It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
On the one hand I agree with you. You can still watch the original Akira, it's not going anywhere. You can still read the manga. They will both exist for centuries, and be enjoyed by many. If hollywood makes a crappy movie that happens to be called Akira, and we just ignore it, what's the big deal?
The problem is that they will be reshaping the public perception of the Akira brand. Because it is Hollywood, it will have a lot of marketing dollars behind it. Now most of our society, when the word Akira is mentioned, will have an image in their mind of some shitty live action movie, and they will not think of the original masterpieces.
Sure, thousands of people will go seek out those originals because of the new movie, as they did with Watchmen, Dark Knight, and many others. But those will have an experience that is tainted by the new movie. It won't necessarily be better or worse, it will just be a different experience than to what we have had. Thus it will not be a shared experience, and they will not share the same Akira experience that we have already shared.
Nerds like to share culture because when you share culture you share experiences. That is what brings people closer together. We both watch ponies, now we can bond as people because of that. When you take a property and crap it up, you bring people further apart, not closer together. That is the true reason that people get upset over these kinds of things.
Look at Lord of the Rings movies. Because they were good, fans of Tolkien were able to welcome in many new friends. It was a time of great coming together. Look at Star Wars episodes 1-3, all they cause is bad feelings and conflict because they are bad. Any large property is a culture and a community. When you mishandle the brand you damage the community, especially when it's a nerdy community.
It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
Look at Lord of the Rings movies. Because they were good, fans of Tolkien were able to welcome in many new friends. It was a time of great coming together. Look at Star Wars episodes 1-3, all they cause is bad feelings and conflict because they are bad. Any large property is a culture and a community. When you mishandle the brand you damage the community, especially when it's a nerdy community.
I think Star Wars fans come together to hate on episodes 1-3 waaaaaaay more than Lord of the Rings fans come together to love on the Peter Jackson movies. Same with The Last Airbender. That is mentioned waaaay more on this forum and on Geeknights episodes than any good movie.
You have to remember that movies are made and remade and reimagined and remixed all the time. How many Dracula movies are there? How many mummy movies? How many Frankenstein? How many Star Trek? How many Superman? How many Batman? How many movie versions of Pride and Prejudice? How many versions of The Thing?
All of these things are reinvented every ten or twenty years, and every generation gets a new experience of the material. The kids who watch the original Akira movie now don't get the same experience as you or I did when we watched it 15 years ago. I have no problem with that, and neither will they.
So you watching the new movie, after seeing the old movie, will have a different experience than the kids watching the new movie, just the same as they will have a different experience when watching the old movie after seeing the new movie. What privileges the first movie over the second? Should people not watch The Thing because it was a remake of The Thing, which in turn was adapted from a story? If so they would miss out on a modern cult classic. And now The Thing comes out again, and who knows, it could have been a better movie than The Thing!
I like that classic stories are remade and remixed every generation. It's a good thing. Feel free to disagree.
EDIT: Ninja'd by ColumbianShadow with a prime example of bonding over the shitness of Avatar: The Last Air Bender.
Yeah, I like it when things are remixed. I mean, ponies, come on.
But the problem is when something is redone in a bad way. It won't get redone again for another decade or so. What if someone remakes The Thing again, and it sucks. Well now you have a generation of people who hate The Thing, except for the rare nerds that watch old movies. If they had remade it well, then you would have something that could be shared across generations.
I can echo ColombianShadow's sentiment. I have tried to get people into the Avatar: The Last Airender show, but people were SO turned off by the movie that they refuse to give the cartoon a chance.
That TLA movie caused quite a bit of damage, and I'm afraid that the new Akira movie will do the same. Bad remakes have the potential to soil the name of a quality franchise, and they seem to be a legitimate concern.
Slightly off-topic, but who should have been cast in the live-action Akira movie? I'm not that up-to-date on my asian actors, but who would have made a good Kaneda, Tetsuo, and Kei?
First person who mentions a member of SMAP gets taken out behind the woodshed to get shot...
What if someone remakes The Thing again, and it sucks. Well now you have a generation of people who hate The Thing, except for the rare nerds that watch old movies. If they had remade it well, then you would have something that could be shared across generations.
The last The Thing movie was from this year, and by all accounts it wasn't as good as the 1982 version. But you know what? When John Carpenter's The Thing came out, it was panned by the critics. Maybe The Thing 2011 will be considered a classic in 30 years time. I guess not, but you never know.
The way you posted, Luke, it honestly feels to me like you just jumped in here only so you could be condescending. This is an argument we've had in this forum so many times. What is so wrong with just wanting to see a good, live-action adaptation of a film I love? Am I really a fan if I don't take any interest in new developments of the franchise? Just because "shit movies come out all the time" means that we shouldn't care about movies that haven't come out yet and are not allowed to discuss them?
