http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/12/17/keanu-reeves-confirms-live-action-cowboy-bebop-involvement/

Now you know all the Dragonball fans felt

Altough the last trailer didn't look quity as bad as the first one.

lets face it, nothing is holy anymore these days....
cowboy bebop, ninja scroll ....

sigh

Yea, it really sucks when something you loved so much as a child winds up on Taco Bell cups and Cereal boxes.

Sigh... Well I can't say I'm surprised. Five years after they fact here hollywood comes to ruin something better than any major studio has created in years. God, these people have no shame. No living human is cool enough to play Spike Speigal. No one.

I dont know about that... I have kind of thought for a while that Benicio Del Toro might make a good spike. One of my co workers who eats sleeps and breathes anime had to actually take pause for a moment and agree with me, and this is the kind of guy who gets worked up to frothing mad on just about anything anime related.

BloodofOrks wrote:Sigh... Well I can't say I'm surprised. Five years after they fact here hollywood comes to ruin something better than any major studio has created in years. God, these people have no shame. No living human is cool enough to play Spike Speigal. No one.

Seconded and one to infinity. What's next, Aqua Teen Hunger Force?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Why not just take the money and HIRE the Bebop Director and staff to make another animated feature film?

That would be a much better investment.

I really don't think hollywood has the skill to pull this off.

Its like someone burned down my childhood home and then sent me the tape

You'll get over it. Childhood memories fade over time. Also, cowboy bebop wasn't actually that good (but I'm not a believee that keanu is the antichrist, either.).

Hollywood hasn't had an original bone in its head since CB died and took the good ideas with him. they're ore interested in "remaking" or "reimaging" than innovating - although I hear Jim Cameron is still doing some pioneering work.

chromedog wrote:You'll get over it. Childhood memories fade over time. Also, cowboy bebop wasn't actually that good (but I'm not a believee that keanu is the antichrist, either.).

Hollywood hasn't had an original bone in its head since CB died and took the good ideas with him. they're ore interested in "remaking" or "reimaging" than innovating - although I hear Jim Cameron is still doing some pioneering work.

To be fair, I first watched CB about 5 years ago. And I don't hate Keanu Reeves in general, but he just lacks the charisma that Spike has.

The thing is, unlike Dragonball, CB seems actually feasible to transfer to live action without too much trouble. It would be more a matter of proper actors and scripting.

Frankly, I kind of thought that Matthew Fox could've made a decent Spike.

Now all they need is a live-action Evangerion movie and all the anime I used to watch as a kid will have been remade into awesome movies.

stonefox wrote:Now all they need is a live-action Evangerion movie and all the anime I used to watch as a kid will have been remade into awesome movies.

As a kid?

So, we're talking about last year, right?

I’m not normally the kind of guy to worry about Hollywood movies based on tv franchises, but this one strikes me as a pretty bad idea.

The novel thing about Cowboy Bebop was the way individual episodes followed different genre conventions. You got a noir episode followed by a Shakespearean tragedy. I’m not sure how a film can capture that schizophrenic style, or if they’ll even try. Everything else that going on was fairly standard anime stuff, smart ass lead who’s good at kicking people, big tough grim engineer guy, bratty girl prone to gratuitous fan service. This was fair enough given the innovation going on in the style of the show.

I suspect the heavily stylised elements will be ditched and we’ll get a bounty hunter in space who knows kung-fu, and a hot female lead. Anything else is up for grabs.

It doesn’t really matter though, if Highlander 2 didn’t manage to travel back in time to make the original a sucky movie, it’s unlikely CB the movie will manage it.

sebster wrote:I’m not normally the kind of guy to worry about Hollywood movies based on tv franchises, but this one strikes me as a pretty bad idea.

I think what Hollywood doesn't understand is that people liked CB because it wasn't Hollywood.

I really dislike anime. I find the animation style of the majority of it (not all of it) to be quite horrid, and the minimalistic nature turns me off.

That said, I think Cowboy Bebop is God's gift to cartoons, the single greatest television show ever created by man, and the pinnacle of story-telling. I adore that show more than anything.

And I really wouldn't mind Keanu as Spike.

There.

I said it.

I really wouldn't. As long as he's friendly/snarky Keanu, not overwhelmed-all-the-time 'whoa' Keanu, he'll be fine. He's got the looks and we know he has the moves. Honestly, getting the right Jet, Fay and Ed would be harder.


[EDIT]: Having said all of that, let me make my position clear on what I think the movie would be. The movie, regardless of who they get to star in it, will be terrible, because there is a 5th main character in Bebop - the music. Cowboy Bebop was a show about music, and without the music that was in the show, there is no Bebop. Removing the music from Bebop would ruin it like removing Spike or Ed or even Ein would do.

Hollywood will not get that.

They will not understand that music was the 5th character in Bebop and we'll either get techno, heavy metal, or needless classical stings.

And that will ruin it completely.

BUE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
[EDIT]: Having said all of that, let me make my position clear on what I think the movie would be. The movie, regardless of who they get to star in it, will be terrible, because there is a 5th main character in Bebop - the music. Cowboy Bebop was a show about music, and without the music that was in the show, there is no Bebop. Removing the music from Bebop would ruin it like removing Spike or Ed or even Ein would do.

Hollywood will not get that.

They will not understand that music was the 5th character in Bebop and we'll either get techno, heavy metal, or needless classical stings.

And that will ruin it completely.

BUE

Exactly.

