Rumor: High School Musical Heartthrob Offered Lead Role in Akira Movie

[PunkRex]

I did not like Akira all that mush but... casting Zac Efron, possibly setting it in America, PG-13!!! This has to be the WORST remake idea I have ever heard... my God this will not go well... I mean give anything a chance but... yeah.

 

[Raregolddragon]

Ooooo I see a studio losing a lot of money on this.

 

[BonsaiK]

What I have been talking about is principles, not speculation and possible opinions.

You're talking about your principles. Which is really an opinion.

Japanese actors would be preferable and indeed ideal. But if that isn't an option in any particular case for any reason then simply Asian actors in general would be the next best thing in terms of principle

...according to your principles. A Japanese person might perceive an Akira with, say, Chinese actors, somewhat differently, and possibly less prefereable to Caucasian actors. In other words, they might have different principles. Possibly.

 

[A1]

What I have been talking about is principles, not speculation and possible opinions.

You're talking about your principles. Which is really an opinion.

Japanese actors would be preferable and indeed ideal. But if that isn't an option in any particular case for any reason then simply Asian actors in general would be the next best thing in terms of principle

...according to your principles. A Japanese person might perceive an Akira with, say, Chinese actors, somewhat differently, and possibly less prefereable to Caucasian actors. In other words, they might have different principles. Possibly.

Actually, principles and opinions are by no means one and the same. Principles are, in essence, rules. Opinions on the other hand are beliefs, ideas, and or judgments that by nature lack certainty, hence the fundamental difference between opinion and fact. And the same is not true for principles.

But perhaps the most fundamental difference is that opinions essentially originate with the person. While the same is not necessarily true for principles. Principles can stand alone and a person can choose to adopt them and to follow or abide by them. I choose to adopt and abide by the principles of fair and equal representation (among other principles). And as I pointed out earlier I'm certainly not alone.

But then again as you indicated someone else may choose not to abide by the same principles. And that's fine. That's their right (attributable to free will and all that I suppose) and their problem, not mine. Which of course would seem to pretty much bring us back to where we were before.

To be more specific:

"However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about. To take an original work and change it pretty much beyond recognition (or butcher or mangle it as some might say) despite any issues involved, racial or otherwise. If you really are fine with this kind of thing then so be it. That's your problem, not mine."

Now when I said "However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about", you did agree with me there but the reason it didn't actually end there was because in that very same post you also included some other stuff that wasn't exactly conducive to the idea of bringing things to a proper and formal conclusion.

If you find that you would like to break off an interaction with someone then it's basically best to avoid doing or saying anything that might provoke them.

Or in other words if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to do nothing except basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away. Simple as that. Is that fair enough?

 

[BonsaiK]

What I have been talking about is principles, not speculation and possible opinions.

You're talking about your principles. Which is really an opinion.

Japanese actors would be preferable and indeed ideal. But if that isn't an option in any particular case for any reason then simply Asian actors in general would be the next best thing in terms of principle

...according to your principles. A Japanese person might perceive an Akira with, say, Chinese actors, somewhat differently, and possibly less prefereable to Caucasian actors. In other words, they might have different principles. Possibly.

Actually, principles and opinions are by no means one and the same. Principles are, in essence, rules. Opinions on the other hand are beliefs, ideas, and or judgments that by nature lack certainty, hence the fundamental difference between opinion and fact. And the same is not true for principles.

But perhaps the most fundamental difference is that opinions essentially originate with the person. While the same is not necessarily true for principles. Principles can stand alone and a person can choose to adopt them and to follow or abide by them. I choose to adopt and abide by the principles of fair and equal representation (among other principles). And as I pointed out earlier I'm certainly not alone.

But then again as you indicated someone else may choose not to abide by the same principles. And that's fine. That's their right (attributable to free will and all that I suppose) and their problem, not mine. Which of course would seem to pretty much bring us back to where we were before.

To be more specific:

"However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about. To take an original work and change it pretty much beyond recognition (or butcher or mangle it as some might say) despite any issues involved, racial or otherwise. If you really are fine with this kind of thing then so be it. That's your problem, not mine."

Now when I said "However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about", you did agree with me there but the reason it didn't actually end there was because in that very same post you also included some other stuff that wasn't exactly conducive to the idea of bringing things to a proper and formal conclusion.

If you find that you would like to break off an interaction with someone then it's basically best to avoid doing or saying anything that might provoke them.

Or in other words if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to do nothing except basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away. Simple as that. Is that fair enough?

