I’ve only watched a couple of episodes – it’s too much aimed at young girls for my taste – but some of the actors were great eye candy, especially Sailor Mercury / Hama Chisaki.
There’s already a porno about elderly ladies taking out their dentures and gettin’ busy. It’s called Gum Me Bare.
Wish I didn’t know that.
I not only had heard of Iron Man, I read some of the comics as a kid. But I probably wouldn’t have seen the movie if not for Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role.
I completely understand MJB’s point and I respect the opinion expressed in the OP. However, I have always had exactly the opposite view - whenever I hear of something from the comic / cartoon / animation world being turned into a ‘live action’ flick, I’m intrigued and want to see the result.
A large part of this stems from my interest in the special effects and visual effects industry. In a comic or a cartoon you can think up anything and just draw it - from a weird monster to some amazing super power. To try and do the same thing using real actors in a real or realistic setting is a challenge. I would find myself intrigued by how they were going to do something (e.g. make Superman fly) and how well the result would work (e.g. would it add to the story and the entertainment or just make people think ‘That looks rubbish’).
Of course, the advent of CGI and the digital realm has made a huge difference. Special visual effects used to call for a lot of ingenuity and plain old problem-solving. Film-makers working in the sci-fi or fantasy genre often had to think the way a magician would think - ‘Okay, so this is impossible, but how can we create a convicing illusion and make it look as if it is possible?’
These days, digital animation and compositing tools have taken away some challenges (because they can create a near photo-realistic image of anything) but created many more (such as how to used the tools in an appropriate and successful way, rather than just as a way of pouring millions of dollars down the toilet).
I still find the process of adaptation fascinating. In some ways, it’s just as fascinating when it works very well (e.g. Spider-Man 2 with Doc Ock) as when it doesn’t (choose your own example from the many available). Of course, there’s a lot more involved than just the special effects - the adaptation of any source material to a different medium raises many questions about fidelity, the respective strengths and limitations of the different media, and the ‘best’ way to tell a story. I find all of this fascinating too.
So, sorry MJB, but I’m still excited and fascinated by the process of trying to create ‘live action’ versions of comic/fantasy material, and even though these adapatations are rarely very successful, I still look forward to them.
Well, there’s always Shoot’em up.
And Donnie Darko.
I see both sides of this. One the plus side I see Iron Man and Batman and a host of other good comics-turned-live-action. On the minus side: The Grinch and any or all Dr. Seuss live-action movies. Also, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Underdog, Fat Albert and a whole bunch more. But I’m not convinced that it is the live-action that ruins it. I think it is the writing and directing and sometimes the acting. (I will never ever forgive Ron Howard for The Grinch.)
Speed Racer.
For the love of God, Speed Racer!!!
I think there’s also a big difference between a live action movie that works as a movie and one that’s a poor live-action adaptation that would have been better as animation.
The Dr. Seuss live-action stuff falls into the latter category - they feel like an animated film forced to be live-action. It kind of reminds me of the Bee Movie commercials where Seinfeld has the “inspiration” to make it a cartoon. On the other hand, The Dark Knight takes the comic book characters, themes, and some of the style but it is unmistakably a motion picture and could hardly have been animated. The Spider-man and X-men movies work this way as well.
There’s also the middle road - Sin City isn’t so much a movie as a filmed comic book with motion. It’s semi-animated, and while I don’t think it’s bad it always feels like a gimmick.
Mona Lisa
coming Summer 2010
Well, that would certainly put a whole different twist on Gummi-berry juice and the bouncing around it induces.
Already been done and with Bob Hoskins no less.
There was also Mona Lisa Smile but I never saw that one.
BTW: I thought the Live Action Scooby Doo worked well.
Oh, that’s true. Point against my rant.
Of course, it had some very imporant things going for it :
- An OK budget
- Ben Edlund, the creator, was still in charge, and the man is devastatingly talented and hella funny.
- PATRICK FREAKING WARBURTON.
Live Action Sailor Moon was the greatest TV show ever made.
I see… well, we have different POVs. Myself, I’m a writer, a creator even. The technical details are not inherently interesting to me. I just want to tell stories in the most effective way possible.
I’m a fan of animation precisely because there’s no technical, real-world limitations. The storytelling can go wherever it needs to go, with no comprimises required because of lack of budget or technology.
That said, animation is not for everything. World War II movie? Live action. 
You should watch Zipang, set (apart from the start of episode one) on board a Japanese war ship* in the Pacific Ocean in 1942. I’m not sure that it would work so well as live action.
*To be precise, a 21st-century destroyer in the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, sent back 60 years in time.
That was an incredible movie. It emotionally devastated me for days. for which you think I’d resent it.
But it’s like Schindler’s List. You’re glad you saw it. And you don’t want to see it again, thank you much.
If they got Wes Anderson to do it and based it more on the comic strip rather than the TV cartoons, a live action version of “Peanuts” might work. However, Anderson would probably make it more realistic and tone down most of the cartoony aspects of the strip (e.g., Snoopy and the Red Baron) and that would likely displease a lot of people.
Ewwwwwwww!
Pass the neuralyzer, please!
Rule 34