Why did hollywood & DC stop killing, with its curse, Supermen with a Reeve based name. They stopped one short, one who karmatically deserves it for having, knowingly(yes he knows hes a bad actor),killed so many films.


H.M.B.C., Don't know if impossible to cast a living person. Was thinking John Cusak would ROCK as Spike and he understands the importance of music as a main character. Uses it in a lot of his movies.

Everything else, pretty much spot on but I might add. Keanu as Spike is a sign of the end. I hope it kicks off a freakin' revolution where the people string up those hollyweird Idiots.(Too Strong?)

I keep hoping that this is just some big joke and hollywood is performing the largest scale trolling in history. But its more likely that God is dead and that such things really happen, someone somewhere thought that people would go to see this, and somehow, someway, people are going to see it in record numbers anyway.

That is....disconcerting. Hopefully they get an actress that accurately matches the way that Faye's boobies perform! There I said it.

I heard the TB Y:The Last Man was being made into a film as well.

Somethings should just be left great and obscure to us and not pushed into the mainstream, because being a pseudo/faux nerd/geek is so trendy now-adays. I swear I'm going to change my wardrobe to include a mandatory daily allowance of pocket protectors, white breast pocket shirts, large black-rim glasses, suspenders, a bow-tie, and black high waters with penny loafers and white socks.

Using Keanu reeves for Spike is like doing a remake of Clockwork orange and casting Paulie Shore in Malcolm McDowells part.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I really dislike anime. I find the animation style of the majority of it (not all of it) to be quite horrid, and the minimalistic nature turns me off.

That said, I think Cowboy Bebop is God's gift to cartoons, the single greatest television show ever created by man, and the pinnacle of story-telling. I adore that show more than anything.

And I really wouldn't mind Keanu as Spike.

There.

I said it.

I really wouldn't. As long as he's friendly/snarky Keanu, not overwhelmed-all-the-time 'whoa' Keanu, he'll be fine. He's got the looks and we know he has the moves. Honestly, getting the right Jet, Fay and Ed would be harder.


[EDIT]: Having said all of that, let me make my position clear on what I think the movie would be. The movie, regardless of who they get to star in it, will be terrible, because there is a 5th main character in Bebop - the music. Cowboy Bebop was a show about music, and without the music that was in the show, there is no Bebop. Removing the music from Bebop would ruin it like removing Spike or Ed or even Ein would do.

Hollywood will not get that.

They will not understand that music was the 5th character in Bebop and we'll either get techno, heavy metal, or needless classical stings.

And that will ruin it completely.

BUE

See, my problem is that I don't think even the friendly/snarky Keanu is appropriate. Looks-wise, he's close, but he really just has a different swagger to Spike.

I agree with everything else in your post though. The producers would be stupid to not get Yoko Kanno and The Seatbelts to the music. It really did make the show (similarly to the music in Samurai Champloo). I could see them getting away without having Ed in the show, though.

My one hope at least is that they keep the fairly existentialist feel to the movie (ie. no "origins"....things just are - akin to how Christopher Nolan introduced Heath Ledger's Joker as absolute).

God I hate anime

So, this Cowboy Bebop thing....is it any good?



Seriosly, I've heard it's about some Sci-Fi Bounty Hunter and I like what I've heard of the music, but that's about it.

Anung Un Rama wrote:So, this Cowboy Bebop thing....is it any good?

It's largely considered to be the best anime of all time, (or at the very least in the top three) so it's definately something you'll want to check out if you haven't seen it yet. (You can watch the whole show and the movie on you tube)

Snark, better then Macross or Gundam?

Well, as long as there at it, why not do Akira with Paul Walker and The Rock, perfect casting. Either way, I wont be seeing this movie. Its sad enough that they are even making it, but its worse when they make money.

Why is it called Cowboy bebop?

Because Cowboy Rocksteady was already taken

Frazzled wrote:Why is it called Cowboy bebop?

It's the name of the ship the main characters live/ride on. Cowboys, in the context of the show, also refers to Bounty Hunters, and the show's music has a lot of bebop influences.

I am a picky anime fan. I do like a lot of it, but there are some shows I just can’t stand to watch.

However cowboy bebop is one of my favs. I liked it enough to buy it.... and that’s saying something, I had to take away 40k money to buy it

I am optimistic and hope for a hit.

But there is something in the back of my mind that says


I am not one of those guys that decide how good a movie will be by who they have playing in it.... I will probably go see this on the big screen.

Sebster -
There is a very easy way that they can make the movie "episodic" and different. do it in a way SIMILAR (not the same as) Sin City. Tell stories from differing perspectives or even from one perspective but with different themes running through it.

That said ... anime does not translate to live action well. I don't think I've seen a good translation yet (not that too many people in Hollywood are stupid enough to try again and again).

What scares me is that somehow I get the feeling that they actually stand to lose less money than simply not making this movie. I don't know how or why, but jeez there is no way this can end well in any way, but they are making it.

Pook wrote:Sebster -
There is a very easy way that they can make the movie "episodic" and different. do it in a way SIMILAR (not the same as) Sin City. Tell stories from differing perspectives or even from one perspective but with different themes running through it.

That said ... anime does not translate to live action well. I don't think I've seen a good translation yet (not that too many people in Hollywood are stupid enough to try again and again).

I normally agree with you on the point that anime doesn't translate well into live action (any animation, really). For the most part, though, Cowboy Bebop is pretty tame in the "fantastical"/"crazy sci-fi" department, and I feel that for the most part, it would be one of the better candidates to make the transition. I still would prefer it to not be made, but I feel like it wouldn't look as dumb as, say, Dragonball which relies heavily on fantastical elements for its plot/world. Basically, CB just feels a little more real.

