Bingo. It's legitimately disappointing that Hollywood feels the need to "Americanize" a story like Akira. It sucks that they don't believe that a story set in Japan with Asian actors would sell well in the US. I don't see why that can't be a valid concern.
That movie already exists, it's called Akira. You are claiming that you feel under represented in Hollywood because of the lack of Asian lead actors but by that exact logic is the reason you don't see that very thing. Are you also mad that a white guy is playing Spike in the live action Cowboy Bebop.
Bingo. It's legitimately disappointing that Hollywood feels the need to "Americanize" a story like Akira. It sucks that they don't believe that a story set in Japan with Asian actors would sell well in the US. I don't see why that can't be a valid concern.
That movie already exists, it's called Akira. You are claiming that you feel under represented in Hollywood because of the lack of Asian lead actors but by that exact logic is the reason you don't see that very thing. Are you also mad that a white guy is playing Spike in the live action Cowboy Bebop.
Bingo. It's legitimately disappointing that Hollywood feels the need to "Americanize" a story like Akira. It sucks that they don't believe that a story set in Japan with Asian actors would sell well in the US. I don't see why that can't be a valid concern.
That movie already exists, it's called Akira. You are claiming that you feel under represented in Hollywood because of the lack of Asian lead actors but by that exact logic is the reason you don't see that very thing. Are you also mad that a white guy is playing Spike in the live action Cowboy Bebop.
Spike Spiegel isn't Asian. He's Martian/American.
What makes Kaneda Asian besides living in Japan?
His was also born in Japan from Japanese parents and grew up in a Japanese society.
Australian actors don't usually face that type of stigma.
And that's why you need to hide your nationality if you want to get anywhere. Wait, what?
Let me spell it out very clearly - This sort of thing isn't just about skin colour. The only difference is that you can pretend to be American, but you can't pretend you're not asian except in some rare cases, sort of like how Louie CK looks like he's Boston Irish, despite being Hungarian/Mexican, or Jeff Schuetze's only vaguely-Asian looks.
What I'd love explained is exactly how that makes it more acceptable to write off who we are, just because you can't necessarily see it in the colour of our skin, or in the cast of our features.
Also, I probably should have expected it, but you don't have to be so invective in your tone. Oh well. FRC Forum arguments hooray!
I was actually a little confused, until a realized you probably haven't heard me talk too often, if at all. This is quite literally how I talk, just devoid of the tone, rhythm and so on that you'd get from hearing it. You get used to it. If I actually had an invective tone, I would have been much sharper and harsher with you.
Bingo. It's legitimately disappointing that Hollywood feels the need to "Americanize" a story like Akira. It sucks that they don't believe that a story set in Japan with Asian actors would sell well in the US. I don't see why that can't be a valid concern.
Because they're playing to their audience. A story set in Japan with Asian actors will sell well in the US. But not as well as a movie set in America, with American actors - Note, I said American, not white, ethnicity isn't entirely relevant to what I'm saying - because people like what is familiar.
Having had to explain a bunch of things from here, ranging from slang, to cultural customs, to holidays and humor, I can tell you - Americans don't really get things that are not Americanized, or are just American to begin with.
And Hollywood knows this - for just a few examples, Why the hell do you think they have Wilfred with Elijah Wood, rather than just re-broadcasting the original Wilfred upon which is it roughly based? Because it would fucking bomb, because Americans just wouldn't get it. Why do you think that they Re-dubbed and Re-wrote the American version of Mad Max? Why do you think that the vast Majority of Australian films absolutely Bomb in the US, if US production/distribution companies bother picking them up at all? Shit, look at Red Dog, one of the best movies to come out this year, see if you can tell me when the American release is. Or, save yourself the time and don't bother, because there isn't one - It got shopped around Hollywood, and last I heard, nobody wants it, because American audiences won't go for it, because it's not American.
I will say this - If they just did an almost shot-for-shot remake of the original Akira, but in live action? It would fucking bomb. The general public wouldn't like it or understand it - remember that's their audience, not Anime geeks, or Sci-fi Geeks, or Akira Purists, or foreign film enthusiasts - and would probably hate it. And the internet, considering that hating on things is the trendy thing to do on the internet, would hate it two, and geeks would obsessively pick it apart to find everything wrong with it so they could say it's a terrible movie. So, Why not at least try and please one of those groups? After all, it's a business. If you're not making money, then you're not making movies.
