She isn't (potentially) being cast in Akira because she's an amazing actress or would "fit" the part. She's being cast because they know thousands of Twihard fans will pay their $12 to come see this movie just because of her. A movie with those kinds of minds running it is probably doomed from the beginning.
A business is making a smart business decision. You want to see art go to a film festival, check out Vimeo, or even youtube. Studios know that "Fans" have already made up their minds about the production and are going to see it regardless or boycott it regardless. They need to sell it to little Timmy Mcgillacuddy who had never heard of Akira and Mr.Macarther who doesn't give a shit about Japan, and they need to do it in the opening weeks and not hope it circulates well and gets picked up in other markets because by that time they have already murdered the staff if it didn't work. Hollywood sucks for art, you have to do a ton of legwork to even be allowed to try to make art in Hollywood. Nolan had to make two comic book movies just to be able to make Inception, even though he did the Prestige and Memento.
She isn't (potentially) being cast in Akira because she's an amazing actress or would "fit" the part. She's being cast because they know thousands of Twihard fans will pay their $12 to come see this movie just because of her. A movie with those kinds of minds running it is probably doomed from the beginning.
I doubt that's the case - anyone making that sort of decision would also be aware that the fans are not universally enthusiastic about her, because unlike Patinson - who can get away with making statements against twilight because he's a teenage shower nozzle dreamboat - she's just some person playing Bella, and they don't like her so much because she's not a massive fan of twilight.
That, and even looking at the trailers or hearing about the movie in reviews or on TV, I don't think 99% of them would touch it with a Ten foot pole, good or bad. You're not going to capture the squealing teen girly girl and their repressed suburban housewife mothers with Akira, no matter how much you tart it up with Twilight stars.
Also regarding her awfulness in Twilight, I don't think its acceptable to act horribly in a movie just because you don't like it. (I know she doesn't like it, Patterson as well apparently). I would think a good actor/actress would try to act as best they can in whatever to improve their skills and preserve their image. She just gets all emo to make the "I don't care about this" statement. I've seen her in other movies, and I just don't like her acting. I think a lot of people don't like her either, hence the anger at her casting. However its the first point I brought up that would make me more angry, not just the bad acting.
I'm not saying she's awful in twilight because she doesn't like it. I'd say she probably IS doing the best she can. The problem is with the script itself, not the actor - Bella-the-character has less personality than the fucking scenery. I'm not joking, she's barely a character. Gordon Freeman has more personality. My hairy left bollock has more personality. Name practically anything in the world, and it'll have more personality. The movies do a better job than the books, but that is 100% down to Stewart, and even then, she's a personality-free lump.
Seriously, you're reading/watching a repressed Mormon housewife's Bishonen vampire sex dream in novel/movie form, with the female lead being a personality-free cypher, a self-insert area, nothing more. You can't expect much there.
I dont debate/argue on these forums much so I don't have as much practice phrasing my arguments correctly. I'm not saying it will be bad because Stewart sucks at acting. I'm not saying it will be bad at all.
What I'm trying to say is that I can see why people would think a movie will be horrible just on the acting choices. There's already a >50% chance it will suck because, well, its Hollywood. The chance is even greater when the people in charge pick actors based off of popularity rather than who really fits the role. Like I said, I don't really care about how this Akira movie turns out because I don't remember anything. Maybe they will get lucky and Stewart will actually do well! Maybe she is perfect for this character (who's depth has probably already been dumbed down for your average American movie goer). Who knows. But the fact that they probably made the choice based on popularity really sucks. It goes along with what Emily was saying about how Hollywood tends to cast these days.
For the people who are upset, I can understand, is all I'm saying. When something you love is taken and dumbed down, and then falsely marketed as the thing you love, and the average movie goer thinks its something its not, it makes you mad. Its just unfortunate, and it happens so often that we shouldn't be surprised anymore. Maybe thats why everyone is attacking the "Akira will be so bad" thinkers here, because why should anyone care anymore? Big Hollywood movies are all about making money these days (well, I guess technically they've always been) and its a shame. They judge a movie's success solely on ticket sales. Some people are mad about it, and they have a right to be. Hmph.
Yeah, if you aren't big into Kristen Stewart, see Adventureland, or even more-so with Welcome To The Rileys where she plays A HOOKER. Any of those Twilight movies, you can slum and no one gives a fuck. Lovers will love and haters will hate.
