Forum - View topic

Did Netflix Make A Decent Death Note Film?

Hearing that Deb preferred this version of L is good news to me. I enjoyed L from the original anime but let's stop pretending he was a perfect character. He was one dimensional. His eccentricities were fun, but they were also an extended joke that was ultimately very shallow in the grand scheme of things. Yea, he was laid back for much of the series (though he did have his moments of becoming emotional, like when he got in a physical fight with Light), but being a laid back weirdo is not the epitome of character development. L worked in the anime because his weirdness was able to be amplified by the animation medium in ways that often surprised the audience. No one can be that cartoonishly weird in real life. Without that, L was just a smart detective with zero personality, zero complexity, and zero depth (which would make him pale in comparison to say, Sherlock Holmes.)

They executed L's anime character almost flawlessly, but again, he was not a perfect character. If the takeaway is the Stanfield's L is a much more complete character who can't benefit from the ridiculousness of a cartoon character, then I think that is a fair tradeoff.

I'm still perplexed why Watari got a Japanese actor despite the original character being an Englishman.

L is a mix of about three to four different nationalities, but he was anything but black.

L and Light were never friends. They were trying to kill each other. Every interaction that they had with each other was part of an elaborate ruse or strategy to get the other off his game or otherwise make him vulnerable to further deception. The BL aspect was completely external to the story and was just fantasizing by fans of the series.

Hearing that Deb preferred this version of L is good news to me. I enjoyed L from the original anime but let's stop pretending he was a perfect character. He was one dimensional. His eccentricities were fun, but they were also an extended joke that was ultimately very shallow in the grand scheme of things. Yea, he was laid back for much of the series (though he did have his moments of becoming emotional, like when he got in a physical fight with Light), but being a laid back weirdo is not the epitome of character development. L worked in the anime because his weirdness was able to be amplified by the animation medium in ways that often surprised the audience. No one can be that cartoonishly weird in real life. Without that, L was just a smart detective with zero personality, zero complexity, and zero depth (which would make him pale in comparison to say, Sherlock Holmes.)

They executed L's anime character almost flawlessly, but again, he was not a perfect character. If the takeaway is the Stanfield's L is a much more complete character who can't benefit from the ridiculousness of a cartoon character, then I think that is a fair tradeoff.

Watari was not his real name, and I assume it was just an alias he selected because they were currently working in Japan. Unlike L, Watari wasn't the reclusive one and worked as his proxy. It would make sense that he would never go by one definite alias like L, because he's the one who always went out and about. If Watari did stick to one name, it would make it easier to potentially track the person closest to the most mysterious detective on the planet.

Since the movie still wanted to keep that name for the character, then just make the character Japanese because there's no reason an Englishman would be sporting a Japanese alias in America. .

I'm still waiting for a review where the reviewer doesn't mind saying that a movie adaption is "shit". Come on, if it's bad just say it's bad, you should be impartial. From what I understood from this is, that the movie adaptation once again isn't what all the fans want(faithful adaptation) but it has something that are better than the source. That's just bullshit.

Xiximaro wrote:

I'm still waiting for a review where the reviewer doesn't mind saying that a movie adaption is "shit". Come on, if it's bad just say it's bad, you should be impartial. From what I understood from this is, that the movie adaptation once again isn't what all the fans want(faithful adaptation) but it has something that are better than the source. That's just bullshit.

How is that? An adaptation can be not faithful at all and still be very well-liked. Happens all the time with movies. Not everything has to be for the existing fans. Sometimes, it's to bring in people who previous had no interest or had never heard of it prior.

While I don't think Death Note was perfectly written when it came to its characters, the one thing I wouldn't agree with is calling L one dimensional. If you focus only on his eccentric nature to go along with his intelligence, then you miss on the subtle details about L's characterization that leaves quite a bit to speculate on. Besides being a weirdo, L had plenty to say of the kind of person he was through his interactions with other people, and even small moments where he would open up a bit.

From the show, I always got the impression that L was a man of conviction, absolutely committed to living up to his prestigious title, but also suffered a lot in silence. The details of his upbringing, how socially awkward and oblivious he is, his decision to be so reclusive all the time, his qualms with making more morally unethical decisions in the name of the greater good without much hesitation, all paint a picture of what I read as a rather troubled man.