Somehow I imagine even with all the anger and outcry, because Akira isn't big enough Mainstream and because the hardcore are annoying enough to potentially see it, combine with easily influenced foreign audiences...
I'm not trying to be anything! I just wonder how you can conclude the movie is going to be shit without it having been made yet. The choice of actor has nothing to do with if a movie is good or not, right? Bad actors are in good movies all the time, and good actors are in shit movies all the time.
For example, how about a movie directed by Rob Reiner (Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, all classic movies) staring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, both legendary actors? You get the Bucket List, of which I've not read or heard a single good review.
Casting no-name actors will not make the movie better or worse than having an actor you don't like in it, but it will make it far less likely to get any kind of audience. Not every movie full of no-name actors makes money like the Blair Witch Project.
That is because kids are stupid. Should we remake Citizen Kane?
Sure. Why not? The Mutiny on the Bounty movie from the 30's is a good one, and won the best picture oscar. And then it was remade in the 60's, and it's a way better movie. I'd love to see another version of that story with today's movie making techniques. Who knows, maybe it could be the first 3D movie to win a best picture oscar?
Am I the only one who hopes this isn't super faithful to the source material? We already have Akira I feel no urge to watch a rehashed version when I could get a whole new product that shares themes/ideas/setting with something I liked. Similar to how the Walking dead TV show was almost good because it took the very simple idea from the comic and then tried to take it a different route.
Side note on the casting, why does it matter if the actors look similar to the characters as long as they are talented?
That is because kids are stupid. Should we remake Citizen Kane?
Sure. Why not? The Mutiny on the Bounty movie from the 30's is a good one, and won the best picture oscar. And then it was remade in the 60's, and it's a way better movie. I'd love to see another version of that story with today's movie making techniques. Who knows, maybe it could be the first 3D movie to win a best picture oscar?
If they did that today in 3D it would be all about sledding scenes where the sled flies at the screen.
For example, how about a movie directed by Rob Reiner (Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, all classic movies) staring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, both legendary actors? You get the Bucket List, of which I've not read or heard a single good review.
I actually really liked the Bucket List. I felt it was a well thought out, well played, movie.
To that, I would have to say: Clue. I consider it to be a classic. Movies based on board games can be awesome. However, the reason I am skeptical of remakes/reboots/sequels/adaptations is because of my lack of faith in the people creating said project.
I don't start off excited for a movie I know nothing about, it's up to whoever is making it to excite me. Tell me there will be a third Batman movie and I will look forward to it, because Christopher Nolan has earned my trust with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Tell me M. Knight Shamalan (I'm sure I misspelled that...) is making an Avatar movie, I'm immediately assuming it's shit since I haven't enjoyed an M. Knight movie since The Sixth Sense. Tell me there's a live action Akira, that I know nothing about, and cast the main roles with bad actors, I will not give it the benefit of the doubt; unless it has a good trailer.
It's up to them to get me excited over a movie, so I will not shrug it off and simply say "it's ok, it's just different." What I will do instead is shrug it off and assume the movie will be non-noteworthy unless proven otherwise.
It's up to them to get me excited over a movie, so I will not shrug it off and simply say "it's ok, it's just different." What I will do instead is shrug it off and assume the movie will be non-noteworthy unless proven otherwise.
It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
Listen, my main gripe is not about bad adaptations, it is about fucking racial bigotry in Hollywood. The main character always has to be white, even if the character he is cast as is a bousozoku member named Kaneda or Tetsuo? WTF? Also, like I said, if you are changing something so much it doesn't resemble the original, why try to link it to the original at all? You could do a great movie set in post apocalyptic NYC with motorcycle gangs and scary experiments, and it could be freaking awesome.
It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
Listen, my main gripe is not about bad adaptations, it is about fucking racial bigotry in Hollywood. The main character always has to be white, even if the character he is cast as is a bousozoku member named Kaneda or Tetsuo? WTF? Also, like I said, if you are changing something so much it doesn't resemble the original, why try to link it to the original at all? You could do a great movie set in post apocalyptic NYC with motorcycle gangs and scary experiments, and it could be freaking awesome.
What does being asain have to do with acting or marketability?
It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
Listen, my main gripe is not about bad adaptations, it is about fucking racial bigotry in Hollywood. The main character always has to be white, even if the character he is cast as is a bousozoku member named Kaneda or Tetsuo? WTF? Also, like I said, if you are changing something so much it doesn't resemble the original, why try to link it to the original at all? You could do a great movie set in post apocalyptic NYC with motorcycle gangs and scary experiments, and it could be freaking awesome.
What does being asain have to do with acting or marketability?