Aren't people allowed to be disappointed by the fact that Asian actors are being screwed over by Hollywood's twisted racial perception? As an Asian male, I can't help but feel that Hollywood is sending the wrong message! They make it seem like a person of Asian descent can't be the main character of a movie, unless it is based on Martial Arts.
The movie "21" is based on a true story about a group of ASIAN poker card counters, yet the directors arbitrarily insisted on replacing the lead roles with American actors. I'm honestly not the only Asian that feels like it's a slap to the face. Akira seems to be following the same path as movies like this.
Keanu Reeves. Every thought he was a shit actor. Every still thinks he is a shit actor. The Matrix is an amazing movie, made by unknown directors with vision.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Keanu Reeves. Every thought he was a shit actor. Every still thinks he is a shit actor. Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is an amazing movie, made by unknown directors with vision.
Keanu Reeves. Every thought he was a shit actor. Every still thinks he is a shit actor. The Matrix is an amazing movie, made by unknown directors with vision.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Or if a Japanese studio decided to make a rendition of 1776 would they use any white people? The Korean adaption of the good the bad and the ugly was an amazing film and it featured no white or Italians pretending to be Mexicans, despite that being the original cast, because the ethnicity of the actors has nothing to do with the movie.
I don't remember Akira well enough to pick out the plot points or character elements that relied on a Tokyo setting compared to any other fictionalized future city.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Not a French Movie, but Kurosawa adapted Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" to film and it was all Japanese styling without changing the name other than translating it. He also adapted MacBeth, made it all Samurai, and changed the name to "Throne of Blood."
Also, the fact that we are the United States, and Hollywood is in the United States, that makes a difference. Japan doesn't have a high percentage of non-Japanese people. Japan is 98.5% Japanese. The US is 4.8% Asian and only 72.4% white. We have the people available here, so there is no excuse. If Japan was more diverse, they would also not have an excuse.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Not a French Movie, but Kurosawa adapted Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" to film and it was all Japanese styling without changing the name other than translating it. He also adapted MacBeth, made it all Samurai, and changed the name to "Throne of Blood."
Also, the fact that we are the United States, and Hollywood is in the United States, that makes a difference. Japan doesn't have a high percentage of non-Japanese people. Japan is 98.5% Japanese. The US is 4.8% Asian and only 72.4% white. We have the people available here, so there is no excuse. If Japan was more diverse, they would also not have an excuse.
Japan gets American actors for commercials all the time it is trivial to get people to fly over for a movie production. Japan does the same thing Hollywood does.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Not a French Movie, but Kurosawa adapted Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" to film and it was all Japanese styling without changing the name other than translating it. He also adapted MacBeth, made it all Samurai, and changed the name to "Throne of Blood."
If I remember, Ran was also an adaptation of King Lear. Are there a lot of French remakes in Japan? I didn't know that. Anyway, if they made 1776, it is a historical piece set in America, so they would be silly to use Japanese people for the cast. If you are striving for historical accuracy, it is one thing, but in a fictionalized world, especially ones like Earthsea that had a multitude of different races, it is a shame to use a predominantly white cast purely because you think it will sell more copies.
It's a fine balance. Make it a new experience, put something of your own style in it, but if you completely change it, what was the point of tying it back to the original? I took a class on adaptation at one point, and a lot of times it's less about a specific scene or being picky about plot points than it it is conveying the heart of a character, or the mood of a specific piece.
For example: I think BBC's "Sherlock" is a good adaptation of the Holmes novels, even though the details are much changed. It manages to convey the spirit of the novels even if the substance is different. The characters are also good takes on their precursors.
Personally, I prefer adaptations to differ greatly from source material or else what is the point when one can just see the original? I've never seen Akira, so I can't weigh in on the subject matter, etc.
Jason. I'm going to make a new movie. It will be called "Big Trouble in Little China". It will star Rym and myself. It's a serious action movie where we infiltrate a secret military base in Siberia to rescue the president from Zangief.
Problem?
Nope. Because making a shitty film using the title of another IP does not destroy all copies of the previous film. I can still watch the movie I like anytime; I can ignore yours completely.
Ang Lee's Hulk didn't destroy the Hulk franchise. We got The Incredible Hulk.