I don't think the movie would necessarily have to be "episodic", though. I mean, the whole movie itself can be like "one long episode", kind of like Knocking on Heaven's Door. I think the thing that would hurt this movie the most would be if they decided to go the "origins" story type route.

Just hope they wait till they get a decent actor before they try to do ballad of fallen angels.

Lindsey Lohan is Wonder Woman.

You! Have! to! be! Joking!!!

Just looked it up and Joss Whedon has stepped down from directing Wonder Woman and it looks like it won't be made for a while. I can't find anywhere that shes confirmed for the part.

Yes, because a film like Wonder Woman requires an Actor of Shakespearean Calibre.....

One hear's Dame Judy was simply mortified at losing out.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes, because a film like Wonder Woman requires an Actor of Shakespearean Calibre.....

One hear's Dame Judy was simply mortified at losing out.

If somethings worth doing then its worth doing right. The thought of Lohan playing Wonder woman to us is like Costners version of Robin Hood or Richard Gere in First Knight would be to you chaps.

Regardless. It's DC pop culture crap, so why worry about getting a decent actress? Besides, Lohan has fantastic...ummm...assets, and thats all I'd be paying to gawp at!

Sorry mate, Linda Carter Kicks the dog poopy out of lohan in celebrity death match IMHO.

As for pop culture crap. Careful on that, a lot of your traditional heros could be considered pop culture crap. And your talking about things that have been around for over a half a century. Pop culture durability is usually along the lines of the 8-track or bell bottom pants.50 years may not be much to you 1000 year old brits but to a young country like the US thats a fair bit of time.

She has a truth lassoo, an invisible plane (why invisible?) and has these bracelets of bullett deflection thingy.

Hardly a classic beyond the inevitable status symbol for Wimmins Rights....

I can't take her seriously as a character at all! The character lacks the gravitas of Marvels creation (Magneto and Xavier were mutant equivalents to Malcom X and Martin Luther King respectively) and I fear the flm would be high camp at best, and a load of meaningless pro-feminist drivel at worst!

Not calling it a classic exactly. Just it should get the same level of resect in development and production as the newer batman and superman movies. You want to hear feminist scream. Go ahead and make it a camp film.

But there is nothing that deep about her, and therein lies the problem.

Superman has some depth, because he isn't human, and longs for a relationship etc.

Batman has a great deal of death, as for once the good guy is every bit as mental and dangerous as the bad guy, often more so!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But there is nothing that deep about her, and therein lies the problem.

Superman has some depth, because he isn't human, and longs for a relationship etc.

Batman has a great deal of death, as for once the good guy is every bit as mental and dangerous as the bad guy, often more so!

Wonder Woman isn't human either. She's a creation of clay made by hera who had life breathed into her by the gods. She fundamentally doesn't understand the humans around her, and has been banished from themascera, her homeland, after stealing hera's armor.

There's a lot of potential for depth there, I think.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But there is nothing that deep about her, and therein lies the problem.

Superman has some depth, because he isn't human, and longs for a relationship etc.

Batman has a great deal of death, as for once the good guy is every bit as mental and dangerous as the bad guy, often more so!

Wonder Woman isn't human either. She's a creation of clay made by hera who had life breathed into her by the gods. She fundamentally doesn't understand the humans around her, and has been banished from themascera, her homeland, after stealing hera's armor.

There's a lot of potential for depth there, I think.

Except that it still basically comes down to being Superman with tig ol bitties. An 'alien' stuck in our world.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
She's a creation of clay.....

Sounds like Lohan's acting abilities.

There's a lot of potential for depth there, I think.

not so much.

Ahtman wrote:An 'alien' stuck in our world.

Doesn't that describe about half of the DC cast of superheroes anyway?

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ahtman wrote:An 'alien' stuck in our world.

Doesn't that describe about half of the DC cast of superheroes anyway?

Probably more than that, but it also describes the majority of the DC universe that will never see a movie made about them, unlike Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Selling something to a comic book audience and selling something to a mass audience for film is another. I'm referring to how the latter would view it.

My middle brother should play Spike.

Seriously.

That being said, and seen the direction that Hollywood takes with it's movies, I expect the end to be radically different because they want to be accessible to everyone; they'll also show a kid Spike being bitten by a Dog, bitten by a Cat, dumped (and bitten) by Girlfriend, while being kicked (and bitten) by all the kids in the block, in order to explain his "hate" for said each of them.

Really, Hollywood's biggest problem is that they don't understand they don't have to show *everything*, they don't have to explain *everything*. Leave it to the watcher to figure it out, though given their target audience (i.e. anyone but the fans) they'd probably be at a loss.

So instead of a Donnie Darko-esque cult movie they'll make a money grabbing "Uwe Boll" flick that shows a unidimensional main character who has a bad attitude but! you'll realize near the end of the movie he's actually a very nice guy who helped old ladies cross the street and can work out a smile and actually likes the girl. They kiss, it ends.

I kinda understand now why they picked Keanu the Reaver.

i agree with some of HBMCs points about the film, however i just have strong reservations, i just seems like Hollywood are enjoying taking peoples childhoods, distorting them so badly to make an hour and half movie "£$%%ing all over the fans etc

to take a perfect example, look at the trailer for the Legend of Zelda movie, i died inside a little when i saw this, they should have learnt with Super Mario Bros, Nintendo games do not make good movies, so why spoil the games?

