Live Action Akira to be PG-13

[Makoeyes987]

'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.

She said "manga" not video game. But yes. MK: Annihilation was so crappy, I could smell the fecal matter through the television screen. The first SF was so bad it was good. But it still doesn't change the fact it was well...bad. XD

I dunno, I think the Silent Hill movie was alright. Definitely not perfect but it was alright.

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.

If it ends up like Avatar, I hope Alita jumps out of the screen and kicks his fucking head open, splattering his brains on the wall.

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

Probably because most want to forget that movie exists too.

 

[Charles Xavier]

I'm not terribly familiar with it, but how faithful was 'Prince of Persia' compared to the game? I suspect everyone thinks it sucked balls?

 

[ForceStealer]

Everybody railed on it, but I enjoyed it. I guess I wouldn't go so far as to praise it, but I had fun watching it and that's far more than I can say about other video game adaptations.

But apart from the dagger turning back time and his acrobatics, its got nothing to do with the games at all. They even changed the girl's name for some reason. They took some aesthetic stuff from the games, the "lines" running through him when he uses the dagger is reminiscent of the Dark Prince in the third game and one enemy has those bladed-whip things from the third game.

Frankly I was fine with them changing the story considering the game is a straight ripoff of Aladdin, but other changes were odd (Farah's name, the location, etc.)

 

[Strangelove]

"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.

As soon as you give your film the same title and story/characters as a well-known or popular property (even if only well-known/popular to a certain niche), aren't you already marketing it towards the fans of the original? Even if you're not solely marketing towards them, because they're never going to do that, I'd think they'd be part of the demographic they'll target.

TBH, I'd rather film adaptations actually add something new to the original story without just retracing the same story or changing it into a completely new and separate continuty. Like showing a different part of the story (sequel/prequel/side story) that actually fits in with the original, or telling the same story but adding more detail to a certain aspect (what another character was up to or something like that).

But I don't see that happening with PG-13 Akira or many other Hollywood adaptations

 

[ForceStealer]

That's the thing, for all the in-depth discussion in this topic, they could film this with all Japanese actors, in Tokyo, hell in Japanese, but with a PG-13 rating, it would still more than likely miss the point.

 

[Max Payne]

That's the thing, for all the in-depth discussion in this topic, they could film this with all Japanese actors, in Tokyo, hell in Japanese, but with a PG-13 rating, it would still more than likely miss the point.

I don't know about that, you can skirt a lot of the gore, but still have the same general story.

As far as Tres' original post goes, I'll address it in a bit.

Also, PoP was painfully mediocre and forgettable. It reminded me of the "Scorpion King" for some reason which is embarrassing.

 

[looneymoon]

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.

thing is, the WWII facet of Akira is just as integral to the plot as the theme of alienated youth. Sure they could focus on the latter, but it just is not Akira without the former as well. By setting it in America, the adaptation would thus bastardize the former.

But, as I said before - it would be a different story if they took certain themes from Akira to inspire a similar but different story. So long it doesn't tread into rip-off territory, it could be really great.

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?

If this was a Japanese film, I'd be inclined to agree. But Akira isn't well-known in American culture, so it would be the "first" in many people's eyes. For that reason it's imperative to present the story in a way that gives people the most honest impression. It's not like an adaptation of Akira is quite the same adapting Superman or Batman or Alice in Wonderland or other stories that are universally familiar. If that were the case, there is more leeway for adaptations.

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.

Realistically, with the change of medium there has to be changes in the story to fit the medium. I think Tres' example of Watchmen was spot on - it was a terrible film that was inaccessible to people unfamiliar with the source material, but to fans it was amazing because it was completely faithful adaptation of the book.

There is definitely a line that needs to be maintained, but when making a film I'd rather the filmmakers focus on making it a good film rather than a good adaptation. Hence why LOTR is so popular - they aren't completely true to Tolkein's novels, but Jackson used them to craft wonderful films. Another example is Fight Club. David Fincher took a completely shittastic novel, changed things around and made a fantastic movie.

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.

Exactly. It would be like if they changed the Watchmen setting to modern day versus Cold War era.

I dunno, I think the Silent Hill movie was alright. Definitely not perfect but it was alright.

