I get what they are trying to do with Alita and maybe over the course of the film it will be something you get used to. But in the trailer it just looks freaky. Really the arms would have been more than enough to show she's a cyborg/android. No need to CGI all over the actresses face.
Yeah I have to agree that's what annoys me the most. Also she's the only chararacter they've done it too (barring the full cyborgs) which leaves one feeling that they've just cherry picked her face out of all the faces to mess with. Time will tell if it works and over a whole film it might work, but if her eyes bugged-out any more they'd pop out. Also didn't the anime manage quite alright without going into silly bug-eyes.
I am really looking forward to this! Battle Angel Alita was weirdly one of the first animes I owned when I picked it up as a random VHS tape from a Blockbuster sale as they updated to DVD. Alita looks suitably scary, even in the face of monstrous combat cyborgs.
Those eyes are outright annoying. I liked the old animated movie and the other visual elements look pretty cool but I'll pass just on the basis of those eyes. I could barely watch the trailer, I wouldn't be able to stand looking at that for more than a few minutes let alone full movie.
Bah. If I want to watch BA Alita I'd go do that. This is a weird mess, both visually and thematically. And as introductions to the characters, very off putting.
Someone tell hollywood that certain mediums simply do a better job at certain stories, and trying to replicate them doesn't work.
It kind of reminds me of one of those cartoon live action mashups like who framed Roger rabbit.
Is it really so bad that its unwatchable? I personally don't think so and would like to see it.
They're trying to emphasize how inhuman Alita actually is with the oversize eyes. The only organic part of her is a brain, so her appearance isn't constrained by human biology. It's a really bold choice IMO, and it may backfire on them, but I think it's having the intended effect. They went full CGI on her anyways, so uncanny valley was going to be unavoidable.
What the trailer really needed, though, was some of that sweet rocket hammer action. And no Tiphares tattoo on Doc Ido's forehead (though there seems to be one on another character)?
John Prins wrote: They're trying to emphasize how inhuman Alita actually is with the oversize eyes.
Which is why it's the wrong approach. The oversized eyes on cartoon and anime characters has been a thing for decades- it isn't there for inhumanity, it's there for cuteness, to make the characters more appealing in a puppy or kitten sort of way. It sometimes doesn't work (and in this case gels badly with the plasticity of the cgi work), but the response such things are suppose to evoke is 'want hugs' not 'kill it with fire'
John Prins wrote: They're trying to emphasize how inhuman Alita actually is with the oversize eyes.
Which is why it's the wrong approach. The oversized eyes on cartoon and anime characters has been a thing for decades- it isn't there for inhumanity, it's there for cuteness, to make the characters more appealing in a puppy or kitten sort of way. It sometimes doesn't work (and in this case gels badly with the plasticity of the cgi work), but the response such things are suppose to evoke is 'want hugs' not 'kill it with fire'
I said bold, I didn't say correct. The correct approach would have been to not do a live action movie in the first place, but a high quality traditionally animated one. But they're trying for something here, and they're not being subtle about it. Heck, the lead asks "Can you accept me even though I'm not completely human?" They want it to be polarizing.
John Prins wrote: They're trying to emphasize how inhuman Alita actually is with the oversize eyes.
Which is why it's the wrong approach. The oversized eyes on cartoon and anime characters has been a thing for decades- it isn't there for inhumanity, it's there for cuteness, to make the characters more appealing in a puppy or kitten sort of way. It sometimes doesn't work (and in this case gels badly with the plasticity of the cgi work), but the response such things are suppose to evoke is 'want hugs' not 'kill it with fire'
This.
It's also because "the eyes are the window to the soul" and realistic sized eyes are difficult to see in manga panels. We easily accept cartoon exaggeration in cartoons, but not in almost life-like artworks -- hence the uncanny valley.
Exaggeration also works from the Manga's (which many anime are based off) as it helps to tell different characters apart from each other with the general simplistic style that many manga use. That's why you often get those insane hairstyles as well
As for animation, Hollywood has decided that animation isn't "serious". Traditional drawn animation is for kids only, even the same style done on digital is for kids only. The only hang on animation has is as things like Southpark - ergo "super adult" that they'd not get away with for kids - that and the Simpsons.
Pixar and such manage to hold out with all CGI animated movies, but they are again "kids/family".
It's a huge shame as the 80-90s had some really great animations and films produced by groups like Studio Ghibli continue to show that they can have an adult appeal. It's a shame, I really wish the USA would follow the French more so and take up animation in a more serious way (heck even in comics the artistic quality, detail and style is often superior in a lot of French based ones)
usernamesareannoying wrote: It kind of reminds me of one of those cartoon live action mashups like who framed Roger rabbit.
Is it really so bad that its unwatchable? I personally don't think so and would like to see it.
I don't think the audience would have sat through Roger Rabbit if the main character had been Judge Doom and had him staring everyone down the entire film. Roger Rabbit woks because it's meant to be a cartoonish world intermixed with reality, not a serious genre. Even within the cartoon setting Judge Doom was a bit of a stretch.
I don't watch animoo so whether it's a genre convention or not and for what reason doesn't really matter to me - I don't see the issue? I don't have any desire to see the film - I'm not really the target audience for films about young girls discovering their inner power or whatever they're going for, though it's good that they're making more such films and that more of them are "genre" affairs with a setting other than Mopey-Emo Urban Fantasy - but if it's a story about a brain in a totally robotic body, why not emphasise the artificial nature of that body with full-on uncanny valley facial design.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Frightened Hamster Alita. Her eyes are the only part of the trailer that isn't painfully generic.
That's because the manga is over 20 years old. You're probably used to modern manga that have drawn on the production design of Alita.
The large eyes, though, have been typical of Japanese manga since the 1960s.
I am more familiar with older Manga, not that I went in much past Dragonball. Sure, at the time what's now old was new, but knowing that something used to be groundbreaking didn't save John Carter. Perhaps if they put an actual character or plot hook into the trailer it wouldn't feel so much like Ghost in the Shell in the uninspired live action disapointment genre.
The original was one of those things I liked when anime was rare enough that it was pretty much all awesome. It's definitely not held up but the core ideas are strong enough that there's potential in a remake. The eyes are weird when the trailer over emphasizes them, but they're less odd later when they get to the action. I'm curious, not all in or out either way.
I bought a couple of issues of it when first released, but I never got into it from the start, and that meant I never had the full set as I didn't try to collect it.
I liked the trailer better the second time.
It's interesting to contrast the uncanny valley of Battle Angel Alita with Paddington.
The eyes are a bit overdone, to the point of distraction, given that nobody else has anime eyes. I can forgive Gally's eyes if the Gunnm story and ethos is otherwise adapted faithfully. Given how long this has been in development, I hope so.
Seriously, they are so terrible. Every time that trailer started to convince me it was a live-action version of Alita, they would show her face and I'd think it was a 3d animated movie, like the Angelina Jolie version of Beowulf. This movie doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a live-action version of an anime? Or is it a 3d rendered version of an anime? It wants to be both, and it can't be, because the walking tour of the Uncanny Valley they insist on turning the lead actress into won't let it be. Also because trying to be both a live action film and a 3d anime is insane and no-one should do it.
I mean, whether they pull it off in practice is one thing, but I genuinely don't see what the problem is about using a CGI character clearly built deliberately to push into uncanny valley territory to represent what is, to all external appearances, a robot.
If they decided to randomly give Giant Anime Eyes to some random human being in an otherwise live action movie, sure, that would be puzzling, but she's a cybernetic borderline-android, I don't see choosing a particular visual style in order to reinforce her inhumanity in the mind of the viewer as inherently "insane" or wrong.
Gally is mostly a brain in a box, but her head is supposed to be human. The body Ido initially gifts her is supposed to be "beautiful", so an inhuman / uncanny valley face is wrong from that standpoint, too. She should be more inhumanly perfectly, flawlessly beautiful than any human can be.
The trailer doesn't make it clear, but I'm getting the feeling that we might not see her changing bodies during the film. It's quite a lot to squish everything into a single film (although I forget if the anime film/OVA was longer than a typical western film so it might be possible) so I could see them cutting that and having her just go straight into the battle-ready body.
And yes she is pretty much a brain in a box, much like the Major in Ghost in the Shell, so every part is cybernetic, just that her face is modelled very well after a humans.
Spoiler:
In the manga she destroys her first gifted "beautiful/doll"
body and instead gets a second battle based body which is supposed to be a very old, yet advanced military design.
Thus she shows a very human exterior and a high level of finish and human features compared to the more insane/wild/creative cybernetic bodies of the place she resides in. Which makes sense as most of the cybernetic bodies in the junker town are that, basically junk/kobbled together/enhanced etc... ergo not as clean/pure/pristine/developed as those who dwell in the city above.
If we don't get the Berzerker body, I will be very, very disappointed, as it's an integral part of Ido accepting Gally for who she really is vs. who he wants her to be (a doll).
Spoiler:
Also, she doesn't destroy the body because it's beautify - her first body gets destroyed because she uses it in combat, but wasn't suited to fighting.
The Berzerker body is a hyper-advanced design that converts a person into a living weapon of immense power (and danger!). Ido only gifts it to her because he understands that she can properly use it, and will use it properly.
I also want to see Ido use the rocket hammer!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, getting back to the eyes:
Even in the manga, her eyes don't look that big...
Ah yes you're right she does destroy it in battle Vs destroying it herself (I did kinda skip over that detail in my quick summary post).
We'll certainly get the body, but I just wonder if they'll not change how it happens; if just to help her achieve a single appearance through the whole film instead of changing her appearance part way through. That said if I recall right they might just be able to do it with the hands (which the manga mostly achieves through those as well as they change between the two bodies).
I do agree its a very important part of the story; heck that part in itself could be made far longer in a visual medium than the manga gives that segment of the story.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If we don't get the Berzerker body, I will be very, very disappointed, as it's an integral part of Ido accepting Gally for who she really is vs. who he wants her to be (a doll).
Spoiler:
Also, she doesn't destroy the body because it's beautify - her first body gets destroyed because she uses it in combat, but wasn't suited to fighting.
The Berzerker body is a hyper-advanced design that converts a person into a living weapon of immense power (and danger!). Ido only gifts it to her because he understands that she can properly use it, and will use it properly.
I also want to see Ido use the rocket hammer!
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, getting back to the eyes:
Even in the manga, her eyes don't look that big...
It depends on the image and angle.
It's interesting to compare this with the Tintin film from a few years ago, which was heavily CG modified to give it the look of the comics.
Yodhrin wrote: I mean, whether they pull it off in practice is one thing, but I genuinely don't see what the problem is about using a CGI character clearly built deliberately to push into uncanny valley territory to represent what is, to all external appearances, a robot..
I think the thing that jars for me is that none of the other cyborg characters (in the trailer) appear to have freaky faces--and there's a lot of them in the manga, it's a setting where cybernetics are commonplace, and it's not especially remarkable for someone to decide they want insect eyes, a titanic centaur body, or a transparent shell in place of their skull.
But maybe the look will grow on me. Fingers crossed for this movie, I loved the manga, and the film's been in development hell for a LONG time.
It's interesting to compare this with the Tintin film from a few years ago, which was heavily CG modified to give it the look of the comics.
I wanted to bring Tintin up, as it is an excellent movie that works visually, except for Tintin's face, which is the only one that looks realistic whereas all the other faces are more "comical" in presentation.