Principles are rules, but someone makes those rules and they do so using their opinions on certain matters as a guideline. My argument is basically "I'll use my own rules, not someone else's, and my rules say people can reinterpret artistic work as they see fit as long as it's legal". Obviously you disagree with this assessment and that's cool, I've got no particular desire to convert you to my way of thinking. Adieu, all the best, etc.

 

[A1]

What I have been talking about is principles, not speculation and possible opinions.

You're talking about your principles. Which is really an opinion.

Japanese actors would be preferable and indeed ideal. But if that isn't an option in any particular case for any reason then simply Asian actors in general would be the next best thing in terms of principle

...according to your principles. A Japanese person might perceive an Akira with, say, Chinese actors, somewhat differently, and possibly less prefereable to Caucasian actors. In other words, they might have different principles. Possibly.

Actually, principles and opinions are by no means one and the same. Principles are, in essence, rules. Opinions on the other hand are beliefs, ideas, and or judgments that by nature lack certainty, hence the fundamental difference between opinion and fact. And the same is not true for principles.

But perhaps the most fundamental difference is that opinions essentially originate with the person. While the same is not necessarily true for principles. Principles can stand alone and a person can choose to adopt them and to follow or abide by them. I choose to adopt and abide by the principles of fair and equal representation (among other principles). And as I pointed out earlier I'm certainly not alone.

But then again as you indicated someone else may choose not to abide by the same principles. And that's fine. That's their right (attributable to free will and all that I suppose) and their problem, not mine. Which of course would seem to pretty much bring us back to where we were before.

To be more specific:

"However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about. To take an original work and change it pretty much beyond recognition (or butcher or mangle it as some might say) despite any issues involved, racial or otherwise. If you really are fine with this kind of thing then so be it. That's your problem, not mine."

Now when I said "However if what you say is true then no offense but we really don't seem to have anything more to talk about", you did agree with me there but the reason it didn't actually end there was because in that very same post you also included some other stuff that wasn't exactly conducive to the idea of bringing things to a proper and formal conclusion.

If you find that you would like to break off an interaction with someone then it's basically best to avoid doing or saying anything that might provoke them.

Or in other words if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to do nothing except basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away. Simple as that. Is that fair enough?

Principles are rules, but someone makes those rules and they do so using their opinions on certain matters as a guideline. My argument is basically "I'll use my own rules, not someone else's, and my rules say people can reinterpret artistic work as they see fit as long as it's legal". Obviously you disagree with this assessment and that's cool, I've got no particular desire to convert you to my way of thinking. Adieu, all the best, etc.

You did it again. But I'll get to that in a minute.

I said that principles can stand on their own. I didn't say that they always do. People can indeed make their own principles using their own opinions as a guideline. But on the other hand principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought such as the principles of fairness or equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence.

But seriously, ENOUGH about all that.

As I said, you did it again. As I said before If you find that you would like to break off an interaction with someone then it's basically best to avoid doing or saying anything that might provoke them.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

Otherwise you're doing little more initiating the verbal equivalent of some kind of hit and run scenario.

More specifically it would have been better to just say nothing but "Obviously you disagree with this assessment and that's cool, I've got no particular desire to convert you to my way of thinking. Adieu, all the best, etc." and leave out everything else from that post.

So if it's not too much trouble could we please try again? After all, third time's the charm as the saying goes.

 

[BonsaiK]

principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought

I disagree. I think no moral principle is a fundamental state independent of human thought.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

I think you're playing some kind of "I want the last word so I can show that I'm right and that I won the argument" type of game, and that creeps me out a lot more than some fairly benign movie adaptation. As much as I'm very happy to put the conversation to bed, I'll continue to reply to you as long as you continue to say things in your posts that I feel I can't just let go unchallenged.

 

[A1]

principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought

I disagree. I think no moral principle is a fundamental state independent of human thought.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

I think you're playing some kind of "I want the last word so I can show that I'm right and that I won the argument" type of game, and that creeps me out a lot more than some fairly benign movie adaptation. As much as I'm very happy to put the conversation to bed, I'll continue to reply to you as long as you continue to say things in your posts that I feel I can't just let go unchallenged.

I never said anything about MORAL principles. I was talking about principles in general. Moral principles are just one kind of principles and they are not what I was referring to like with for example the principles of equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence that I pointed out in my previous post. Things like equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence exist in nature independent of human thought (which is of course not to say that they exist in all parts of nature but they exist in nature nevertheless). And since human beings are a part of nature humans can choose to abide by these naturally occurring and fundamental principles in the way that they live their lives and run their societies.