I feel as if L felt lots of times he practically carried the weight of the world on his shoulders at the end of the day. (this might sound silly and maybe I am now starting to read into it too much, but maybe his horrible posture was also some kind of visual metaphor for this. I mean, you could make that argument, right? I'd think it's kinda neat) He could never allow himself to be like everyone else because if he did, to him it would be some kind of detective kryptonite.

Now, maybe you might not see it, and I don't even expect you to change your mind about L, but I'm a big character person and I don't think my analysis of L is just pulled outta my butt. I like to think that the foundation for this is solid. He's not impeccably written, none of these characters are. There are things I would have definitely done differently, but I just don't think L is a shallow as you say he is here.

I'm still waiting for a review where the reviewer doesn't mind saying that a movie adaption is "shit". Come on, if it's bad just say it's bad, you should be impartial. From what I understood from this is, that the movie adaptation once again isn't what all the fans want(faithful adaptation) but it has something that are better than the source. That's just bullshit.
When I say impartial, I mean, your are paid to sugar coat the adaption but you should keep honesty above it... This L is better than L in the manga!? No fan would say that man, even less you who went to a screening and say that the movie isn't that bad. Only a guy who's paid or a non-conformist would think that.

I'm still waiting for a review where the reviewer doesn't mind saying that a movie adaption is "shit". Come on, if it's bad just say it's bad, you should be impartial. From what I understood from this is, that the movie adaptation once again isn't what all the fans want(faithful adaptation) but it has something that are better than the source. That's just bullshit.
When I say impartial, I mean, your are paid to sugar coat the adaption but you should keep honesty above it... This L is better than L in the manga!? No fan would say that man, even less you who went to a screening and say that the movie isn't that bad. Only a guy who's paid or a non-conformist would think that.

Of course it has, fans supported and made it famous in the first place, even the mangaka wishes for the same. Truth non existing fans matter, but they should come in second place. If the source material was good enough to make it world-wide famous, doing a faithful adaptation movie would make non existing fans like it too, that's logic.
But as always it's more easy to do a loosely adaptation... costs less and in case it flops the damage is kept to a minimum.

Xiximaro wrote:

I'm still waiting for a review where the reviewer doesn't mind saying that a movie adaption is "shit". Come on, if it's bad just say it's bad, you should be impartial. From what I understood from this is, that the movie adaptation once again isn't what all the fans want(faithful adaptation) but it has something that are better than the source. That's just bullshit. When I say impartial, I mean, your are paid to sugar coat the adaption but you should keep honesty above it... This L is better than L in the manga!? No fan would say that man, even less you who went to a screening and say that the movie isn't that bad. Only a guy who's paid or a non-conformist would think that.

Some people want anime to be mainstream in America. If that means unfaithful live-action adaptions, they will gladly accept those. It happened with comic books already.

Xiximaro wrote:

Of course it has, fans supported and made it famous in the first place, even the mangaka wishes for the same. Truth non existing fans matter, but they should come in second place. If the source material was good enough to make it world-wide famous, doing a faithful adaptation movie would make non existing fans like it too, that's logic. But as always it's more easy to do a loosely adaptation... costs less and in case it flops the damage is kept to a minimum.

Are you really saying that Gus van Sant's Psycho, Hollywood's single most faithful adaptation ever made, is better than the movie adaptation of Shrek, which has almost nothing in common with the book it was based on?

I can also point you to an example in Warcraft and Watchmen, Hollywood movies that were catered very much for the fans that the general public hated. You're under the impression that what draws a fan into a work is what will draw everyone else in too.

What every comic fans wants is his favorite comic faithfully adapted. Yes they like the current Marvel movies, do you know why? Cause they are defeatists, because they think they know there will never be a faithful adaptation and they believe that crap(or decent movies) is better than nothing. That kind of thinking creates demand and because of it we have a Marvel Cinematic Universe, which translates too, "Sorry we can't adapt your loved comics cause we don't want to put effort in it or take risks, but since we can't admit that we created the MCU as an excuse".
Tell me one non comic fan that would prefer seeing Spider-Man highlight in Civil War being, stealing Captain America's shield instead of what actually happened in the comics, Spider-man revealing his identity publicly and switching to Captain's America side?