Regardless of the quality of the movie, the casting of Caucasian actors in predominantly Asian roles can easily be perceived as an insult to the Asian-American community. Again, it almost seems like an Asian character (working in Hollywood) isn't allowed to be the lead of a non-Martial Arts movie.
This white-casting of Akira is yet another example of such an occurrence.
Regardless of the quality of the movie, the casting of Caucasian actors in predominantly Asian roles can easily be perceived as an insult to the Asian-American community. Again, it almost seems like an Asian character (working in Hollywood) isn't allowed to be the lead of a non-Martial Arts movie.
This white-casting of Akira is yet another example of such an occurrence.
Unless the whole point of the movie is being Asian. Like Better Luck Tommorow or The Joy Luck Club.
Unless the whole point of the movie is being Asain. Like Better Luck Tommorow or The Joy Luck Club.
Except, according to what they've changed, the entire point of this movie isn't being Asian, nor is it specifically Asian in tone or content, again, we're basing our complaints on a single pre-filming casting call.
Nor was the entire point of the original Akira being Asian, but let's not split hairs.
Regardless of the quality of the movie, the casting of Caucasian actors in predominantly Asian roles can easily be perceived as an insult to the Asian-American community. Again, it almost seems like an Asian character (working in Hollywood) isn't allowed to be the lead of a non-Martial Arts movie.
This white-casting of Akira is yet another example of such an occurrence.
One must remember that racism can go either way, casting Asian people for this film because it happens to be based on a cartoon from Japan is not any better than casting white people because it is being made in America. I do believe Donald Glover would be a good Tetsuo.
... I think it might be a little crazy to say that it'd be racist to not cast white people when making an adaptation of something set in Tokyo.
I absolutely hate it when people bitch about canonical accuracy in adaptations, but seriously. They have an excuse to actually cast somebody other then generic white folk and sell it to investors as "Well, in the original..." but instead they just cast more white people, like they do for everything because there are no other races except when you need comic relief or somebody to kung-fu fight somebody.
Imagine the following; a blanket ban on casting white people in leading roles for anything for, say, ten years. Self-enforced by distributors, not the government, of course. The only exception is if you need evil dictators or their minions. That is the only large role they are allowed to play. If you want to see white people in movies where they aren't ordering the deaths of thousands, you have to go see independent films or foreign cinema.
And then, after that ten years are up, everyone will be wary of being the first to start casting white people again, because the marketing guys will think; "I dunno about casting this white guy. Do we want this character to come off as a fascist?"
Because that is essentially the way non-whites are treated by the media.
casting Asian people for this film because it happens to be based on a cartoon from Japan is not any better than casting white people because it is being made in America.
Akira is set in Neo-Tokyo. They are dealing with Japanese gangs. This movie is a perfect excuse to have Asian actors play lead roles, yet they shy away from doing so yet again. They seem to be perpetuating the message that America will not watch a movie with Asian main characters, even in stories that are based in Japan!
Again, it sends the wrong message and really screws over most Asian-American actors.
I'm not saying this means anything, I just want to ask this. All you people who are fine with this adaptation of Akira based on the info so far, have any of you both seen Akira and read the manga?
I'm not saying this means anything, I just want to ask this. All you people who are fine with this adaptation of Akira based on the info so far, have any of you both seen Akira and read the manga?
I'm not saying this means anything, I just want to ask this. All you people who are fine with this adaptation of Akira based on the info so far, have any of you both seen Akira and read the manga?
Yeah, I have. What's your point?
I don't have one. I'm just checking since some people are making claims about Akira specifically, and how Japanese it is, and I'm checking to see how much those people actually know about Akira.
It's irrelevant, Scott. The movie will be made to appeal to moviegoers, not just the people who have read all the source material. YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE. This is a point you've made time and again on Geeknights, but you don't seem to have internalized it when it comes to things that you like.
I don't have one. I'm just checking since some people are making claims about Akira specifically, and how Japanese it is, and I'm checking to see how much those people actually know about Akira.
Sorry, thought you were going somewhere else with that.
