I am sooooo damned tired of Hollywood thinking it’s such a fabulous idea to make a live action version of something animated or drawn. The unspoken and unquestioned assumption is that live action is superior, and that things are only animated because they couldn’t afford to do live action.
But that’s just plain WRONG. Animation is an art unto itself, as are comic books, and turning them into live action never works. It’s not possible to get the visuals right, and the style and structure of live-action film making is entirely different than that of animation. It’s just plain not going to work.
So why bother? Why not just produce more of the animated thing?
As for comic book movies, those should be animated as well. That way, they can get the visuals right, at least.
So to hell with all the “Live action” versions of things.
Hmmm, I would suggest that the difference between still drawings and animation is nearly comparable to the difference between still drawings and live action or between animation and live action.
Since you mentioned comic books specifically, in comic book art many of the stylistic choices are married to the chosen medium of still panel drawings. Animation is a completely different medium. The creator of the animated work may take great pains to stay true to the spirit of the drawn work, but execution and technique will be different. I wouldn’t really describe the separation between a drawn work and its live action adaptation any differently.
I think the lack of animated features has less to do with any assumption “that live action is superior, and that things are only animated because they couldn’t afford to do live action” and has more to do with the regretable idea that animation is for children (and geeks) and that live action is for adults (and people who will attend the screening with a date).
Animation is, in fact, quite expensive (when attention to detail is not slighted). If a live action Hulk movie (mostly animated anyway) is going to make considerably more money that an animated Hulk movie then the animated version isn’t going to be made.
The animated direct to DVD Batman and Superman features, though highly praised by fans, have pretty much only been seen by fans. Whereas the live action versions draw large audiences beyond the core comic book fan audience. How many of the people who went to see Iron Man had never previously heard of Iron Man- I haven’t done the research, but I’d bet there were a lot.
Well, OK, I probably missed the mark on the whole “animation is cheaper” thing. But my point remains that animation is treated as though it’s inherently inferior medium, and it’s such a great thing to turn something “live action”.
And I disagree about comic book to animated. Sure, there’s a lot of work to be done, especially in getting the model sheets exactly right, but that’s a far cry from haing to take something which has never existed in the real world and make a movie portraying it in the real world. It can’t possibly “look right”, because comic books are not limited to what can be executed in the real world. There’s the odd attempt at a super realistic comic, but for the most part, there’s at least some degree of stylization, and that’s impossible to get across on the movie screen unless you use animation.
You’re probably right about it being “all about the benjamins” though. What seems to be the trend now is to take something nerds like (because apparently, we’re the taste makers these days… ) and that regular folks have heard of and have a vague good impression of, but don’t really know about, and make a movie that the original nerds will not like, but will draw enough box office to make it an acceptable shlocky blockbuster for the masses, and thus make $$$.
What really scalds my scallops is how all the directors have to keep saying "Don’t worry, this is not going to be a move only the fans will like! In fact, I’m not even a fan myself… in fact, I hate everything about the original, including the font the original book was in and every single character, line of dialogue, and the entire plot! But it doesn’t matter, 'cause all you nerds will flock to see it anyhow. "
I think there is some value to having a director who isn’t a fan, and thus can look more critically at what has to be kept to keep it ‘true’, and what has to be changed to make it work. That of course still requires the director to take it seriously, and some things just don’t translate between mediums well.
Personally I’m an animation fan, and its certainly easier to make the fantastical fit the medium than in live action. Unfortunate that the ‘animation is for kids’ meme still exists. Thank Og for Japan
Interestingly, some stories have been told in both anime and live-action Japanese versions. One of the most successful (in both forms) is GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka). Apparently, the final episode of the live-action version was “the most watched television program ever in Japan”. But GTO is not about a super-hero: it’s a relatively realistic story about a delinquent young man who becomes a high school teacher.
I may have agreed with you over 15 years ago. The 70s TV versions of Hulk and Spiderman were lame, Burton’s Batman was weak, Dick Tracy was boring, Superman pretty hokey.
However, the new millenium has brought some powerful stuff that I think outdo their source material. DarkKnight, 300, SinCity, Spiderman, Ironman, Hulk. All seem to capture the idea of the print but take it to a whole new level.
300 and SinCity for example were extrodianrily beautiful films. When I checked out the novels however I found the artwork amateurish.
I haven’t particularly cared for the live-action versions I’ve seen. Sailor Moon tended to swerve between campy fun and unwatchable (I still can’t believe I actually watched the whole thing…man am I a sucker). Death Note worked better because it was more serious to begin with. But I find Japanese acting tends to go over the top sometimes, and when I’m watching live action, that’s not what I want. I have anime for that stuff.
