Forum - View topic

NEWS: English Dragonball: Evolution Trailer Officially Posted

Psycho 101 wrote:

Teriyaki Terrier wrote: What the hell did I just watch? That isn't even REMOTELY close to Dragon Ball. Being a fan of the orginal series, I have several problems with this movie already. 1. Why is Roshi called Master Roshi and why isn't the person playing Master Roshi older? The orginal Master Roshi is at least in his 70's and is completly bald. 2. The guy playing Goku isn't showing much confidence, doesn't have spikey hair. His voice doesn't even match the part either. 3. Why isn't the person playing Picolo green or at the very least look like Picolo. In the original series, Picolo never wore a leather suit either. 4. The person playing Bulma looks more like a model than a technolgy expert. This movie is going to be as bad, if not much worse than Speed Racer. This is quite a disgrace to Akria Toryiama's work. Fox should stick to america based shows like 24, Prison Break or House. There are so many faults already, I can only imagine how bad the actual movie will actually be. Ya know you seem to just be complaining because this isn't EXACTLY like the anime. I;m sorry but this is why it's called an ADAPTATION. There is no way (without an even huger budget at least) to make the movie look exactly like the show. You seem to just be nitpicking to justify your pre-determined opinion this movie is just full of suck before you ever see it. Even if they looked the part, as that seems to be your biggest complaint, you'd probably then complain about another factor and go on still about how it's full of suck. This is hardly a disgrace and what's more of a disgrace are bigoted japanophile fans who are screaming this is so horrible because it has the stench of Hollywood on it. Here's an idea; try waiting and actually seeing the movie first before claiming how full of suck it is. I would also suggest you see it with an open mind but that would probably just be asking too much beyond seeing it period before complaining about it's suckage.

Jeepers H. Cookies dude, that argument is B.S. I don't think he's saying that things should be exactly the same just more like the book/show. He's saying that it's going to suck because it's not [u]enough like the show. Or pehaps anything like it.

People like you keep saying, "It's an adaptation. It doesn't have to be like the original." Just why the heck can't there be an adaptation that's more like the original? Your reason: OOOOO, that would be too expensive. Are you kidding? Dude, you have to spend money to make money. And with action/fantasy movies usually the move you spend the more you make. Seriously, look at all the movies that have been made in the last few years based on western fantasy concepts and then look at the time, effort, and money that was spent on making them. Let's see: We've had, The Golden Compass, a movie about a girl and her friend, a talking Polar bear who is also a blacksmith. We've seen The Lord of the Rings, 3 related movies about little people running through the woods with elves and fairies. We've seen Harry Potter, 5 movies about a boy wizard and all the things wizards run into. Not to mention, The Chronicles of Narnia (2 movies about a group of kids teaming up with talking forest creatures and a talking lion), 300, Hellboy, Night at the Museum, Zathura, and Pirates of the Caribbean! I could go on, but, why bother?
Money isn't the reason they changed it so much. The reasons are: 1. They have no respect for the fans or the audience. After all anime is weird crap and people who like like it are weird too, right? Who cares if they don't like it we're not making it for them. We just need to get action movie fans to fill seats. 2. Western movie makers are well, bigots. They'll gladly green light a movie with silly sounding elements (see above) if it's origins are Western, but, if it's Eastern they start peeing in their pants over whether or not Joe bumpkin from Idaho will accept it.

And, what, pray tell, is it that actually precludes making the thing look closer to the original?
You: Well, you just can't make a movie that looks like a comic book, duh. It would just look too dumb, people wouldn't accept it and it would cost too much.
Me: Hmmmm, you've never seen Hellboy, 300, or Sin City have you?
Those movies were visually much closer to their source material than this movie and people raved for days about the visuals.
I think the attitude you and the producers of US-DB shows more of lack of imagination/vision and tendency toward bigotry on your part than pn the part of the average movie goer or us "Japanophiles"

Finally, what you don't get is the reason some of us like DB is that it's different. It's not just the same generic story about a sad/mad outcast kid with no confidence learning to overcome life's adversities. Dragon Ball a grand boy's adventure about a strong, confident, happy kid. It's the story of a boy who makes friends wherever he goes and who fights to defend the weak. Movie Goku is just the same shy, sad-sack, needs to be dragged out of his shell we've seen in every western action/adventure movie about young people. And that just doesn't sit well with me. So, excuse me/us for wanting things to be different.

I think one of the big reasons why we're getting this crappy version (besides the reasons I mentioned before) is the writer's strike.

Also, it's pretty much unheard of for a movie that's not very good (I'm being generous) to get a sequel that's actually better. Look at the Resident Evil movies for example. Can you honestly say that RE2 is better than 1? No.

It was based on a cheesy '80s cartoon whose only purpose was to sell toys. I mean, if you don't look for anything beyond that, hey, whatever.

So then..... uh........ when will anime fans stop supporting loli moe titles just because it makes the most money?

Anyways, I'm sure ya guys would like to make more movies like Steel Magnolias, Brokeback Mountain, etc. How many fans actually paid to see those critically acclaimed movies?

Besides, what makes us an arbiter of how a solid piece of entertainment should be? Let the democratic people vote with their wallets?

You see, I never bought into the idea that the Transformers should change size when going from vehicle-mode to robot-mode (or vice versa).

The average movie-goer would rather go to movie they think is good, and there are far more of them than Transformers fans. They - not the fans - are the ones who decide whether or not a movie will be a commercial success, especially for an expensive blockbuster.

I sincerely doubt that anyone could have made a faithful live-action Transformers movie without spending a small fortune.

