>Bland visuals
Yes, this is what happens when animations gets turned into live action. When will people learn?
And yes, i am aware of the irony in using this reaction image.
I'm thinking it's nepo babies that get to the level of producer, so they're free to make whatever calls they want and make a few flops before they retire. Don't let them forget about it -- Cowboy Bebop for example.
I also thought the One Piece adaptation was shit, you watch some scenes and go "oh yeah, I remember those moments in the anime, it was awesome". Like anon said, there's no chance of it transcending the original
I'm thinking it's nepo babies that get to the level of producer, so they're free to make whatever calls they want and make a few flops before they retire. Don't let them forget about it -- Cowboy Bebop for example.
I also thought the One Piece adaptation was shit, you watch some scenes and go "oh yeah, I remember those moments in the anime, it was awesome". Like anon said, there's no chance of it transcending the original
Didn't RRR figure out how to transfer an anime aesthetic to live action while making it look pleasing last year? How do major studios keep failing when some random pajeets nailed it?
I know the answer is they keep trying to force realism while the RRR guys decided to just go crazy but humor me.
>How do major studios keep failing when some random pajeets nailed it?
Cartoons are for children, anon. Hollywood knows they can't put out cartoons and get the "game of thrones audience".
jfc this show was all over the place
the pacing, editing, everything felt rushed like the producers just wanted to get shit outta the way so they can focus on cgi fights
The creative climate is something like this: >Too many people are college educated and think they can do better than pop culture thing. >But none of them can write the Great American Novel or actual deep media. >All end up in pop culture products via nepotism, cronyism or something similar. >They either like but don't understand or hate and want to change the pop culture thing. >Constantly crave adding depth aka their moronic ideas over stories they view as simple. >They fundementally misunderstand what makes simple storytelling good and don't realise that their attempts at depth are not deep but actively ruin projects. >Perpetually online so they exist in the same social media bubbles. >They read a bunch of fandom shit for advice. >Fandoms who are perpetually online and constantly repeat the same criticisms. >Fandoms who routinely have the worst takes. >Their attempts at adapting thing ends up feeling like fanfic because they try and fix these complaints. >It is the equivalent of someone with no knowledge of plumbing thinking that plumbing is beneath them and taking advice on how to do plumbing from a down syndrome kid who makes pipes out of Lego. >While a real plumber knows how to do things rather simply.
>their attempts at depth are not deep but actively ruin projects.
Well, you can err on the other side as well, your film lacking substance. How would you add depth to an adaptation?
I think you partly missed the point so I will endeavour to explain. People view simple story telling as basic therefore bad. When communicable ideas and motivations often actually make for popular good storytelling. People think tropes are bad for similar reasons. Star Wars is very popular, for instance, we understand the motivations of all the characters involved. ATLA cartoon, we understand the motivations of all the characters involves. I think there is a certain type of snobbery where people look down on these popular stories and feel like they need to add more depth. But in doing so they often undo those stories. Why is a villain a villain? Sometimes you just need one. You can't waste a good chunk of your story on building up all the backstory of a villain. Sometimes you just need a bad guy. But hang on, someone will come along and say, there isn't enough depth! So when they do the new adaptation they will decide to make the bad guy super sympathetic and give him some motivation even if it derails key plot points. And the big irony is, even if the original story didn't develop the villain loads, they still might have had some development that the new motivation will ignore.
Look at Azula, we get she didn't get much love from her mother, she is a prodigy, she is a bit nuts and insecure. Great motivation, very communicable but still has potential depth. The new adaptation has none of that and in trying to make a well rounded character they just made a non character.
Nu-writers hate basic story telling and basic arcs and their attempts at things end up with subverting expectations or neteuring character arcs or growths because they can't understand why the "plebs" want a bad guy to be a bad guy.
I think you partly missed the point so I will endeavour to explain. People view simple story telling as basic therefore bad. When communicable ideas and motivations often actually make for popular good storytelling. People think tropes are bad for similar reasons. Star Wars is very popular, for instance, we understand the motivations of all the characters involved. ATLA cartoon, we understand the motivations of all the characters involves. I think there is a certain type of snobbery where people look down on these popular stories and feel like they need to add more depth. But in doing so they often undo those stories. Why is a villain a villain? Sometimes you just need one. You can't waste a good chunk of your story on building up all the backstory of a villain. Sometimes you just need a bad guy. But hang on, someone will come along and say, there isn't enough depth! So when they do the new adaptation they will decide to make the bad guy super sympathetic and give him some motivation even if it derails key plot points. And the big irony is, even if the original story didn't develop the villain loads, they still might have had some development that the new motivation will ignore.
Look at Azula, we get she didn't get much love from her mother, she is a prodigy, she is a bit nuts and insecure. Great motivation, very communicable but still has potential depth. The new adaptation has none of that and in trying to make a well rounded character they just made a non character.
Nu-writers hate basic story telling and basic arcs and their attempts at things end up with subverting expectations or neteuring character arcs or growths because they can't understand why the "plebs" want a bad guy to be a bad guy.
If I could add to this, you'll notice a running trend is they never want to add on to what's already there when adding "depth".