Surely the filmmakers are hacking the uncanny valley. That is, the point is to have a protagonist that is physically repulsive in a highly oblique manner.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's interesting to compare this with the Tintin film from a few years ago, which was heavily CG modified to give it the look of the comics.
If we're talking heavy CG-modified to look like comics, maybe we should be talking about Valerian? Or not?
Anyone know where I can find the original Anime for this?
It looks really interesting. I actually don't have an issue with the eyes. since she isn't supposed to be a real human.
It's not like Tarkin in R1 or Rachel in BR2049 in which I knew what those characters originally looked like, so my brain couldn't cross the uncanny valley. Even though both of those effects were done rather well. I think this is what made Avatar look so real to me. I've never seen REAL giant blue cat people, so it was easy to believe they were real. Just like it is easy for me to not only believe Alita is real, but also kinda attractive (although this might also have something to do with her physical similarities to my wife, large eyes aside)
The original is on YouTube, it was originally released as rusty angel. This is the first adult cartoon I remember watching, so I'm looking forward to the film with excitement and fear.
Henry wrote: The original is on YouTube, it was originally released as rusty angel. This is the first adult cartoon I remember watching, so I'm looking forward to the film with excitement and fear.
Thanx, I caught it last night. It was interesting. Nothing really special, but certainly a lot to work with.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Did they tone down the eyes since the last trailer, or are the shots in this one not emphasizing them as much?
I think the eyes stand out more when the scene is slower and thus you've more time to look at all the details. Especially if its a talking/walking scene so the face is quite prominent in the screen. Once you get into faster action sequences and running etc... then there's a lot more information to take in all at once so you don't tend to always notice specific details until you go looking for them. Plus you're likely viewing it at normal youtube embed sizes so the image on the screen isn't huge either (well unless you've got a monster screen).
From the trailer it suggests that they've taken some liberties with the story; or possibly squashed down several parts into one film (it looks like they might have just cut out the whole part where she goes into the races if they've gone beyond the first stage of the story and compressed latter elements in.)
Skaorn wrote: This trailer makes me worried that Hugo's crimes will be down played or non-existent and that he'll survive cuz love.
Yeah the original anime focused pretty much on that story arc and actually made for a very good self contained series. I feel if the movie downplays that story or even avoids it then either they are focusing and beefing up the early segment or they are constructing their own story.
Then again it might be a rare case where the trailer is managing not to spoil the entire plot!
GoatboyBeta wrote: Did they tone down the eyes since the last trailer, or are the shots in this one not emphasizing them as much?
I think the eyes stand out more when the scene is slower and thus you've more time to look at all the details. Especially if its a talking/walking scene so the face is quite prominent in the screen. Once you get into faster action sequences and running etc... then there's a lot more information to take in all at once so you don't tend to always notice specific details until you go looking for them. Plus you're likely viewing it at normal youtube embed sizes so the image on the screen isn't huge either (well unless you've got a monster screen).
Alternatively, it could be that seeing the first trailer MONTHS ago has given your brain time to process the uncanny valley and therefore watching this trailer, the eyes seem more normal
Honestly, still not bothered by the eyes. I barely even notice that they're "unnatural". Probably because I've watched too much sci-fi/fantasy and played too many video games over the years to be phased by such things. They're practically normal to me, now.
On the other hand, if I saw something like that in real life, I would probably freak out a bit.
Skaorn wrote: This trailer makes me worried that Hugo's crimes will be down played or non-existent and that he'll survive cuz love.
Yeah the original anime focused pretty much on that story arc and actually made for a very good self contained series. I feel if the movie downplays that story or even avoids it then either they are focusing and beefing up the early segment or they are constructing their own story.
Then again it might be a rare case where the trailer is managing not to spoil the entire plot!
One of the things that worries me though is them keeping the fact Ido sticks her in a normal cyborg body to start but puts her back into the berserker body when she decides to be a hunter warrior. The anime cut that out just like they cut out that her first major foe had the maggot body that allowed him to take over that battle cyborgs body, created by Desty Nova, because it didn't need it. I'm not sure if those things would truely be necessary even if they are planning on several movies either. So I guess I'm worried about what gets kept, what gets cut, and how much they drag in from later arcs. Setting up Zapan for later a major antagonist in another movie isn't a bad plan. I know they want to bring in motorball, which is good, as long as it is in the background for now (I'm worried from the previews that Zapan and others will be Vector's goons and not hunter warriors). I'm also worried that Kiyomae(?) is in it apparently as her teen reporter self instead of as a child, but I understand why they might want to avoid time jumps. I think that it might not be as horrible as I fear but I'm going to go into it expecting a horrible mashup of several volumes of the manga where you get things like Desty Nova actually showing up in the movie and it turns out he is just some cyborg doc working under Mr. Vector and that's it.
Gitzbitah wrote: They are really hammering a lot of content into this film! I can't believe the racers got into the mix.
I hope its just foreshadowing or presenting it as something the world has. If they try to cram her origin, first battle, the whole love affair and the race into one film - yeah I can't see how that would work without seriously cutting out huge chunks or changing major elements to make them fit. It's just way to much plot for 120mins to cover faithfully, baring in mind that they've already got to establish the characters and world at the start of the film.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not sure if I'm drifting back to the opinion that the Anime Eyes look weird, however the rest of the action obviously is going to be fantastic.
Eh. A lot of the transitions between CGI and 'real' stick out to me as awkwardly noticeable, to the point that I find it jarring and overly fake. But then I'm not a big fan of CGI action anyway, it mostly puts me to sleep, as most directors seem to go full hog on the action and put the plot and characters on hold for the duration.
I also don't like the choice of actress for this particular character. Her voice and mannerisms don't fit the character at all. I remember the character as a fairly lost young girl, and the actress is too much a self confident woman in her late 20s/early 30s. She'd likely be fantastic in another role, but fits poorly here.
Maybe they picked her for her physicality? That she's petite and acrobatic? Though I have to imagine there are other gymnasts they could (should) have selected.
there are people predicting a billion dollars for this and man... I really do not see it. I don't think it'll flop (relatively low budget) but it won't be huge either.
cole1114 wrote: there are people predicting a billion dollars for this and man...
Seriously?
I'm an anime fan and I'm completely turned off by the visual design. Granted, I'm not really a fan of the original work and haven't ever read it, but those eyes... ugh. It looks like someone just went into photo shop and used the bubble effect on them. If they were going for an uncanny valley thing I applaud the idea, but the execution is a little excessive and just looks bad in a bad way rather than odd/weird in a good way.
Then again it is James Cameron. There's what, Dark Angel and Strange Days as failures on his filmography list, and then a heaping mountain of dollar bills?
Il watch it for sure. It looks good visually and appears to have good action and maybe a compelling story with decent to good acting in the trailers.
I am WAY less interested in the 4 or 5 Avatar sequels we are getting. But I do think it's hilarious he's gunna be churning them out. I can't wait for them to start bombing.
Gitzbitah wrote: They are really hammering a lot of content into this film! I can't believe the racers got into the mix.
I hope its just foreshadowing or presenting it as something the world has. If they try to cram her origin, first battle, the whole love affair and the race into one film - yeah I can't see how that would work without seriously cutting out huge chunks or changing major elements to make them fit. It's just way to much plot for 120mins to cover faithfully, baring in mind that they've already got to establish the characters and world at the start of the film.
That was my thought too--hopefully, it won't be "Last Airbender" levels of graceless plot compression. The Motorball arc was fun in itself in the manga, but was largely a breather arc that didn't have much influence on the larger story beyond
So, thoughts on seeing it today, bearing I'm a big fan of the manga and I was consciously reminding myself it's not going to be the same:
It's very obvious this is being aimed at the young adult market. It doesn't clash with the source material as much as you might expect it to, given that the plot of the original is "young woman with mysterious past and cool powers in a dystopian setting governed by oppressive authority figures";. But there are places where it drags, mainly spending a lot of time on the utterly generic romance with the utterly generic cute "bad boy but not really" (which to the film's credit, is resolved largely the same way as it was in the manga). That said, I did prefer the movie's way of dealing with the Alita / Ido relationship to the manga.
There are scenes where it's very obvious that stuff got cut to get the rating. The "puts blood under her eyes as warpaint" scene doesn't work well, because we can't actually show where the blood came from. With that said, the characters being cyborgs mean there is the amount of violence and dismemberment I was expecting, even if the fight scenes did feel a bit more weightless than I would have liked.
The script....is very much the weak spot. Again, it felt like a lot of time was being spent on generic teen drama, there are some downright cringeworthy lines and overly fortunate coincidences. Jennifer Connelly's character.....just felt kind of redundant, though she did have a serviceable motivation and felt like she bought a little more to the movie than "we're saving Nova for the sequel". The idea that this one character is prejudiced towards cyborgs comes out of nowhere for some conflict, and then goes nowhere. And there's one antagonist who gets hyped up as a Real Big Deal, and then vanishes for a good chunk of the movie while everyone just kinda forgets about him. Things tighten up a bit towards the end once the action starts, though.
The plot didn't feel as cramped as I was worried about, because the Motorball stuff gets integrated in fairly early on, but also left in in such a way that a hypothetical sequel could focus on it.
Two iconic scenes from the manga did make it in, making my inner fanboy very happy.
Overall, I'd give it a 7. I don't regret watching it, and it's a decent action movie with some interesting characters and cool action scenes, but it really needed a tighter script.
It’s been a long time since I saw the manga and the one little shot I really remember from that didn’t make it in.
Spoiler:
Where she’s fighting giant finger whips dude and she damaged them while they were retracted so it busted the next time he tried to use it. Instead she just kind of cuts them off with her power sword.
Just got back from watching this. Pretty good! If i had to rank it best movie ever/worst movie ever it would be above the 50% into best. Dialog is clunky and heavy handed in a few spots, but the plot moves along well and the actions good and VERY brutal. I would say this is the best live action adaptation of an anime thus far (not that that bar is set very high). Do recommend.
Never even heard of the manga. I was interested from the trailers and actually love the eyes.
I thought it was Amazing. I know my wife probably would say it was stupid. I liked it better than any of the recent Marvel movies.
I put it up there with Tangled but with action.
So best movie I saw in a good year. I hope some Marvel movie will be as good this year
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh....I wasn't thrilled with the ending...but I guess there can be a prequel/sequel if they want to.
If you have watched the original Manga production, or read the manga itself the eyes show they paid attention she has prepositionaly the biggest eyes of all the characters and it matches well. They have compacted the Hugo and motoball stories, because otherwise the next movie would just be motoball which is why there's a slight jump at the end. And the sword appearing abit earlier so we didn't see the water bomb trick (berserker +water=steam them plasma then free radicals add spark and boom perfect hydrogen oxygen explosion.
They have set up the next storyline s nicely. The actually did the face thing! And just as brutally as on paper.
Now for context I started reading the manga in the 90s, first in English, then Japanese. Loved it.
Somehow I stayed with the sequel Last Order through 19 (!!!) books of karate chopping robots making philosophy speeches.
Against my better judgement I picked up the three-quil Mars Chronicles (Alita the toddler years! I'm not making this up) and it's actually really good.
So let's just say I'm a fan.
The movie was...
OK.
Made me want to reread the original manga.
Too much stuff for one movie, the flash backs, motor ball and Nova could have been dropped and nothing lost.
Saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it quite a bit. The story could have been streamlined some more; but to my suprise I liked the inclusion of Chyren and folding the Hugo and Motorball storylines together. I didn't like Novas portrail on the other hand; unnecessarily convoluted the story and was not faithful to the source material.
For those who don't know the 90ies manga, go pick it up. It's amazing and has some Necormunda vibes to it.
I watched this on Friday, with my wife that doesn’t like anime.
She liked it. I told her that was ridiculous as the movie checks off about 20 boxes of cliche anime tropes. She shrugged and said she liked it in live action. I shrugged and said it was one of the *most* cliche anime-type movies I’ve ever seen, not that I’ve seen a lot, but I’ve seen a few. I find that more tolerable in animated format for some reason.
It was good enough for a popcorn movie. I think my kids will like it when they see it, because robots smashing robots is good times in their books. And the cliche-ness isn’t cliche to them because they don’t have the years of experience with the tropes.
greatbigtree wrote: I watched this on Friday, with my wife that doesn’t like anime.
She liked it. I told her that was ridiculous as the movie checks off about 20 boxes of cliche anime tropes. She shrugged and said she liked it in live action. I shrugged and said it was one of the *most* cliche anime-type movies I’ve ever seen, not that I’ve seen a lot, but I’ve seen a few. I find that more tolerable in animated format for some reason.
It was good enough for a popcorn movie. I think my kids will like it when they see it, because robots smashing robots is good times in their books. And the cliche-ness isn’t cliche to them because they don’t have the years of experience with the tropes.
But it had none of animes WORST tropes. Like it had no long drawn out speeches about pseudo intellectual nonsense. The bad guys weren't justifying their actions with the same kinds of speeches.
I don't know... the entire movie was predictable to me. So whether or not the tropes were the worst, or the best, they were no surprises to me.
Since I don't know the origin of the story, maybe it was an "original" that others became inspired by that gave birth to the tropes. But *every* plot development was seen 10 minutes before it happened. I don't remember anything that wasn't blatantly foreshadowed...
Spoiler:
"No, I'll never put you in that Berzerker armour. Why is it Berzerker armour? Well, all martial arts are about self control right? You're a master of a special physics-bending martial art by the way. A martial art designed for cyborgs that allows lighter weight cyborgs to heel-kick the limbs off of cyborgs 10 times their mass without bouncing off of them like a Ping-Pong ball. Yeah this genre likes to ironically imply that armour named after men that didn't wear armour into battle and had no self control will make you even better at a self-controlled discipline by channeling your anger! And then it's of course the Mary-Sue-iest armour of them all! But I'll never put you in it because I don't want you to become a psycho-killer-robot."
*5 minutes and one colossal ass-kicking later in which her original body gets totaled*
"Well, I guess you need a new body, so in you go! Genocide away, you glorious bastard! My original concerns are put to rest now that I know you're in it for revenge."
or didn't otherwise turn out exactly as I'd expected it would. Like I said, maybe it's the original that others followed but it felt like a colour-by-the-numbers movie for me. Almost like they had a chart of Anime clichés and they rolled some dice to determine what order to put them in.
Not a bad movie, I sound more negatively critical than I feel. It just fell well short of a "great" movie, for me.
I very much doubt it's the original of anything. But I feel like the westernization of a lot of the story telling made the anime plot points significantly more tolerable to watch. Yes. It was all very predictable with the main character being a teen who is secretly the best and has all the best things and can do all the best things.
Welcome to every anime ever made. Dragonball? Secretly the best aliens in the galaxy with the highest potential for power but also the MOST powerful of the aliens with techniques nobody else can do. Just pick an anime and the main character is most likely some kind of kid who has all the best things. People LOVE Attack on Titan. A show about a kid who wants to fight titans but secretly can turn INTO a titan to fight the titans and is the best and has all the things.
You can't faithfully adapt an anime without bringing SOME of their bull gak along for the ride.
I'm aware of that trope as well, yes. You're agreeing with me, I get it. That's one example, I mean, I don't want to spoiler the whole film from start to finish...
Spoiler:
*Living in the dystopian future, following the catastrophe, Super-Altruistic Science Grandpa finds the forgotten technology that could save the world.*
*Tiny Person is a Martial Arts God. Wrecks oversized opponents with hardly any effort at all, first try.*
*The only way to reach your goal is to win the ceremonial combat trial. Thankfully, the protagonist is the Chosen One and can do that without any real training.*
*Couple falls in love. One has a dangerous secret. The other finds out, and they decide to make it work.*
*Love interest is killed by the big bad, providing even more revenge-fuel.*
*Everyone has fething bionic eyeballs.*
*The body is just a shell, what really counts is the soul inside. Unless you have Berzerker armour, then your shell is your defining characteristic.*
*One of the bad guys decides to be a good guy instead, and makes a heroic sacrifice.*
*He's not dead, he's frozen! and when we thaw out the Duke he's gonna be pissed off!*
*Tee-hee-hee! I'm the bad guy. I promise things to people, and in the end, I give it to them... but it's like a Monkey Paw deal! They never see it coming!*
I mean, it's not in order, but I'm pretty sure I most of the major plot points?
Huh, I think Alita has a pretty interesting take on the teenager comes of age story.
Generally, the way this goes is:
- parents tell teen to do/avoid X
- teen rebelliously disregards advice
- bad things result
- teenager shows developing maturity by acknowledging parents were right all along
With Alita, it’s actually Ido who has to work through his daughter-complex. In fact, Ido is wrong to want to treat this badass warrior as a frail child/doll.
Interestingly, Alita does “come of age” in her arc, just not by realizing the wisdom of her father figure’s advice. Rather, she grows into being a more complex person by realizing that she must embrace her abilities.
One thing I thought again and again while watching this film was, “this is how they should have handled Rey in these new SW movies.”
Cameron also made the Dark Angel TV show, which was terrible. He was also Executive Producer for Sanctum, which was not a good film.
Also, Rodriguez did the actual work on Alita.
As a Fox property with a TON of story material behind it, with the bonus of a female protagonist, that makes it more likely the Disney does a sequel. It's exactly the sort of thing that would make a great counterpoint to the MCU.
Alita is beating domestic projections by over 50%. This flick was never going to open like a MCU movie. The story here is that somehow, this quirky and largely unknown property did NOT fall flat on it’s huge-eyed face, despite perceived audience indifference and critical snobbery.
AduroT wrote: I’d watch an Alita sequel. I also want to see more Avatar.
My twin sister bloody hates sci fi, but she lets me drag her to the good ones because she knows I will ONLY take her to the good ones, she loved Alita and Avatar and to be frank, any film I can enjoy with the family and the sister's family, that's a film I will watch the crap out of, seen Alita twice now, taking the parents to see it next.
Just watched the movie, never heard of the manga before so not a long time fan at all and had little expectation. The storytelling was good, but not great. It was a bit heavy on exposition, but it's a problem with science fiction movies with socio-political plot. The special effect were without surprise great. The acting was terrible though and some portions of the script were rather stupid.
AduroT wrote: I’d watch an Alita sequel. I also want to see more Avatar.
I think there's a heck of a lot of potential for a sequel, especially since the things that made this movie drag have largely been resolved by the end. The movie changed around a lot of stuff about the setting, so it obviously won't be a staight retelling, but the next three arcs of the manga have a lot of stuff to pick and choose from.
But I’d agree it is even weaker in this film. Generally, the OVA is a lot more horrific than this movie and it doesn’t shy away from the notion that waking up as a head plugged into a robot body might be a bit of a shock to one’s psyche. In the OVA, it pretty much snaps Hugo’s mind, which is why he’s doing something as fething stupid as climbing the tube.
In the movie, he has a casual line to Alita earlier that if he had a cyborg body like hers he’d definitely climb the tube. Uh what? There a tons of hard body denizens of Iron City and none of them are doing that. Because obviously it doesn’t work. Only a wacko would try it. So is Hugo’s line just a bit of hyperbole? Well, he’s not really portrayed as obviously deranged by the time he’s climbing so ... This was just not handled well.
And again, the reason is because this is a PG-13 film rather than a soft-ish R. The movie really shies away from the outright body horror of the source material. Another example would be not seeing the dog get eviscerated, which is actually emotionally required to prime the audience for Alita painting her face with its blood. The way its portrayed in the film, the blood warpaint feels pretty hollow, and maybe even slightly embarassing. In the OVA, it’s clear that when Alita paints on those blood stripes, she becomes the avenger of the weak.
But yeah we were never going to get a proper Rated-R movie because to justify spending so much on making and marketing movies today, you have to sell it to the broadest possible audience.
I’m not too sad that Hugo’s arc was weak. I’m not too sad that his portrayal was less than engaging. I think the main point about this character is, there’s not really a good reason for Alita to fall in love with him. She falls for him not because he’s all that great or whatever but just because she’s a teenager and teenagers have crushes that don’t have to make sense.
Manchu wrote: Hugo’s arc is the weakest in the OVA as well.
But I’d agree it is even weaker in this film. Generally, the OVA is a lot more horrific than this movie and it doesn’t shy away from the notion that waking up as a head plugged into a robot body might be a bit of a shock to one’s psyche. In the OVA, it pretty much snaps Hugo’s mind, which is why he’s doing something as fething stupid as climbing the tube.
In the movie, he has a casual line to Alita earlier that if he had a cyborg body like hers he’d definitely climb the tube. Uh what? There a tons of hard body denizens of Iron City and none of them are doing that. Because obviously it doesn’t work. Only a wacko would try it. So is Hugo’s line just a bit of hyperbole? Well, he’s not really portrayed as obviously deranged by the time he’s climbing so ... This was just not handled well.
Well, at that point,
Spoiler:
Nova has revealed he's still alive, the bounty hunters are closing in and Alita won't be able to protect him forever. So he risks it all on one last gamble because he's likely dead no matter what. It made sense to me in context as an alternative to the more obsessed Hugo of the manga.
It exceeded my expectations. Granted they were low, but it was much better than I was expecting. The romance was nauseating, there were some jarring plot transitions and a couple other minor bits, but on the whole it was a pretty solid flick that kept me more entertained than I had anticipated.
I saw it twice now and cannot wait to see it in 3D as it is supposed to be good there. I am not a a fan of 3D movies.
The reviews were very harsh the first week. It is doing way better than they predicted...even in China. It looks like it will make a profit. Japan could make it a huge success perhaps.
One review that trashed it hard talked about how Alita used her own blood to paint her face. Are they that obvious about trashing the film or are they watching a different movie. How does a Film Critic get that wrong. It was the dog's blood. ofc
So seemingly the movie broke some records in China and made over 64 millions on it's opening weekend, putting it in a good spot to make a return on the high production cost.
Speaking of which; the movie made it clear that sequels are in consideration. Those will probably a bit cheaper, since the technology and assets have been created.
Finally saw it. Thought it was pretty good and looking forward to the sequels. My wife was a bit disappointed that it isn't a "one-&-done" movie. She's getting a bit tired of "franchises" at the moment.
I never found the eyes to be distracting, quite the opposite, as my wife kept teasing my that I had a crush on Alita. But there were a few moments when Alita laughed that her mouth seemed off. Like, too much gums or something. But there are real people like that, so it certainly didn't seem like an effects issue.
I watched the OVA for the first time a few months ago, so that's the extent of the story I know. It looks like there are some interesting places they could take the story.
Manchu wrote: But if that’s true then it doesn’t really make sense that Alita convinces him to come down so easily.
In the OVA, it makes more sense because he’s out of his mind and Alita brings him to his senses.
