Why are people ignorant of the real originals?
- Thread starter GamerKT
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think in regards to "It'll never surpass the original!" there MIGHT not be an awareness of the print media that most movies actually originate from, but most people imply the context that the new movie will not exceed the old movie. The "original" just refers to the first of the visual film adaptations, which would be the original movie. No adjective problems here. Now, if people refer to Al Pacino's Scarface as the original Scarface, THEN they are wrong.
And in regards to Akira, an adaptation of Akira in live action AND that's been Americanized just seems like a colossally stupid idea. If it ever comes to fruition, I doubt that it could ever match the anime movie, let alone the manga. I'm throwing my hat in with the judgmental lot here. The fact that Keanu Reeves was ever even considered for the role of Kaneda, a plucky teenager with a bit of a comic relief side to him, is a giant red flag. Clearly these people have no idea what they're doing.
And in regards to Akira, an adaptation of Akira in live action AND that's been Americanized just seems like a colossally stupid idea. If it ever comes to fruition, I doubt that it could ever match the anime movie, let alone the manga. I'm throwing my hat in with the judgmental lot here. The fact that Keanu Reeves was ever even considered for the role of Kaneda, a plucky teenager with a bit of a comic relief side to him, is a giant red flag. Clearly these people have no idea what they're doing.
This maybe isn't the best movie to use as my own example , but it did crop up yesterday so its relevant.
Discussing the fact that I liked to watch some older movies my colleauge responded with, 'I hate old movies. I won't watch a movie in black and white and I hate musicals like that Little Shop of Horrors'.
I replied, 'You do know the original LSOH was in 1960 ?'
He had not got the faintest idea that the film he was slagging off, which was just anarchic to me, the musical, was originally from 1960 featuring a young Jack Nicholson.
Discussing the fact that I liked to watch some older movies my colleauge responded with, 'I hate old movies. I won't watch a movie in black and white and I hate musicals like that Little Shop of Horrors'.
I replied, 'You do know the original LSOH was in 1960 ?'
He had not got the faintest idea that the film he was slagging off, which was just anarchic to me, the musical, was originally from 1960 featuring a young Jack Nicholson.
What does it even matter? A lot of great movies are based on great books.
Some people might be "ignorant" for not knowing the true original. But as long as the reboot/remake turns out to be good I couldn't care less.
Some people might be "ignorant" for not knowing the true original. But as long as the reboot/remake turns out to be good I couldn't care less.
"Kaneda is a bar owner in Neo-Manhattan who is stunned when his brother, Tetsuo, is abducted by government agents led by The Colonel.xyrafhoan said:
Desperate to get his brother back, Kaneda agrees to join with Ky Reed and her underground movement who are intent on revealing to the world what truly happened to New York City thirty years ago when it was destroyed. Kaneda believes their theories to be ludicrous but after finding his brother again, is shocked when he displays telekinetic powers.
Ky believes Tetsuo is headed to release a young boy, Akira, who has taken control of Tetsuo?s mind. Kaneda clashes with The Colonel?s troops on his way to stop Tetsuo from releasing Akira but arrives too late. Akira soon emerges from his prison courtesy of Tetsuo as Kaneda races in to save his brother before Akira once again destroys Manhattan island, as he did thirty years ago."
So... That's happening...
Perhaps a more accurate term would be instead to call the work in question "The original" it would be mre accurate to call it "The pinnacle." The work in question is usually remembered over the true original because it took the material and executed it in the best possible way. Its less about respecting the first pioneer of a thing and more about respecting the one who mastered it.
Essentially when someone says "Don't fuck with the 'original'", what they're really saying is "This work represents the best possible thing that could come out of this story. You won't surpass it and you're an arrogant ass for trying." Honestly, they're usually right.
Essentially when someone says "Don't fuck with the 'original'", what they're really saying is "This work represents the best possible thing that could come out of this story. You won't surpass it and you're an arrogant ass for trying." Honestly, they're usually right.