I enjoyed the Silen Hill movie as well, to be honest. I think it's probably the best video game-based film so far. Prince of Persia wasn't terrible, but I wouldn't call it great either. It was an alright popcorn flick.

 

[null]

Not trying to go offtopic, but Watchmen a terrible film? Tough crowd.

 

[looneymoon]

Eh, maybe not terrible but I could tell it wouldn't be all that coherent without some knowledge of the book. It didn't really stand too well on its own imo.

 

[Max Payne]

Not trying to go offtopic, but Watchmen a terrible film? Tough crowd.

Yeah I know, I disagree strongly with that sentiment.

 

[Ⓐaron]

My dad understood the plot pretty well without having read most of the comic before he saw it the first time, so I don't really get what people are saying about it not standing alone.

 

[Max Payne]

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

Then what? You're saying a lot of stuff but it's not amounting to anything substantial beyond that.

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).

Sorry, I haven't been doing that in this thread, since you know, this discussion has meaning. How I respond in another thread is irrelevant to this one, and I've been trying to stay on task lately. I didn't know you'd hold it against me.

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

Yes, but the overrall plot, themes, and setting all remain largely the same minus a few niggling details that I eventually managed to get over myself. It's still Lord of the Rings. Not Fresh Prince of Middle Earth.

If you've read the graphic novel, the film offers you absolutely nothing.

Um, what. It offers you an entertaining and well acted vision of the book's events with awesome cinematography and casting. You get to see the book come alive to magnificent effect, that makes me appreciate the book so much more.

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.

Is that really a bad thing? Leave those issues for original content. Don't butcher an awesome story for the sake of injecting new ideas.

I love the Watchmen movie, it's as faithful, and entertaining as it can be. As an added bonus, it brought so many new folks to the magic of the GN that I can now have a Watchmen conversation about the novel without people going "Huh?". Hell, my mom and brothers love it, and they never touched the books.

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

Not being snarky or anything, but fanfiction is genuinely disingenuous by nature imo. Instead of making your own awesome story, you latch onto something else's awesomeness and use it as fuel for an entirely meaningless work of literature. It's an entertaining exercise for some folks, and I can respect that. But it will never mean as much as making your own work of literature.

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?

Point of fact, Nolan doesn't want to do anymore than one more Batman film, because he himself thinks he can't do any more with him beyond that.

I personally find this annoying seeing as how he's limited his vision purposefully. Also, let's be honest, BB, and TDK are not that faithful. It switches up MUCH of Batman's history for something new. What matters is that at the core, it's still Batman in his true origin, drive, and setting. But I echo my statement about comics being adapted to films earlier in this thread.

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

I seriously wouldn't even begin to describe Batman: Year One as innovative. It was a breath of fresh air, and re invigoration of the brand in a way, but it most definitely did not do anything that was new with the character. It was just another retelling, done more believably.

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.

Maybe a film inspired by Akira, but not Akira itself. I mean, there's reason The Magnificent Seven isn't called Seven Samurai. It's a retelling and re-imagining. It's named properly to reflect that.

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

I would hardly consider the characters and setting, integral part of a story(and writing a story) "minutiae". Wth man.

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?

I don't mind someone taking events,characters, even the setting and changing them and making a new plot inspired by the originals, just don't try and pretend that it's Akira. Because it's not. Latching onto that name is merely trying to ride on star power.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

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!

But I never defended DB: Evolution as quality filmmaking or as an example of a faithful adaptation. I said that it was a terrible movie that knew it was terrible and didn't take itself too seriously, and, thus, was a fun movie.

That's all I've ever said about it. It's a bad but fun movie -- which qualifies it as a good movie in my eyes even if not a quality movie.

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 ...

Not necessarily. If you advertise a film adaptation of something as an action movie, people who enjoy action movies will go see it.

Basically, I'm trying to say that when they adapted "The Notebook" into a film, they weren't counting on fans of "The Notebook" novel to make it a success.

Does that "Resident Evil" include increasingly shitty sequels too?

Each of which is more commercially successful than the one before, keep in mind.

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.

Are we talking about artistic or commercial success? I thought you were talking about how well these movies do in revenue when you said "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."

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.