True. I think it was a combination of Hugo's motives being very different here, but still wanting to have that iconic scene. I'm still impressed that they actually followed through on it, though.
I didn't think the trailers for this looked too great, honestly, but given the positive reviews I read here along with James Cameron, I went to see it last night. I wound up liking it quite a bit. Aside from the aforementioned Hugo weakness it was very solid overall.
I hope some sequels get greenlighted and I want to know more about the backstory.
Manchu wrote: Yes, I would definitely go see a sequel.
I'm just hoping the sequel will do something about the eyes, they should be like, twice as big. Sailor Moon should be saying 'I think those eyes are a tad large'.
In all seriousness, they might turn it down a bit. One nice thing about the manga was how Alita (despite being a cyborg) looked older and more mature as the book went on. Reducing the doe eyes (which communicate youth and innocence since baby eyes are proportionally larger on the face) would do some of that.
I just saw the movie earlier this evening, and I loved it! The story was interesting, the characters were interesting, the visuals were awesome, and the ending definitely left me wanting more! This absolutely needs a sequel.
admironheart wrote: I saw it twice now and cannot wait to see it in 3D as it is supposed to be good there.
I saw it in IMAX 3D, and I enjoyed it.
Thinking about it, this is a 3-quadrant movie:
* Young women (who will ID with Alita's Hero's Journey)
+ Older men (who ID with Ido being a good father)
+ Older women (who ID with Chiren and her redemptive journey)
Notably, it does not specifically appeal to young men, which is an odd choice, but understandable given how much dude-friendly programming is already out there; IMO, this should be getting more female butts in seats. OTOH, it's doing well in Asia, which makes sense, given how solid the FX are, along with the family theme, and winning fights via speed and skill vs size and strength.
admironheart wrote: I saw it twice now and cannot wait to see it in 3D as it is supposed to be good there.
I saw it in IMAX 3D, and I enjoyed it.
Thinking about it, this is a 3-quadrant movie: * Young women (who will ID with Alita's Hero's Journey) + Older men (who ID with Ido being a good father) + Older women (who ID with Chiren and her redemptive journey)
Notably, it does not specifically appeal to young men, which is an odd choice, but understandable given how much dude-friendly programming is already out there; IMO, this should be getting more female butts in seats. OTOH, it's doing well in Asia, which makes sense, given how solid the FX are, along with the family theme, and winning fights via speed and skill vs size and strength.
Kind-of agree, however one thing might actually appeal to the younger men audience: Alita is quite beautiful. Both visually as a movie, and the character herself. Men in general are visual creatures, so even if we cannot ID with any of the characters' "journeys" we can at least enjoy the eye-candy and action. At least, that is part of the appeal for me as a 30+ young man.
Oh yeah, I forgot. I pretty much never see movies in 3D. Most modern 3D movies aren't shot with 3D cameras, they're shot with normal equipment and then extrapolated out to 3D later. You guys all probably know this already. In my experience I pretty much universally hate movies that were converted like this: they usually look very muddled. Add to that you're watching the movie through darkened lenses, and most theaters don't properly compensate the lighting (or worse, have old bulbs) and you tend to get muddy, hard to follow movies where you can't really well what is going on.
We do have a LieMax here, so I went to that, and I didn't realize that it was the 3D version until I got there because apparently I can't read. And you know what? It was a really good experience. The exception to the "3D usually sucks" rules appears to be movies James Cameron is connected to: Avatar looked great, the Titanic 3D remastered re-release a while back looked terrific, and then this.
admironheart wrote: I saw it twice now and cannot wait to see it in 3D as it is supposed to be good there.
I saw it in IMAX 3D, and I enjoyed it.
Thinking about it, this is a 3-quadrant movie:
* Young women (who will ID with Alita's Hero's Journey)
+ Older men (who ID with Ido being a good father)
+ Older women (who ID with Chiren and her redemptive journey)
Notably, it does not specifically appeal to young men, which is an odd choice, but understandable given how much dude-friendly programming is already out there; IMO, this should be getting more female butts in seats. OTOH, it's doing well in Asia, which makes sense, given how solid the FX are, along with the family theme, and winning fights via speed and skill vs size and strength.
I've heard this reaction to the movie a few times (still need to see the film myself) and whenever I watch something where I experience something like it I try to get a grasp on the idea that for a lot of people that's what everything else feels like. My daughter has a show she really likes with a token boy in the lineup that occasionally triggers that sense of "oh, that's what that's like". Probably the most notable example I've come across is Wonder Woman, where a female friend who goes to all the super hero movies with our group left the film asking "is that what all of these movies feel like for you guys?" I appreciate the perspective on it a the very least.
Well for me Alita is one of those pure characters. Yes she goes on a journey but she is a Paladin. She never forgets her values. There has been very few pure good characters without the typical 'flaw' that makes most characters interesting. The last I can think of was the Movie Tangled. This is Tangled with sci fi and action. My daughter pretty much used her theatre skills to compare the 2 together after I made the connection between the two. Both heroins are very similar in story.
Most Pure Good characters are boring....to do them good is more skill than most have.
admironheart wrote: Well for me Alita is one of those pure characters. Yes she goes on a journey but she is a Paladin. She never forgets her values. There has been very few pure good characters without the typical 'flaw' that makes most characters interesting. The last I can think of was the Movie Tangled. This is Tangled with sci fi and action. My daughter pretty much used her theatre skills to compare the 2 together after I made the connection between the two. Both heroins are very similar in story.
Most Pure Good characters are boring....to do them good is more skill than most have.
I agree its a hard thing to pull off, most of the time when its tried the character comes off as a mary sue/marty stu, Alita avoided this, she made some pretty heavy mistakes in that film and they had actual ramifications, which she learned from, that takes her from a mary sue to a believable character to me.
None of that matters, thats grown up brain talking, the nieces loved it, especially the younger one, now she wants more alita and less disney princess, she even wants to learn to do martial arts because of that film, shes young (13) so she will likely change her mind in a few weeks but im gonna encourage it as much as i can.
That was a good flick. Enjoyed it very much. Not the greatest cinematic masterpiece ever, but quite entertaining, which is primarily why I go to the movies.
I was having flashbacks all through the movie, it was reasonably faithful to the original as best I remember.
I found the big eyes less distracting than I thought they would be.
I have to say that some of the dialogue was not great for that character BUT Christoph Waltz was a surprisingly good choice for Dr. Dyson Ido and made the most of it.
It was worth it for me to see a show that reminded me of when I saw the "Rocket sledgehammer axe (maul)" for the first time as a kid.
I would say this was a much more successful remake than "ghost in the shell" by a long-shot.
Now I need to see "Trigun" or "Lupin the 3rd" as live action!
I'm a big fan of Lupin the Third... but I don't think you could do anything close to true to the character and not come across as creepy borderline-rapist to the modern moviegoer.
Ouze wrote: Is the anime for Alita called something different? I can't find it anywhere.
Try Gunnm (the original Japanese name) or Haisha.
EDIT: FYI, there is no anime series for the manga. There is an OVA, which can be found on YouTube (its been on there for years posted by multiple users, I just assume the copyright holder doesn't care about an hour long OVA from 1993)
admironheart wrote: I saw it twice now and cannot wait to see it in 3D as it is supposed to be good there.
I saw it in IMAX 3D, and I enjoyed it.
Thinking about it, this is a 3-quadrant movie:
* Young women (who will ID with Alita's Hero's Journey)
+ Older men (who ID with Ido being a good father)
+ Older women (who ID with Chiren and her redemptive journey)
Notably, it does not specifically appeal to young men, which is an odd choice, but understandable given how much dude-friendly programming is already out there; IMO, this should be getting more female butts in seats. OTOH, it's doing well in Asia, which makes sense, given how solid the FX are, along with the family theme, and winning fights via speed and skill vs size and strength.
I've heard this reaction to the movie a few times (still need to see the film myself) and whenever I watch something where I experience something like it I try to get a grasp on the idea that for a lot of people that's what everything else feels like. My daughter has a show she really likes with a token boy in the lineup that occasionally triggers that sense of "oh, that's what that's like". Probably the most notable example I've come across is Wonder Woman, where a female friend who goes to all the super hero movies with our group left the film asking "is that what all of these movies feel like for you guys?" I appreciate the perspective on it a the very least.
See, I always find that kind of reaction odd. To me, a good story is a good story, a good character a good character, a good concept a good concept. I don't need to personally identify with any of the characters, and it genuinely kind of baffles me why some folk do? I enjoyed Wonder Woman fine, just as I did Captain America, just as I did Black Panther - I didn't get anything extra out of Cap's films purely because he's a white dude.
See, I always find that kind of reaction odd. To me, a good story is a good story, a good character a good character, a good concept a good concept. I don't need to personally identify with any of the characters, and it genuinely kind of baffles me why some folk do? I enjoyed Wonder Woman fine, just as I did Captain America, just as I did Black Panther - I didn't get anything extra out of Cap's films purely because he's a white dude.
When it comes to this question, I try to bear in mind that I'm spoiled for choice, being a straight white guy--I don't know what it's like to be starved in my media diet for heroic characters (or sometimes, any characters) who are "people like me". Or to put it another way, I haven't been told over and over that "people like me" are not suitable to be heroes, romantic leads, the ones who get happy endings, non-villainous, etc.
It doesn't make a me a bad person, but it's a limit to my experience that I need to acknowledge, and I need to respect the viewpoints of others who find it frustrating.
Role models usually need to resemble to the people for whom they are models. This is because the role model is supposed to be proof that the target can realistically aspire to the same goals.
Kilkrazy wrote: Role models usually need to resemble to the people for whom they are models. This is because the role model is supposed to be proof that the target can realistically aspire to the same goals.
And sometimes, it's not even about the character being a role model or setting any sort of positive example. Just getting the message that "someone like me" exists at all in this fictional world and get to do the same cool stuff as the straight white guys can be a good thing. I remember a panel I went to at a comics convention once about diversity in comics, and some of the speakers were talking about how they'd been growing up in the 70's or 80's and starting to realise that they liked their own gender....but there was nothing in the media they were consuming that so much as hinted that people like them even existed, unless you squinted real hard for "subtext".
Kilkrazy wrote: Role models usually need to resemble to the people for whom they are models. This is because the role model is supposed to be proof that the target can realistically aspire to the same goals.
Particularly when you're young you're constantly looking for purpose and see people like you as examples of what you're supposed to be. I mean, how many pink fairy magic cupcake chef shows did we all latch onto as a kid? There are a lot of moments in fantasy that are so key on "seeing yourself" in the moment, like all the versions of going Super Saiyan out there. I see it pretty constantly with my daughter. I can tell her she can be whatever geeky thing I love over and over, but seeing Jessica with a power ring or Rey with a lightsaber causes her visualize it in a way that makes the fantasy as real to her as its always been to me.
But that's exactly what I'm saying - I've never needed that and I can't grasp why some people do. I mean, I'm not straight(but don't fall into one of the nice definable categories that people like) and I have an ASD, there are basically zero characters "like me" in fiction, and it never prevented me from "seeing myself" in those fictions because they're fantasies, and if someone is capable of inserting themselves into a fictional world where radiation turns you into a rage monster, the Nazis had a guy with a bright red skull for a face, there's a talking raccoon who likes building doomsday weapons etc, it baffles me that the part they have trouble with is "seeing themselves" in a lead character with the wrong dangly bits or skin tone.