They always want to remove or rewrite a character to the point it may as well fundamentally be a different character. Video game adaptations especially did this a good bit. The guy who wrote the Street Fighter movie was mad at the idea he would have to write Ryu as Ryu rather than making him the comic relief.
Pretty much. But I would say it isn't enough to say "talentless hacks". I honestly think these creators are inhuman. They are the sort of people to parrot around some psycho babble thinking they understand people whilst also not understanding anything about actual humanity.
This kept running through my head while I was watching the Animaniacs 2020 reboot. It seemed really obvious that the writers had never actually watched Yakko, Wakko, and Dot or Pinky and the Brain, but had seen people on Reddit and twitter who had also never watched the shows but had browsed the Wikipedia articles once complain about what they thought those characters were probably like. And after five times removed from those characters they were writing a reboot complaining about those characters, making them “better, and adding their own “superior” OCs. It was like having an out-of-body experience.
I don’t think the people making these remakes and reboots are necessarily bad though. I just think that once things are 50 times removed from the original with an eye towards smugly “improving” everything, instead, you’ve lost the thread most if the time and it is time to make something new instead. There’s a good chance you and your online echo chambers don’t know what the frick you’re talking about despite upvoting each other 700K times because that’s what everyone does automatically to boost dopamine.
>you’ve lost the thread
They don't understand characters or why people like characters. And then they try and aim for what people are saying online. Everytime. >online echo chambers
GRRM once talked about the perils of writing for an online audience. If you made a detective series and made clues and read online and found that people had guessed who the killer was and then gone and changed who you originally intended it to be, that would be a unsatisfying story.
Subverting expectations and such twists massively arose in today's creative climate precisely because people are reacting to an online audience. The Legend of Korra is actually a huge example of this and did it before The Last Jedi did. >How are non-benders treated in society? Subvert expectations, Amon is actually an evil blood bender! >How do the spirits conflict with the modern world? Subvert expectations, Unalaq is now the Dark Avatar? >How do archaic regimes exist? Subvert expectations, Zaheer just ends up wanting to kill the Avatar, his ideas aren't really expanded. >How does fascism rise? Subvert expectations, Kuvira now has a mech!
Every single time the actual interesting idea or point got ignored. And the romance aspect of the show was massively driven by what online audiences wanted aka shipping etc.
The truth is creatives are driven by the putrid shit of the perpetually online. And that is detrimental to creativity.
Maybe come up with an argument rather than an insult. The show wanted to be more mature. Rather than explore the actual interesting themes on display like a mature show would it always reduced them into nothing.
Making Amon a blood bender wasn't interesting and it went no where just to make a thin connection to the old gang. It wasn't satisfying. Some of those premises were far more interesting than the twists or conclusions. Completely devaluing a premise in such a way is bad story telling.
Imagine giving an audience a hook to get interested in only to completely say it doesn't matter constantly. That is what that series did several times.
You're way overthinking it.
There are just two very simple problems:
1 - art schools cater to what students want to learn and not what the industry needs because the former is more profitable and these "schools" are just businesses. This leads to a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge in creative fields
2 - production companies are excessively cheap with awful work conditions when it comes to writing and editorial (and animation) and will consistently hire fresh grads willing to eat shit on pay and hours and benefits for a work credit and the ability to pay their student loans
>art schools cater to what students want to learn and not what the industry needs because the former is more profitable and these "schools" are just businesses. This leads to a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge in creative fields
The Roger Rabbit director talked about this.
yeah it still is. you still have to seek out ateliers and life drawing classes beyond the few courses offered like this. contemporary art is the focus of probably most schools
Nothing I said was overthinking. And most of what you're saying makes up what I am saying. When I said there are too many college educated people, that is obviously because higher education has become a business. Of course production companies are cheap, writers used to be king and post the 08-09 strike they moved to showrunners/producer led models and got cheaper and cheaper writers. But the nepotism and cronyism and everything else I said came into play.
Nothing you said implies I'm overthinking it and I did imply what you said in my post.
[...]
[...] >they said they were gonna remove Sokka being sexist even though the whole point of it was to be a flaw he would overcome.
I think that's another thing, honestly. Today's writers struggle with the concept of "delay" and living with the bad shit instead of having it immediately dealt with in the same. Like, you can't have a character who has a flaw of being reckless and have it sit for a few episodes until you spotlight it, you have to deal with it right now or else remove it entirely to begin with. Especially with anything that's considered "the devil" in the zeitgeist like sexism.
The only time they can hold themselves back is with relationship drama, predictably enough, and it almost always meanders like the opposite end of the spectrum.
Thats because Hollywood writer ratio is 68% female. And what did women aged 25-45 years do in their angsty teenage years? They wrote shitty fanfiction in Deviantart and Fanfiction.Net and they never learned to become better writers in the process. Then they marry or frick their way to these important writing positions and write the same shit quality fanfiction they wrote back in their teenage years. >Buh what about the 32% men
They're mostly homosexuals or other mentally ill rainbow hairs who would never risk their careers and challenge the CEO's wife who fricked her way to the writers position.
That's because animation is seen as inherently childish compared to live-action. Doesn't help that that trying too hard to be "adult" gets you garbage like Sausage Party.
A simple google search would tell you the truth. Are you pretending to be moronic? Netflix started basically as a blockbuster video competitor offering mail order as their service.