In the United States of America, the term "ethnic" carries a different meaning from how it is commonly used in some other countries due to the historical and ongoing significance of racial distinctions that categorize together what might otherwise have been viewed as ethnic groups. For example, various ethnic, "national," or linguistic groups from Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islands, Latin America and Indigenous America have long been aggregated as racial minority groups (currently designated as African American, Asian, Latino and Native American or American Indian, respectively). While a sense of ethnic identity may coexist with racial identity (Chinese Americans among Asian or Irish American among European or White, for example), the long history of the United States as a settler, conqueror and slave society, and the concomitant formal and informal inscription of racialized groupings into law and social stratification schemes has bestowed upon race a fundamental social identification role in the United States.
I think part of what bothers me about the whole setting shift is on two levels:
1. It seems like culture theft. Section 9 could have easily been remade with it's setting in the US as a commentary on Arizona or Alabama's draconian immigration laws. The fact that the movie was set in South Africa was significant to the movie's entire message. Putting it in the States would have lessened the impact, and also assumes that movie-going audiences aren't smart enough to get what the metaphor of the movie was. There is something very Japanese to the way the characters feel and react to me. It feels to me, based on what I've read (and that's not a ton) that this will not be a well-thought-out homage to a respected bit of anime/manga history, but a schlocky Hollywood "this was totally a better idea, hurr" production.
This may just be a bias on my part, but the very fact that it was a different country added to the whole gestalt of the film. Could it be set in Manhattan? Probably, and if it's done well it could be very effective. Could all the characters be white instead of Asian? Again, probably, and if there is competent production behind the movie, it could be excellent. I also think that the very fact that Akira was animated adds to what the movie was, and that it doesn't need a live-action remake.
But this brings me to my second point.
2. I fear that the entire thing will be loaded with no-talent big name pop-actors, that the script will be a hackneyed, cobbled-together pandering to teens and 20-somethings. I fear that the franchise name will be dragged through the dirt, turning off people to what is actually a very good example of a movie adaptation to (part of) a written (and drawn) work. I fear that crucial parts of the story will be so radically changed, and for the worse, that it will be as much Akira as the Dragonball live action movie was Dragonball. Which is to say, not remotely. From what I've seen and read, this is exactly where it seems to be going.
Instead of homage and influence, all they seem to really be thinking about is how they can cash in on a franchise name and then leave it broken, beaten, and raped by the dusty side of the road, as opposed to creating something truly great.
Ideologically, I couldn't care less if a remake is unfaithful, implicitly racist, or otherwise not to my taste. In a perfect world, no creator would retain the moral right to prevent others from using their property in a derivative work (provided clear attribution, prominent disavowal, and statutory royalties were required).
All of your arguments on either side of this debate nonwithstanding, I make a simple series of assertions:
1. The casting choices are in line with a crass cash-grab based on name recognition (of both property and actors).
2. The setting choice is in line with a mistrust of a "foreign" setting's appeal to the target demographic implied by the casting choices.
3. Movies exhibiting these characteristics are almost universally awful.
I thereby conclude that, based on the above, this movie will in all likelihood be, at best, on par with the recent Transformers movies. That is to say, awful and unwatchable messes of bad acting interspersed with frenetic CG action scenes.
It is eminently possible to make a spiritually faithful and perfectly compelling version of Akira, set in New York, with an all-american cast. It is also, however, entirely unreasonable to believe, based on the information we have to date, that this particular effort will be anything but a disaster.
Ideologically, I couldn't care less if a remake is unfaithful, implicitly racist, or otherwise not to my taste. In a perfect world, no creator would retain the moral right to prevent others from using their property in a derivative work (provided clear attribution, prominent disavowal, and statutory royalties were required).
All of your arguments on either side of this debate nonwithstanding, I make a simple series of assertions:
1. The casting choices are in line with a crass cash-grab based on name recognition (of both property and actors).
2. The setting choice is in line with a mistrust of a "foreign" setting's appeal to the target demographic implied by the casting choices.