That's not an argument *against* having leads with different dangly bits or skin tones, of course, I just don't grasp "representation" as a concept - a good story should resonate and inspire regardless of how much any given viewer personally has in common with the characters.
Resemble is a poor word in this case. Lots of people like characters that don't resemble them in the slightest. I think relatable is a better word, and what makes something relatable varies a lot among people and is incredibly nebulous. It doesn't even necessarily come down to characters per se. Settings, and plots can relate to the audience just as easily as the characters in them.
Race, sex, and orientation fall into this, but I do thing many people have a tendency to losing the forest for the trees.
This is such a weird tangent for this thread because both men and women like the character Alita and seemingly so do people of all races.
It’s almost as if facets like race and gender are actually somewhat superficial and have little bearing on what a character is really about or how they will be received.
But that has to be wrong because why would Hollywood and politicians lie to us???
Manchu wrote: This is such a weird tangent for this thread because both men and women like the character Alita and seemingly so do people of all races.
It’s almost as if facets like race and gender are actually somewhat superficial and have little bearing on what a character is really about or how they will be received.
But that has to be wrong because why would Hollywood and politicians lie to us???
I think its because the story is always more important, alita follows the heros journey archeotype and that is in every single culture in the world, we all recognise it almost subconsciously, so the race, gender etc. of the person that slots into that archeotype does not really matter, what matters is how they pull it off, if you make the character too flawless generally people do not like it so much, if you make it too flawed you get the same issue.
A good example of this is John Wick, they killed his dog, we later find out that the dog was a gift from his dead wife, so this very flawed character (he is an assassin after all) suddenly becomes a character we can root for and we understand why he is so angry that he kills all those people, his heros journey is all implied though, we assume he retired because he found his wife, so that link to a normal life is ripped from him, his only link to it is his dog, as soon as that link is gone, he reverts back to the kind of man we assumed he was.
Now take away the wife and dog, we now have a homicidal serial killer that is super kung fu gunfighter, its stupid, we wouldnt route for that, some might i am sure but the rest of us would wonder why he is randomly killing all these people because they stole his car.... no heros journey because he is no longer a hero.
I think its because the story is always more important, alita follows the heros journey archeotype and that is in every single culture in the world, we all recognise it almost subconsciously, so the race, gender etc. of the person that slots into that archeotype does not really matter, what matters is how they pull it off, if you make the character too flawless generally people do not like it so much, if you make it too flawed you get the same issue.
A good example of this is John Wick, they killed his dog, we later find out that the dog was a gift from his dead wife, so this very flawed character (he is an assassin after all) suddenly becomes a character we can root for and we understand why he is so angry that he kills all those people, his heros journey is all implied though, we assume he retired because he found his wife, so that link to a normal life is ripped from him, his only link to it is his dog, as soon as that link is gone, he reverts back to the kind of man we assumed he was.
Now take away the wife and dog, we now have a homicidal serial killer that is super kung fu gunfighter, its stupid, we wouldnt route for that, some might i am sure but the rest of us would wonder why he is randomly killing all these people because they stole his car.... no heros journey because he is no longer a hero.
I think this is a good way of looking at it.
How much race, sex, or orientation matter is probably down to the kind of story being told. In Alita it doesn't really matter, nor does it matter in a story like John Wick or Die Hard where the story and character appeals are kind of universal. On the other hand, you have stories like the Hate U Give or Love, Simon, where these things are a bit more significant because they're the story.
Another good example (really showing my nerdess here) is a movie called brotherhood.
Brotherhood of war (Taegukgi) is a quintessentially Korean movie that could only be Korean and could only have Koreans in it, they could do a western version sure, Band of brothers etc., but this film has such themes and feel that you simply could not use western actors to get the same result, another really good one is R-point but that does not have the same issue, its a standard horror film, i just bring it up because I think its good
Go watch both of these films, Brotherhood though is very graphic though so be warned.
Yodhrin wrote: But that's exactly what I'm saying - I've never needed that and I can't grasp why some people do. I mean, I'm not straight(but don't fall into one of the nice definable categories that people like) and I have an ASD, there are basically zero characters "like me" in fiction, and it never prevented me from "seeing myself" in those fictions because they're fantasies, and if someone is capable of inserting themselves into a fictional world where radiation turns you into a rage monster, the Nazis had a guy with a bright red skull for a face, there's a talking raccoon who likes building doomsday weapons etc, it baffles me that the part they have trouble with is "seeing themselves" in a lead character with the wrong dangly bits or skin tone.
That's not an argument *against* having leads with different dangly bits or skin tones, of course, I just don't grasp "representation" as a concept - a good story should resonate and inspire regardless of how much any given viewer personally has in common with the characters.
@yodrin:
Actually you are not alone yodrin. I'm rather surprised to see how positive this thread is and how err 'progressive' it is. I am autistic and my half sister constantly watches shows about autistic people. Personally while i'm ok with her trying to show support i try to tell her being autistic isn't my only feature and rather not the feature of me i'd like represented above all else. I'd prefer to be considered a gamer or a nerd/geek or even a science and math enthusiast, guy that makes some jokes or is a pervert. Literally anything i like is what i'd want to represent who i am or anything that takes skill from me. Being straight, gay, male or female takes zero skill to do. You are (i suppose usually) born this way and it takes no effort. That'd be like asking for support because you like the color 'red' or 'chocolate ice cream' or something absurd. I don't mind any of these sub-groups but if you want a real role model try to be what you would want in a role model. Role models are often flawed and as we see a lot get tangled up in all sorts of allegations of sexual or corrupt nature or similar whether real or fake (for instance i used to like thomas edison with his inventing till i found out he screwed over inventors and was a sham). Of course those are real-life role models whereas trying to be a make pretend female super-bot with ninja skills may not be a realistic role model to have. If you want her confidence then sure but some of what she is is rooted in story and trying to be what isn't real might not work out for you.
----------
As far as the movie goes.
It's a good movie. The aesthetic is good as well as the rest of the art. The story is alright. There are moments i really enjoyed from it
Spoiler:
the bad guy taking control of someone lesser on the totem poll of evil bad guys and when said guy dies he's like 'meh he was growing tiresome anyway.'
I feel like alita is not entirely but fairly mary sue. I get it's her background that she's lost tech but aside from the one time she was in a crappier body and probably got a bit too cocky (which even then she did fairly well) i never felt like she was in much danger. Don't get me wrong she has loved ones who aren't as invulnerable as she is and her enemies get at them. She also has loss from time to time (
Spoiler:
I like to joke her boyfriend's death could be summed up as "You can't die! You're too hot!!!"
. It just feels like she only plays rollerball a few times and within those few times she goes from not knowing the game too well to destroying an entire gang of baddies trying to kill her solo while trying to save her boyfriend. Perhaps i feel like going from noob to best in the world should take at least a couple movies.
I appreciate the art style and the aesthetic of the universe as well as some of the story elements but mary sues just tend to be boring or at least with good guys.
----------
This might not be a popular opinion but of the movies i saw recently i actually preferred 'Glass'. Maybe it's just more my type of movie. Of course i only saw it by itself and not the movies that came before. I've always been a story vs art style person however. Well most of the time (40k is kinda style over story).
Liking the color red has never prevented you from getting married, caused bullying to a degree that there is a alarming spike in suicide attempts, or prevented you from voting. Or in other countries get you beheaded for existing or stoned to death for trying to go to school.
Saying being gay or a woman is a nothing feature that requires nothing or costs them nothing is incredibly short sighted and is oblivious to the lives they live.
Lance845 wrote: Liking the color red has never prevented you from getting married, caused bullying to a degree that there is a alarming spike in suicide attempts, or prevented you from voting. Or in other countries get you beheaded for existing or stoned to death for trying to go to school.
Saying being gay or a woman is a nothing feature that requires nothing or costs them nothing is incredibly short sighted and is oblivious to the lives they live.
So which is it you want, equality or special treatment? Equality means being ignored and treated the same way as 99% of everyone else, like crap.
Fun fact, I don't look like Bruce Willis or Pam Grier but I still can relate to them and the characters they play on-screen because I have empathy. What happened to the world where we were supposed to judge people by the content of their character?
Lance845 wrote: Liking the color red has never prevented you from getting married, caused bullying to a degree that there is a alarming spike in suicide attempts, or prevented you from voting. Or in other countries get you beheaded for existing or stoned to death for trying to go to school.
Saying being gay or a woman is a nothing feature that requires nothing or costs them nothing is incredibly short sighted and is oblivious to the lives they live.
So which is it you want, equality or special treatment? Equality means being ignored and treated the same way as 99% of everyone else, like crap.
Fun fact, I don't look like Bruce Willis or Pam Grier but I still can relate to them and the characters they play on-screen because I have empathy. What happened to the world where we were supposed to judge people by the content of their character?
Cant say i have EVER seen a half singaporian welshman in a film but here i am still loving these characters, shocking isnt it
Formosa wrote: Cant say i have EVER seen a half singaporian welshman in a film but here i am still loving these characters, shocking isnt it
Aren't you being a little bit obtuse for comedy sake at that point though? I don't think that being "half-singaporian" is a corner stone of your personnal identity or how people relate or classify you. I'm not sure, that it's very important to you to be known as a half-singaporian and that your condition of half-singaporian has defined a large portion of your life experience and how it made you who you are. You can love any character and in fact everybody loves a wide variety of character with various backgrounds, ability and appearence. I don't know a single person who likes only a single precise type of character at the exclusion of all others, but we do all have "favorites", types of character we enjoy more and with whome we relate more. These character almost always display characteristics that we display and are part of the corner stone or our identity. They share our values, they "live" our fantasies, they have comparable life experience and backstory, etc.
@Lance: Yeah but being a socially awkward nerd which is not any race or gender fits most of your categories as well.
You guys know i'm an autistic half jewish guy right and yeah at times each had a history where they were victims. Even from those perspectives i won't say any of 'my people' (whatever that means) are always infinitely good and never bad. My point is that shouldn't be your defining feature. Those things should have the importance to people as 'the color red' or a 'pizza topping' should have to someone. Anyway this is getting off topic again.
Going back on topic it was a decent movie with really good art style. The story was ok to decent but not great. However i'm guessing it's not meant to be like 'the manchurian candidate', 'seven' or in the sake of video games 'deus ex' and 'prey (2016)'
Formosa wrote: Cant say i have EVER seen a half singaporian welshman in a film but here i am still loving these characters, shocking isnt it
Aren't you being a little bit obtuse for comedy sake at that point though? I don't think that being "half-singaporian" is a corner stone of your personnal identity or how people relate or classify you. I'm not sure, that it's very important to you to be known as a half-singaporian and that your condition of half-singaporian has defined a large portion of your life experience and how it made you who you are. You can love any character and in fact everybody loves a wide variety of character with various backgrounds, ability and appearence. I don't know a single person who likes only a single precise type of character at the exclusion of all others, but we do all have "favorites", types of character we enjoy more and with whome we relate more. These character almost always display characteristics that we display and are part of the corner stone or our identity. They share our values, they "live" our fantasies, they have comparable life experience and backstory, etc.
Yes and no, I am making fun of the clearly stupid idea that we can only like characters that look like us, its utterly utterly reductive to me, but hey, thats me
And your right, its not the corner stone of my identity, it barely matters to me at all but it matters to the identitarians who are obsessed it such things, I also see that your referencing intersectionality, nope dont have any truck with that either, it was a good idea on paper that was hijacked by lunatics.