But I'm not defending the concept of cash-ins. Those are, pretty much by definition, weak.

It doesn't need to offer anything. That's the fucking point. We want to see the graphic novel realized on the big screen.

Well, let me toss your own perspective back at you here: Just go read the graphic novel then. It's already a superior presentation for this exact telling of the story because of how the original was told.

If you aren't going to change it at all, then that is an utter waste of time. Might as well be putting the comic's pages under a projector and "watching" it that way.

We want to enjoy it in a completely different medium.

It doesn't sound like it. Adapting something to a new medium successfully requires making it work with that medium's strengths. It requires using that medium's own medium specificity to tell the story in a way that only that medium could.

The "Watchmen" movie fails because it doesn't do this beyond the opening credits. That was an amazing piece of filmmaking -- and then the rest of the movie was just comic panels on a screen.

If you want to do something unique and offer new perspectives, stories, ideas, and the like. Write your own damn story.

I think the best response to that sentiment is this one from Brian K. Vaughan: "I'm no Stan Lee, but I definitely know how to steal from him. Stan was the one who realized that great comics have nothing to do with powers, costumes, or continuity, and everything to do with using these heroes as timeless metaphors for something meaningful about our real lives."

And that's true for any story worth telling.

That is not...the same thing Hollywood does, when they try to cash in on whatever's popular to make a movie.

And defending "that thing Hollywood does" is not what I've been speaking to since I started posting in this thread. Why does it keep getting attributed to me?

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

That an artistically successful adaptation is more about maintaining spirit, themes and -- if applicable -- message while utilizing the medium's own strengths to tell the story in the most quality manner possible than it is about the minutiae that geeks like us too often get wrapped up in.

Basically, it's the same problem people run into with religion -- people get more concerned with dogma than the spirit of the teachings, and we find a good message buried under shit like the Defense of Marriage Act.

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?

What message? Again, look at the point you're making when you say "This was the context of the original. Now, watch it be applied to this culture."

The fact of the adaptation itself can be commentary.

Bear in mind this will be a PG-13 film.

Bear in mind I've not been talking about this production at all.

They both don't have to be mutually exclusive.

They don't. But adherence to the spirit while also making sure you make a quality product suited to the particular medium more than likely means minutiae must be sacrificed.

And it's a sacrifice that should always be made wherever the two run into conflict.

As soon as you give your film the same title and story/characters as a well-known or popular property (even if only well-known/popular to a certain niche), aren't you already marketing it towards the fans of the original?

Yes, but I was talking about how it's being marketed to the average moviegoer.

thing is, the WWII facet of Akira is just as integral to the plot as the theme of alienated youth. Sure they could focus on the latter, but it just is not Akira without the former as well. By setting it in America, the adaptation would thus bastardize the former.

I just can't agree that the act itself is a bastardization. I do, however, think there's a lot to be said in the act of the adaptation alone.

Realistically, with the change of medium there has to be changes in the story to fit the medium. I think Tres' example of Watchmen was spot on - it was a terrible film that was inaccessible to people unfamiliar with the source material, but to fans it was amazing because it was completely faithful adaptation of the book.

There is definitely a line that needs to be maintained, but when making a film I'd rather the filmmakers focus on making it a good film rather than a good adaptation. Hence why LOTR is so popular - they aren't completely true to Tolkein's novels, but Jackson used them to craft wonderful films. Another example is Fight Club. David Fincher took a completely shittastic novel, changed things around and made a fantastic movie.

<3

 

[Max Payne]

Goddamnit to hell Tres. Why

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Dacon, I'll have to reply to your post later. Sorry, but heading to work right now.

 

[looneymoon]

My dad understood the plot pretty well without having read most of the comic before he saw it the first time, so I don't really get what people are saying about it not standing alone.

Thing is, he knew it was adapted material/read some of the novel. If I were to go into the film thinking it was an original story/had no idea of the existance of the source material, the story comes off as a bit of a clusterfuck. The exact presentation of the novel did not fit well as a film. It would have been aided with some deviation.

Um, what. It offers you an entertaining and well acted vision of the book's events with awesome cinematography and casting. You get to see the book come alive to magnificent effect, that makes me appreciate the book so much more.

