AKIRA LIVE ACTION MOVIE = Life Support?

[Penguin]

We already got a good movie out of it. It came out in 1988.

They made "HB Pencil: The Motion Picture" in 1988?

[electric indigo]

No Oldman For AKIRA, WB Offering The Colonel To Ken Watanabe.

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/11/breaking-no-oldman-for-akira-wb-offering-the-colonel-to-ken-watanabe.php

That is actually a good idea.

Now they only need to shift location to Neo-Tokyo.

[Vic Mancini]

They made "HB Pencil: The Motion Picture" in 1988?

I'm just saying, why do we need live action remakes of movies that are already good/perfect? Is anime inferior to live action in some way? Does it need to be fixed with a live action version? I think Akira is pretty good the way it is.

[anime52k8]

I'm just saying, why do we need live action remakes of movies that are already good/perfect? Is anime inferior to live action in some way? Does it need to be fixed with a live action version? I think Akira is pretty good the way it is.

Cartoons are only for children and people with the mental development of children.

[eugimon]

I'm just saying, why do we need live action remakes of movies that are already good/perfect? Is anime inferior to live action in some way? Does it need to be fixed with a live action version? I think Akira is pretty good the way it is.

who do stories need to be turned into plays or books? Why do books need to be made into movies? Why do picnics at the park need to be turned into photographs or paintings?

[Penguin]

I'm just saying, why do we need live action remakes of movies that are already good/perfect? Is anime inferior to live action in some way? Does it need to be fixed with a live action version? I think Akira is pretty good the way it is.

As do I. I've loved Akira since I saw it on the big screen in its original North American tour back in the 80's.

So here's my unnecessarily long-winded version of Eugimon's more succinct response.

Here's a bit of history. There was once a great, sweeping manga epic being written. Rich and full set of characters, an intricate plot with interational ramifications, and absolutely fantastic artwork. Then, someone decided it should be anime... but they were going to do it before the manga story was even done. They jettisoned many vibrant and influential characters in whittling a sweeping epic down to 2 hours of animation, and slashed dozens of plot lines and character developments in the process. They even took one of the central characters and reduced him to random frozen body parts until a few seconds at the very end. Who in their right minds thought this was a good idea??

It's not perfect, but I think the Akira anime is fantastic as it is. For that matter, the manga is pretty awesome too. The anime being such a slashed and cut version of manga doesn't detract from my enjoyment of either. Neither will a live action version even more mangled to a different culture and continent. No one's saying we need a live action version to improve on the anime (at least, no one I know).

As we all know, Hollywood is run by risk-averse, profit-oriented production companies. They chose Akira as a sci-fi property suited to the explode-a-rama format that brings in millions as a "tentpole" summer movie, and as a well-known "brand" to further boost attendance. It's has nothing to do with the quality or nature of the original work, improving on it, making it their own, saying something profound, reflecting on post-war Japan through the eyes of the West, etc., etc. Making a live action American Akira is purely a strategic move designed to make money. The director and/or screenwriter might try to inject something of substance (we can hope), but the producers are just hedging their risk/reward bets.

Why do we "need" it? We don't. We never do. Why did we need an anime Akira in the first place? The manga is beautiful and awesome. Surely, the animated Akira was made at least (if not mostly) in part because the popularity of the manga would boost attendance at the film and help build box office receipts, just as WB is hoping with their version. So, if you're going to swing that "why not leave well enough alone" paintbrush around, be sure and give the Akira anime a couple of double-thick coats as well.

So, I'm happy profit-minded producers were moved to animate Akira, 'cause I loved the end product. If Warners does the same, and gives us a great movie, then I don't care wheher they adapted the much-loved Akira or whatever. Good movies are hard enough to find these days. At least from one perspective, they're starting with fertile ground on this one, unlike some "branded" properties. (Monopoly the Movie? Really? Mr Scott, you have your work cut out for you.)

Edited November 25, 2011 by Penguin

[Vic Mancini]

who do stories need to be turned into plays or books? Why do books need to be made into movies? Why do picnics at the park need to be turned into photographs or paintings?

That's not really the same thing. You're talking about plays to books. Books to movies. etc.