I think the key point you made though and the most important point is this "They share our values"
While values change over time it always seems to be the characters that people like the most are the idealised versions of humanity, those that can overcome the odds and never give up, the heros journey i mentioned earlier.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Lance: Yeah but being a socially awkward nerd which is not any race or gender fits most of your categories as well.
You guys know i'm an autistic half jewish guy right and yeah at times each had a history where they were victims. Even from those perspectives i won't say any of 'my people' (whatever that means) are always infinitely good and never bad. My point is that shouldn't be your defining feature. Those things should have the importance to people as 'the color red' or a 'pizza topping' should have to someone. Anyway this is getting off topic again.
Going back on topic it was a decent movie with really good art style. The story was ok to decent but not great. However i'm guessing it's not meant to be like 'the manchurian candidate', 'seven' or in the sake of video games 'deus ex' and 'prey (2016)'
I have been a socially akward nerd. Its never stopped me from getting married, gotten me stoned, beheaded, or prevented my "people" from the right to vote. What you described doesn't fit most of anything i said.
My point was you were dismissive of the way some people see their representation while failing to acknowledge that they have vastly different life experiences than you.
@baconcatbug, i didn't say anyone should get treated differently. I said that he made a gak comparison that failed to recognize the differences. Not getting why some people look for representation is whatever. You don't have to understand anyone's point of view on anything. I was merely pointing out that liking a flavor of ice cream is not the same thing as people you grew up around having to fight to be able to vote and continue to have to look for equality in society.
Formosa wrote: Yes and no, I am making fun of the clearly stupid idea that we can only like characters that look like us, its utterly utterly reductive to me, but hey, thats me
I don't hink anybody in the history of mankind has ever said that you can only like character that look like us. The idea mention in this thread and everywhere else is that people are more suceptible to like character which share characteristics that are central to the way they define themselves and society judges them for example gender, race, religion, socio-economical situation, culture, sub-culture, values, life-experence, etc. Note that not all these characteristics NEED to be important to your identity both as an individual or a member of a group. These are just examples of the most commonly mentioned characteristics that are fundamental and important to a person's identity.
And your right, its not the corner stone of my identity, it barely matters to me at all but it matters to the identitarians who are obsessed it such things, I also see that your referencing intersectionality, nope dont have any truck with that either, it was a good idea on paper that was hijacked by lunatics.
Meh, the vast majority of people don't have the knowledge or background to talk competently or intelligently about social science concept. I don't fault people with missing the point unless they use it as a stepping board to spew contempt and hatred at other class of people.
I think the key point you made though and the most important point is this "They share our values"
Our personnal identity can be declined into our value, our expereriences, our tastes and our ambitions. Any character who shares any of those elements will necessarily be more easily relatable than one who doesn't and those who share them all are pretty much bound to please us (with a very few exceptions).
While values change over time it always seems to be the characters that people like the most are the idealised versions of humanity, those that can overcome the odds and never give up, the heros journey i mentioned earlier.
I disagree. The "hero's journey", is simply a narrative tool that follows a series of common narrative arc in a specific type of story. It's only useful in a limited type of stories and it does tend to create similar character because of the nature of the story in which there such a journey can take place. For example, many horror movies follow a different kind of narrative and have very different characters. Everybody loves power fantasies offered by the hero's journey up to certain point, but as it has been shown multiple times, not everybody loves it to the same level. Just think about Mary Sue character, all of them are pretty much the quintessential characters of a hero's journey, yet they aren't loved much (or even identifiable). Plus, some people don't enjoy action/adventure stories which are pretty much those in which "hero's journey" occur most often. But you are right in mentionning that some values are pretty much timeless and will attract a LOT of people; values like kindness, courage, valor, loyalty, wit, love, humility, wisdom, honesty.
I don't hink anybody in the history of mankind has ever said that you can only like character that look like us. The idea mention in this thread and everywhere else is that people are more suceptible to like character which share characteristics that are central to the way they define themselves and society judges them for example gender, race, religion, socio-economical situation, culture, sub-culture, values, life-experence, etc. Note that not all these characteristics NEED to be important to your identity both as an individual or a member of a group. These are just examples of the most commonly mentioned characteristics that are fundamental and important to a person's identity.
Sadly they do, quite often in fact, us normal people dont that true but even a quick google search will show that a minority of people think exactly this.
Meh, the vast majority of people don't have the knowledge or background to talk competently or intelligently about social science concept. I don't fault people with missing the point unless they use it as a stepping board to spew contempt and hatred at other class of people.
yeah your likely right about that, like I said the concept is a good one its just got a bad name from all the lunatics trying to use it without understanding it.
Our personnal identity can be declined into our value, our expereriences, our tastes and our ambitions. Any character who shares any of those elements will necessarily be more easily relatable than one who doesn't and those who share them all are pretty much bound to please us (with a very few exceptions).
a fair point.
I disagree. The "hero's journey", is simply a narrative tool that follows a series of common narrative arc in a specific type of story. It's only useful in a limited type of stories and it does tend to create similar character because of the nature of the story in which there such a journey can take place. For example, many horror movies follow a different kind of narrative and have very different characters. Everybody loves power fantasies offered by the hero's journey up to certain point, but as it has been shown multiple times, not everybody loves it to the same level. Just think about Mary Sue character, all of them are pretty much the quintessential characters of a hero's journey, yet they aren't loved much (or even identifiable). Plus, some people don't enjoy action/adventure stories which are pretty much those in which "hero's journey" occur most often. But you are right in mentionning that some values are pretty much timeless and will attract a LOT of people; values like kindness, courage, valor, loyalty, wit, love, humility, wisdom, honesty.
Everything the mention there is basically just tacked onto the heroes journey, its generally the baseline of almost all of our most popular stories and then built upon.
Formosa wrote: Yes and no, I am making fun of the clearly stupid idea that we can only like characters that look like us, its utterly utterly reductive to me, but hey, thats me
I don't hink anybody in the history of mankind has ever said that you can only like character that look like us. The idea mention in this thread and everywhere else is that people are more suceptible to like character which share characteristics that are central to the way they define themselves and society judges them for example gender, race, religion, socio-economical situation, culture, sub-culture, values, life-experence, etc. Note that not all these characteristics NEED to be important to your identity both as an individual or a member of a group. These are just examples of the most commonly mentioned characteristics that are fundamental and important to a person's identity.
But that's the point I'm making - why is what's important to your real identity a factor in whether or not you can enjoy and connect with a fictional character in a story that bears little resemblance to reality? I'm not black, African, African-American, royalty, in any kind of leadership position, and I have no siblings, but that was no barrier to me understanding and empathising with T'Challa because he expresses character traits that are common to pretty much all people and all fiction, nor did a lack of personal experience of the issues being discussed prevent me from grasping the totality of Killmonger's character and ideology, or from feeling a chill run down my spine when he spoke his last words.
That's why I find the push by some towards the idea you can only truly invest in a fictional character if they resemble you to some degree so bizarre, it's completely counter-productive if your goal is to make the world a better place for all people; certain groups have spent decades trying to construct an Us vs Them/separate but equal narrative in developed nations, I just never thought "my side" would end up embracing that idea.
EDIT: To clarify what I mean - certain people make the argument that films like Black Panther ought to be made so that one group within our real society can "see themselves reflected on screen", and that's who it's "for". I believe people should be arguing that films like Black Panther ought to be made because they're great stories that enrich all of us by drawing from cultures and aesthetics outside of the norm, and that they're "for" everybody because how much "identity" you share with the protagonists is an irrelevance.
Formosa wrote: Yes and no, I am making fun of the clearly stupid idea that we can only like characters that look like us, its utterly utterly reductive to me, but hey, thats me
I don't hink anybody in the history of mankind has ever said that you can only like character that look like us. The idea mention in this thread and everywhere else is that people are more suceptible to like character which share characteristics that are central to the way they define themselves and society judges them for example gender, race, religion, socio-economical situation, culture, sub-culture, values, life-experence, etc. Note that not all these characteristics NEED to be important to your identity both as an individual or a member of a group. These are just examples of the most commonly mentioned characteristics that are fundamental and important to a person's identity.
But that's the point I'm making - why is what's important to your real identity a factor in whether or not you can enjoy and connect with a fictional character in a story that bears little resemblance to reality? I'm not black, African, African-American, royalty, in any kind of leadership position, and I have no siblings, but that was no barrier to me understanding and empathising with T'Challa because he expresses character traits that are common to pretty much all people and all fiction, nor did a lack of personal experience of the issues being discussed prevent me from grasping the totality of Killmonger's character and ideology, or from feeling a chill run down my spine when he spoke his last words.
That's why I find the push by some towards the idea you can only truly invest in a fictional character if they resemble you to some degree so bizarre, it's completely counter-productive if your goal is to make the world a better place for all people; certain groups have spent decades trying to construct an Us vs Them/separate but equal narrative in developed nations, I just never thought "my side" would end up embracing that idea.
EDIT: To clarify what I mean - certain people make the argument that films like Black Panther ought to be made so that one group within our real society can "see themselves reflected on screen", and that's who it's "for". I believe people should be arguing that films like Black Panther ought to be made because they're great stories that enrich all of us by drawing from cultures and aesthetics outside of the norm, and that they're "for" everybody because how much "identity" you share with the protagonists is an irrelevance.
Not sure what side you meant by you saying 'your side'.
As far as games go i saw a let's play of 'Prey (2016)' and it was really, really good. The story is amazing and i feel like i'd at least argue with anybody that says different. The gameplay looked solid and the ending was quite a twist. It also features a couple gay minor characters and the main character (male or female as you can choose) is asian. The story asks far more important questions in the sense of trying to understand and possibly co-exist with some alien life which we can't entirely communicate with that seems openly hostile. I'll admit when i first saw it i thought it was a diversity thing to have both male and female characters with asian descent and a gay minor character but really that's only a bad thing when used as a 'get out of jail' card for a game or movie being terrible (like the last ghostbusters film supposedly). However all this goes away when the story is great and the game feels good and has good aesthetics. It became a very memorable game and one i should've bought. I've heard comparisons to it being like 'system shock' and that sounds like a good thing.
As far as 'black panther' goes i'm not gonna lie i never saw it. If i had to watch a movie with a black superhero i'd prefer 'Blade'. I might even prefer the 'prototype 2' game but i heard that wasn't as good as the first and never played it.
Whoever thinks you need a character that looks like you to relate has probably never seen any of those cartoons or 3d animated movies or shows with animals or objects that talk and act like people.
Yodhrin wrote: But that's the point I'm making - why is what's important to your real identity a factor in whether or not you can enjoy and connect with a fictional character in a story that bears little resemblance to reality?
Because that's just how human works. We relate more easily to things we understand and with whome we share some point in common. The point in common you share, the easier it is to create a link with a fictionnal character. That doesn't mean you can't relate to a character with drastically different characteristics then you. Your ability to do so might be affected for example by your age and your personnal sociability. Your consumption of fictionnal media might also affect it. The more movies and books you consume, the easier it gets to relate with characters. That's why some character you thought were so cool at some point in your life you might find boring and predictable later on (or vice versa, this character is gak, now I think it's great). There are many factor at play here.
I'm not black, African, African-American, royalty, in any kind of leadership position, and I have no siblings, but that was no barrier to me understanding and empathising with T'Challa because he expresses character traits that are common to pretty much all people and all fiction, nor did a lack of personal experience of the issues being discussed prevent me from grasping the totality of Killmonger's character and ideology, or from feeling a chill run down my spine when he spoke his last words.