I think the problem I had with the Watchmen film is that it relied too heavily on the novel. It's hard to like the film without having some sort of appreciation or knowledge of it beforehand.

In some respects I'd compare the production to Advent Children. It was a movie made for fans. It wasn't adapted to make a quality film in the first place. Hypthetically, if knew a film critic, I'd show them a great film like The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something. If I knew someone who liked comic books, I'd show them the Watchmen movie.

I love the Watchmen movie, it's as faithful, and entertaining as it can be. As an added bonus, it brought so many new folks to the magic of the GN that I can now have a Watchmen conversation about the novel without people going "Huh?". Hell, my mom and brothers love it, and they never touched the books.

Good adaptation =/= good film. The movie succeeded in bringing the book to life, but it did not succeed in making a better-than-average film.

Also, let's be honest, BB, and TDK are not that faithful. It switches up MUCH of Batman's history for something new. What matters is that at the core, it's still Batman in his true origin, drive, and setting. But I echo my statement about comics being adapted to films earlier in this thread.

sounds kinda like.

That an artistically successful adaptation is more about maintaining spirit, themes and -- if applicable -- message while utilizing the medium's own strengths to tell the story in the most quality manner possible than it is about the minutiae that geeks like us too often get wrapped up in.

tbh, I think everyone seems to be on the same page. I get what Tres is saying now. I think the contention really starts when suggested that the Japenese setting was not integral to the core of Akira (something I disagree with).

Maybe a film inspired by Akira, but not Akira itself. I mean, there's reason The Magnificent Seven isn't called Seven Samurai. It's a retelling and re-imagining. It's named properly to reflect that.

I don't mind someone taking events,characters, even the setting and changing them and making a new plot inspired by the originals, just don't try and pretend that it's Akira. Because it's not. Latching onto that name is merely trying to ride on star power.

This this this.

If you aren't going to change it at all, then that is an utter waste of time. Might as well be putting the comic's pages under a projector and "watching" it that way.

Watchmen motion comic amirite?

The "Watchmen" movie fails because it doesn't do this beyond the opening credits. That was an amazing piece of filmmaking -- and then the rest of the movie was just comic panels on a screen.

I agree. The opening credits were so amazing, the rest of the film felt a little lacking in comparison

I just can't agree that the act itself is a bastardization. I do, however, think there's a lot to be said in the act of the adaptation alone.

If I understood that correctly then... fair enough and point taken.

 

[ForceStealer]

Am I the only one that finds The Godfather unspeakably boring?

And I think I've seen Dacon use the word "mediocre" more in the past few days than I have heard it in my entire life

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Am I the only one that finds The Godfather unspeakably boring?

Yes.

Okay, I can't speak for everyone else, lol. But I found the series (except for the 3rd one, which is...okay) to be among the film greats. You definitely have to bunker down and pay attention to what's going on, though.

 

[Max Payne]

I think the problem I had with the Watchmen film is that it relied too heavily on the novel. It's hard to like the film without having some sort of appreciation or knowledge of it beforehand.

In some respects I'd compare the production to Advent Children. It was a movie made for fans. It wasn't adapted to make a quality film in the first place. Hypthetically, if knew a film critic, I'd show them a great film like The Godfather or Citizen Kane or something. If I knew someone who liked comic books, I'd show them the Watchmen movie.

I'm not going to dispute this since it's largely dependent on person opinion of the film and not really that important to the discussion at hand and all that.

ks. Good adaptation =/= good film. The movie succeeded in bringing the book to life, but it did not succeed in making a better-than-average film.

Not going to post a macro, not going to!

Tres made a point of disagreeing on the race/setting thing.

 

[null]

Indeed, although I am quite horrified with looney for comparing Watchmen to AC -> <- as gentlemen we must agree to disagree. Also, it's past my bedtime.

Also, as gentlemen let us not mince words over GF3; to quote a wise man, it's like puking on a pile of shit.

 

[looneymoon]

Oh come now, that was not my point at all :\
They're both movies that mainly pander to fans, but don't do too much to reach out to a wider audience. I wasn't trying to compare the quality between the two. I mean, it's pretty obvious the difference in that regard. Watchmen was made by actual filmmakers for one

 

[Tetsujin]

I have to disagree. If Watchmen doesn't reach out to a wider audience I'd say it's mainly because it's not your average brains off-explosions on summer action flick.