3. Movies exhibiting these characteristics are almost universally awful.
I thereby conclude that, based on the above, this movie will in all likelihood be, at best, on par with the recent Transformers movies. That is to say, awful and unwatchable messes of bad acting interspersed with frenetic CG action scenes.
It is eminently possible to make a spiritually faithful and perfectly compelling version of Akira, set in New York, with an all-american cast. It is also, however, entirely unreasonable to believe, based on the information we have to date, that this particular effort will be anything but a disaster.
We can add it to the long list of things we pretend didn't happen/are going to happen, like the Neuromancer movie in the works which is far more sacred and will be soiled even more.
It is eminently possible to make a spiritually faithful and perfectly compelling version of Akira, set in New York, with an all-american cast. It is also, however, entirely unreasonable to believe, based on the information we have to date, that this particular effort will be anything but a disaster.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the issue, but with the Caveat of that I refuse to say anything more solid than "There's a decent chance it's going to suck" until we know more.
We can add it to the long list of things we pretend didn't happen/are going to happen, like the Neuromancer movie in the works which is far more sacred and will be soiled even more.
AKA, The joke that wasn't funny the first thousand times that you were so fucking original making it because nobody ever thought of it before or heard it before, and makes me want to fucking jaw people. Preferably the person making the joke, but I'm not really picky at this point.
It is eminently possible to make a spiritually faithful and perfectly compelling version of Akira, set in New York, with an all-american cast. It is also, however, entirely unreasonable to believe, based on the information we have to date, that this particular effort will be anything but a disaster.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the issue, but with the Caveat of that I refuse to say anything more solid than "There's a decent chance it's going to suck" until we know more.
We can add it to the long list of things we pretend didn't happen/are going to happen, like the Neuromancer movie in the works which is far more sacred and will be soiled even more.
AKA, The joke that wasn't funny the first thousand times that you were so fucking original making it because nobody ever thought of it before or heard it before, and makes me want to fucking jaw people. Preferably the person making the joke, but I'm not really picky at this point.
Who is making a joke? Because I certainly wasn't. I was remarking that there is a very similar situation happening right now to a far more important work of art that is going to have it's name destroyed to people who haven't read it yet.
Who is making a joke? Because I certainly wasn't. I was remarking that there is a very similar situation happening right now to a far more important work of art that is going to have it's name destroyed to people who haven't read it yet.
If you were not making a joke, then you're just being goddamn stupid. If the fact that you don't like something can change if something exists or happened, then we wouldn't be having any conversation about that fucking moronic idea in the first place.
I thereby conclude that, based on the above, this movie will in all likelihood be, at best, on par with the recent Transformers movies. That is to say, awful and unwatchable messes of bad acting interspersed with frenetic CG action scenes.
That holds true with almost every single science fiction movie, independent of it being an adapted story or an original. Remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is shit.
People who say "the original still is unchanged" miss the point that any adaptation, good or otherwise, won't change most fans opinion of the original work at all. (I like the Avatar TV series, ignore the movie.) It's the people who have never seen the anime movie that concern me. Basically I agree with what Rym said, although we can't really expect creators of adaptations to "disavow" the work, as they often try to use the popularity of the original to bring an audience to their new creation. This is the only reason I ever make an argument for bad adaptations "tarnishing" the name of a creative work. When marketing people make a conscious effort to get people to confuse/link the two works in their brains, I would argue that they are doing a small amount of damage to the reputation of the original.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree. I gleamed over the the rest of the thread, but it has pretty much devolved into bickering over brand names and such. I will readily admit that there is a danger. However, there is also an easy solution, and I hearby declare the great big
Akira Immunization Drive.
Simply, in order for an unfaithful and bad adaptation of a movie to not taint the perception of the consumer, the consumer must have already experienced the good property. Thus, bring everyone and anyone you know to watch the original film as soon as possible.
I gleamed over the the rest of the thread, but it has pretty much devolved into bickering over brand names and such. I will readily admit that there is a danger.
Personally I thought the discussion in this thread was one of the most interesting on the forum in a long time, and never devolved into any kind of bickering.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree.
I'm not sure how that's possible, since we really know four fifths of five eighths of fuck-all.