I don't think it is, I believe it's just more of an arrogance in Hollywood due to the person in charge's personal taste. For example, that person doesn't think Dragonball Z is a property worth looking into, so they just get a new up-in-coming actor to fill the roles of the main character and soon as possible. Except for the case of Shamalayan (Who's personal choices in why Last Airbender are so bad that it's never ending), I really think it's more of a laziness over anything.
I'll even bet, the reason why Akira comes on and off of production is precisely because it gets the internet and fans in such a fervor, that people believe the movie's going to have a locked-in audience. And another think to consider is that while we might be mad, foreign countries could eat this stuff up. You make a set amount of money once you've hit wide distribution and if Akira is cheap enough, it'll make money which is basically what Hollywood wants to do.
It's really sad watching people moan about how bad a movie is before it is even made. Akira is not a religion, is it?
Listen, my main gripe is not about bad adaptations, it is about fucking racial bigotry in Hollywood. The main character always has to be white, even if the character he is cast as is a bousozoku member named Kaneda or Tetsuo? WTF? Also, like I said, if you are changing something so much it doesn't resemble the original, why try to link it to the original at all? You could do a great movie set in post apocalyptic NYC with motorcycle gangs and scary experiments, and it could be freaking awesome.
What does being asain have to do with acting or marketability?
Nothing. But the original movie is set in Japan, so the vast majority of people in the film are Japanese.
I'm not that down on it - it's early stages yet, and they've already changed it to Manhattan, because we know that Americans will spontaneously combust if they see a movie that isn't set in the Continental US - and if they're moving it to Manhattan, then I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the names, or did other things - I mean, it's not like they haven't already changed things, Last time I watched Akira, It was Tokyo, Kaneda was a biker, not a bar-owner(Because you can't have a hero that isn't a regular guy or a good guy pushed too far), It was his best friend and not his brother that gets captured, the underground terrorists are now American truth-seeking patriotic freedom fighters(Because they're fighting for the Truth in 'muuurica like true murricans, so they can't be terrorists, they ain't even brown! WE MADE SURE THEY'RE NOT BROWN!), and I'll bet you that Akira isn't just a brain in a jar, because goddamnit, Jim, Brains in jars are just unamerican and don't sell toys or have catchphrases.
And anyway, it's not like they don't have time to change the names or come up with a reason for it to be set in America, they haven't even started principle photography yet. The only thing I'd be annoyed about myself is the whitewashing of the movie - It's not hard to find Japanese-American actors, for christ's sake, even if you're going to shift it to the Continental US.
I'm gonna see it anyway, because I put the word down on Geo/Yupa for judging a movie too harshly before he sees it, so it would be rather Hypocritical of me to judge the movie before they've even started filming it.
What does being asain have to do with acting or marketability?
Actually, a lot. Marketing people in Hollywood have a perception that if you put a minority in the lead role, the film loses wider audience appeal. That's why most films feature a white dude as the lead. It's really old fashioned and crap.
What does being asain have to do with acting or marketability?
Actually, a lot. Marketing people in Hollywood have a perception that if you put a minority in the lead role, the film loses wider audience appeal. That's why most films feature a white dude as the lead. It's really old fashioned and crap.
While I agree that casting white people as the lead is asshatery I think it is equally ridiculous to insist that the roles be cast based on anything that doesn't include acting ability. Donald Glover would be a great Tetsuo, and a yound Timothy Olyphant would be a good Kaneda
Comments
The problem is that they will be reshaping the public perception of the Akira brand. Because it is Hollywood, it will have a lot of marketing dollars behind it. Now most of our society, when the word Akira is mentioned, will have an image in their mind of some shitty live action movie, and they will not think of the original masterpieces.
Sure, thousands of people will go seek out those originals because of the new movie, as they did with Watchmen, Dark Knight, and many others. But those will have an experience that is tainted by the new movie. It won't necessarily be better or worse, it will just be a different experience than to what we have had. Thus it will not be a shared experience, and they will not share the same Akira experience that we have already shared.
Nerds like to share culture because when you share culture you share experiences. That is what brings people closer together. We both watch ponies, now we can bond as people because of that. When you take a property and crap it up, you bring people further apart, not closer together. That is the true reason that people get upset over these kinds of things.
Look at Lord of the Rings movies. Because they were good, fans of Tolkien were able to welcome in many new friends. It was a time of great coming together. Look at Star Wars episodes 1-3, all they cause is bad feelings and conflict because they are bad. Any large property is a culture and a community. When you mishandle the brand you damage the community, especially when it's a nerdy community.
You have to remember that movies are made and remade and reimagined and remixed all the time. How many Dracula movies are there? How many mummy movies? How many Frankenstein? How many Star Trek? How many Superman? How many Batman? How many movie versions of Pride and Prejudice? How many versions of The Thing?
All of these things are reinvented every ten or twenty years, and every generation gets a new experience of the material. The kids who watch the original Akira movie now don't get the same experience as you or I did when we watched it 15 years ago. I have no problem with that, and neither will they.