My friends went to watch it and none of us ever read the graphic novel and still we thought that this was a pretty damn cool thing.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Sorry, I haven't been doing that in this thread, since you know, this discussion has meaning.

I imagine Lord Noctis's opinions were important to him as well, but I think the more important observation is that none of this has to be the Serious Business we're making it out to be.

Except maybe that Yop needs to talk to Black people more often.

How I respond in another thread is irrelevant to this one, and I've been trying to stay on task lately.

You have. I acknowledge that. I was just politely voicing my frustration at what seemed the sudden leveling of an uneven standard. But since you just as politely made the request that bothered me, I wanted to honor it as well.

I didn't know you'd hold it against me.

Not at all. I thanked that post over a week ago because it made me laugh.

Yes, but the overrall plot, themes, and setting all remain largely the same minus a few niggling details that I eventually managed to get over myself. It's still Lord of the Rings. Not Fresh Prince of Middle Earth.

Minus the geographical setting (other aspects of the setting will still apply regardless), all that could still be true of an adaptation of "Akira" set in the U.S.

Um, what. It offers you an entertaining ...

Well, maybe when Dr. Manhattan's flashback sequence isn't putting you to sleep (seriously, every time I've tried watching it since the first time, I've fallen asleep during that part). That's one part of the comic that really didn't make the transition well to film by just being reproduced as it was before.

If anything, Jon's accident would have better served the movie as the scene before that excellent opening credits sequence.

... and well acted vision of the book's events with awesome cinematography and casting.

I do agree with all those sentiments, though. Except maybe the "vision" part.

That's sort of the grievance I'm voicing, actually. We didn't see Zack Snyder's vision of the book's events. We just saw the book's events.

You get to see the book come alive to magnificent effect, that makes me appreciate the book so much more.

I'm glad for you that it was something special, but for me it made me appreciate the book more only because the book wasn't made of fail. It's like the movie had absolutely everything in the world going for it. It could have been magnificent. It should have been magnificent.

But then it's like someone forgot that they were supposed to be presenting it as a film.

Is that really a bad thing? Leave those issues for original content. Don't butcher an awesome story for the sake of injecting new ideas.

That's the thing, though: You don't have to butcher an awesome story in order to do it. Look at "V for Vendetta." I will still argue that the film was better than the book.

I love the Watchmen movie, it's as faithful, and entertaining as it can be. As an added bonus, it brought so many new folks to the magic of the GN that I can now have a Watchmen conversation about the novel without people going "Huh?". Hell, my mom and brothers love it, and they never touched the books.

It truly is great that it has done that, though I'm not sure it was necessary to xerox the comic in order to get us to that point.

Not being snarky or anything, but fanfiction is genuinely disingenuous by nature imo. Instead of making your own awesome story, you latch onto something else's awesomeness and use it as fuel for an entirely meaningless work of literature.

How so? Hell, it doesn't even necessarily require latching onto something else's awesomeness. You might be latching onto something else's fail but improving it.

I often liken it to when a new author takes over a failed comic idea. Going back to Grant Morrison's "Animal Man" run, he did nothing but improve a lame character with a different vision of him and thought-provoking, quality writing.

It's an entertaining exercise for some folks, and I can respect that. But it will never mean as much as making your own work of literature.

But it is that author's own! Every bit as much as the story I just talked about is Morrison's or "The Dark Knight Returns" is Frank Miller's.

Is "Nextwave" not Warren Ellis's or "Runaways" not Vaughan's simply because they used a previously established setting (and even some characters) that they didn't have a prior hand in creating?

Honestly, I don't see how setting a fictional story in a previously created fictional world is any more disingenuous than setting one in the real world and relying on its history and important figures. In both cases, you've utilized things you did not create yourself.

For that matter, you have to remember that no great work is conceived in a vacuum. Damn near everything is inspired by something else, even when an author doesn't remember.

"Twin Peaks" was an inspiration on the setting of "Silent Hill." "Tetsujin 28" was an inspiration on various elements of "Akira" itself, which in turn is believed to have been an inspiration on themes and visual elements of "Tetsuo: The Iron Man."