 

[A1]

principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought

I disagree. I think no moral principle is a fundamental state independent of human thought.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

I think you're playing some kind of "I want the last word so I can show that I'm right and that I won the argument" type of game, and that creeps me out a lot more than some fairly benign movie adaptation. As much as I'm very happy to put the conversation to bed, I'll continue to reply to you as long as you continue to say things in your posts that I feel I can't just let go unchallenged.

I never said anything about moral principles. I was talking about principles in general. There are different kinds of principles than moral principles. I was referring to naturally occurring principles like the examples I mentioned in my last post. Things like the principles of equal distribution and equilibrium and of peaceful and harmonious coexistence exist in nature independent of human thought (which is not to say that they exist in all parts of nature but they exist in nature nevertheless). And since human beings are a part of nature we as human beings can choose to abide by these naturally occurring and fundamental principles in the way we live our lives and run our societies.


EDIT: Oops. Sorry. I double posted by mistake.

 

[BonsaiK]

principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought

I disagree. I think no moral principle is a fundamental state independent of human thought.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

I think you're playing some kind of "I want the last word so I can show that I'm right and that I won the argument" type of game, and that creeps me out a lot more than some fairly benign movie adaptation. As much as I'm very happy to put the conversation to bed, I'll continue to reply to you as long as you continue to say things in your posts that I feel I can't just let go unchallenged.

I never said anything about MORAL principles. I was talking about principles in general. Moral principles are just one kind of principles and they are not what I was referring to like with for example the principles of equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence that I pointed out in my previous post. Things like equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence exist in nature independent of human thought (which is of course not to say that they exist in all parts of nature but they exist in nature nevertheless). And since human beings are a part of nature humans can choose to abide by these naturally occurring and fundamental principles in the way that they live their lives and run their societies.

That's too deep for me. So like, yeah... whatevs. Well played, have a nice day.

 

[13lackfriday]

"A PG-13 rating"???

This could be the fucking Watchmen of manga, and they want to make it accessible to teens and under?

Fucking tragically squandered opportunity in film history.

 

[A1]

principles can also be fundamental states independent of human thought

I disagree. I think no moral principle is a fundamental state independent of human thought.

And I said if you want to bring an end to this ongoing interaction between the two of us then I would say that the best way to do that would be to DO NOTHING EXCEPT basically agree to disagree, wish each other well, and simply walk away.

I think you're playing some kind of "I want the last word so I can show that I'm right and that I won the argument" type of game, and that creeps me out a lot more than some fairly benign movie adaptation. As much as I'm very happy to put the conversation to bed, I'll continue to reply to you as long as you continue to say things in your posts that I feel I can't just let go unchallenged.

I never said anything about MORAL principles. I was talking about principles in general. Moral principles are just one kind of principles and they are not what I was referring to like with for example the principles of equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence that I pointed out in my previous post. Things like equal distribution and equilibrium and the principles of peaceful and harmonious coexistence exist in nature independent of human thought (which is of course not to say that they exist in all parts of nature but they exist in nature nevertheless). And since human beings are a part of nature humans can choose to abide by these naturally occurring and fundamental principles in the way that they live their lives and run their societies.

That's too deep for me. So like, yeah... whatevs. Well played, have a nice day.

Take care of yourself.

I wish you well.

 

[ChaoshadowZero]

*sigh*

They need to realise that live-action anime just doesn't work.

Well whatever, after Dragonball Evolution I've decided not to bother with any live-action anime movies.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

The sad part is that I actually saw potential in a live-action version of Akira. In fact, I see potential in all anime movies, and believe that they can be good if they tried hard enough and stayed faithful to the series in such. Actually, I always pictured what an anime would look like as a live-action movie, and my version always looked cool. Sadly, directors don't seem to see the same vision as me -.-

I'm okay with Zac Efron (Although at first I was pissed but later I was like "Eh, he's not THAT bad, he actually has potential."), but the think that really bugged me was the whole PG-13 thing. Why they thought that was a good idea, I will never know, but what I do know is that it is NOT a good idea. The fact that an animated (Which most people consider cartoons as "childish") film has more balls to show blood and violence than a gritty live-action remake is absolutely ridiculous. I get that they want to broaden their audience a bit, but it's not like Akira appeals to younger audience, and younger viewers probably won't know what the hell Akira is, unless they watched it, but even then they'd be expecting blood and gore. Although, there's still a chance that it might be good, and the only reason I hate the idea is because it's not going the way I envisioned it.

Also the fact that I never seen Zac Efron in an R rated movie and I thought it would be pretty funny : P