Advice From a Fanboy: Akira

[Zom-B]

Wait, wait. Don't Americanize it, but don't call it Akira? What? And that bit about colonialism is just silly. I don't raise a fit over Turkish Superman or whatever, going all, "Yargh, the Turks are trying to colonize us with MOVIES!"

Also, you think that the presence of minority characters would mean that the movie's racist? What? Well, what if they didn't have them in there? Triple racism, no doubt.

Bob, I believe you when you say you aren't looking forward to the movie, but I think maybe it's for the wrong reasons.

I think you basically misread everything that Bob wrote.

 

[SandroTheMaster]

He was just giving that as an example, geez. Probably because it started with an A so it still has an alliterative tie to the original name. You could've gone with John too for something even more normal.

Now that I think about it it'd be really weird to go see a movie called "John," or "Carl" or something. Can you imagine talking about that with your friends: "Hey, did you see 'Carl,' yet? I heard it was really good!" But I guess that's the effect that's intended?

Except that Adam is, literally, the english name with the most blatant religious connotation he could've possibly picked. I mean, he was literally just trying to set an example on a nondescript english name, but no-one names someone (be it a writer or a parent) Adam without some painfully obvious religious motif. Then again, so does John, but at least you don't see John being used all the time with this purpose. It is just baffling. Literally, he could pick any other english name and there would be absolutely no problem.

Also, I completely disagree that the name Akira has no special reason to be there. No Japanese work (be it film, manga, anime, poetry or literature) has ever got a name without significance, and Akira is no exception. Yes, it is a popular name, but it also stands for "bright"/"intelligent". Or "clear" as in "pure". So, really, in Japanese, this is a very appropriate name for a messiah.

In one final consideration... isn't there a shit-ton of movies where the title is a name? Even some pretty run-of-the-mill ones. Like "Paul".

And I'd surely watch a movie called "Dave" (which, now that I think about, also has religious connotations, but at least this one is subtle, since it is a variation).

 

[Atomic Skull]

Joe? Pretty sure there were no prophets or important figures, religious or otherwise, called Joe.

You sure about that?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%28son_of_Jacob%29

 

[conflictofinterests]

Joe? Pretty sure there were no prophets or important figures, religious or otherwise, called Joe.

You sure about that?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%28son_of_Jacob%29

*snip* Banal is Joe or Bob. They're names with no real meaning behind them, and maybe they're shortenings of names that had meaning, but in chopping them up they've lost it. *snip* Joe? Pretty sure there were no prophets or important figures, religious or otherwise, called Joe. *Snip*

I did qualify myself.
Joseph? Impressive. Joe? Plumber.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

The movie AKIRA is the reason why I'll never complain about Dune or Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World being not close enough to the books again.

If you knew the effort that went into AKIRA, which was both endorsed and directed by the mangaka who made the books mind you, something not even Zach Snyder's Watchmen can claim to it since Alan Moore hates movies based on his work, you'd never complain about something like Dune or Scott Pilgrim being crammed into one movie ever again, especially if you saw the movie first.

Peeps gotta recognise that movies and books are different, and unless you've got lightning in a bottle such as Fight Club, which wasn't exactly a lengthy book to adapt to begin with, you have to acknowledge that if they're cramming six books into one movie it's gonna get a little abridged. HBO is probably the safest bet for adaptations of lengthy book series, but as for movies I loved AKIRA from the first viewing, it was my anime nerd equivalent of how rappers used to watch Scarface over and over again.

Sure AKIRA's not a perfect adaptation of the books, but as a movie it certainly does its job, and if you watch it enough times you realise why the plot they chose to keep in there is there and why it works.

The same could be said about Ralph Bakshi's LOTR versus Peter Jackson's LOTR, but I'm not as big a Middle Earther as I should be at my age.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

Sorry, accidental double post because it didn't appear/Captcha.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

Ooh, I just figured out how to fix it.

No American remake. Nope. Have an AUSTRALIAN REMAKE instead.

Geographical location much closer to Asia? Check. Influx of Japanese population post-Earthquake? Check.

Hundreds of great Asian-Australian Asian people to pick the cast from, even if some of the cast is white? Check.

ABC's Lawrence Leung as Kaneda's buddy Kai in AC/DC schoolboy wear like in the original anime movie. CROSS-CULTURAL REFERENCES THAT WORK! YES! I SEE IT NOW!

Get me Hollywood on the phone. I wish to discuss tax-deductible film locations with them our government will fund.

 

[silenticecream]

Good points Bob, but I disagree with you on one key point.

You say that there is nothing fundamental to the story that couldn't be transplanted to another setting if done properly. I personally don't think so. For me, part of what makes the film so unique is that the story is entire focused on the idea of Japanese identity.

Look at the opening scene: gets wiped out in mere seconds by a huge explosion. That right there should remind you of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Those two bombing are events that, if you'll pardon the wording, are seared into the Japanese cultural psyche. Being the only country to have ever been nuked during a war, you can be damn sure it's an event that weighs heavy in their culture. Indeed, the crux of Akira's plot focuses on the government trying (and failing) to control a weapon so powerful it can level entire cities in an instant. The symbolism and imagery used in Akira is supposed to bring associations with nuclear weaponry, and Japan is arguably the only country in the world were this sort of thing would make sense.