I know it is the vulture-like concept that offends everyone. Still, what can you do except take the ultimate vengeance of not buying a ticket? And stop all your friends and relatives from going either.

Money is the only language Hollywood understands.

LMAO at anime fans thinking Hollywood just became scavengers.

Money has been the only thing they've cared about forever. They've insulted and raped material THOUSANDS of times better than Cowboy Bebop. They've besmirched Abraham Lincoln, World War II, Dostoevsky, the French Revolution, Jesus Christ, and the mentally challenged.

Explain why a specific Japanese artform should be off-limits? Or how this is a change from the last 7 decades?

They turned Lord of the Rings INTO A CARTOON.

So turn down the indignation please. Cwoboy Bebop isn't above being carved up for mainstream audiences any more or less than James Patterson or Stephen King.

Actually, Cowboy beebop could very well be considered high art. Just because its animated you dismiss it. The writing, concept, and story line stacks up against most classics. But i understand 96. You probably wouldn't get New Orleans or the blues either.

None of these shows are made for arts sake, same goes for film. They are made to generate revenue. The same goes for the Blues and New Orleans travel industry. 'Hollywood' isn't making art films for small audiences, they are making broad products for a broad audience. It isn't just their fault either, it is as much as the audiences fault. They make crap, we buy it.

From Aaron Sorkin:
"It's important to remember that, first and foremost, if not only, this is entertainment. "The West Wing" isn't meant to be good for you. We're not telling anyone to eat their vegetables, and we do not consider it important in the sense that you're saying...Our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. That said, there is tremendous drama to be gotten from the great, what you would say, heavy issues."

dienekes96 wrote:LMAO at anime fans thinking Hollywood just became scavengers.

Money has been the only thing they've cared about forever. They've insulted and raped material THOUSANDS of times better than Cowboy Bebop. They've besmirched Abraham Lincoln, World War II, Dostoevsky, the French Revolution, Jesus Christ, and the mentally challenged.

Explain why a specific Japanese artform should be off-limits? Or how this is a change from the last 7 decades?

They turned Lord of the Rings INTO A CARTOON.

So turn down the indignation please. Cwoboy Bebop isn't above being carved up for mainstream audiences any more or less than James Patterson or Stephen King.

At the time, Lord of the Rings was only possible as a cartoon. And it was a good attempt at it.

It isn't about Japanese art being off-limits, it's just that it puts people off from the original piece. If the movie is crap, why would you bother watching the anime? Being quite an interesting series (though I found your examples for "thousands of times better" amusing ) I find it sad that it will have a black spot over it because they were lazy enough not to think things through (and apply a thousand clichés), to be unimaginative enough to put a questionable soundtrack by every artist that is popular atm (though in this aspect the Spawn OST far surpasses the movie), and took enough liberties with the story to make it downright unrecognizeable from the original work. I think you'd find people protesting over other forms of art (literature, etc) if this similar case was appliable. Constantine, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and many others were lazy excuses for money making. But money making isn't the only thing, and I wouldn't have anything against it if at least we got something of value and significance.

Then you have some cases of people really working to produce something that has an impact, even if it differs from the original work, and gathers curiosity towards the books. Blade Runner made me read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I also thought that the LotR movies brought the books back into a spotlight, the Golden Compass wasn't all that bad, I've yet to read the Prestige but I've been told the book is as good as the movie, the new Batman dispenses introductions, etc. These are instances where relatively known/ well known books were adapted, not for the sole purpose of "money making" but also for the artistic possibilities, and were good enough on their own to generate interest (and further income) over the time (not so much for the GC, but oh well).

I think you can actually adapt something into the silver screen that has the same economic success as an half-arsed attempt, and still conserve it's cultural value, or even add to it.

Destrado wrote:But money making isn't the only thing, and I wouldn't have anything against it if at least we got something of value and significance.

You can do that, but people invest in movies on the hope that they will make something in return. If one is lucky, occasionally you can make something combines both art and commercial success. "Message" movies tend not to have as large and audience but are still expected to turn a profit.

Now something like Cowboy Bebop is going to cost more to make and thus require greater financing thus it is going to need a larger audience to recoup the costs. Of course the people involved in making it think they are making something of value beyond mere profit, and we can hope that it delivers something more, but in the end that isn't why it is being made.

Destrado wrote:Then you have some cases of people really working to produce something that has an impact, even if it differs from the original work, and gathers curiosity towards the books

LA Confidential is another good transition from book to film.

Fight Club

Except the ending. And the whole formula thing.

There might be other stuff. Oh yeah, how they meet.

Still captures the spirit of the book, even though it's a bit more joyful
than the book.

Excellent points to both Destrado and Ahtman. This discussion just reminded me of recent Firefly tantrums. Way better shows have been treated way worse. I'm sorry Firefly was cancelled, but it's ratings sucked, and this is business.

Look, you can make art out of anything. If you had told me I would love the film Speed Racer (which is based on a cartoon I never cared for), I'd have laughed in your face. Which leads me to...

focusedfire wrote:Actually, Cowboy beebop could very well be considered high art. Just because its animated you dismiss it. The writing, concept, and story line stacks up against most classics. But i understand 96. You probably wouldn't get New Orleans or the blues either.