There are people who are ready to call it shit, based on the information on the topic of this thread Live-action, Hollywood and adaptation of anime/manga, must be shit.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree.
I'm not sure how that's possible, since we really know four fifths of five eighths of fuck-all.
There are people who are ready to call it shit, based on the information on the topic of this thread Live-action, Hollywood and adaptation of anime/manga, must be shit.
Name one that isn't. It's a perfectly safe historical expectation. There is no evidence to suggest that it will be different this time.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree.
I'm not sure how that's possible, since we really know four fifths of five eighths of fuck-all.
There are people who are ready to call it shit, based on the information on the topic of this thread Live-action, Hollywood and adaptation of anime/manga, must be shit.
Name one that isn't. It's a perfectly safe historical expectation. There is no evidence to suggest that it will be different this time.
I didn't say it wouldn't be. I think that I have already said that I don't personally care about this re-make. If it ever comes out and I hear it's bad I will treat it similarly to the Dragon Ball movie, not watch it and occasionally even forget that it exists.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree.
I'm not sure how that's possible, since we really know four fifths of five eighths of fuck-all.
There are people who are ready to call it shit, based on the information on the topic of this thread Live-action, Hollywood and adaptation of anime/manga, must be shit.
Name one that isn't. It's a perfectly safe historical expectation. There is no evidence to suggest that it will be different this time.
I haven't really cared much about this. The movie is going to be pretty bad from what I heard and read, and people in this forum seem to agree.
I'm not sure how that's possible, since we really know four fifths of five eighths of fuck-all.
There are people who are ready to call it shit, based on the information on the topic of this thread Live-action, Hollywood and adaptation of anime/manga, must be shit.
Name one that isn't. It's a perfectly safe historical expectation. There is no evidence to suggest that it will be different this time.
Past experience does not dictate future experience.
I think part of what bothers me about the whole setting shift is on two levels:
1. It seems like culture theft. Section 9 could have easily been remade with it's setting in the US as a commentary on Arizona or Alabama's draconian immigration laws. The fact that the movie was set in South Africa was significant to the movie's entire message. Putting it in the States would have lessened the impact, and also assumes that movie-going audiences aren't smart enough to get what the metaphor of the movie was.
Not so if they made it a period piece. Setting it in the south right after the civil war. Or set in California after WW2 and re use the Japanese internment camps.
See, I think most of us did not say "It sucks!" We merely hypothesized based on the available data that it had a high percentage change of sucking, using the measurement scale of our personal tastes and opinions. It exhibited symptoms of sucking, but we will not be able to carry out the actual experiment to determine its suck level until it is released.
Comments
What makes you whatever you are?
Let me spell it out very clearly - This sort of thing isn't just about skin colour. The only difference is that you can pretend to be American, but you can't pretend you're not asian except in some rare cases, sort of like how Louie CK looks like he's Boston Irish, despite being Hungarian/Mexican, or Jeff Schuetze's only vaguely-Asian looks.
What I'd love explained is exactly how that makes it more acceptable to write off who we are, just because you can't necessarily see it in the colour of our skin, or in the cast of our features. I was actually a little confused, until a realized you probably haven't heard me talk too often, if at all. This is quite literally how I talk, just devoid of the tone, rhythm and so on that you'd get from hearing it. You get used to it. If I actually had an invective tone, I would have been much sharper and harsher with you. Because they're playing to their audience. A story set in Japan with Asian actors will sell well in the US. But not as well as a movie set in America, with American actors - Note, I said American, not white, ethnicity isn't entirely relevant to what I'm saying - because people like what is familiar.
Having had to explain a bunch of things from here, ranging from slang, to cultural customs, to holidays and humor, I can tell you - Americans don't really get things that are not Americanized, or are just American to begin with.
And Hollywood knows this - for just a few examples, Why the hell do you think they have Wilfred with Elijah Wood, rather than just re-broadcasting the original Wilfred upon which is it roughly based? Because it would fucking bomb, because Americans just wouldn't get it. Why do you think that they Re-dubbed and Re-wrote the American version of Mad Max? Why do you think that the vast Majority of Australian films absolutely Bomb in the US, if US production/distribution companies bother picking them up at all? Shit, look at Red Dog, one of the best movies to come out this year, see if you can tell me when the American release is. Or, save yourself the time and don't bother, because there isn't one - It got shopped around Hollywood, and last I heard, nobody wants it, because American audiences won't go for it, because it's not American.