The creative climate is something like this: >Too many people are college educated and think they can do better than pop culture thing. >But none of them can write the Great American Novel or actual deep media. >All end up in pop culture products via nepotism, cronyism or something similar. >They either like but don't understand or hate and want to change the pop culture thing. >Constantly crave adding depth aka their moronic ideas over stories they view as simple. >They fundementally misunderstand what makes simple storytelling good and don't realise that their attempts at depth are not deep but actively ruin projects. >Perpetually online so they exist in the same social media bubbles. >They read a bunch of fandom shit for advice. >Fandoms who are perpetually online and constantly repeat the same criticisms. >Fandoms who routinely have the worst takes. >Their attempts at adapting thing ends up feeling like fanfic because they try and fix these complaints. >It is the equivalent of someone with no knowledge of plumbing thinking that plumbing is beneath them and taking advice on how to do plumbing from a down syndrome kid who makes pipes out of Lego. >While a real plumber knows how to do things rather simply.
It's shocking how they actually removed CHARACTER DEPTH and MOTIVATION from these characters.
>they said they were gonna remove Sokka being sexist even though the whole point of it was to be a flaw he would overcome.
I think that's another thing, honestly. Today's writers struggle with the concept of "delay" and living with the bad shit instead of having it immediately dealt with in the same. Like, you can't have a character who has a flaw of being reckless and have it sit for a few episodes until you spotlight it, you have to deal with it right now or else remove it entirely to begin with. Especially with anything that's considered "the devil" in the zeitgeist like sexism.
The only time they can hold themselves back is with relationship drama, predictably enough, and it almost always meanders like the opposite end of the spectrum.
>. Like, you can't have a character who has a flaw of being reckless and have it sit for a few episodes until you spotlight it, you have to deal with it right now or else remove it entirely to begin with
The problem is intent vs impact
A student at Seattle University went to their dean and said "there isn't enough African American texts". The dean gave the student a bunch of books, including a book called Black person: An Autobiography by Dick Gregory. The book is by an African American comedian and activist talking about his life. The student complained about the book title and the dean resigned. The intent of the dean was to give the student a great book with a provocative title talking about African Americans by an African American. But no one cared about the intent. The impact was, I saw the word Black person and that is bad so the dean is bad.
So: >Intent: Sokka is sexist, we use this to talk about how we think sexism is bad and we have him grow as a character. >Impact: Sokka is sexist, his sexism makes me feel bad, I don't like it.
In the past intent mattered, now people think impact matters more. Your context doesn't matter if you say something wrong.
Sorry, "you" as in the online audience that complained about "problematic" shit. They get the changes that they want, and then toss it away like it never existed because they never cared.
It's actually on the book's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black person:_An_Autobiography_by_Dick_Gregory >In 2016, the Dean of Matteo Ricci College at Seattle University was forced to resign after students protested her recommending the book to an African-American student.[10] While the controversy was ongoing, Dick Gregory published an article supporting her against the protesters. (Citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20200605213258/https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/26/dick-gregory-writes-student-protesters-about-which-battles-matter-most-essay )
The ironic thing is back in the day a right wing activist went to a school board and got that book and others banned from school reading lists as being inappropriate as they claimed it promoted a bunch of horrible things like violence and terrorism. Then that modern incident happened when a left wing student and other left wingers protested the dean. And the dean even did talk to the student and place it in context apparently.
Some people truly believe now that if you have a racist character in a book to show racism is bad then you the author must be racist.
>Students bully director into resigning due to recommending a book with an "ugly" word as the title
This is a completely new level of infuriating I'm feeling...
The ironic thing is back in the day a right wing activist went to a school board and got that book and others banned from school reading lists as being inappropriate as they claimed it promoted a bunch of horrible things like violence and terrorism. Then that modern incident happened when a left wing student and other left wingers protested the dean. And the dean even did talk to the student and place it in context apparently.
Some people truly believe now that if you have a racist character in a book to show racism is bad then you the author must be racist.
Watching confused ex-hippies get called Nazis and booted off their ivy league communes for supporting free speech is hilarious.
The ironic thing is back in the day a right wing activist went to a school board and got that book and others banned from school reading lists as being inappropriate as they claimed it promoted a bunch of horrible things like violence and terrorism. Then that modern incident happened when a left wing student and other left wingers protested the dean. And the dean even did talk to the student and place it in context apparently.
Some people truly believe now that if you have a racist character in a book to show racism is bad then you the author must be racist.
Left wingers think they are rebelling by… becoming conservatives after they “won”
It's actually on the book's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black person:_An_Autobiography_by_Dick_Gregory >In 2016, the Dean of Matteo Ricci College at Seattle University was forced to resign after students protested her recommending the book to an African-American student.[10] While the controversy was ongoing, Dick Gregory published an article supporting her against the protesters. (Citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20200605213258/https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/26/dick-gregory-writes-student-protesters-about-which-battles-matter-most-essay )
>Let blacks into college >It doesn't make them smarter, it just gives them another venue to act ignorant in public
Thank God almighty, we are free at last
Hahaha holy shit
Are you homosexual kids really trying to rebrand the name of the event where the rich white c**ts that owned telecomms carved up the US into non-competing territories?