What in the "h" "e" double hockey sticks are you talked about? Did you even read my post? Let me address your reply in parts:

1) I specifically referred to anime as a Japanese artform. I joked about anime earlier (mocking the thread title, probably started by someone who paid for a Transformers movie ticket), but I respect that it is an artform. So, by all means, read the words I made the effort to type before responding.

2) Are you ACTUALLY equating a genre anime series (even if it's a great one) with the entire artform of jazz or a city with the cultural and historical significance of New Orleans? Perspective...look into it.

3) I love "cartoons". I own almost every Disney and Pixar film, Samurai Jack, every DC animated series (Superman, Batman:TAS, Justice League), and quite a bit of Tom and Jerry.

4) I'm open to the idea that Cowboy Bebop could be a great story. I've heard good things about it, and not just from douchy otaku geeks with limited worldviews. But it is still a combination of other genres and ideas, like Star Wars or The Matrix. Nothing wrong with that. But...

5) You need to either read more, watch more, or think more. Define high art or classic? Hamlet is a classic. A Christmas Carol is a classic. The Godfather is a classic.

And high art

High art is subjective, so I'll share my opinion and a few examples. High art is art that transcends its medium and traditional analysis mechanisms. Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung is high art. It predated psychology, but informed it. It is bigger than it's genre or medium. It is still researched and debated today. Rodin's sculptures are high art. They literally inform the human condition. The Sistine Chapel and the Pieta are high art. Mozart's symphonies are high art. Believe it or not, the work of Mark Twain is high art. The Bible is high art. Rembrandt is high art.

Feel free to google.

Lastly, Hollywood is more than capable of works that equal or better Cowboy Bebop. It all depends on the who (and that means the director and the screenwriters...not the actors). You get Ridley Scott, you are in business. You get Stephen Sommers, Van Helsing.

So spare me the otaku outrage, ff.

Pook wrote:Sebster -
There is a very easy way that they can make the movie "episodic" and different. do it in a way SIMILAR (not the same as) Sin City. Tell stories from differing perspectives or even from one perspective but with different themes running through it.

That said ... anime does not translate to live action well. I don't think I've seen a good translation yet (not that too many people in Hollywood are stupid enough to try again and again).

That's an interesting thought. If done well it could make for a really good film. I'm not sure about anime in general not translating, I can't think of anything that's made a decent crossover, but there hasn't been a lot of crossovers, and it seems a more natural fit than other media.



Oh, and I think Trainspotting was a stronger film than book, as was Interview with the Vampire. Apparently Twilight is much better as a film as well, but I haven't read the book or seen the movie.

Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay. I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless. Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art. I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

Railguns wrote:Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay.

lol

Railguns wrote:I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless.

This sounds like someone not trying to make a living off an artform. Painters, Actors, novelists, illustrators don't live on a heigtened sense of satisfaction. They get paid for what they do.

Railguns wrote:Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art.

For homeless artists and hobbyists this may be true, but for the others they want to be able to eat and actually have people see there work.

Railguns wrote:I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

The work is respected, just not some peoples narrow view of it. Do you really think they are making this thinking "oh man I hate this IP, I hope we can piss some weeaboos off!".

What is hilarious is the idea of art you are presenting is the idea of how art works presented by television and the movies, not the reality of professional artists. Do you think Cowboy Bebop was made as a philanthropic project?

Generally speaking, creators are not primarily motivated by money or they would be salesmen or bankers. However they usually have to make a living somehow.

Renaissance artists like Michelangelo had to do a lot of sucking up to the Medicis and popes to get their commissions.

Hey don't confuse what I'm saying now. I'm also a musician. I am fully aware of the reality that I need to make money to continue, you know, living. Bass trombone work is a narrow field! But we don't practice at least 2hours a day just to have an edge over the other guys gunning for the money. It's because we enjoy what we do and try to do our best at it. Breaking something down to the lowest common social denominator to sell it to everyone is contrary to that.

Edit:Now that I think of it, nothing is more irritating than when someone asks you to play but won't pay you because you're supposed to "enjoy it". Yes, I do, but I'm providing a service and have to have income, so for God's sake pay or no play.

Railguns wrote:Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay. I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless. Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art. I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

Except that a remake doesn't diminish the original work in any way. That's just fanboys/otakus being precious. If anything, it opens up the work to a new audience. Even if the movie is dreadful, the animated series is exactly the same.

And not everything Hollywood does is automatically soulless and bad. Sure, there's lots of rubbish, but every source of media is mostly rubbish. Anime, for instance, produces piles of derivative rubbish for every decent series. People complain about the Transformers movie, but have you seen the animated stuff that was coming out before the movie?

No no no. It's the *snobs* complaining, not the fanboys. The Fanboys normally wait until it's released before going to see it and storming out having secretly enjoyed it....

The Snobs however, declare the whole sacred and touchable and don't want anyone else muscling in on their action.

dienekes96 wrote:
1) I specifically referred to anime as a Japanese artform. I joked about anime earlier (mocking the thread title, probably started by someone who paid for a Transformers movie ticket), but I respect that it is an artform. So, by all means, read the words I made the effort to type before responding.

Actually, I've yet to see Transformers. Shia Lebouf tends to really irritate me, so I avoid him.

Re: Thread title: yeah, it's a silly title, but it's a recurring sentiment when Hollywood does something that seems dumb.

dienekes96 wrote:Excellent points to both Destrado and Ahtman. This discussion just reminded me of recent Firefly tantrums. Way better shows have been treated way worse. I'm sorry Firefly was cancelled, but it's ratings sucked, and this is business.