I will say this - If they just did an almost shot-for-shot remake of the original Akira, but in live action? It would fucking bomb. The general public wouldn't like it or understand it - remember that's their audience, not Anime geeks, or Sci-fi Geeks, or Akira Purists, or foreign film enthusiasts - and would probably hate it. And the internet, considering that hating on things is the trendy thing to do on the internet, would hate it two, and geeks would obsessively pick it apart to find everything wrong with it so they could say it's a terrible movie. So, Why not at least try and please one of those groups? After all, it's a business. If you're not making money, then you're not making movies.
1. It seems like culture theft. Section 9 could have easily been remade with it's setting in the US as a commentary on Arizona or Alabama's draconian immigration laws. The fact that the movie was set in South Africa was significant to the movie's entire message. Putting it in the States would have lessened the impact, and also assumes that movie-going audiences aren't smart enough to get what the metaphor of the movie was. There is something very Japanese to the way the characters feel and react to me. It feels to me, based on what I've read (and that's not a ton) that this will not be a well-thought-out homage to a respected bit of anime/manga history, but a schlocky Hollywood "this was totally a better idea, hurr" production.
This may just be a bias on my part, but the very fact that it was a different country added to the whole gestalt of the film. Could it be set in Manhattan? Probably, and if it's done well it could be very effective. Could all the characters be white instead of Asian? Again, probably, and if there is competent production behind the movie, it could be excellent. I also think that the very fact that Akira was animated adds to what the movie was, and that it doesn't need a live-action remake.
But this brings me to my second point.
2. I fear that the entire thing will be loaded with no-talent big name pop-actors, that the script will be a hackneyed, cobbled-together pandering to teens and 20-somethings. I fear that the franchise name will be dragged through the dirt, turning off people to what is actually a very good example of a movie adaptation to (part of) a written (and drawn) work. I fear that crucial parts of the story will be so radically changed, and for the worse, that it will be as much Akira as the Dragonball live action movie was Dragonball. Which is to say, not remotely. From what I've seen and read, this is exactly where it seems to be going.
Instead of homage and influence, all they seem to really be thinking about is how they can cash in on a franchise name and then leave it broken, beaten, and raped by the dusty side of the road, as opposed to creating something truly great.
All of your arguments on either side of this debate nonwithstanding, I make a simple series of assertions:
1. The casting choices are in line with a crass cash-grab based on name recognition (of both property and actors).
2. The setting choice is in line with a mistrust of a "foreign" setting's appeal to the target demographic implied by the casting choices.
3. Movies exhibiting these characteristics are almost universally awful.
I thereby conclude that, based on the above, this movie will in all likelihood be, at best, on par with the recent Transformers movies. That is to say, awful and unwatchable messes of bad acting interspersed with frenetic CG action scenes.
It is eminently possible to make a spiritually faithful and perfectly compelling version of Akira, set in New York, with an all-american cast. It is also, however, entirely unreasonable to believe, based on the information we have to date, that this particular effort will be anything but a disaster.
Who is making a joke? Because I certainly wasn't. I was remarking that there is a very similar situation happening right now to a far more important work of art that is going to have it's name destroyed to people who haven't read it yet.
Basically I agree with what Rym said, although we can't really expect creators of adaptations to "disavow" the work, as they often try to use the popularity of the original to bring an audience to their new creation. This is the only reason I ever make an argument for bad adaptations "tarnishing" the name of a creative work. When marketing people make a conscious effort to get people to confuse/link the two works in their brains, I would argue that they are doing a small amount of damage to the reputation of the original.
Akira Immunization Drive.
Simply, in order for an unfaithful and bad adaptation of a movie to not taint the perception of the consumer, the consumer must have already experienced the good property. Thus, bring everyone and anyone you know to watch the original film as soon as possible.
Not so if they made it a period piece. Setting it in the south right after the civil war. Or set in California after WW2 and re use the Japanese internment camps.