Comments
That, and even looking at the trailers or hearing about the movie in reviews or on TV, I don't think 99% of them would touch it with a Ten foot pole, good or bad. You're not going to capture the squealing teen girly girl and their repressed suburban housewife mothers with Akira, no matter how much you tart it up with Twilight stars. I'm not saying she's awful in twilight because she doesn't like it. I'd say she probably IS doing the best she can. The problem is with the script itself, not the actor - Bella-the-character has less personality than the fucking scenery. I'm not joking, she's barely a character. Gordon Freeman has more personality. My hairy left bollock has more personality. Name practically anything in the world, and it'll have more personality. The movies do a better job than the books, but that is 100% down to Stewart, and even then, she's a personality-free lump.
Seriously, you're reading/watching a repressed Mormon housewife's Bishonen vampire sex dream in novel/movie form, with the female lead being a personality-free cypher, a self-insert area, nothing more. You can't expect much there.
What I'm trying to say is that I can see why people would think a movie will be horrible just on the acting choices. There's already a >50% chance it will suck because, well, its Hollywood. The chance is even greater when the people in charge pick actors based off of popularity rather than who really fits the role. Like I said, I don't really care about how this Akira movie turns out because I don't remember anything. Maybe they will get lucky and Stewart will actually do well! Maybe she is perfect for this character (who's depth has probably already been dumbed down for your average American movie goer). Who knows. But the fact that they probably made the choice based on popularity really sucks. It goes along with what Emily was saying about how Hollywood tends to cast these days.
For the people who are upset, I can understand, is all I'm saying. When something you love is taken and dumbed down, and then falsely marketed as the thing you love, and the average movie goer thinks its something its not, it makes you mad. Its just unfortunate, and it happens so often that we shouldn't be surprised anymore. Maybe thats why everyone is attacking the "Akira will be so bad" thinkers here, because why should anyone care anymore?
Big Hollywood movies are all about making money these days (well, I guess technically they've always been) and its a shame. They judge a movie's success solely on ticket sales. Some people are mad about it, and they have a right to be. Hmph.
The movie "21" is based on a true story about a group of ASIAN poker card counters, yet the directors arbitrarily insisted on replacing the lead roles with American actors. I'm honestly not the only Asian that feels like it's a slap to the face. Akira seems to be following the same path as movies like this.
How many Japanese remakes of French movies cast French actors in the leading roles? Serious question.
Also, the fact that we are the United States, and Hollywood is in the United States, that makes a difference. Japan doesn't have a high percentage of non-Japanese people. Japan is 98.5% Japanese. The US is 4.8% Asian and only 72.4% white. We have the people available here, so there is no excuse. If Japan was more diverse, they would also not have an excuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
Are there a lot of French remakes in Japan? I didn't know that. Anyway, if they made 1776, it is a historical piece set in America, so they would be silly to use Japanese people for the cast. If you are striving for historical accuracy, it is one thing, but in a fictionalized world, especially ones like Earthsea that had a multitude of different races, it is a shame to use a predominantly white cast purely because you think it will sell more copies.
For example: I think BBC's "Sherlock" is a good adaptation of the Holmes novels, even though the details are much changed. It manages to convey the spirit of the novels even if the substance is different. The characters are also good takes on their precursors.
I've never seen Akira, so I can't weigh in on the subject matter, etc.
Ang Lee's Hulk didn't destroy the Hulk franchise. We got The Incredible Hulk.
This white-casting of Akira is yet another example of such an occurrence.
Nor was the entire point of the original Akira being Asian, but let's not split hairs.
I absolutely hate it when people bitch about canonical accuracy in adaptations, but seriously. They have an excuse to actually cast somebody other then generic white folk and sell it to investors as "Well, in the original..." but instead they just cast more white people, like they do for everything because there are no other races except when you need comic relief or somebody to kung-fu fight somebody.
Imagine the following; a blanket ban on casting white people in leading roles for anything for, say, ten years. Self-enforced by distributors, not the government, of course. The only exception is if you need evil dictators or their minions. That is the only large role they are allowed to play. If you want to see white people in movies where they aren't ordering the deaths of thousands, you have to go see independent films or foreign cinema.
And then, after that ten years are up, everyone will be wary of being the first to start casting white people again, because the marketing guys will think; "I dunno about casting this white guy. Do we want this character to come off as a fascist?"
Because that is essentially the way non-whites are treated by the media.
Again, it sends the wrong message and really screws over most Asian-American actors.
P.S. I've seen the anime.