3 months ago
Anonymous
I just meant cities getting burned down by St. Floyd rioters, but now you have my attention. Quick run-down?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well while that didn't actually happen, this did.
In a nutshell in '97 all the big telecomm companies with the ability to provide commercial internet got together and made extremely illegal handshake deals to not compete in each others' territory and further to never allow anyone access to the infrastructure they'd built with public funds.
Without competition they could all charge whatever the frick they want for service that's as garbage as they please.
This is also known as price fixing and if we lived in a country that enforced its antitrust laws in any capacity those companies would be broken up (again...AT&T is literally just bell telephone company after it got forcibly split up then bought back all its pieces)
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Well while that didn't actually happen
right, they were fiery enough to arson Minneapolis so badly that rebuilding efforts will take 10 years at very shortest and cost over 500 million dollars in total, but they were mostly peaceful. It's whytey's fault too.
It was like couple of episodes and only existed as a dumb cartoon for kids moral about boys having to learn not to be dicks to girls. Cutting it out loses nothing important when you actually could spend establishing and developing Sokka’s character more through normal interactions in the limited time the season has.
You know it's over because people are barely talking about it. OP LA was dominating Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile for weeks. There's just general apathy here.
They were offbase when they got rid of Bryke because nobody wants a 5/10
If Bryke has stayed on and tried to fix every problem they ever had with the original (read: all the stuff the other writers introduced) the shitshow would have been legendary
If they'd not touched it and done something adapting Kyoshi or something like that that was transformative people would be talking about it
Instead it's a bland, slightly worse version of a story that has been adapted before in live action to way worse and more memorable effect
I bet when season 2 happens you start to hear more about how they've either turned it around and/or made it super-duper woke simply because we'll be in new territory
as soon as we see gyatso not surrounded by fire nation corpses, even the DUMBEST goyslop enjoyer who watched the original series should know they fricked this up
Watching it now. Aang's tattoo sometimes ends above his eyebrows and sometimes between them and sometimes it's solid blue and sometimes turquoise with detail. It's a small thing but c'mon.
Okay, I don't want to give Netflix views, but I heard they literally reversed Azula and Zuko's dynamic so now Azula is jealous of Zuko getting praise by Ozai. Is that true or am I getting memed?
>Extremely poor writing
This is such engagement bait garbage, trying to cater to the hate crowd who are probably still b***hing and complaining about Game of Thrones season 8 and Last of Us 2.
Avatar was always an overrate cartoon series with an even more forgettable comic and terrible movie adaption. Not sure why people had expectations from a Netflix adaption.
Nothing. It was every bit as bland as Avatar but since the creator was heavily involved in it they made up their mind that it was good before watching a single episode.
Watching episode 1 now. I actually like the actor playing Gyatso and his delivery of his lines.
Actual spoilers: His fight/death is really anti-climactic though. Much worse than the implication of the death scene in the original.
The fire benders are ruthless though.
The air nomads all meeting at a single place is one hell of an ass pull.
The bending looks good though much more powerful than the original with fire benders knocking down stone towers with fire bending alone.
The CG animals are just okay.
Aang's tattoo moves just a little bit up and down or slightly off center between scenes.
The Avatar state while Aang is in the iceberg sounds like Nirnroot from the elder scrolls.
Zuko has avatar statues and the eyes glow when Aang is nearby!
They set up Sozin's comet to show up again "soon" as the comet festival was "100 years ago" twice now. by the time we get to the southern water tribe. The creators saying they weren't going to introduce it, but now they've talked about how frequently it shows up twice. I guess they could get away with saying Aang woke up 95-97 years after the event or whatever, but still.
The fire nation has hex bolts. Slightly interesting technological development. I can't recall if I ever noticed them in the cartoon. I would guess they had rivets at best.
End of the episode jump cuts to the southern air temple. Found in the state the fire benders left it in 100 years ago, but now a bit overgrown. rope bridge survived though. Gyatso's skeleton left where he fell.
Overall the sets are acceptable, the visuals are good to just okay in spots, the writing for episode 1 is fine I don't like to judge writing too hard for E1, the changes to the story aren't too bad if a bit rushed. Overall E1 7.5/10. I'll check out more episodes tomorrow.
The first episode is indeed absolute trash with too much exposition, but everything else has been good enough so far.
I think people are just hating this out of protest against live action than anything else.
Im only 3 episodes in so far but I feel like the second episode was worse than episode 1. The characters were just sitting around not doing much and all I could think about was how much more fun the original "kid version" of the episode was.
I watched the Percy Jackson show before this one which is waaaay worse, so this felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Still not good though. Both show's seem to have an issues with expositing way too much and not letting the characters be themselves.
Why bother making these live action shows when Netflix found success with low budgeted dramas or horror shows? Why spend millions of dollars making poor looking shows like this, when there is a bigger risk of failure? Is One Piece like the only successful one of out ten now?
if they wanted success, they shouldve followed the show 1:1, fricking morons. at most retcon whatever stuff the cartoon goofed up during its run, if anything
I thought the lightningbending effects were fine.
>Bland visuals
Yes, this is what happens when animations gets turned into live action. When will people learn?
And yes, i am aware of the irony in using this reaction image.