That comes with experience and personnal talents. You didn't appreciated the character in the same way then others though. What makes you connect to the character seems to have been his values. You also had prior existence with other characters, culturaly closer to you that displayed similar values and conflict, helping you to grasp a more "exotic" version of the same trope. For others, the character not only resonate with them thanks to his values, but also his cultural background. For others, he resonate culturally, but has values that aren't shared or important to the viewer (that creates a place for learning or changing minds). For some neither and in those cases, it's rare they will enjoy the character. Finally, like almost all characters and movies in the melodrama genre, some will connect with the underlining socio-political message of the movie and of the character. The subtext of the character thus becomes very important and can open a new dimension of appreciation of the movie/story/character.
EDIT: To clarify what I mean - certain people make the argument that films like Black Panther ought to be made so that one group within our real society can "see themselves reflected on screen", and that's who it's "for". I believe people should be arguing that films like Black Panther ought to be made because they're great stories that enrich all of us by drawing from cultures and aesthetics outside of the norm, and that they're "for" everybody because how much "identity" you share with the protagonists is an irrelevance.
While not a "bad" argument to make, it completely ignores or brush aside the subtext of stories and entertainment in general. The idea isn't simply to "see themselves reflected on screen" in sort of tokenish form. That would be a reductive way to represent or perceive the calls for more diversity in the entertainment industry. We talk about subtext that defend, exalt and celebrate marginalised sub-culture or groups; that shows their imaginary and idealised constructions; their own "spin" on timeless and universal values That's what those calls about diversity are about they are about defending, exalting and celebrating marginalised sub-culture or groups in an unapoloetic fashion, without a "safe" filter for those who don't belong to those groups and for whome, while they may love the character for its values and message, might not be able to relate to it culturally as much and who neither can relate to the subtext as strongly.
Because that's just how human works. We relate more easily to things we understand and with whome we share some point in common. The point in common you share, the easier it is to create a link with a fictionnal character. That doesn't mean you can't relate to a character with drastically different characteristics then you. Your ability to do so might be affected for example by your age and your personnal sociability. Your consumption of fictionnal media might also affect it. The more movies and books you consume, the easier it gets to relate with characters. That's why some character you thought were so cool at some point in your life you might find boring and predictable later on (or vice versa, this character is gak, now I think it's great). There are many factor at play here.
That is a fair way of looking at it, the more you expose yourself to other concepts and ideas the more likely you are to be able to relate to these ideas or concepts, over familiarity with the same concept /idea can lead to stagnation of that concept/idea, basically you are talking about "tropes"
That comes with experience and personnal talents. You didn't appreciated the character in the same way then others though. What makes you connect to the character seems to have been his values. You also had prior existence with other characters, culturaly closer to you that displayed similar values and conflict, helping you to grasp a more "exotic" version of the same trope. For others, the character not only resonate with them thanks to his values, but also his cultural background. For others, he resonate culturally, but has values that aren't shared or important to the viewer (that creates a place for learning or changing minds). For some neither and in those cases, it's rare they will enjoy the character. Finally, like almost all characters and movies in the melodrama genre, some will connect with the underlining socio-political message of the movie and of the character. The subtext of the character thus becomes very important and can open a new dimension of appreciation of the movie/story/character.
again a fair assessment but to add to it, a lot of people try to find a sub text that simply is not there or create a sub text the original creator did not intend and even get it completely wrong, a good example of this is heinlein starship troopers, the movie is about Facism, the books are about libertarianism, the movie writers and directors simply did not understand what they were doing and now most people who know of starship troopers think its about a fascistic society, they get the sub text wrong because the movie creators got the interpretation wrong.
While not a "bad" argument to make, it completely ignores or brush aside the subtext of stories and entertainment in general. The idea isn't simply to "see themselves reflected on screen" in sort of tokenish form. That would be a reductive way to represent or perceive the calls for more diversity in the entertainment industry. We talk about subtext that defend, exalt and celebrate marginalised sub-culture or groups; that shows their imaginary and idealised constructions; their own "spin" on timeless and universal values That's what those calls about diversity are about they are about defending, exalting and celebrating marginalised sub-culture or groups in an unapoloetic fashion, without a "safe" filter for those who don't belong to those groups and for whome, while they may love the character for its values and message, might not be able to relate to it culturally as much and who neither can relate to the subtext as strongly.
Well thats not quite true, I can easily show you that people these days are exactly pushing for tokenism over quality, and I agree its very reductive and frankly quite insulting to just change a character for the sake of pushing tokenism, I have always advocated for creating something new rather than changing something established for the sake of a single minorities ideology, advocates for said ideology claiming to speak for the very people that actually mostly disagree with them and even going so far as to attack the self same people they are claiming to represent if they step out of line.
Formosa wrote: Cant say i have EVER seen a half singaporian welshman in a film but here i am still loving these characters, shocking isnt it
Aren't you being a little bit obtuse for comedy sake at that point though? I don't think that being "half-singaporian" is a corner stone of your personnal identity or how people relate or classify you. I'm not sure, that it's very important to you to be known as a half-singaporian and that your condition of half-singaporian has defined a large portion of your life experience and how it made you who you are. You can love any character and in fact everybody loves a wide variety of character with various backgrounds, ability and appearence. I don't know a single person who likes only a single precise type of character at the exclusion of all others, but we do all have "favorites", types of character we enjoy more and with whome we relate more. These character almost always display characteristics that we display and are part of the corner stone or our identity. They share our values, they "live" our fantasies, they have comparable life experience and backstory, etc.
So what you're saying is that being gay or bi or trans is the very cornerstone of their personality and that's ALL they should ever be considered? As gay, bi, trans, or whatever?
Not as, you know... people?
Once again, that's not equality. That's special treatment.
EDIT: I love how people tell me I can't understand racial discrimination because I'm white. I attended a predominately black high school barely a mile outside Ferguson. Oh yes, I know all about it and have literal scars to prove it. I was 'whitey' and I was fair game, so far as they were concerned.
It didn't stop me from liking Blade, and Storm, and T'Challa, and any of Will Smith's characters. Why? Because those characters are not racist. They didn't judge those around them based on skin color, as so many of my high school classmates did.
For me, how much I relate to a character comes from their response to the situation they are in. If I can see myself at least trying to do the same thing in the same situation, I can relate to them. That's why I don't care much for horror movies, or a lot of the newer comedies. The characters are handed the idiot ball and have to make dumb decisions to move the plot forward. I cannot relate to that. It's also a big part of why I don't like TLJ; Too many characters making dumb decisions all the way around.
Of course, then there's the dumb (i.e. likely to get you killed) but morally correct (i.e. defending someone in trouble) decision... since I'm still here you know I've never run into that situation. I'd like to think I'd stand up and fight in that situation, so I identify with people who do so in movies. All the better when they survive (Ellen Ripley comes to mind), of course, but sometimes they don't (there are elements of this in Boromir, and in Denzel Washington's character in Man on Fire). But as the Kingons say, "Just as mere life is not victory, mere death is NOT defeat'.
Note that neither race nor gender play any part in that. Men and women have faced the same choice. People of all countries have been there at various times. It's the situation and their reaction I relate to. Not the trivialities of plumbing, pigmentation, or even sexual identity and/or preference. Because it truly is trivial in my mind.
It's not tokenism they are pushing for. Tokenism is in fact the thing they are fighting against. In the past the only exposure they ever had was tokenism. What they want is fair treatment when they are on screen and a more even and fair mix of exposure.
That is not tokenism.
Wanting some mix of women characters in a sea of male characters isn't tokenism.
Having Black Panther be a stand out because it had a majority black cast isn't tokenism. Ive said it before, but the thing that is amazing about BP is that it's JUST another Marvel Movie while having a majority black cast. That has NEVER happened before.
And before others chime in with Blade again, Blade had a single black actor in the lead role. Not a majority black cast. THAT is closer to tokenism then this could ever be.
The advocates today are not arguing for tokenism. They want fair treatment of characters and fair treatment of portrayals and fair treatment of actors.
Alita does this well. Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Black Panther. All good examples. Luke Cage did great. So did Jessica Jones.
Lance845 wrote: It's not tokenism they are pushing for. Tokenism is in fact the thing they are fighting against. In the past the only exposure they ever had was tokenism. What they want is fair treatment when they are on screen and a more even and fair mix of exposure.
That is not tokenism.
Wanting some mix of women characters in a sea of male characters isn't tokenism.
Having Black Panther be a stand out because it had a majority black cast isn't tokenism. Ive said it before, but the thing that is amazing about BP is that it's JUST another Marvel Movie while having a majority black cast. That has NEVER happened before.
And before others chime in with Blade again, Blade had a single black actor in the lead role. Not a majority black cast. THAT is closer to tokenism then this could ever be.
The advocates today are not arguing for tokenism. They want fair treatment of characters and fair treatment of portrayals and fair treatment of actors.
Alita does this well. Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Black Panther. All good examples. Luke Cage did great. So did Jessica Jones.
Not to mention poor Finn in TFA/TLJ. A role with such potential reduced to 'token comic relief black guy'. His role reminds me too much of the poor token comic relief black guy in Evolution.
Lance845 wrote: It's not tokenism they are pushing for. Tokenism is in fact the thing they are fighting against. In the past the only exposure they ever had was tokenism. What they want is fair treatment when they are on screen and a more even and fair mix of exposure.
That is not tokenism.
Wanting some mix of women characters in a sea of male characters isn't tokenism.
Having Black Panther be a stand out because it had a majority black cast isn't tokenism. Ive said it before, but the thing that is amazing about BP is that it's JUST another Marvel Movie while having a majority black cast. That has NEVER happened before.
And before others chime in with Blade again, Blade had a single black actor in the lead role. Not a majority black cast. THAT is closer to tokenism then this could ever be.
The advocates today are not arguing for tokenism. They want fair treatment of characters and fair treatment of portrayals and fair treatment of actors.
Alita does this well. Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Black Panther. All good examples. Luke Cage did great. So did Jessica Jones.
Remember when the Buzzfeeds of the world were praising the "diversity" of Black Panther because 98% of the cast was black, yet if a movie is 98% white it's suddenly racist?
Lance845 wrote: It's not tokenism they are pushing for. Tokenism is in fact the thing they are fighting against. In the past the only exposure they ever had was tokenism. What they want is fair treatment when they are on screen and a more even and fair mix of exposure.
That is not tokenism.
Wanting some mix of women characters in a sea of male characters isn't tokenism.
Having Black Panther be a stand out because it had a majority black cast isn't tokenism. Ive said it before, but the thing that is amazing about BP is that it's JUST another Marvel Movie while having a majority black cast. That has NEVER happened before.
And before others chime in with Blade again, Blade had a single black actor in the lead role. Not a majority black cast. THAT is closer to tokenism then this could ever be.
The advocates today are not arguing for tokenism. They want fair treatment of characters and fair treatment of portrayals and fair treatment of actors.
Alita does this well. Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Black Panther. All good examples. Luke Cage did great. So did Jessica Jones.
Remember when the Buzzfeeds of the world were praising the "diversity" of Black Panther because 98% of the cast was black, yet if a movie is 98% white it's suddenly racist?
Remember when Buzzfeeds were relevant in any capacity? Me neither.
