With the release of the live-action version of the popular anime based off a popular manga, and the negative reviews already flooding out, should we judge remakes off originals, treat them separately, or perhaps a little bit of both?
You could expand your suggestion for this topic to include a few examples (I'm sure you must have one or two in mind) and perhaps also include references to any particular genre (or genres), as we can't really place all anime features based on mangas in the same basket. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. It would also be worth considering what a live action remake might bring to the original story and whether some elements might indeed work better in a live action setting. There's also the sensitive subject of 'whitewashing' characters for a Western audience, such as Scarlett Johansson's casting as Major Kusanagi in the recent (and in my opinion, very poor) live action remake of G.I.T.S.. Compare this to the casting of Mana Ashida in the live action remake of 'Usagi Drop' (2011), which had been deliberately adapted to remove certain questionable elements in the original manga story. I mention these two remakes (or adaptations) particularly for the different approaches used by their directors - the former was heavilly scripted, whereas the latter had a loose script that permitted a certain amount of experimentation and ad-libbing from the actors, creating a more natural feel to the developing relationships. – Amyus3 months ago
I'm not sure if this is a case of "should we." People are going to judge remakes by originals, adaptations by books, and so on. It's human nature. I think the actual question, as you mentioned here, is *how* to best judge. – Stephanie M.3 months ago
I think I agree a lot with Stephanie. My main focus for this question I posed revolved around the idea that people deliberately shy away from remakes if they are fans of the original. Different art forms allow for very different ways of telling stories, and I think a lot of the time (if not nearly all), remakes do do a poor job of retelling stories due to not finding the right balance of keeping original content and creating new content. Is it up to the audience to be open to new ideas in an already created universe or up to the creators to develop and expand on that same universe. – Zoinks3 months ago
We should because that is what it is based on. There are a lot of movies who do sequels and cant follow the original movie because of copyright laws. They should name it something different. – seniorhomecare2 months ago
I think for a viewer, it comes down to how they watch a film/show. Some people might not be familiar with the original property and will be unbiased going in while others who have seen it will have an expectation (maybe they want to see something that aligns with the original or a new take on it). I think for the viewer it's all subjective.For the creator of the new property, they need to know going in that this is a known story with strong supporters so justice needs to be done to the material (whether they take it in a new direction or not). I think this is most successful when the new creator has a connection with the source material, so they are the best one to be in the driver's seat. – jonj2 months ago
Humanities graduates get a bad reputation in this time of increased attention being placed on STEM fields that will surely drive our technologically-advancing economy. Mainstream U.S. films have been a contributing factor to this poor image in representing humanities graduates as aloof and/or struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius or inspirational educators that set the bar unrealistically high for actual teachers. Titles such as Stuck in Love and The Dead Poets Society circulate these narratives of humanities graduates, perpetuating a single image of what these graduates can actually do in society. Arrival was released in 2016 with great critical acclaim, and one of the most interesting aspects of the sci-fi epic comes in the form of a humanities vs sciences debate between the two leads – Amy Adams as the linguist Louise Banks and Jeremy Renner as Ian Donnelly – a physicist. Banks makes it clear early in the film that they need to focus on learning to communicate with the titular arrivals before working out the physics of their space-travel, placing the linguist in a position of privilege, but does this narrative manage to correct the one-sided image of the humanities, or does it fall short of shedding a positive light on a field that has been traditionally relegated to narrow, stereotypical representations?
Though I get what you're trying to say, your argument is based on the flawed premise that "English majors" (or, more accurately, "scholars," since the term "major" typically disappears from self-identification after undergraduate study) and "Linguistics majors" are one in the same, despite being entirely separate fields with completely different subject matters and methodological approaches to such. Though it is not uncommon for Literary Studies and Linguistics do occasionally borrow ideas and practices from one another -- as was common in the Russian, Czech, and French schools of Structuralism in the early to mid twentieth century -- the disciplines themselves remain distinct. I had initially considered suggesting that this could be fixed simply by replacing the word "English" with "Linguistics," but the stereotyped image of English majors -- "struggling writers that are haunted by addiction and manic spurts of genius" as you've put it -- is not so accurate a description of the general societal impression of Linguistics majors. Honestly, I'm not sure if there even is such a thing as a mainstream personality stereotype of Linguistics students and scholars, aside from the occasional internet memes made by the majors themselves (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/64/52/db/6452dbbec053cf36476c1edfb68b68fd--linguistics-major-teaching-phonics.jpg). Perhaps a more accurate fix would be to replace "English" with the broader category of general "Humanities," since (as you've observed) the film's central question boils down to "Humanities vs Sciences." That said, being such a broad umbrella term for a vast array of disciplines -- from English to Economic, Geography to Gender Studies, History to Linguistics, etc, etc -- it might be difficult to represent that entire scholarly demographic with any one or two (or ten) stereotypical images. I'm just not sure what can really be done with this. Sorry. – ProtoCanon4 weeks ago
I understand the issues you bring up, and the phrasing was probably not the best. The subject is definitely a bit too broad for a focused study, but I was hoping to get some insight through notes to narrow it a bit. I realize that English studies and linguistic studies are separate fields, but I've personally seen the stereotype of those in the humanities who study language in some way being incorrectly lumped together under the umbrella of "English." This may be a personal experience that does not translate well for others, so turning our attention to the humanities in general may be a slightly more beneficial direction to take this topic. Having said this, I do believe that there is a trend in mainstream U.S. popular culture to view those in the humanities as the stereotypical "struggling artists" without taking into account the intricacies of the humanities such as linguistic studies, technical writing, etc. Thank you for the note; I believe you provided some very important clarifications to my initial topic. – Aaron4 weeks ago
Thank you *so much* for this topic. In an increasingly STEM-driven world, I sometimes feel as though everything I am passionate about is irrelevant. Sometimes I want to say to people, "You do understand you couldn't pursue STEM careers if you couldn't read, don't you?" And you're right, films don't help anything. I don't think I've seen a humanities-based film since Mona Lisa Smile, and that was what, 2003? Anyway...the topic should probably be narrowed down, but you have the seeds of something that will spark a great discussion. – Stephanie M.1 week ago
In 2017, whenever we watch a film and all the heroes are white-looking, and all the villains are black-looking, there is a problem. This is very racist, and not supported by fans.