I'm thinking it's nepo babies that get to the level of producer, so they're free to make whatever calls they want and make a few flops before they retire. Don't let them forget about it -- Cowboy Bebop for example.
I also thought the One Piece adaptation was shit, you watch some scenes and go "oh yeah, I remember those moments in the anime, it was awesome". Like anon said, there's no chance of it transcending the original
any and all live action remakes are shit for this reason
hence why i will never give them a chance
I'm so glad to learn I'm not alone on this one.
Cowboy Bebop AND Death Note by Netlfix
Jesus fricking christ what a mistake
>bland visuals
I keep reading this but the original cartoon didn't look good either. It was just pseudo-anime.
nah it did you are just blind and pseudo anime is much better looking than 90% of western animation
You are not smart, you're a homosexual with bad tastes. What's your girlfriend look like?
yeah, I kinda wish it looked more western. but its a product of the times
You are fricking moronic.
Didn't RRR figure out how to transfer an anime aesthetic to live action while making it look pleasing last year? How do major studios keep failing when some random pajeets nailed it?
I know the answer is they keep trying to force realism while the RRR guys decided to just go crazy but humor me.
>How do major studios keep failing when some random pajeets nailed it?
Cartoons are for children, anon. Hollywood knows they can't put out cartoons and get the "game of thrones audience".
i refused to give it a chance because its live action
jfc this show was all over the place
the pacing, editing, everything felt rushed like the producers just wanted to get shit outta the way so they can focus on cgi fights
The creative climate is something like this:
>Too many people are college educated and think they can do better than pop culture thing.
>But none of them can write the Great American Novel or actual deep media.
>All end up in pop culture products via nepotism, cronyism or something similar.
>They either like but don't understand or hate and want to change the pop culture thing.
>Constantly crave adding depth aka their moronic ideas over stories they view as simple.
>They fundementally misunderstand what makes simple storytelling good and don't realise that their attempts at depth are not deep but actively ruin projects.
>Perpetually online so they exist in the same social media bubbles.
>They read a bunch of fandom shit for advice.
>Fandoms who are perpetually online and constantly repeat the same criticisms.
>Fandoms who routinely have the worst takes.
>Their attempts at adapting thing ends up feeling like fanfic because they try and fix these complaints.
>It is the equivalent of someone with no knowledge of plumbing thinking that plumbing is beneath them and taking advice on how to do plumbing from a down syndrome kid who makes pipes out of Lego.
>While a real plumber knows how to do things rather simply.
Anon is a plumber
Do you wear tie?
This is why I'm ecstatic that AI is going to take over and fully automate entertainment.
Ah, because that will make everything better.
You’d just get regurgitated slop, genius.
>You’d just get regurgitated slop
so, nothing changes?
No, the slop will come out faster
No, I want to see how much lower it can get.
Few people realize how unfathomably based this is.
AI written movies and shows will be even worse.
Maybe on Planet moron, Rakesh
It's shocking how they actually removed CHARACTER DEPTH and MOTIVATION from these characters.
>their attempts at depth are not deep but actively ruin projects.
Well, you can err on the other side as well, your film lacking substance. How would you add depth to an adaptation?
I think you partly missed the point so I will endeavour to explain. People view simple story telling as basic therefore bad. When communicable ideas and motivations often actually make for popular good storytelling. People think tropes are bad for similar reasons. Star Wars is very popular, for instance, we understand the motivations of all the characters involved. ATLA cartoon, we understand the motivations of all the characters involves. I think there is a certain type of snobbery where people look down on these popular stories and feel like they need to add more depth. But in doing so they often undo those stories. Why is a villain a villain? Sometimes you just need one. You can't waste a good chunk of your story on building up all the backstory of a villain. Sometimes you just need a bad guy. But hang on, someone will come along and say, there isn't enough depth! So when they do the new adaptation they will decide to make the bad guy super sympathetic and give him some motivation even if it derails key plot points. And the big irony is, even if the original story didn't develop the villain loads, they still might have had some development that the new motivation will ignore.
Look at Azula, we get she didn't get much love from her mother, she is a prodigy, she is a bit nuts and insecure. Great motivation, very communicable but still has potential depth. The new adaptation has none of that and in trying to make a well rounded character they just made a non character.
Nu-writers hate basic story telling and basic arcs and their attempts at things end up with subverting expectations or neteuring character arcs or growths because they can't understand why the "plebs" want a bad guy to be a bad guy.
If I could add to this, you'll notice a running trend is they never want to add on to what's already there when adding "depth".
They always want to remove or rewrite a character to the point it may as well fundamentally be a different character. Video game adaptations especially did this a good bit. The guy who wrote the Street Fighter movie was mad at the idea he would have to write Ryu as Ryu rather than making him the comic relief.
>TL;DR
Talentless hacks gets put on an already established name and proceed to frick it all up tarnish the brand.
Pretty much. But I would say it isn't enough to say "talentless hacks". I honestly think these creators are inhuman. They are the sort of people to parrot around some psycho babble thinking they understand people whilst also not understanding anything about actual humanity.
This kept running through my head while I was watching the Animaniacs 2020 reboot. It seemed really obvious that the writers had never actually watched Yakko, Wakko, and Dot or Pinky and the Brain, but had seen people on Reddit and twitter who had also never watched the shows but had browsed the Wikipedia articles once complain about what they thought those characters were probably like. And after five times removed from those characters they were writing a reboot complaining about those characters, making them “better, and adding their own “superior” OCs. It was like having an out-of-body experience.