So you watching the new movie, after seeing the old movie, will have a different experience than the kids watching the new movie, just the same as they will have a different experience when watching the old movie after seeing the new movie. What privileges the first movie over the second? Should people not watch The Thing because it was a remake of The Thing, which in turn was adapted from a story? If so they would miss out on a modern cult classic. And now The Thing comes out again, and who knows, it could have been a better movie than The Thing!
I like that classic stories are remade and remixed every generation. It's a good thing. Feel free to disagree.
EDIT: Ninja'd by ColumbianShadow with a prime example of bonding over the shitness of Avatar: The Last Air Bender.
But the problem is when something is redone in a bad way. It won't get redone again for another decade or so. What if someone remakes The Thing again, and it sucks. Well now you have a generation of people who hate The Thing, except for the rare nerds that watch old movies. If they had remade it well, then you would have something that could be shared across generations.
That TLA movie caused quite a bit of damage, and I'm afraid that the new Akira movie will do the same. Bad remakes have the potential to soil the name of a quality franchise, and they seem to be a legitimate concern.
First person who mentions a member of SMAP gets taken out behind the woodshed to get shot...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/
The last The Thing movie was from this year, and by all accounts it wasn't as good as the 1982 version. But you know what? When John Carpenter's The Thing came out, it was panned by the critics. Maybe The Thing 2011 will be considered a classic in 30 years time. I guess not, but you never know.
The movie will still make money.
For example, how about a movie directed by Rob Reiner (Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, all classic movies) staring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, both legendary actors? You get the Bucket List, of which I've not read or heard a single good review.
Casting no-name actors will not make the movie better or worse than having an actor you don't like in it, but it will make it far less likely to get any kind of audience. Not every movie full of no-name actors makes money like the Blair Witch Project.
Am I the only one who hopes this isn't super faithful to the source material? We already have Akira I feel no urge to watch a rehashed version when I could get a whole new product that shares themes/ideas/setting with something I liked. Similar to how the Walking dead TV show was almost good because it took the very simple idea from the comic and then tried to take it a different route.
Side note on the casting, why does it matter if the actors look similar to the characters as long as they are talented?
I don't start off excited for a movie I know nothing about, it's up to whoever is making it to excite me. Tell me there will be a third Batman movie and I will look forward to it, because Christopher Nolan has earned my trust with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Tell me M. Knight Shamalan (I'm sure I misspelled that...) is making an Avatar movie, I'm immediately assuming it's shit since I haven't enjoyed an M. Knight movie since The Sixth Sense. Tell me there's a live action Akira, that I know nothing about, and cast the main roles with bad actors, I will not give it the benefit of the doubt; unless it has a good trailer.
It's up to them to get me excited over a movie, so I will not shrug it off and simply say "it's ok, it's just different." What I will do instead is shrug it off and assume the movie will be non-noteworthy unless proven otherwise.
Also, like I said, if you are changing something so much it doesn't resemble the original, why try to link it to the original at all? You could do a great movie set in post apocalyptic NYC with motorcycle gangs and scary experiments, and it could be freaking awesome.
I'll even bet, the reason why Akira comes on and off of production is precisely because it gets the internet and fans in such a fervor, that people believe the movie's going to have a locked-in audience. And another think to consider is that while we might be mad, foreign countries could eat this stuff up. You make a set amount of money once you've hit wide distribution and if Akira is cheap enough, it'll make money which is basically what Hollywood wants to do.
I'm not that down on it - it's early stages yet, and they've already changed it to Manhattan, because we know that Americans will spontaneously combust if they see a movie that isn't set in the Continental US - and if they're moving it to Manhattan, then I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the names, or did other things - I mean, it's not like they haven't already changed things, Last time I watched Akira, It was Tokyo, Kaneda was a biker, not a bar-owner(Because you can't have a hero that isn't a regular guy or a good guy pushed too far), It was his best friend and not his brother that gets captured, the underground terrorists are now American truth-seeking patriotic freedom fighters(Because they're fighting for the Truth in 'muuurica like true murricans, so they can't be terrorists, they ain't even brown! WE MADE SURE THEY'RE NOT BROWN!), and I'll bet you that Akira isn't just a brain in a jar, because goddamnit, Jim, Brains in jars are just unamerican and don't sell toys or have catchphrases.
And anyway, it's not like they don't have time to change the names or come up with a reason for it to be set in America, they haven't even started principle photography yet. The only thing I'd be annoyed about myself is the whitewashing of the movie - It's not hard to find Japanese-American actors, for christ's sake, even if you're going to shift it to the Continental US.
I'm gonna see it anyway, because I put the word down on Geo/Yupa for judging a movie too harshly before he sees it, so it would be rather Hypocritical of me to judge the movie before they've even started filming it.