performs seem less special.

Let Watchmen be Watchmen, and write your own shit if you want to convey your own ideas.

You just basically said "Fuck you" to fanfic writers everywhere.

Sometimes an author recognizes a given setting, character or plot element's potential for conveying a particular story. Look at what Grant Morrison did with Animal Man, for instance, or what Neil Gaiman did with the Eternals. Look at what Brian K. Vaughan was able to pull out of the Marvel Universe setting with "Runaways."

Hell, "Watchmen" itself is a great example of this.

Alan Moore intended to use the Charlton Comics superheroes for the story, but when he wasn't allowed to, he and Dave Gibbons created obvious derivatives of them.

How much more distasteful would you find it if this solution was used every time?

With how shit Spiderman has been past the first film, nothing of value would be lost. As for Batman, it could go for one more movie and then they should probably stop that too.

So Nolan should do one more Batman movie, and then no one should ever do another? No matter what they might be able to do with the character? You're serious?

What relevant message came from DB Evolution. Please. Enlighten me, numb nuts. What social commentary or message came from SF's shitty film adaptions? What good did they bring into the world that was not present before their celluloid graced us with their presence on the silver screen?

Since I was talking about Spider-Man and Batman instead of DB and SF, I think that question is yours to answer. I wasn't defending those films.

It seems to be a recurring theme here that I'm being assumed to say things that are not even close to what I'm actually saying. In the film adaptation of this thread, I really hope this theme is dropped altogether.

You goddamn right it is. It's only one of the most well known and culturally significant anime and manga ever done. It is and always will be popular.

And "Citizen Kane" is only one of the most well known and culturally significant films ever done, but how many people do you personally know who have seen it?

"Akira" was the talk of the anime scene once upon a time, and while it's significance will never diminish, you're as likely to come across an anime or manga fan who hasn't seen it as you are one that has.

This anime being adapted for live action cinema is hardly like what Summit Entertainment has done with "Twilight" or what Columbia Pictures did with "The Da Vinci Code."

That was cashing in on something's popularity at its height. What's going on with "Akira" isn't even vaguely similar -- unless the producers are really out of touch.

I KNOW you're not. I'm attacking your ridiculous assertion that shit should be remade and to hell with the source material. It's stupid.

Just reiterating again that this isn't my assertion at all.

LOL you and your exaggerations. No. If film adaptions are to be done, let ... them do something that while different, still stays true to the original themes and story of the franchise.

Why is it when I say that changes should be encouraged while remaining true to the themes that relate to the new tale being told, I get buried under an avalanche of vitriol?

WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE SAME GODDAMN STORY RE-TOLD 13 DIFFERENT TIMES BECAUSE NO ONE FEELS ARSED TO BUILD A NEW VEHICLE FOR SAID IDEAS. THAT'S STAGNATION, NOT INNOVATION.

There was nothing innovative about "Batman: Year One"? You didn't get excited about "Mortal Kombat: Rebirth"?

Point of clarification, I am not against adaptations in general. I am only against Hollywood adaptations of foreign material that are "americanized" for the sake of "relatability" until they are no longer recognizable.

People say asinine things like, the characters' races and the setting don't matter, but that's nonsense. A character's race is a part of who they are, and their race will invariably play some part in how they became who they are culturally pretty often, and the setting is the very same way. A city or state is just as much a character as the people themselves.

I agree that a character's race is often important to who they are, which is why I think an "Akira" set in the U.S. has a lot of potential given the current climate here. A character's race very much can be part of who they are as a character, and I think that transposing a character like Kaneda or Tetsuo (given their backgrounds and the cultural context of "Akira") into young men living in the U.S. would be very much a point about the characters, setting and real-world culture in itself.

You change those things, and you don't have the same story or characters anymore, so there's no point in keeping the same title as what you're adapting. You may as well make a film inspired by those things, versus calling it a faithful adaptation.

That depends on what one is trying to be faithful to -- minutiae or spirit.

The issue is that this particular production seems to be going down the road of shit movie ala DragonBall Evolution.

The overall discussion moved away from this particular production pretty early in the thread, though.

With the first retelling then, tell the story as truthfully as it should be then. If it is then worth being old again, then add some variation the next time. Don't make it a bad delivery of good joke.

So it's only on the third telling that we can make significant changes in the setting to say something new or to deliberately speak to someone different?

By that standard, "Akira" is set for its transition anyway given that it was a manga before an anime.

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

My main concern is that as of yet, I have not seen a good American manga adaptation. Certainly, all there's been is Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender, but I still don't think they'll be able to make a good anime adaptation if it's taken them nigh forever to finally start making decent video game movie adaptations.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I didn't say that at all. Those two movies were poorly made period -- and for reasons that have nothing to do with proximity to the source material.

