Me: Die monster, you don't deserve to live in this world!
Akira movie: It was not by my hand that I live! I was created by directors who wanted to makke a Quick buck!
ME: A quick Buck!? You crush fans dreams and hope!
Akira Movie: Maybe the same can be said about all things which have fans!
Me: Your words are as cheap as the director who created you! Fandom dosen't need you in their memories!
Akira Movie: What is a fan? *Throw 7/11 cup to the ground* Nothing more then a muking acme covered fool. Have at thee!
Isn't this topic revived every month?
We've been assured of its existence for years now. I'm a die hard AKIRA fan, but even I'm done with complaining about how this is a bad idea...
Then again, Shirow would never part with his brainchild, yes you may find the pun and enjoy it. So if anything, he'd be attached to the project and make sure they make it good/to the source material.
I mean, check the whole Franchise, the Manga, the two Movies and the 2 Series which spawned also a Movie. Shirow was attached to all of these as a consultant at the very least. So i doubt some American Company can just buy the rights and do whatever with it.
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Lastly, the most important reason I'd say Bladerunner is cyberpunk is becuase it helped create it. Don't believe me? William Gibson's Neuromancer came out in 1984, and is widely regarded as one of the defining Cyberpunk novels. Bladerunner came out in 1982, and William Gibson has freely admitted that when he saw it, he was afraid to release Neuromancer in case people thought he'd plagiarised it. Bladerunner pre-dates most, if not nearly all, examples of cyberpunk literature, yet has many of the same elements. Does that not make it a progenator of the cyberpunk movement?
For the record, Blade Runner was intended to have a much cleaner sci-fi Look. Basicly think sterile clean ala Mirror's Edge "Future". The dirty Version was done due to cost. So yeah, totally unintentional and yet that made it so popular. Or rather, made it cyberpunk as opposed to merely being sci-fi. By Default Cyberpunk is a Sci-Fi Genre, since its always set in the "world of tomorrow" as it were.
I think Zack Snyder could do it justice as he is very good with source material. I also think passing is one of the most important aspects which they could tear apart.
I have heard the script got set to someone, and apart from being an awful script they have renamed character like Tetsueo (cant spell name) to Travis
I have so little confidence for these USA! USA! USA! remakes that I might actually welcome a Naruto Jackson in the Akira movie. It's gonna fail anyway, why not have some memorable bad-ass ninja monologues in there to at least make it half funny?
I mean, it's not like there can be only one thing called Akira and this negates the existence of the original. If anything, it gets more people to watch the original. In fact, I've kind of wanted to see if it was worth all the bitching, despite not liking anime in any way shape or form.
And even if there's only a 1% percent chance of it not being shit, might as well let them try. If it's really horrible, then they might not do it again, and we all get something to laugh at. If it's awesome, then we get an awesome movie and people who don't like anime (me) can see what this whole Akira thing is about. And I bet at least one person in this thread hasn't seen the original until they heard about the new one, and that has to be some kind of benefit, right?
If someone wanted to re-adapt the original manga to the big screen, either as a live action series of movies or, preferably, an animated series of movies, I'd be OK with that. I'd even be OK with an American studio doing this with a largely non-Asian cast - providing they were committed to bringing the extended story to film.
However it's clear that this movie isn't trying to do any of this. It's a weak cash-grab and I suspect it won't do terribly well at the box office (although I doubt it will be a flop either). Afterward, of course, the studio will chalk this up to the difficulty of pleasing a geek audience even though they clearly went ahead wit no regard to this audience to begin with.
Katsuhiro Otomo wrote and directed the film and created and wrote the comics before that. If anybody is qualified to change art to convert to another, it is the orginal artist.
Bladerunner, while a great film and one of my favourites of all time, was more sci-fi than cyberpunk. It also dealt more thematically with the concept of artificial intelligence as intelligence than most cyberpunk does. Cyberpunk is more based in the themes of future day class systems and street VS corporate. It's also more heavily rooted in a digitally enhanced contemporary day (or contemporary as seen in the 80s/90s anyway) rather than a future world as seen in Bladerunner.
Lastly, the most important reason I'd say Bladerunner is cyberpunk is becuase it helped create it. Don't believe me? William Gibson's Neuromancer came out in 1984, and is widely regarded as one of the defining Cyberpunk novels. Bladerunner came out in 1982, and William Gibson has freely admitted that when he saw it, he was afraid to release Neuromancer in case people thought he'd plagiarised it. Bladerunner pre-dates most, if not nearly all, examples of cyberpunk literature, yet has many of the same elements. Does that not make it a progenator of the cyberpunk movement?