I'm talking about books to books. Movies to movies. etc.

[eugimon]

That's not really the same thing. You're talking about plays to books. Books to movies. etc.

I'm talking about books to books. Movies to movies. etc.

I don't see how it's different. Different film makers have been taking stories, from whatever format and retelling them from the beginning of cinema.

Many of the most loved, classic, cult movies are remakes and many are remakes of other movies.. like John Carpetner's The Thing. Or The Departed, Insomnia, True Lies, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, Scarface... All remakes of previous movies.

So... okay, if you're going to say you don't like any of those movies... then <shrug> to each their own.

[Vic Mancini]

I don't see how it's different. Different film makers have been taking stories, from whatever format and retelling them from the beginning of cinema.

Many of the most loved, classic, cult movies are remakes and many are remakes of other movies.. like John Carpetner's The Thing. Or The Departed, Insomnia, True Lies, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, Scarface... All remakes of previous movies.

So... okay, if you're going to say you don't like any of those movies... then <shrug> to each their own.

You don't see how it's different? Or you don't see how it matters? Because the difference is pretty huge.

Imagine a world where new book releases were dominated by 30 or 40 mega franchises that were just recycled every 10 years or so by whatever author happens to be in vogue at the time.

Lord of the Rings written by Tolken in 1954.

Lord of the Rings re-imagined by Ian Flemming in 1965.

Lord of the Rings re-booted by Kurt Vonnegut in 1973. (Maybe instead of writing Breakfast of Champions?)

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Stephen King in 1988.

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Tom Clancy in 1997.

Lord of the Rings: MILLENIUM! by John Grisham, co-written by Michael Chrichton in 2005.

Because this is pretty much the literature equivalent of what we've got going on in movies these days.

[eugimon]

You don't see how it's different? Or you don't see how it matters? Because the difference is pretty huge.

Imagine a world where new book releases were dominated by 30 or 40 mega franchises that were just recycled every 10 years or so by whatever author happens to be in vogue at the time.

Lord of the Rings written by Tolken in 1954.

Lord of the Rings re-imagined by Ian Flemming in 1965.

Lord of the Rings re-booted by Kurt Vonnegut in 1973. (Maybe instead of writing Breakfast of Champions?)

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Stephen King in 1988.

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Tom Clancy in 1997.

Lord of the Rings: MILLENIUM! by John Grisham, co-written by Michael Chrichton in 2005.

Because this is pretty much the literature equivalent of what we've got going on in movies these days.

lol, okay. Completely ignore everything I wrote including the dozen examples of movies that are themselves remakes of other movies.. you win, the Akira remake is the only movie, ever, to be based off of a previous movie and that previous movie was completely unique and not based at all on a manga series that had the same name and a similar story.

[Vic Mancini]

lol, okay. Completely ignore everything I wrote including the dozen examples of movies that are themselves remakes of other movies.. you win, the Akira remake is the only movie, ever, to be based off of a previous movie and that previous movie was completely unique and not based at all on a manga series that had the same name and a similar story.

Congratulations on your dozen examples. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not acknowledging them.

[sketchley]

As we all know, Hollywood is run by risk-averse, proft-oriented production companies. They chose Akira as a sci-fi property suited to the explode-a-rama format that brings in millions as a "tentpole" summer movie, and as a well-known "brand" to further boost attendance. It's has nothing to do with the quality or nature of the original work, improving on it, making it their own, saying something profound, reflecting on post-war Japan through the eyes of the West, etc., etc. Making a live action American Akira is purely a strategic move designed to make money. The director and/or screenwriter might try to inject something of substance (we can hope), but the producers are just hedging their risk/reward bets.

:clap:

This is exactly what I was going to say in response.

The problem with the 'remake' of "Akira" is not that it's a remake of "Akira", but the dearth of originality in Hollywood. As someone said somewhere else, it's a cycle that Hollywood goes through every couple of decades. How long will this one last? As long as the 3D boon does...

[Penguin]

You don't see how it's different? Or you don't see how it matters? Because the difference is pretty huge.

Imagine a world where new book releases were dominated by 30 or 40 mega franchises that were just recycled every 10 years or so by whatever author happens to be in vogue at the time.