Look, you can make art out of anything. If you had told me I would love the film Speed Racer (which is based on a cartoon I never cared for), I'd have laughed in your face. Which leads me to...

focusedfire wrote: wrote:Actually, Cowboy beebop could very well be considered high art. Just because its animated you dismiss it. The writing, concept, and story line stacks up against most classics. But i understand 96. You probably wouldn't get New Orleans or the blues either.

What in the "h" "e" double hockey sticks are you talked about? Did you even read my post? Let me address your reply in parts:

1) I specifically referred to anime as a Japanese artform. I joked about anime earlier (mocking the thread title, probably started by someone who paid for a Transformers movie ticket), but I respect that it is an artform. So, by all means, read the words I made the effort to type before responding.

2) Are you ACTUALLY equating a genre anime series (even if it's a great one) with the entire artform of jazz or a city with the cultural and historical significance of New Orleans? Perspective...look into it.

3) I love "cartoons". I own almost every Disney and Pixar film, Samurai Jack, every DC animated series (Superman, Batman:TAS, Justice League), and quite a bit of Tom and Jerry.

4) I'm open to the idea that Cowboy Bebop could be a great story. I've heard good things about it, and not just from douchy otaku geeks with limited worldviews. But it is still a combination of other genres and ideas, like Star Wars or The Matrix. Nothing wrong with that. But...

5) You need to either read more, watch more, or think more. Define high art or classic? Hamlet is a classic. A Christmas Carol is a classic. The Godfather is a classic.

And high art

High art is subjective, so I'll share my opinion and a few examples. High art is art that transcends its medium and traditional analysis mechanisms. Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung is high art. It predated psychology, but informed it. It is bigger than it's genre or medium. It is still researched and debated today. Rodin's sculptures are high art. They literally inform the human condition. The Sistine Chapel and the Pieta are high art. Mozart's symphonies are high art. Believe it or not, the work of Mark Twain is high art. The Bible is high art. Rembrandt is high art.

Feel free to google.

Lastly, Hollywood is more than capable of works that equal or better Cowboy Bebop. It all depends on the who (and that means the director and the screenwriters...not the actors). You get Ridley Scott, you are in business. You get Stephen Sommers, Van Helsing.

I don't disagree with any of your points.

I don't consider myself one of those otaku geeks, and I won't say that Cowboy Bebop is the end-all, be-all of "art" or what not. It's just a story/world that I happen to have enjoyed a lot.

My main issue, I suppose with casting Keanu Reeves, is that it just smacks of movie producer/execs going, "Oh, I hear this Cowboy jazz thingy from Japan is really, popular. Get the rights and just stick some big name - Keanu Reeves, or Johnny Depp and pump it out". I understand that that's the name of the game there, but sometimes it would be nice to think that they at least care somewhat to the source material. I just sincerely think Keanu Reeves is not suited for the role, and I suspect that this movie will be another Constantine or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And it's not just cartoon/comic -> live action movie transitions that I feel similarly about. I can't even count the number of variations of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (one of my favorite novels) that I've hated (though that one MacGyver episode/movie was somewhat entertaining).

It's not like good movies can't be made that are based off of other works - Blade Runner was mentioned. Lord of the Rings I thought (some scenes/dialogue excepted) did good justice to the originals. Hellboy 1 & 2 I found delightful. Minority Report was also decent (minus some of the gratuitous CGI shots and the ending). (I also found Speed Racer surprisingly enjoyable for what it was).

Then my off-hand snide comment at the thread title was somewhat unjustified. My apologies.

I think the problem with Hollywood, particularly where Eastern fare is concerned, is the apparent inability to realise what made the original so popular.

Lets take Ring as an example. The original Japanese versions are exceedingly creepy, and at no point do you know much more than the cast members. It was all kept very atmospheric and weird. Now, this might have to do with the subtitles demanding your attention, and thus keeping you riveted, but when it was remade, it just felt entirely gratuitous. Most of the atmosphere was lost with the introduction of warning music, and it just wasn't anywhere near as fear inducing. Same goes for The Grudge and others.

But, with Anime going to live action, there is more room to manouver, as it's the first time it's been acted rather than drawn. As long as they stick to the core concepts, it should be okay, and lets face it, the Otaku weirdos will never, ever be happy!

Railguns wrote:Edit:Now that I think of it, nothing is more irritating than when someone asks you to play but won't pay you because you're supposed to "enjoy it". Yes, I do, but I'm providing a service and have to have income, so for God's sake pay or no play.

Exactly!

Though it makes me think part of the problem is that we are talking about two different things when we are talking about 'art'. There are different types of art and each plays a different role but to be general we'll say there is personal, local, broad, and mass. Each looks for something different and has different expressions. Something that has to be mass market like a large budget film makes some concessions to try and make back the monstrous investment. The personal level can involve no money and only personal expectations.

It also seems like the real problem is a dislike of Keannu Reeves. Blame the production companies and casting directors. Of course they are hedging their bets that for each online angry person there will be others that like him and get them to go see a movie they have never heard of. Now I think he seems like a nice guy but I think his value is overinflated in the market. Matrix messed it up by making studio heads and production companies think he was popular when it was more than that. He has a certain audience draw, sure, but I think it isn't as great as thought. If anything Constatine and TDTESS should have shown that, but then I'm not doing focus groups and testing either. I will concede he seems like an odd choice for this role on the surface but then again almost no one though of Heath Ledger for the Joker and we see how that worked out. Only time will tell if it is a mistake or not.