For the record, Blade Runner was intended to have a much cleaner sci-fi Look. Basicly think sterile clean ala Mirror's Edge "Future". The dirty Version was done due to cost. So yeah, totally unintentional and yet that made it so popular. Or rather, made it cyberpunk as opposed to merely being sci-fi. By Default Cyberpunk is a Sci-Fi Genre, since its always set in the "world of tomorrow" as it were.
Well the novel and the film feature futures that are not clean at all. The world is quite distopian and has most of the biosphere extinct due to pollution and global nuclear war, which has also severely damaged the world economies and caused a global health crisis.
Society is based around feeling 'empathy', (the 'android test' is a test to measure empathy) through relationships with artificial, bionic animals (the Android Sheep), and a religion (or Cult of Personality) in which followers merge in collective consciousness via 'Empathy Boxes' to share the pain of their self-sacrificing 'god'. There is additionally a rival religious movement based on Consumerism and broadcast via TV.
Neither leader of these two religions are actually human
Compare to Gibson's themes and you will find several similarities and parallels. For example, users, via Neural Interface Machines, find A.I. gods on Cyberspace. The world has also been ravaged by war, been made synthetic with machines and simulacrums, suffered long exploitation by corporations and private interests, and it is facing the rise of true intelligence from synthetic beings. Also, in Count Zero, Bobby's mother, like millions of people globally, is not only hooked on a kind of pan-religious consumerism, but also 'stims' - neural interface soap-operas - which allow viewers to 'feel'.
So anyway, none of the things we call 'cyberpunk' were called so when they were released. They were just 'new', 'interesting', 'groundbreaking', etc. It is only in retrospect that we try to cram all these things into current genre labels. Whether Blade Runner (Or Do Androids ...) is Cyberpunk or not, doesn't matter to me. It is a tradition unto itself, just as Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mono Lisa Overdrive are. The themes they are explore are for the most part the same - consumerism, corporatism, war, pollution, religiosity, the nature of the soul, the loss of the 'natural' for the synthetic, the rise non-human intelligence via technology, the meshing of human and machine, organic and synthetic, etc.
I mean, it's not like there can be only one thing called Akira and this negates the existence of the original. If anything, it gets more people to watch the original. In fact, I've kind of wanted to see if it was worth all the bitching, despite not liking anime in any way shape or form.
And even if there's only a 1% percent chance of it not being shit, might as well let them try. If it's really horrible, then they might not do it again, and we all get something to laugh at. If it's awesome, then we get an awesome movie and people who don't like anime (me) can see what this whole Akira thing is about. And I bet at least one person in this thread hasn't seen the original until they heard about the new one, and that has to be some kind of benefit, right?
This is correct, no matter how bad the new movie is the original still exists and this is going to only bring attention to it. Plus people need to stop this it's Hollywood therefore it sucks, America still makes a lot of good films.
No No noononononnnonnoooonnoooooooooooooooooooooo! Okay i realize i have a bit fanboyish tendencies, but i didn't even like Akira that much and the story was kinda loose to begin with. If they can bring order and a decent plot to it then more power to the americans but considering their history well
and.....
....well you can imagine my confidence in them to be a bit lacking so I see where the akira fanboys are coming from which is why the only director i may be able to trust with this is james cameron and i still think avatar was not that great but i think he would get the point across with battle angel alita....maybe the matrix brothers could pull akira off....
You know, to be fair Blood was actually decent, sure some of the fight scenes seemed a little weird, and I've only watched the anime casually, but it was alright.
The Anime Blood+ is not what the movie is based on. The Anime is actually based off of an Anime movie of the same name as the live action remake. And it actually follows said anime movie pretty well to a point but lasts too long on the English characters rather than the killing of vampires(talking about the live action one) but then changes the ending completely if I remember correctly.
Well the novel and the film feature futures that are not clean at all. The world is quite distopian and has most of the biosphere extinct due to pollution and global nuclear war, which has also severely damaged the world economies and caused a global health crisis...
Great discussion here. I have to admit, my knee-jerk reaction was to jump in with an unreasoned "sftu n00b, no way is PKD cyberpunk!" but your comments compelling enough to make me think again. It's true that, chronologically, "Do Androids dream..." is not cyberpunk. There's a reason that name arose for the genre, which has parallels to the themes of anti-establishment in the punk movement of the 1970s. The thing is, even though PKD's book predates this, he certainly stands apart from his scifi predecessors (and contemporaries) like Niven, Clarke, Heinlen, etc. I agree that PKD can be viewed as a bridge between hard scifi and cyberpunk. It's pretty clear that Gibson and his contemporaries were influenced by PKD. Had he lived through the 80s, I wonder if he would have written more books that people could classify as cyberpunk. Would he have read Gibson? Speaking of Gibson, the Neuromancer/Blade Runner aesthetic could be the fault of a common fandom by author and director: http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/archive/2003_01_17_archive.asp
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