I don’t think the people making these remakes and reboots are necessarily bad though. I just think that once things are 50 times removed from the original with an eye towards smugly “improving” everything, instead, you’ve lost the thread most if the time and it is time to make something new instead. There’s a good chance you and your online echo chambers don’t know what the frick you’re talking about despite upvoting each other 700K times because that’s what everyone does automatically to boost dopamine.
>you’ve lost the thread
They don't understand characters or why people like characters. And then they try and aim for what people are saying online. Everytime.
>online echo chambers
GRRM once talked about the perils of writing for an online audience. If you made a detective series and made clues and read online and found that people had guessed who the killer was and then gone and changed who you originally intended it to be, that would be a unsatisfying story.
Subverting expectations and such twists massively arose in today's creative climate precisely because people are reacting to an online audience. The Legend of Korra is actually a huge example of this and did it before The Last Jedi did.
>How are non-benders treated in society? Subvert expectations, Amon is actually an evil blood bender!
>How do the spirits conflict with the modern world? Subvert expectations, Unalaq is now the Dark Avatar?
>How do archaic regimes exist? Subvert expectations, Zaheer just ends up wanting to kill the Avatar, his ideas aren't really expanded.
>How does fascism rise? Subvert expectations, Kuvira now has a mech!
Every single time the actual interesting idea or point got ignored. And the romance aspect of the show was massively driven by what online audiences wanted aka shipping etc.
The truth is creatives are driven by the putrid shit of the perpetually online. And that is detrimental to creativity.
>Story has a premise? SUBVERT EXPECTATIONS. Events happen in the story!
You're such a fricking idiot.
Maybe come up with an argument rather than an insult. The show wanted to be more mature. Rather than explore the actual interesting themes on display like a mature show would it always reduced them into nothing.
Making Amon a blood bender wasn't interesting and it went no where just to make a thin connection to the old gang. It wasn't satisfying. Some of those premises were far more interesting than the twists or conclusions. Completely devaluing a premise in such a way is bad story telling.
Imagine giving an audience a hook to get interested in only to completely say it doesn't matter constantly. That is what that series did several times.
You're way overthinking it.
There are just two very simple problems:
1 - art schools cater to what students want to learn and not what the industry needs because the former is more profitable and these "schools" are just businesses. This leads to a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge in creative fields
2 - production companies are excessively cheap with awful work conditions when it comes to writing and editorial (and animation) and will consistently hire fresh grads willing to eat shit on pay and hours and benefits for a work credit and the ability to pay their student loans
>art schools cater to what students want to learn and not what the industry needs because the former is more profitable and these "schools" are just businesses. This leads to a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge in creative fields
The Roger Rabbit director talked about this.
that page is 30 years old, moron. it is no longer relevant to anything, even a little bit.
yeah it still is. you still have to seek out ateliers and life drawing classes beyond the few courses offered like this. contemporary art is the focus of probably most schools
23 years old, actually. Book was published in 2001, and god knows how shit changed in only 10.
Nothing I said was overthinking. And most of what you're saying makes up what I am saying. When I said there are too many college educated people, that is obviously because higher education has become a business. Of course production companies are cheap, writers used to be king and post the 08-09 strike they moved to showrunners/producer led models and got cheaper and cheaper writers. But the nepotism and cronyism and everything else I said came into play.
Nothing you said implies I'm overthinking it and I did imply what you said in my post.
Thats because Hollywood writer ratio is 68% female. And what did women aged 25-45 years do in their angsty teenage years? They wrote shitty fanfiction in Deviantart and Fanfiction.Net and they never learned to become better writers in the process. Then they marry or frick their way to these important writing positions and write the same shit quality fanfiction they wrote back in their teenage years.
>Buh what about the 32% men
They're mostly homosexuals or other mentally ill rainbow hairs who would never risk their careers and challenge the CEO's wife who fricked her way to the writers position.
Hollywood writers always think they can do better than cartoon guys
That's because animation is seen as inherently childish compared to live-action. Doesn't help that that trying too hard to be "adult" gets you garbage like Sausage Party.
They literally have the live action Speed Racer as a good example of how to adapt an anime
where did the one piece live action succeed and avatar failed at?
Sir this isn't animated. Take this shit to >>>Cinemaphile and frick outta here, homosexual
Adaptations of originally animated works have always been considered Cinemaphile, newbie.
It gives me very low quality MCU vibes.
Good news is, it won't get more, and this will be forgotten.
maybe they should stop turning cartoons into boring looking live movies
>We will never get live action Toph
And that's a good thing.
But I want to see her real life feet
good considering how the casting for all the fire nation girls has been
I miss the days when Netflix was just the company I exchanged red envelopes with
>red envelopes
It’s a streaming company moron
Zoomer-kun please, Netflix started off as a mail-based video rental company.
Since when? It's always been a streaming company.
A simple google search would tell you the truth. Are you pretending to be moronic? Netflix started basically as a blockbuster video competitor offering mail order as their service.
I was about to call you underage, but then I realized that they haven't done the DVD-by-Mail service in over 16 years now.