Also stop blaming "Hollywood", this isn't the 30's studio system anymore.

If not by studios, then who is running all of this? Personally I think that art, as a refinement of expression, is better served on a more individual basis. Mass market does make concessions, and when a subject is introduced to a new audience and its crap, then you're basically doing a disservice to the original artists, designers, etc. by misrepresenting their work. Thats what I'm worried about.

If anything I think Keanu Reaves is a good choice , sorry for going back on topic by the way, Reaves is musically minded and a fair musician himself and he can act he just has a small though by no means relatively small repetoire of viable roles for a man of his paycheck.

As for the music, if the Japanese can mimic 60's cinema imagery aswell as they have with Cowboy Bebop, cinema can mimic right back. Yes it does depend on the director but by and large the film industry is learning to do adaptions better than it once did, noone wants to be labelled the next Uwe Boll.

Keanu has music experience? Really? Still, the episodic nature of the show makes me wonder how they will approach the film. The over-arching plot about Spike and his pals against ....... whatever his name was with the sword was important, but the side adventures and such were just as important.

General comment here -- what if the source material needs a shakeup? I bet J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is going to p*ss off the true believers. But ST is an incredibly stale franchise that badly needs a reboot.

Also -- just playing devil's advocate here -- sometimes the Hollywood interference is a good thing. Jackson's King Kong is a perfect example of what happens when a director gets full control and there's no studio person there to tell the director to cut the @$%&* film. The fact that he even released an *extended* version for DVD is astounding and shows some tremendous ego. Is it in real time?

Ahtman wrote:None of these shows are made for arts sake, same goes for film. They are made to generate revenue. The same goes for the Blues and New Orleans travel industry. 'Hollywood' isn't making art films for small audiences, they are making broad products for a broad audience. It isn't just their fault either, it is as much as the audiences fault. They make crap, we buy it.

From Aaron Sorkin:
"It's important to remember that, first and foremost, if not only, this is entertainment. "The West Wing" isn't meant to be good for you. We're not telling anyone to eat their vegetables, and we do not consider it important in the sense that you're saying...Our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. That said, there is tremendous drama to be gotten from the great, what you would say, heavy issues."

Your applying western entertainment structure to Eastern art. If Beebop was made only for money they would have caved to the millions(possibly billions) of dollars of pressure to rewrite and extend the series.
There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately. It is exactly like you said, all about profit. As a matter of fact they have it down to a formulaic process. If something doesn't fit into the formula they don't make it, until some art based independent makes a profit off of something new. Then they over do, overly cookie cutter, & overly market some artist concept turning it mainstream.
The independent and eastern film markets apply a completely different method of film production.

Do you have confirmation the asian film industry has been kicking Hollywood's butt? I'll grant Bollywood is the real deal as a rising competitor, but other than that you need to put some numbers up. Batman made more than the GDP of Europe for crying out loud

focusedfire wrote:Your applying western entertainment structure to Eastern art. If Beebop was made only for money they would have caved to the millions(possibly billions) of dollars of pressure to rewrite and extend the series.

That is the same reason Battlestar Galactica is stopping at the fourth season, because the money is so good and the audience is to big. The fact that you think it might be worth "billions" gives me a sense that you are both an otaku and naive to the realities of financing and licensing.

focusedfire wrote:There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately.

Which they actually haven't, so, yee-haw to that. Their business model is different and they do ok, but the only "Asian film industry" that competes significantly is Bollywood, and I get no impression that you are even thinking of India. To further the point there is no "Asain film industry" as a homogeneous whole. Japan and China have very different business models and create very different content and don't team up that much.

It is exactly like you said, all about profit. As a matter of fact they have it down to a formulaic process.

You are complain about western being formulaic? Have....have you ever seen more than one anime? Ever seen any Wuxia film? And it isn't all about profit, but it is the important factor. You have to be able to eat and pay rent. If you have neither then making a movie is the least of your concerns.

The independent and eastern film markets apply a completely different method of film production.

Last time I checked they still point a camera and hope at the end of the day to be able to feed their kids, so not really.

Either you are a troll (7/10 Rage) or you are really ignorant of the subject you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert on. The problem being that your argument is weak and also that there are people who do actually know something about the subject and they see how much crap is being laid out. You have created a romanticized and idealized model of the East that doesn't hold up to real scrutiny because it doesn't mirror the reality of the situation.

They,ve been kicking Hollywierds tail in the intoduction of new concepts and being first to market with fresh stories and ideas. That Hollywierd has been coopting into its mainstream pablum.

You just attempted to lure me into a fiscal measurement which would have proven my own argument wrong.

Not gonna happen. Will say that due to a non-corporate style that isn't overburdened with overpaid parasites and the use of fresh talent on reasonable payscales that these industries have been more successful at introducing New art and Genres

focusedfire wrote: They,ve been kicking Hollywierds tail in the intoduction of new concepts and being first to market with fresh stories and ideas. That Hollywierd has been coopting into its mainstream pablum.

You just attempted to lure me into a fiscal measurement which would have proven my own argument wrong.

Not gonna happen. Will say that due to a non-corporate style that isn't overburdened with overpaid parasites and the use of fresh talent on reasonable payscales that these industries have been more successful at introducing New art and Genres

My god, his trolling power, it's...



Seriously, "hollywierd"? What are you twelve? If you think the argument was fiscal measurement, you clearly couldn't grasp what was being said.

AHHH AHtman, Always trying to escalate on that which you don't know.