Lord of the Rings written by Tolken in 1954.

Lord of the Rings re-imagined by Ian Flemming in 1965.

Lord of the Rings re-booted by Kurt Vonnegut in 1973. (Maybe instead of writing Breakfast of Champions?)

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Stephen King in 1988.

Lord of the Rings re-re-booted by Tom Clancy in 1997.

Lord of the Rings: MILLENIUM! by John Grisham, co-written by Michael Chrichton in 2005.

Because this is pretty much the literature equivalent of what we've got going on in movies these days.

Yes, were that to happen, it would be pretty awful. However, I have to disagree that this is even close to what's going on these days. The amount of effort spent bemoaning remakes approaches "mountain out of a molehill" compared to how many movies are actually released. Take the more than 250 American films released this year. About 10 are remakes. That's 4%. Of the 40 or so #1 films this year, only 1 was a remake (True Grit). So, we are pretty far from having the film industry dominated by remakes. For that matter, the last two remakes of the summer, Conan and Fright Night, performed so abyssmally that they had movie execs saying "maybe we made too many remakes this year".

Edited November 25, 2011 by Penguin

[electric indigo]

I had no problems with remakes at all (or a live-action Akira) if these weren't, for the majority, dumbed-down, streamlined star vehicles that exploit the success of original creations that had to go the hard way and achieved their popularity on their own merit.

[Reïvaj]

I had no problems with remakes at all (or a live-action Akira) if these weren't, for the majority, dumbed-down, streamlined star vehicles that exploit the success of original creations that had to go the hard way and achieved their popularity on their own merit.

I have to agree with that.

[Archer]

I honestly don't care if people make Live Action versions, re-makes, etc. of something I love. More to the point, I actually appreciate the fact that they are trying to add something to a universe that I have come to love. And with that effect, I don't act like some elitist, and instead, I usually go watch/read/etc. the new version.

If I like it, then good for me as my appreciation of said universe has expanded. I don't like it, and opt for the original? Well then, I guess i'm fresh out of 9 bucks for the movie ticket, but nothing beyond that. I just decide to go back and watch the original. I'm not gonna give the remake false superiority juts because its a newer, more mainstream version, but at the same time, I won't flame it and deny its very existance. I'm not going to bash on people who like it, or act superior to them because I appreciate the original more. I actually welcome new fans to the franchise, regardless of where that entry point may be.

I see this new Akira movie as that very entrace for a whole slew of new fans, especially younger ones that may not be interested in anime or have seen akira before. The same goes for when I saw the live action transformers movies.

I don't want to criticize anyone or flame anyone, but I honestly think that the online community needs to begin to appreciate the work that goes into things like these, and not guard some elitist standpoint that anything new will defile the original, or bash anything new while complaining about the dying fanbase.

Just my $0.02

[EXO]

True Lies is a remake?

[anime52k8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Lies

apparently it is.

True Lies is an extended remake of the 1991 French film La Totale!,^[1] which was directed by Claude Zidi and starred Thierry Lhermitte and Miou-Miou.

Edited November 27, 2011 by anime52k8

[azrael]

SYNOPSIS REVEALED FOR THE AKIRA MOVIE? (SuperheroHype.com)

Kaneda is a bar owner in Neo-Manhattan who is stunned when his brother, Tetsuo, is abducted by government agents led by The Colonel.

Desperate to get his brother back, Kaneda agrees to join with Ky Reed and her underground movement who are intent on revealing to the world what truly happened to New York City thirty years ago when it was destroyed. Kaneda believes their theories to be ludicrous but after finding his brother again, is shocked when he displays telekinetic powers.

Ky believes Tetsuo is headed to release a young boy, Akira, who has taken control of Tetsuo’s mind. Kaneda clashes with The Colonel’s troops on his way to stop Tetsuo from releasing Akira but arrives too late. Akira soon emerges from his prison courtesy of Tetsuo as Kaneda races in to save his brother before Akira once again destroys Manhattan island, as he did thirty years ago.

Note: This looks like what they're shopping for potential cast and crew members with.