They only removed it recently. My family was getting them consistently from 2006-2020.
Were you born yesterday or just outside of America?
it wasn't that bad
it was actually
nah, its was pretty decent. most of you guys were going in ready to hate it after months of hate gaming
there was no way it could win
of course i am i hate it because its live action
It was over when they said they were gonna remove Sokka being sexist even though the whole point of it was to be a flaw he would overcome.
>they said they were gonna remove Sokka being sexist even though the whole point of it was to be a flaw he would overcome.
I think that's another thing, honestly. Today's writers struggle with the concept of "delay" and living with the bad shit instead of having it immediately dealt with in the same. Like, you can't have a character who has a flaw of being reckless and have it sit for a few episodes until you spotlight it, you have to deal with it right now or else remove it entirely to begin with. Especially with anything that's considered "the devil" in the zeitgeist like sexism.
The only time they can hold themselves back is with relationship drama, predictably enough, and it almost always meanders like the opposite end of the spectrum.
>. Like, you can't have a character who has a flaw of being reckless and have it sit for a few episodes until you spotlight it, you have to deal with it right now or else remove it entirely to begin with
The problem is intent vs impact
A student at Seattle University went to their dean and said "there isn't enough African American texts". The dean gave the student a bunch of books, including a book called Black person: An Autobiography by Dick Gregory. The book is by an African American comedian and activist talking about his life. The student complained about the book title and the dean resigned. The intent of the dean was to give the student a great book with a provocative title talking about African Americans by an African American. But no one cared about the intent. The impact was, I saw the word Black person and that is bad so the dean is bad.
So:
>Intent: Sokka is sexist, we use this to talk about how we think sexism is bad and we have him grow as a character.
>Impact: Sokka is sexist, his sexism makes me feel bad, I don't like it.
In the past intent mattered, now people think impact matters more. Your context doesn't matter if you say something wrong.
Yeah, and look what we have now. Was it worth it? They did EXACTLY what you want them to do and you hated it.
Wait what? I never said this is what I wanted? I was simply explaining it.
Sorry, "you" as in the online audience that complained about "problematic" shit. They get the changes that they want, and then toss it away like it never existed because they never cared.
Wonder what this makes the phrase, 'Trusy but verify?'
It's actually on the book's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black person:_An_Autobiography_by_Dick_Gregory
>In 2016, the Dean of Matteo Ricci College at Seattle University was forced to resign after students protested her recommending the book to an African-American student.[10] While the controversy was ongoing, Dick Gregory published an article supporting her against the protesters. (Citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20200605213258/https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/26/dick-gregory-writes-student-protesters-about-which-battles-matter-most-essay )
The ironic thing is back in the day a right wing activist went to a school board and got that book and others banned from school reading lists as being inappropriate as they claimed it promoted a bunch of horrible things like violence and terrorism. Then that modern incident happened when a left wing student and other left wingers protested the dean. And the dean even did talk to the student and place it in context apparently.
Some people truly believe now that if you have a racist character in a book to show racism is bad then you the author must be racist.
>Students bully director into resigning due to recommending a book with an "ugly" word as the title
This is a completely new level of infuriating I'm feeling...
Watching confused ex-hippies get called Nazis and booted off their ivy league communes for supporting free speech is hilarious.
Left wingers think they are rebelling by… becoming conservatives after they “won”
>Let blacks into college
>It doesn't make them smarter, it just gives them another venue to act ignorant in public
Thank God almighty, we are free at last
What do you mean "free"? If anything they've gotten even more ravenous, just look at the "Summer of Love" back in 2020.
Hahaha holy shit
Are you homosexual kids really trying to rebrand the name of the event where the rich white c**ts that owned telecomms carved up the US into non-competing territories?
I just meant cities getting burned down by St. Floyd rioters, but now you have my attention. Quick run-down?
Well while that didn't actually happen, this did.
In a nutshell in '97 all the big telecomm companies with the ability to provide commercial internet got together and made extremely illegal handshake deals to not compete in each others' territory and further to never allow anyone access to the infrastructure they'd built with public funds.
Without competition they could all charge whatever the frick they want for service that's as garbage as they please.
This is also known as price fixing and if we lived in a country that enforced its antitrust laws in any capacity those companies would be broken up (again...AT&T is literally just bell telephone company after it got forcibly split up then bought back all its pieces)
>Well while that didn't actually happen
right, they were fiery enough to arson Minneapolis so badly that rebuilding efforts will take 10 years at very shortest and cost over 500 million dollars in total, but they were mostly peaceful. It's whytey's fault too.
It was like couple of episodes and only existed as a dumb cartoon for kids moral about boys having to learn not to be dicks to girls. Cutting it out loses nothing important when you actually could spend establishing and developing Sokka’s character more through normal interactions in the limited time the season has.
>discussingfilm
Apologize.
No, Korra's still shit.
I saw two episodes and enjoy it so far. Kyoshi going ultra instinct was a cool seen even though it wasn't Roku.
thats because you got shit taste
I really enjoyed this.
thats because you got shit taste
It kept all the major plot beats and characterization beats of the original.
its still shitter since its live action
You know it's over because people are barely talking about it. OP LA was dominating Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile for weeks. There's just general apathy here.