Production- how the budget for the film is gathered and used.

Battlestar galactica- American made, american concieved, american profit motive

The comparison I made was western to eastern. Hollywierd in recent years took drastic steps to bring film back to LA due losing films to reduced production costs in other areas.

Look at how many "mainstream" movies are now made by independent production companies that the big studios buy the finished product from.

Do you know the catch 22 of getting a SAC card?

If my views and personal experience and the expression of such makes me a troll, then I have a lot of company in this thread.

.... who are they going to get to play Fey Valentine

Did the aspca monitor the animal handling in that photo

focusedfire wrote:AHHH AHtman, Always trying to escalate on that which you don't know.

I've responded to your ignorant scrawling enough and see no reason to continue to do so. You still have yet to provide Frazzled with any numbers to back up any of your statements.

Ahtman wrote:My god, his trolling power, it's...



Seriously, "hollywierd"? What are you twelve? If you think the argument was fiscal measurement, you clearly couldn't grasp what was being said.

Yes, this so much more muture and on topic.

It's just as relevant as the previous arguement that you made....

There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately.

Put up or shut up. $ in the door is the only one that can be quantified other than sheer number of films. I'd probably put Hollywood ahead in that category as well. I think Bollywood may be the winner in that category though-its my understanding they churn out gazillions of films at this point.

Bollywood 800 films/ year. Hollywood 250/films per year.

Ratio of profitability is higher in films costing less than 1million.http://home.earthlink.net/~brucecook/main/negat1.html. Never claimed to be the most computer literate, Will eventually learn how to Hotlink.

This thread was about why we hate hollywood. Hate is not something debated. It is a feeling that we all are allowed to have. There are times I love Hollywood. Then there are times like the Disney Three Musketeers that make my teeth itch. In this upcoming movie I am not happy about some of the choices and have been reminded of what I hate about Hollywood. So I chose to vent about these choices .
Different people see different things as worthy of respect and the title art. I, IMHO, personally believe that the current trend of money=art or money=entertainement is a failing of our soceity.
I have a certain amount of respect for the artistic ability and integrity of the Beebop creators.

I'll shut up at this point and bow to the (MOD)s will.

Actually its no different now than previously. Much of the art we associate with "high art" at least in Europe, was sponsored. I can think of very little Renaissance or Boroque art that was done just to be done-it was always sponsored.

I will say though I get tired of Hollyood's endless (and usually bad) recycling of previous movies. Valentines Day 3d??? That was a horrid piece of vomitous filth originally. Remaking it is offensive to sentient creatures.

Yeah, the illusion of art for art's sake is just that. A fantasy based upon the disappearance of the original force of inspiration. For example, most great poets were commissioned to either disparage a rival, or talk up a patron. It was medieval propaganda.

Envy89 wrote:.... who are they going to get to play Fey Valentine

Hm. The chest-balloons, the slowed widespaced eyes, the small mouth that turns into gargantuan proportions when it's open and the alien-proportion head?

Tila Tequila. A real life animu girl. This is why you slap your friend very hard when he says he finds anime girls cute. In addition to being slowed.

Actually I would argue that many of the great poets were working for sheer personal satisfaction, or religious motives. (Or in some cases, to get into a girl's panties.)

Poetry is probably the cheapest form of art -- all you need is a pen and pad. Of course many of the great poets were independently wealthy. It's tough to make a living from poetry.

OT aside, the fact that the Star Trek franchise badly needs a shake-up perhaps indicates it is past its sell-by and should quietly dropped. Surely there are new SF frontiers to explore!

Envy89 wrote:.... who are they going to get to play Fey Valentine

Well, duh.



This is your own fault.

dogma wrote:Yeah, the illusion of art for art's sake is just that. A fantasy based upon the disappearance of the original force of inspiration. For example, most great poets were commissioned to either disparage a rival, or talk up a patron. It was medieval propaganda.

As much as I am a nihilist, I'm going to have to disagree here. There is making money, and there is art. Money is required to live, living is required to make art, and such are usually interdependant. But don't try to tell me that some of us don't play or write music simply because we enjoy it, or don't try to make new, inspiring music because we want to enjoy it even more. Art for arts sake exists.

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually I would argue that many of the great poets were working for sheer personal satisfaction, or religious motives. (Or in some cases, to get into a girl's panties.)

Poetry is probably the cheapest form of art -- all you need is a pen and pad. Of course many of the great poets were independently wealthy. It's tough to make a living from poetry.

Well, all you need now is a pen and a pad. In times past you also needed to be literate, which was saying a lot in many circumstances. It also bears mention that religious motives are largely inseparable from financial ones in certain periods; being as that was the primary source of income at the time.

Railguns wrote:
As much as I am a nihilist, I'm going to have to disagree here. There is making money, and there is art. Money is required to live, living is required to make art, and such are usually interdependant. But don't try to tell me that some of us don't play or write music simply because we enjoy it, or don't try to make new, inspiring music because we want to enjoy it even more. Art for arts sake exists.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm more apt to see what you describe as art for your (in the general sense) sake. But I can see where you're coming from.

@ stonefox. that is exactly why they need to get someone good to play her role.

@ malfred. ...................................

Hey! Someone had to bring up "man-fay" - although I think I may just bring up lunch over that pic.

There is such a thing as "art for art's sake", but it tends to be made by people who don't really need the money, who who did it purely for the fun.

Peter Jackson's early works don't count, either. They were done for recognition - which got him where he is today, maker of all things overbloown and long-winded.