LOL okay so now you're coming to your senses. Thank God. You've defended DB: Evolution before, so now we're on the same page. Awesome. We're making some progress here!

Attacking bad movies I wasn't defending as a response to my post doesn't have any impact on the point I was making. If fans are feeling "alienated" by a new take on something they love (which is really more cool than anything), then they need to take the broom handle out of their collective ass.

I'm mostly teasing you about DB: Evolution, and SF: The Legend of Chun-Li just seems like a perfect example of why Hollywood should NOT touch game adaptions. And I would say that considering fans make up the majority of who's going to see said film adaption, and are going to be very pivotal in terms of how much positive word of mouth advertising said film gets, fans should definitely NOT be alienated. If you're gonna do something that's fanservice, then for God's sake, make sure the fans actually will want it.

Well, let's look at some examples. I'm confident that for every "Batman Begins," we'll have a "Resident Evil" -- that is to say, for every financially successful adaptation that is very close the source material, there will be one that isn't.

Does that "Resident Evil" include increasingly shitty sequels too? Because if so,then just shoot me. To be honest I'd say the ratio would be more like 3 to 1. For every three good adaption of something that's close the the source material, we'll get one good adaption that is not close to the source material.

Schumacher didn't do what I'm talking about at all.

He made the Batman films closer to the nonsense of the Adam West tv show.

"Marketed" was the key word. When you see advertisements that mention "the acclaimed novel" or "one of the most beloved children's books of all time" then it's being marketed in that fashion.

A filmmaker mentioning the source material in an interview that asks them why they chose to adapt the source material isn't the same thing at all.

Why isn't it? Yeah, its not the marketing line, but its still the actual motivation for said film's creation. Which should be just as important. If that's your motivation to do it, then actually do it.

Which is exactly what Jackson did. Emphasizing some themes that were present in the source involved omitting some things while also "making shit up" like the Elves being at Helm's Deep.

Yeah, he did. He was close on something things, but then off on others. In the end they balance each other out and make an alright film. The films certainly looked breath taking and were alright on their own. But certain changes do seem to be a bit unnecessary. I certainly enjoyed that film adaption versus the Harry Potter film adaptions overall, however.

Fuck, look at Arwen in the first movie. Where's Glorfindel? For that matter, look at Arwen's fairly prominent role in the trilogy as a whole.

She barely saw mention in the books between being introduced and being wed to Strider, and the mention she did get between there was just a comment about Galadriel being her grandmother.

Hey you're preaching to the choir. I know.

So, yes, he did deviate from the source material. He changed quite a few things.

Yeah he did deviate, but he also stayed true on other aspects. Which is greatly appreciated. I like to think he treated the source material with respect, which made the film still enjoyable. Other cash ins don't treat the source material with respect at all.

Them not having to be there is precisely the reason why they did have a reason to be placed there. Again, it emphasized the choice the Elves made not to abandon Man, with immortal beings who had the option to venture to paradise instead sacrificing themselves in the defense of mortals, most of whom would never have such an opportunity.

Yeah, I got that.

If you've read the graphic novel, the film offers you absolutely nothing. No new perspective on the material, no additional ideas to be weighed through its lens, not even the fun of discussing with others why certain things got emphasized and others didn't.

It doesn't need to offer anything. That's the fucking point. We want to see the graphic novel realized on the big screen. We want to enjoy it in a completely different medium. The source material doesn't need to be changed. It's the presentation that does. So again. Who the fuck cares? If a film adaption is going to be done, then make it close to what its supposed to be. If you want to do something unique and offer new perspectives, stories, ideas, and the like. Write your own damn story.

It's an almost by-the-numbers recreation of the book. The only significant new shit is the nearly superhuman feats every damn character performs -- and that doesn't help it since it makes the genuine superhuman feats that Veidt performs seem less special.

Good. Again. Let Watchmen be Watchmen. Yeah, that's probably its only real shortcoming but that's saying something if that's the worst thing it can be faulted for. Considering how bad Hollywood usually fucks things up.

You just basically said "Fuck you" to fanfic writers everywhere.

And I'm supposed to care?

Sometimes an author recognizes a given setting, character or plot element's potential for conveying a particular story. Look at what Grant Morrison did with Animal Man, for instance, or what Neil Gaiman did with the Eternals. Look at what Brian K. Vaughan was able to pull out of the Marvel Universe setting with "Runaways."

Hell, "Watchmen" itself is a great example of this.

Alan Moore intended to use the Charlton Comics superheroes for the story, but when he wasn't allowed to, he and Dave Gibbons created obvious derivatives of them.

How much more distasteful would you find it if this solution was used every time?