The wheel of inspiration goes round and round and no author who isn't drunk on themselves would ever claim that they don't owe some thanks to someone for creative inspiration.

Maybe a film inspired by Akira, but not Akira itself. I mean, there's reason The Magnificent Seven isn't called Seven Samurai. It's a retelling and re-imagining. It's named properly to reflect that.

...

I don't mind someone taking events,characters, even the setting and changing them and making a new plot inspired by the originals, just don't try and pretend that it's Akira. Because it's not. Latching onto that name is merely trying to ride on star power.

What would you suggest in this case? "Steve"? =P

I'm kidding. I can see your point there. I'm not really defending the use of the same title, as in the case of the PG-13 production. I think a different title may be called for as well, but if a retelling came off feeling enough like "Akira," I wouldn't be put off by the use of the same name.

Though it would be kind of hard to come up with another one so simple and yet so powerful at the same time, and assuming one kept the character of Akira named the same, that could be an additional problem.

I would hardly consider the characters and setting, integral part of a story(and writing a story) "minutiae". Wth man.

The atmosphere and overall context of a setting is more important than the geographical location. Look at Western remakes of Japanese films like "The Magnificent Seven" ("Seven Samurai," of course) and "A Fistful of Dollars" ("Yojimbo"; ironically, this movie drew heavily from Westerns).

Hell, look at Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" -- an adaptation of "King Lear," which, like much of Shakespeare's work, was inspired by an even older story. Again, the wheel of inspiration turns round and round.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I don't feel that Baz Lurhmann's "Romeo+Juliet" suffered at all from not being set in Verona, Italy -- though I'd also add that it was an excellent film in all respects.

Watchmen motion comic amirite?

Indeed you are!

Am I the only one that finds The Godfather unspeakably boring?

What Mog said. =P

 

[Max Payne]

, all that could still be true of an adaptation of "Akira" set in the U.S.

No it wouldn't, because it still wouldn't be akira. Just a story inspired by it.

That's sort of the grievance I'm voicing, actually. We didn't see Zack Snyder's vision of the book's events. We just saw the book's events.

Except Synder left out a lot and added some bits and pieces, and changed the climax a good deal.

But then it's like someone forgot that they were supposed to be presenting it as a film.

Yeah, whatever. I am of the opinion that it was a fantastic film, and I'm not going to dwell on that bizarre opinion Mr I liked DB Evolution.

That's the thing, though: You don't have to butcher an awesome story in order to do it.

If Hollywood is any indication, then yes apparently you do.

Look at "V for Vendetta." I will still argue that the film was better than the book.

You could argue that, but it wouldn't make much sense beyond personal opinion.

How so? Hell, it doesn't even necessarily require latching onto something else's awesomeness. You might be latching onto something else's fail but improving it.

Yeah, no. There's nothing special about taking someone else's ideas and use those instead of coming up with your own. Not even when you're paid to do it.

I often liken it to when a new author takes over a failed comic idea. Going back to Grant Morrison's "Animal Man" run, he did nothing but improve a lame character with a different vision of him and thought-provoking, quality writing.

Grant Morrison is a professional writer that worked with DC(a company that thrives on changing with the times, and pays its people to do it) for years and consulted with many of the writers that conceived the character for his run, and did an assload of research into it. Are you really comparing that to some mediocre fanfiction?

But it is that author's own! Every bit as much as the story I just talked about is Morrison's or "The Dark Knight Returns" is Frank Miller's.

No it isn't. It's not their characters, it's not their world. They're taking someone else's stuff and working with it. THAT is disingenuous.

No, that comparison is weak man. Morrison, Miller, ANY comic artist takes characters from their owners, and are PAID to take stories in a certain direction after their ideas are approved to improve current canon/make a neat standalone GN. In a lot of ways it's just another job, and not that creative an endeavor. Sure writers try and reinvigorate the brands, but they can never change too much. Their hands are always tied. Those stories are only theirs by name, the company owns them,they were just the fuel and in the end, even those will get phased out with time. Those characters, those worlds, they don't own any of it. They were just paid by the owners to craft a story within their confines. That's not the same as fanfiction, and it's not the same as writing your own original IP.