Simply because the originals aren't necessarily that well known. People aren't going to research the franchise just in case it didn't start when they thought it did, they have no reason to doubt it. Perhaps if it crops up in conversation you could mention it without sounding angry or arrogant, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to know as much about all franchises as you do yourself.
It irritates me when someone covers Hallelujah and people start giving out that they're ruining Jeff Buckley's original.
IT'S A LEONARD COHEN SONG.
Sure, Jeff Buckley's version is admittedly better but it's not the original.
IT'S A LEONARD COHEN SONG.
Sure, Jeff Buckley's version is admittedly better but it's not the original.
I have to agree with bahumat here, you need to read it contextually or else most things would appear wrong! I'd have thought an english major would know that and correct himself instead of grammar Nazi-ing ¬_¬ (yes that's a word!)bahumat42 said:THANK YOU!GamerKT said:
the only time people use grammar nazi-ism as their only point is when they have no valid ones left
And no slow learner doesn't need to be in quotations because i am making a statement not emphasising an alternate understanding of the word.
There are two tings at play here as I see it. First original is often in reference to "Original of that Medium" a book to film or manga to animation requires a lot of editing and modification to the point that they have to be different in some respect that the source material. For this reason you can't really compare the two things from two mediums in a direct way. Only an indirect "I liked the book more" is suitable. For example, I can't compare the voice acting or detailed animations on Akira to anything from the manga. This is the reason you don't see many people complain when a popular book, say Harry Potter, is made into a movie. However as the two mediums move together this effect diminishes. That is an animation and live action film are much more similar than a manga and animation or a book and film. Also if this was the only player in this then we shouldn't be seeing a backlash now that a Movie is being adapted from the manga/anime in Akira.GamerKT said:
Which brings me to my second point. People don't care about what they don't know about, and they certainly don't care about what they didn't like. If a remake of an original actually turns out to be better (popular) than the original then its obviously going to figuratively dethrone the original. People don't like to see a mockery (poorer quality) of what they like. Thus if an industry has a track-record of redoing or interpreting things that are overall worse (less enjoyment) than a preceding work that it is based off of people are right not to look forward to seeing a work they enjoy go through the same process.
You don't see people complaining about remakes of things that sucked, or weren't well liked. For example Captain America was a remake of older films/comic book. However its predecessors weren't well liked, and thus no one really complained about it being a "remake".
Likewise if you don't know about an original, the original Scarface for example, then you rightly can't care that it was remade. As time moves on people forget movies (unless a true Cult status is formed as it is in modern times).
I get the sentiments of this thread is that people whining about remakes is annoying which is true. If you are not interested in a remake, don't go see it and let the company learn its lesson with low to no profit. If other people want to spend money on it then it can't be too horrible.
So when people talk about the original batman, are we talking about this:
or
or
or
or
The term "original" holds no weight between mediums and even within mediums, holds no weight from author to author/director to director/studio to studio etc. etc.
Context is incredibly important. The Animated Akira is the original Akira "FILM" which fans of the TRUE original would say is a butchered and minced version of the Manga. To everyone else it's the original probably because they don't read mangas?
Get over it. These topics always seem like ego boosting drivel.
The term "original" holds no weight between mediums and even within mediums, holds no weight from author to author/director to director/studio to studio etc. etc.
Context is incredibly important. The Animated Akira is the original Akira "FILM" which fans of the TRUE original would say is a butchered and minced version of the Manga. To everyone else it's the original probably because they don't read mangas?
Get over it. These topics always seem like ego boosting drivel.
I remember this coming up with the Let The Right One In remake. A lot of people who love the Swedish movie (which is excellent, don't get me wrong) aren't aware it was based off of anything or haven't read the original novel. This led to some people decrying elements of the American remake that were closer to the source material (particularly the way the vampire girl was portrayed) as being needless alterations to the story, when in reality the Swedish movie was quite different from the novel.
I think people just need to calm down about remakes in general. The level of emotion some of these movies elicit is beyond insane.
I think people just need to calm down about remakes in general. The level of emotion some of these movies elicit is beyond insane.