They were offbase when they got rid of Bryke because nobody wants a 5/10
If Bryke has stayed on and tried to fix every problem they ever had with the original (read: all the stuff the other writers introduced) the shitshow would have been legendary
If they'd not touched it and done something adapting Kyoshi or something like that that was transformative people would be talking about it
Instead it's a bland, slightly worse version of a story that has been adapted before in live action to way worse and more memorable effect
I bet when season 2 happens you start to hear more about how they've either turned it around and/or made it super-duper woke simply because we'll be in new territory
as soon as we see gyatso not surrounded by fire nation corpses, even the DUMBEST goyslop enjoyer who watched the original series should know they fricked this up
>fails to capture spirit of original
>extremely poor writing and bland visuals
pick one and only one
the original had awesome writing and great visuals so no you are a homosexual
Watching it now. Aang's tattoo sometimes ends above his eyebrows and sometimes between them and sometimes it's solid blue and sometimes turquoise with detail. It's a small thing but c'mon.
Okay, I don't want to give Netflix views, but I heard they literally reversed Azula and Zuko's dynamic so now Azula is jealous of Zuko getting praise by Ozai. Is that true or am I getting memed?
>Extremely poor writing
This is such engagement bait garbage, trying to cater to the hate crowd who are probably still b***hing and complaining about Game of Thrones season 8 and Last of Us 2.
I really liked Season 8 too, don't cater to them
Avatar was always an overrate cartoon series with an even more forgettable comic and terrible movie adaption. Not sure why people had expectations from a Netflix adaption.
anyone who uses the term "overrated" in any capacity should be shot
I guess you should be shot then. I will however let it pass if you were to rape a certain clown for me.
how do you frick up the writing when you literally have the original as a reference?
What did the One Piece live action do right that this didn’t?
Involve the original creator instead of having him leave halfway through production.
it didn't do anything right either
Nothing. It was every bit as bland as Avatar but since the creator was heavily involved in it they made up their mind that it was good before watching a single episode.
It never even started. Everyone knew this was going to suck ass.
We thought we were watching Netflix's adaptation, but we've actually been watching The Fire Island Players the whole time
>we've actually been watching The Fire Island Players the whole time
I wish, at least there we would have been laughing at least
Watching episode 1 now. I actually like the actor playing Gyatso and his delivery of his lines.
Actual spoilers:
His fight/death is really anti-climactic though. Much worse than the implication of the death scene in the original.
The fire benders are ruthless though.
The air nomads all meeting at a single place is one hell of an ass pull.
The bending looks good though much more powerful than the original with fire benders knocking down stone towers with fire bending alone.
The CG animals are just okay.
Aang's tattoo moves just a little bit up and down or slightly off center between scenes.
The Avatar state while Aang is in the iceberg sounds like Nirnroot from the elder scrolls.
Zuko has avatar statues and the eyes glow when Aang is nearby!
They set up Sozin's comet to show up again "soon" as the comet festival was "100 years ago" twice now. by the time we get to the southern water tribe. The creators saying they weren't going to introduce it, but now they've talked about how frequently it shows up twice. I guess they could get away with saying Aang woke up 95-97 years after the event or whatever, but still.
The fire nation has hex bolts. Slightly interesting technological development. I can't recall if I ever noticed them in the cartoon. I would guess they had rivets at best.
End of the episode jump cuts to the southern air temple. Found in the state the fire benders left it in 100 years ago, but now a bit overgrown. rope bridge survived though. Gyatso's skeleton left where he fell.
Overall the sets are acceptable, the visuals are good to just okay in spots, the writing for episode 1 is fine I don't like to judge writing too hard for E1, the changes to the story aren't too bad if a bit rushed. Overall E1 7.5/10. I'll check out more episodes tomorrow.
imagine paying for twitter
good
It feels like Disney and Netlix are having a who can suck the most competition.
I really don't like how the show played sexual assault for laughs
What the frick is this scene?
>"Help, I'm being molested!"
>Leaves
>Suki looks like she just realized she is into rape
I'm laughing to hard, godammit.
Good. Enough with live-actions.
Were you expecting anything else when the series creators bailed mid-production? That's never a good sign.
I hope it keeps going until they give us another floating rock bending
The first episode is indeed absolute trash with too much exposition, but everything else has been good enough so far.
I think people are just hating this out of protest against live action than anything else.
Im only 3 episodes in so far but I feel like the second episode was worse than episode 1. The characters were just sitting around not doing much and all I could think about was how much more fun the original "kid version" of the episode was.
I watched the Percy Jackson show before this one which is waaaay worse, so this felt like a breath of fresh air to me. Still not good though. Both show's seem to have an issues with expositing way too much and not letting the characters be themselves.
If only we had some scenes where we saw the little bald boy running away from his problems by playing around. It’s too bad nobody thought of that
Yea, exactly. The show just feels kinda boring and stilted.
Why bother making these live action shows when Netflix found success with low budgeted dramas or horror shows? Why spend millions of dollars making poor looking shows like this, when there is a bigger risk of failure? Is One Piece like the only successful one of out ten now?
if they wanted success, they shouldve followed the show 1:1, fricking morons. at most retcon whatever stuff the cartoon goofed up during its run, if anything