Hell, being a comic book writer for Marvel and DC's existing properties is pretty disingenuous, versus having IMAGE publish your own brand of new interesting properties. It's fun, and you can make your mark on the industry, but it's not as good as making your own stuff. Morrison's Batman is awesome, but Joe the Barbarian is more interesting and entertaining, simply because it's something different that can he take risks and do much more without restrictions.

Comic books by nature are constantly changing with the times, to try and keep sales or some other bullshit. Taking characters and putting them in new dimensions and worlds is an vital part of the comic book legacy for Marvel and DC. Has been for the past seventy years. That's what they are.

That's not comparable to herp "I want to see Cloud smooch Aeris and cut the moon in half!" derp. Fanfiction is just people taking characters and worlds and dicking around in them without much context or consequence. NONE of it will ever matter. Simply because it's not their IP, and they can't do a damn thing with the story, most people will never be exposed to it, and it will never have any weight in the world of literature.

Also, the Dark Knight Returns is fucking macho tripe. HATE.

Honestly, I don't see how setting a fictional story in a previously created fictional world is any more disingenuous than setting one in the real world and relying on its history and important figures. In both cases, you've utilized things you did not create yourself.

There's no sort of meaningful creativity going on when you're basically latching onto a great work and leeching off of it. Hell even a bad work. You will always be restricted in some way. It will always carry more weight to create your own worlds, and characters. Writing fanfiction can only be an entertaining distraction, or good exercise in writing skills.

For that matter, you have to remember that no great work is conceived in a vacuum. Damn near everything is inspired by something else, even when an author doesn't remember.

Duh? It doesn't matter. Something inspired by something, but not a direct ripoff with it's own themes, plot, and characters will always have more value than a person shitting all over another person's hard work.

"Twin Peaks" was an inspiration on the setting of "Silent Hill." "Tetsujin 28" was an inspiration on various elements of "Akira" itself, which in turn is believed to have been an inspiration on themes and visual elements of "Tetsuo: The Iron Man."

So you want to tell me something else I know?

I'm kidding. I can see your point there. I'm not really defending the use of the same title, as in the case of the PG-13 production. I think a different title may be called for as well, but if a retelling came off feeling enough like "Akira," I wouldn't be put off by the use of the same name.

Good for you, but if they change the setting, characters, and plot, then it is not Akira.

Though it would be kind of hard to come up with another one so simple and yet so powerful at the same time, and assuming one kept the character of Akira named the same, that could be an additional problem.

Naming something isn't difficult as long as you keep the plot and themes in mind.

The atmosphere and overall context of a setting is more important than the geographical location. Look at Western remakes of Japanese films like "The Magnificent Seven" ("Seven Samurai," of course) and "A Fistful of Dollars" ("Yojimbo"; ironically, this movie drew heavily from Westerns).
Hell, look at Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" -- an adaptation of "King Lear," which, like much of Shakespeare's work, was inspired by an even older story. Again, the wheel of inspiration turns round and round.

Yes, reimagining of great stories, but still not the same. The Magnificent Seven is not Seven Samurai, the film doesn't pretend to be either. The same goes for all the others. The settings in those films work for them, because they're not trying to be the film that came before. They took inspiration from the old one, and made something new. A setting change can work for that.

But no, in the original story, that setting is MUCH more important than you let on. Setting and characters are not interchangeable within the context of the original plot. They are not, and they absolutely integral to the plot of that story. Not some niggling detail.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I don't feel that Baz Lurhmann's "Romeo+Juliet" suffered at all from not being set in Verona, Italy -- though I'd also add that it was an excellent film in all respects.

Not even getting in to that one, simply because you could not have chosen a film I have less interest in.

 

[looneymoon]

Baz Luhrman's Romeo+Juliet was excellent. Also, it's worth noting that Moulin Rouge! was more-or-less adapted from the 1952 film as well as the opera La Boheme. Yet Luhrman's take on the story is completely different and much more awesome

also, disagree with keeping the "Akira" name in this hypothetical adaptation. The setting in this case is core to the spirit of the original story. It'd be like setting "Les Miserables" in Australia.