It doesn't have the huge budget, which means that it doesn't have to compromise itself.

It also has a huge potential fanbase;

Unit 03.5-ish wrote:

Cliffjxn, you make some good points. While I don't necessarily agree with you on Transformers (for what it was, I enjoyed it, but I know it wasn't everyone's cup of tea), I DO understand where you're coming from with crap begetting crap. Look at the idiots who make Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie. Somehow these massive turds turn over a profit, and therefore the studios keep OKing more of that putrid garbage. It's an irritating cycle, but Hollywood latches onto whatever makes the most money, not what seems like it would actually be a solid piece of entertainment.

So then..... uh........ when will anime fans stop supporting loli moe titles just because it makes the most money?

Anyways, I'm sure ya guys would like to make more movies like Steel Magnolias, Brokeback Mountain, etc. How many fans actually paid to see those critically acclaimed movies?

Edit:

Besides, what makes us an arbiter of how a solid piece of entertainment should be? Let the democratic people vote with their wallets?

I really enjoyed the 2007 Transformers movie. I'm not alone; everyone else in the audience in my theater seemed to really really like it. Sure, the final battle went on too long, it took too long in getting going, and the cast could have been cut down. But it was actually still a good movie.

Was it a good adaption of the Transformers franchise? Actually, yes it was. You see, I never bought into the idea that the Transformers should change size when going from vehicle-mode to robot-mode (or vice versa). I felt it struck a good balance between focusing on the humans and the Transformers.

I think it's gonna depend on how many stupid "Gawlee! That CG is awesome!" fans are interested in this flick.

enurtsol wrote:

Unit 03.5-ish wrote: Cliffjxn, you make some good points. While I don't necessarily agree with you on Transformers (for what it was, I enjoyed it, but I know it wasn't everyone's cup of tea), I DO understand where you're coming from with crap begetting crap. Look at the idiots who make Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie. Somehow these massive turds turn over a profit, and therefore the studios keep OKing more of that putrid garbage. It's an irritating cycle, but Hollywood latches onto whatever makes the most money, not what seems like it would actually be a solid piece of entertainment. So then..... uh........ when will anime fans stop supporting loli moe titles just because it makes the most money? Anyways, I'm sure ya guys would like to make more movies like Steel Magnolias, Brokeback Mountain, etc. How many fans actually paid to see those critically acclaimed movies? Edit: Besides, what makes us an arbiter of how a solid piece of entertainment should be? Let the democratic people vote with their wallets?

Dude, Steel Magnolias made $95,904,091! In 1989! It probably didn't cost more than 5 or 10 million to make. Brokeback Mountain cost about $14 million to produce and made more than $178 million.

I get what you're trying to say. And I agree a movie doesn't have to be acclaimed by every critic or as well written as, say, Batman Begins, but, if you make a movie you could at least aim for that level. Instead of writing down below your audience (I'm looking at you Bay), how about writing as if adults will be watching too? Because, guess what? They will be.
Look at it this way, the original Star Wars was not the best or the smartest movie ever made. But, it wasn't the film equivalent of baby speak. And it wasn't a bait and switch either (DBE). It's a movie that really is good solid entertainment rather than mindless pap or cliched rip-off. Would it kill the people in Hollywood to shoot for that just for that level?

Of course, imagine the outcry if they tried to make a movie based on Yu-Gi-Oh or Hikaru no Go; who wants to go watch characters play children's card games or an obscure Japanese board game most people in the US know nothing about?

I really enjoyed the 2007 Transformers movie. I'm not alone; everyone else in the audience in my theater seemed to really really like it. Sure, the final battle went on too long, it took too long in getting going, and the cast could have been cut down. But it was actually still a good movie.

Was it a good adaption of the Transformers franchise? Actually, yes it was. You see, I never bought into the idea that the Transformers should change size when going from vehicle-mode to robot-mode (or vice versa). I felt it struck a good balance between focusing on the humans and the Transformers.

Just because the fans were up in arms did not make the movie a flop. The average movie-goer would rather go to movie they think is good, and there are far more of them than Transformers fans. They - not the fans - are the ones who decide whether or not a movie will be a commercial success, especially for an expensive blockbuster.

I sincerely doubt that anyone could have made a faithful live-action Transformers movie without spending a small fortune. And that's the conundrum, because having spent $300 million on a movie you have to recoup costs, and the only way to do that is to make a movie that will appeal to a wider audience.

But is that so bad? You can argue till your face turns blue that it was a bad Transformers movie, but it still repaid itself just in the box-office returns, let alone merchandising or DVD sales. That suggests that the wider public thought it was a good movie. Well, good enough to spend their money on it.

Exactly. And ya guys (not you) have seen any of them, right? And can't wait for more like it?

Cliffjxn wrote:

I get what you're trying to say. And I agree a movie doesn't have to be acclaimed by every critic or as well written as, say, Batman Begins, but, if you make a movie you could at least aim for that level. Instead of writing down below your audience (I'm looking at you Bay), how about writing as if adults will be watching too? Because, guess what? They will be. Look at it this way, the original Star Wars was not the best or the smartest movie ever made. But, it wasn't the film equivalent of baby speak. And it wasn't a bait and switch either (DBE). It's a movie that really is good solid entertainment rather than mindless pap or cliched rip-off. Would it kill the people in Hollywood to shoot for that just for that level?

I agree with you. I'm just picking on when people say Hollywood should make something "good," and then those people don't go out and watch the "good" movies. (Like WALL-E!!! )