That is not...the same thing Hollywood does, when they try to cash in on whatever's popular to make a movie. I'm sorry but equating the majority of the trash Hollywood does to any of that, is laughable. That is not what I'm talking about at all. If that's what scriptwriters did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation and people would be excited and hopeful for this Akira adaptation.

I get what you're saying but no. That's not what's happening at all.

So Nolan should do one more Batman movie, and then no one should ever do another? No matter what they might be able to do with the character? You're serious?

Might as fucking well. I'm playing the numbers. More than likely, the next Batman movie franchise reboot will suck and will be crap. Nolan knows already that he can't keep doing this film series forever before it just gets stale. He knows when to end it. And that's good. Endings are necessary.

Hollywood isn't happy until something is run into the ground to the point that whatever profitability and popularity has been sucked dry, leaving an empty, dry husk of a franchise. They won't pick up something unless it has sequel or merchandising potential, in the first place. That tells you right there where their minds are in terms of adapting shit.

Since I was talking about Spider-Man and Batman instead of DB and SF, I think that question is yours to answer. I wasn't defending those films.

Now now, Tres. It's not about what you're saying now. It's about what you said before.

It seems to be a recurring theme here that I'm being assumed to say things that are not even close to what I'm actually saying. In the film adaptation of this thread, I really hope this theme is dropped altogether.

I like this theme, and think it should have a sequel.

I'm sure people would understand your points better if you presented yourself as a 16 year old teenager from Orange County, California. That way the forum audience would be able to relate to your message better, and you'd reach a wider audience. Also, talk about how good Pepsi tastes as well.

It's not so much we don't understand you, but I think a better adaption of you and your point exists and should be utilized.

LOOK, I CAN BE HOLLYWOOD TOO!

And "Citizen Kane" is only one of the most well known and culturally significant films ever done, but how many people do you personally know who have seen it?

Plenty.

"Akira" was the talk of the anime scene once upon a time, and while it's significance will never diminish, you're as likely to come across an anime or manga fan who hasn't seen it as you are one that has.

Bullpies, any anime fan worth their salt has seen it. And if they haven't, they are posers who should be shot in the face with buckshot from a .32 shotgun.

This anime being adapted for live action cinema is hardly like what Summit Entertainment has done with "Twilight" or what Columbia Pictures did with "The Da Vinci Code."

It'll wind up just as shitty though!

That was cashing in on something's popularity at its height. What's going on with "Akira" isn't even vaguely similar -- unless the producers are really out of touch.

Hollywood out of touch? Naw.

Just reiterating again that this isn't my assertion at all.

Summarize your point for me, since we've unfortunately had a communication breakdown.

Why is it when I say that changes should be encouraged while remaining true to the themes that relate to the new tale being told, I get buried under an avalanche of vitriol?

Because you're black. At least in my film adaption of this forum's history.

There was nothing innovative about "Batman: Year One"? You didn't get excited about "Mortal Kombat: Rebirth"?

I had morbid curiosity and hesitant optimism at the Mortal Kombat movie trailer. But I am bothered by how widely different it is from the source material. It's a huge risk.

I agree that a character's race is often important to who they are, which is why I think an "Akira" set in the U.S. has a lot of potential given the current climate here. A character's race very much can be part of who they are as a character, and I think that transposing a character like Kaneda or Tetsuo (given their backgrounds and the cultural context of "Akira") into young men living in the U.S. would be very much a point about the characters, setting and real-world culture in itself.

No, Tres. No. I disagree wholeheartedly because the whole message of Akira is lost by taking away their Japanese identity, and putting the setting in a completely different country and context. What type of Akira would this be? What message do you think would be conveyed by this radical change? Bear in mind this will be a PG-13 film.

Your optimism surprises me.

That depends on what one is trying to be faithful to -- minutiae or spirit.

They both don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[ForceStealer]

Guys, give credit where credit is due. The Twilight movies being shitty is a very faithful adaptation of the source material.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Guys, give credit where credit is due. The Twilight movies being shitty is a very faithful adaptation of the source material.

He has a damn good point.

I am being a bit too harsh here.

 

[Charles Xavier]

My main concern is that as of yet, I have not seen a good American manga adaptation. Certainly, all there's been is Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender, but I still don't think they'll be able to make a good anime adaptation if it's taken them nigh forever to finally start making decent video game movie adaptations.

'Mortal Kombat' comes to mind as the most decent (and fun) video game movie adaptation I've seen. But hell, screw 'Annihilation'. And depending on how you look at 'Street Fighter', the film's only good for its camp value, nothing else.

Making a good American manga adaptation is a VERY LONG shot, but I don't think it's impossible. If James Cameron is really planning to adapt 'Battle Angel Alita' into a film, then I'm sure he'll show that it CAN be done.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned 'Prince of Persia: Sands of Time' movie...