Not only that, but Japanese society itself plays a key role in the story. Part of the conflict in the film comes from the divide between the strict, structured Japanese culture of the past, and the chaotic mess that the country has fallen into. The General himself is on a crusade to restore Japan back to its values and traditions. Looked at very simply, it's an obvious example of East vs West (in this case, liberalism against traditionalism), but there's more to it than that. Traditional Japanese society is far, far stricter than we are used to in the West, and based on a large number of customs, rituals and traditions. Akira is in many ways an examination of how all those rules, rituals and traditions lose their relevance and are cast aside when society has had to recover from a devastating attack. In short, Akira is a reflection (in many ways) of post-WWII Japan. The dystopian, lawless society presented in the film isn't just a simple Clockwork Orange pastiche, it's a representation of how the Japanese people were almost forced to challenge their own ideas and beliefs about Japan after so humbling and complete a defeat.

In short, it's a Japanese film about Japan. As such, you simply can't transplant the story to somewhere else and hope for it to have anywhere near the same effect.

Also, as has been mentioned above, Akira is one of the unquestioned landmarks of animation. Purely as a technical achievement, the film broke new ground, and still stands as one of the most impressive feats of animation ever. Such landmarks are best left alone.

Pretty much a thread ender right here.

 

[gphjr14]

I think the reason that akira tends to get allot of love isnt because it was the first cartoon allot of people saw that was mature as much as it was one of the most visually striking and well animated cartoons around, I mean it makes some of the best disney movies look boring by contrast. Having a mature story and violence is just the icing on the cake.

It really depends on how old you are, for individuals like me and Bob who grew up mostly in the early 90s films like Vampire Hunter D, Akira, and Ninja Scroll were some of the first animes to hit mainstream television prior to that you had to actually rent or buy anime to see it. Some animes like Asto Boy, and Speed Racer had made it to the states but as Bob stated animes like Akira were geared more towards adults with violence, nudity etc and came a few years before DBZ Pokemon and Gundam could take a foothold in America.
The art style and plot of the movie are very detailed and is what makes it a classic; however I feel its these things in addition to when it debuted in America, are what make it a classic.

Edit: Also not to be pretentious but allot is spelled a lot. As in I make a lot of mistakes myself and if it wasn't for typing a crap load of papers in college I'd probably make even more than I do now.

 

[RDubayoo]

Wait, wait. Don't Americanize it, but don't call it Akira? What? And that bit about colonialism is just silly. I don't raise a fit over Turkish Superman or whatever, going all, "Yargh, the Turks are trying to colonize us with MOVIES!"

Also, you think that the presence of minority characters would mean that the movie's racist? What? Well, what if they didn't have them in there? Triple racism, no doubt.

Bob, I believe you when you say you aren't looking forward to the movie, but I think maybe it's for the wrong reasons.

I think you basically misread everything that Bob wrote.

I'd love to hear what the correct interpretation is.

 

[Zom-B]

Wait, wait. Don't Americanize it, but don't call it Akira? What? And that bit about colonialism is just silly. I don't raise a fit over Turkish Superman or whatever, going all, "Yargh, the Turks are trying to colonize us with MOVIES!"

Also, you think that the presence of minority characters would mean that the movie's racist? What? Well, what if they didn't have them in there? Triple racism, no doubt.

Bob, I believe you when you say you aren't looking forward to the movie, but I think maybe it's for the wrong reasons.

I think you basically misread everything that Bob wrote.

I'd love to hear what the correct interpretation is.

I'll go through in order of your comments:

1. What Bob is saying is that if the movie is going to be americanized and whitewashed it might as well get an American name too. There's no point in changing the setting and the nationality of the characters but retaining the Japanese name. It's not "don't americanize it, but don't call it Akira", it's "if you must americanize it, don't call it Akira".

1. a. Turkish Superman, Indian Spiderman... these are just culturally accessible homages, rip-offs and remakes from tiny, regional film industries. The Turks did not colonize much of an entire continent the way America did, displacing indigenous peoples. When America takes a story from another culture and "whitewashes" it, it smacks of the predominant western attitude of taking whatever it wants and does a real disservice and shows a lot of disrespect to other cultures. I'll admit that this is a debatable point, but Hollywood has a long history of gutting cultural content in the pursuit of dollars, and they do it in a huge way. The Turkish movie studio making a Superman movie by comparison is a gnat on the ass of an elephant.

2. I don't know how you got racism out of his comments about casting.

"...the cold hard truth of the matter is that in the U.S. - where this remake is aiming to be set - the real-life kids whose stories mirror those of Akira's main characters are quite a bit more likely to be Black or Latino than they are to be anything else. This is depressing as hell and a shameful indictment of everything from ingrained systemic racism to societal failures in real life, but it does offer a way that an American Akira could be more than just another cash-grab remake - a way that it could actually say something substantial and meaningful about American culture the way the original Akira did for Japanese culture."

Do you see how Bob is saying that not only would it make much sense for the characters to be anything other than white, but it would actually make a statement about western culture. I just don't see where you're getting the racism angle from, unless you misread the part about system racism and societal failure in American culture.