[Knight26]

Waaa, that is so so wrong

Someone contact UN Spacy and request permission to utilize reaction warheads.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Knight26

[PetarB]

This is really nuts. Part of the dynamic between Kaneda and Tetsuo is that he's like a younger brother - Kaneda CHOSE to be his big buddy. By making them siblings they are dumbing down this central idea.

I guess that's Hollywood these days. I know I will watch this remake, I will just feel bad for doing so, like when you watch a tragedy on the news, you know you shouldn't but you can't help yourself and you feel dirty afterwards.

[eugimon]

Congratulations on your dozen examples. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not acknowledging them.

Man, you can't give a straight answer, can you? Go ahead, keep living in your butt hurt, fanboy fantasy world.

BTW, all you people who are sooo up in arms over this, you guys do realize that a big part of the target demographic for this movie are people who weren't even born when the anime came out?

This bemoaning of, whatever it is you're bemoaning, is blown so out of proportion. The number of remakes to original properties doesn't hold out and you guys go on and on about all these other remakes, like True Lies, like The Thing, as if they were the greatest thing ever.. newsflash, those were someone else's favorite movies when *they* were growing up... so in order to preserve their fragile sense of childhood, should you have been denied your chance to experience the same story, told for your generation?

Get over it. Stories get retold, it's what keeps them alive and culturally relevant.

Edited November 30, 2011 by eugimon

[Einherjar]

SYNOPSIS REVEALED FOR THE AKIRA MOVIE? (SuperheroHype.com)

Note: This looks like what they're shopping for potential cast and crew members with.

I don't know why, but after reading that it made me think of a Cloverfield sequel. Or at least what I heard about the Cloverfield manga.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Einherjar

[Archer]

As long as there iz fast moving bike with teh laserz, I will be happy.

And Eugimon is right guys, this movie is most likely going to be marketed toward Kids/Teens who NEVER have had any contact with Akira at all.

Furthermore, in order to achieve a PG-13 rating, I think much of the seriousness and dark themes of Akira would have to be edited out...

[Keith]

lol, "Ky Reed."

[EXO]

Oh well, it's not the first time that a movie that'll cost more to make will look worse than a cartoon that cost less.

[BeyondTheGrave]

Man, you can't give a straight answer, can you? Go ahead, keep living in your butt hurt, fanboy fantasy world.

BTW, all you people who are sooo up in arms over this, you guys do realize that a big part of the target demographic for this movie are people who weren't even born when the anime came out?

This bemoaning of, whatever it is you're bemoaning, is blown so out of proportion. The number of remakes to original properties doesn't hold out and you guys go on and on about all these other remakes, like True Lies, like The Thing, as if they were the greatest thing ever.. newsflash, those were someone else's favorite movies when *they* were growing up... so in order to preserve their fragile sense of childhood, should you have been denied your chance to experience the same story, told for your generation?

Get over it. Stories get retold, it's what keeps them alive and culturally relevant.

I wish more fans would see it as a new jump on point.

Edited December 2, 2011 by BeyondTheGrave

[Penguin]

Oh well, it's not the first time that a movie that'll cost more to make will look worse than a cartoon that cost less.

Although, to be fair, Otomo's artwork is so awesome only animation could capture it.

[Einherjar]

As long as there iz fast moving bike with teh laserz, I will be happy.

That damn bike could probably be the only thing that isn't reinterpreted for this movie.

[Keith]

That damn bike could probably be the only thing that isn't reinterpreted for this movie.

And miss a prime opportunity for a motorcycle licensing tie-in?

[Archer]

The new "GM goes deep"

Let's just hope they opt for Ducati instead of Harley Davidson, although with the way things have worked out, it probably will be the latter

[mecha2241]

I'm a Harley owner and I'd be pissed if they use a Harley for Kaneda's bike.

[Marzan]

At the very least they could keep the bike being Japanese. I mean, it's not like they don't make fine motorcycles over there.

[505thAirborne]

When it comes to Kaneda's bike, whats the point if it doesn't look like this.

[Lobizon]

When it comes to Kaneda's bike, whats the point if it doesn't look like this.

http://www.macrosswo...ndpost&p=934912