We now see more minorities being the heroes of the stories or the "companion" of the hero. However, do people do this with a genuine intention? Or do they place these heroes strategically so no one complains?
We still see the main hero to be mainly white males in most stories, but there seems like there is a pressure to put minorities and I am wondering if these minorities were actually supposed to be there, and not placed there from pressure of current society. As a minority, I’d like to see stories where the main hero is a minority, but that these stories are genuine and that it was supposed to be like that from the beginning.
We all recognize Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci to be one of the most iconic portraits ever painted. But only the true art enthusiasts are aware of the greatest works of art ever. From the powerful Mr & Mrs. Clark & Percy by David Hockney to the Jan Six by Rembrandt, there are endless other portraits that are a treat for the eyes. In this post, we will enlist 10 of the greatest portraits of all times.
"It’s 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes; it’s dark and we’re wearing sunglasses" (Elwood Blues)
"Hit it!" (Jake Blues)
That legendary quote from ‘The Blues Brothers’ (1980) introduced the viewer to arguably one of the funniest and most notorious car chases in cinema history and exemplified the road movie as a metaphor for the desire for freedom. Freedom from oppression, freedom from authority and the freedom of self-expression. The comically manic, self-destructive joyride of ‘Goodbye Pork Pie’ (1981) saw the protagonist taking a thousand mile trip across New Zealand, in a progressively disintegrating mini, just to reconnect with his girlfriend, whilst David Lynch’s gentle perambulation that was ‘The Straight Story’ (1999) was based on the true story of Alvin Straight’s 240 mile trip on a lawnmower across Iowa and into Wisconsin to see his estranged brother. In more recent years we’ve had the eccentric British film ‘Driving Lessons’ (2006), the Bonny and Clyde-esque ‘God Bless America’ (2012), Inmtiaz Ali’s loosely scripted and superb ‘Highway’ (2014) and the somewhat off-kilter ‘The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun’ (2015)…to list but a few examples. What connects all these films is that each is ultimately a life-affirming experience, even if the journey ends in disaster. It is the process of self-discovery, but in these modern times of ultra high-tech surveillance and ever encroaching self-driving vehicles, will we lose that chance to push the peddle-to-the-metal and engage with our thirst for a fleeting moment of automotive freedom?
I'd be really curious to know how the road trip movie fits in different cultures' cinema - I've assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was a American connection. – Emily Esten2 months ago
With the rise of digital retail services like the recent "Movies Anywhere," is the age of owning films in physical formats coming to an end sooner than expected? With services like iTunes and Vudu, no one needs to buy a film in a store like Best Buy anymore. Is it for the best? Does owning a DVD or Blu-ray come with benefits, or is it now unnecessary?
Ah, verrrry interesting. I have a DVD collection of movies I consider favorites, but now that Netflix, DVR, and etc. exist, I definitely don't watch them as much as I used to and maybe should. For a topic like this, I think you'd have to think carefully about the upsides of owning a film. For instance, is it just the idea of ownership that makes us shell out hard-earned cash, or is there something else to it? – Stephanie M.1 week ago
Everyone has preferences in regards to what becomes integrated into our self-identity. With the increase of choices, does marketing play a significant role any longer? Or, do people (even within niche markets) know what they want and how to find it; so as far as profits are concerned, it is more about quality than hype or any other strategy, thus bringing about a societal need to cultivate creativity?
In a relatively recent episode of the new Sci-fi comedy show ‘The Orville,’ titled ‘About a Girl’ an interesting discussion is raised about the issue of gender identity, sexual categorisation, social acceptance and cultural interference. In the episode the same-sex couple (aliens known as the Moclan, of which all are male) give birth to a female, an unusual but not unheard of situation. The Moclan believe that growing up as a female in an almost exclusively male society is the equivalent to experiencing a form of social disability or social isolation. Yes, already an incredibly confronting concept. However, the two fathers differ on what is to be done, with one wishing to have their girls sex organs altered to allow her to live a "normal" life as a male Moclan.
The mostly human-based crew of the space ship become involved in this debate, strongly arguing for the right to her original gender to be honoured. Arguments concerning genital mutilation, female rights, and nature versus nurture all arise. This episode comes to ahead when a trial is held to decide and a very rare female Moclan is found. She has been living up in a cave in the mountains, but is also the races’ most celebrated writer and philosopher. She argues for the right of the child to be allowed to remain a girl. However, the council ultimately rules in the favour of having her sex changed. A decision The Orville crew must accept as being a culturally acceptable choice.
Now, this discussion is not a new one, as often Sci-fi, and especially Space Operas, will use the alien race division to debate topics relevant to cultural and racial difference. However, an unusual choice by the writers is that unlike usual network shows, the alien race does not "come to its senses" and perceive the world from the human (privileged and thus better) viewpoint. Well, while I can respect this as a creative choice, and perhaps and interesting sociological choice, I can not help but be left with a bad taste in my mouth. Is this because I am so Westernised in my view I cannot accept that other culture’s have the right to their view? Is it as a feminist that this is too close to genital mutilation for me to stomach? Or have I become so used to the stereotypical television norm of "making it all better" that I find it difficult to reconcile my expectations of entertainment with real life?