I don't give a gak what verbiage a bunch of click bait web sites used to stir up traffic. The "diversity" Black panther bought wasn't to it's own film, it was to the film industry. Again, the first movie of it's kind with a majority black cast where being black wasn't a gimmick.
The film was not a gimmick, the media surrounding used it as a gimmick, as you said lance, click bait media, all those "race baiting" articles still exist and thankfully the end of last year and the start of this year we have seen a lot of these "journalists" start to lose their jobs and influence, Twitter and FB are next, although i do not see FB falling soon.
Holy Balls is this convo getting a little too political. I get i didn't help it any but the ball was rolling when i got here.
Maybe we should focus on robo girl with super powers instead.
Once again i'd just like to say that while the character was a bit mary sue i enjoyed the aesthetic a lot of this universe. It at least seems to have plenty of effort put into it but i imagine that's more the manga writer than the film.
Fair one flaming, I thought we were talking about archeotypes within societys and the cultural norms that affect movies but I can start another thread for that
On the flip side, we're already seeing opinion stories about how Alita is not really a strong female character. Apparently the logic is that she doesn't waltz through the story effortlessly, and winds up needing help from other, male, characters....
Roll eyes indeed.
This relates back to my post on characters that appeal to me. A character that has everything come easily to them does not appeal to me because I HAVE had to struggle a lot through my life. And sometimes the only way I made it through was with the help of my friends. Thus, I can easily understand Alita, who does struggle and does need the help of her friends to ultimately succeed.
Captain Marvel, while an entertaining movie, falls short of Alita for this reason. She's just too self-contained for me to really identify with. Having said that, I can understand the search for identity she goes through - most people go through that at some point, usually adolescence.
Between the two, I'd re-watch Alia over Marvel for that reason.
Vulcan wrote: On the flip side, we're already seeing opinion stories about how Alita is not really a strong female character. Apparently the logic is that she doesn't waltz through the story effortlessly, and winds up needing help
Reminds me of the female lead from The Predator, who was so hyper competent every step of the film it was utterly inhuman. Not really what I'd consider the gold standard for progress.
“Strong female character” means a female character who is strong, as in can do anything and don’t need no man, right?
I prefer fictional females with strong character; which is to say, someone defined more by what she has gone through, what she wants out of life, and her realtionships with other characters than, say, being better at everyone else at whatever for no particular reason.
And if the character in question is the main protagonist of the story, she should obviously be likeable — to the audience, if not necessarily also to other characters in the story.
Alita is strong in the superficial sense. She’s an amazing warrior, to the point of being a living weapon. And yet that by itself doesn’t make for an interesting character (think about the T-1000, for example). She also has a strong character because she has flaws as well as strengths. She dvelops in the course of her story arc.
Vulcan wrote: On the flip side, we're already seeing opinion stories about how Alita is not really a strong female character. Apparently the logic is that she doesn't waltz through the story effortlessly, and winds up needing help from other, male, characters....
Roll eyes indeed.
This relates back to my post on characters that appeal to me. A character that has everything come easily to them does not appeal to me because I HAVE had to struggle a lot through my life. And sometimes the only way I made it through was with the help of my friends. Thus, I can easily understand Alita, who does struggle and does need the help of her friends to ultimately succeed.
Captain Marvel, while an entertaining movie, falls short of Alita for this reason. She's just too self-contained for me to really identify with. Having said that, I can understand the search for identity she goes through - most people go through that at some point, usually adolescence.
Between the two, I'd re-watch Alia over Marvel for that reason.
Having a strong lead (female or not) is good, but I think there's two ways you can do it badly. One is to forget to give them traits other than "strong" or to have any parts in the story when they're not being "strong", so they end up being bland or forgettable. And the other is to have their strength come at the expense of other interesting characters, who get reduced to obstacles to be kicked over with little effort, or cheerleaders who can't do anything for themselves and talk about how awesome the hero is. For what it's worth, I think both movies avoided those pitfalls.
(Mind you, I think we are often more tolerant of a male character being a shallow, underdeveloped power fantasy.)
I disagree. Captain Marvel most definitely did not avoid the first pitfall, and I wouldn't argue with someone who claimed it fell for both. Alita did manage to avoid both.
Elemental wrote: (Mind you, I think we are often more tolerant of a male character being a shallow, underdeveloped power fantasy.)
I can't argue that one bit.
It's a trap that even I fall for sometimes, especially when watching action/adventure movies. Let's face it, in a lot of such movies the lead waltzes through the plot with even less effort than Captain Marvel does... and yet, we still enjoy them as brainless entertainment.
Bran Dawri wrote: I disagree. Captain Marvel most definitely did not avoid the first pitfall, and I wouldn't argue with someone who claimed it fell for both. Alita did manage to avoid both.
Of what pitfall are we talking about? Are we talkingg about the pitfall of lost memories or the pitfall of "Mary Sue". I personnaly think Alita fell face first in both, while Captain Marvel made a narrow dodge on one and fell in the other.
Bran Dawri wrote: I disagree. Captain Marvel most definitely did not avoid the first pitfall, and I wouldn't argue with someone who claimed it fell for both. Alita did manage to avoid both.
Of what pitfall are we talking about? Are we talkingg about the pitfall of lost memories or the pitfall of "Mary Sue". I personnaly think Alita fell face first in both, while Captain Marvel made a narrow dodge on one and fell in the other.
I disagree, but that's just my opinion. To each their own.
Bran Dawri wrote: I disagree. Captain Marvel most definitely did not avoid the first pitfall, and I wouldn't argue with someone who claimed it fell for both. Alita did manage to avoid both.
Of what pitfall are we talking about? Are we talkingg about the pitfall of lost memories or the pitfall of "Mary Sue". I personnaly think Alita fell face first in both, while Captain Marvel made a narrow dodge on one and fell in the other.
I was referring to the post above mine. First pitfall is "forget to give the character traits (or, heck, a personality) other than "strong", which CM definitely failed to do, while Alita dodged it, IMO.
The second one is a little harder to argue, but even there Alita stays much further away than CM, who manages to overshadow (or even completely not need) anyone beyond the need for plot exposition.
CM had personality traits besides "Strong". She was reckless. Abrasive. Hot headed. Shes also clearly nurturing with her friends and willing to sacrifice to protect them.
She gets captured in her first mission because she charges forward and gets caught. She can't follow orders. She grabs for her powers and uses them in destructive ways without thought for potential consequence like destroying the juke box instead of explaining things to Fury. It's played for laughs in the movie but those aspects of her personality are going to come back.
If you think in future movies that hot headedness isn't going to create more problems in the way getting captured made a problem for her in this movie then you are out of your mind. Hopefully she eventually learns from it. But right now, reckless I would say is her primary personality trait. Easily manipulated.
Agree to disagree. None of those "bad" consequences actually had bad consequences for her. Getting captured only served to further the plot, and a destroyed jukebox ain't exactly an important item to have destroyed, while not following orders is not necessarily a weak point. Cap, for example, does it all the time. Except for him there actually are consequences. His willingness to bear them for doing what's right is what makes him a hero.
But take away the consequences because the hero is too powerful, and all that's left is at worst an egotist, at best a character that's hard to root for because what's the point?
And what exactly was she willing to sacrifice? At no point was there any actual danger to her.
Bran Dawri wrote: I was referring to the post above mine. First pitfall is "forget to give the character traits (or, heck, a personality) other than "strong", which CM definitely failed to do, while Alita dodged it, IMO.
If I was to make a list of both character traits here is what I came up with.
Alita: she's determined, adventurous, impulsive, stubborn and selfless
In my opinion, Alita character traits are fundamentally utilitarian to the story. The things she finds fun (blood sports, fighting) are the things she needs to do to make the plot advance and are things at which she is naturally gifted with. Her personnality traits are basically a tool box for a hero. She needs to be determined, adventurous and stubborn to face challenges. She needs to be impulsive to place herself into trouble. Her selflessness and inate sense of justice is what is necessary to make her "good". Note that she doesn't seem to have learned or been thought her sense of justice and selflessness. Since Alita was "born" with all the tools and character traits to be hero, that makes her to my sense a more stereotypical hero. Her motivation to put her life at risk seem to be goodness itself. She hates injustice and is naturally attracted toward conflicts. That makes her a fairly standard hero's hero.
Captain Marvel character traits are, while very similar to those of Alita, less utilitarian. We know she likes things that are rather useless to her as a superhero. She enjoys karaoke, drinking with her friends and children. She also display more frequently character flaws. Her impulsiveness and abrasive personnality makes her come off as a jerk and she seem to be motivated by anger more than by an inate sense of justice even though she does have one. Captain Marvel appears to me more like a person. I have met people with similar personnality: angry, cocky, a bit show-off, but fundamentaly nice and caring underneath. Ironically, they were also soldiers (and one was a cop). Alita, to me, is more an archetypical hero (who talks like a teenager). In fact I would compare her more easily to Wonder Woman in terms of personnality. Both are more "iconic" superheroes, the hero of other heroes, then people with great power who uses them for a good cause.
The second one is a little harder to argue, but even there Alita stays much further away than CM, who manages to overshadow (or even completely not need) anyone beyond the need for plot exposition.
I don't think anybody gave much help to Alita beside her "father" who gave her a body to use (twice) and her boyfriend for helping her find a new body that links her to her past, but then again, he caused her about as much problem as he solved. The only big advantage of Alita next to Captain Marvel, is that the former actually sustained a defeat and needed to be rescued by her friends (more accurately, the cyber dog trainer and her "father"), but this failure has no consequence on Alita and seem to have been used as an excuse to give her immediately a "power-up". It didn't feel like a major event in the main character life anymore then her first fight against the villain. Alita didn't need any character to become a hero she did it against the will of her father for no other reason then for the sake of justice. Finding about her passed was completely irrelevent to the plot of hte movie. She could have remained oblivious to her passed as a URM elite soldier and still face the same antagonist for the same reason, but I suspect the sequel will throw this sideway.
Captain Marvel used the help of Fury who was essential in her avoiding capture, her friend Rambeau who was essential in recovering her memories and fighting off some bad guys. Unlike Alita's dead mentor, that of Carol was actually important to her and shaping her sense of morality. She imparts a mission and some values into her beside pure combat skills. The leader of the Skrull is also important both as an antagonist for the movie first part, but also as a moral compass in the second part and helded the key to her passed and her identity. Without several other characters, Captain Marvel would have remained oblivious to her passed and continued to serve loyally the Kree and the movie would have been radically different.
Bran Dawri wrote: Agree to disagree. None of those "bad" consequences actually had bad consequences for her. Getting captured only served to further the plot, and a destroyed jukebox ain't exactly an important item to have destroyed, while not following orders is not necessarily a weak point. Cap, for example, does it all the time. Except for him there actually are consequences. His willingness to bear them for doing what's right is what makes him a hero.
But take away the consequences because the hero is too powerful, and all that's left is at worst an egotist, at best a character that's hard to root for because what's the point?
And what exactly was she willing to sacrifice? At no point was there any actual danger to her.
Do you mean when cap disobeyed orders in first avenger, raided the hydra base, saved the platoon, and then suffered the consequences of getting respect and leading a team of howling commandos? Or was that just furthering the plot?
When she stepped up to pilot the experimental craft for her mentor. A risky prospect on the best of days. That turned into an attack that ruined her life years.
Which is part of her past, not who she is now, after six years of Kree brainwashing. Even in the movie, it seems she onky remembers these things distantly, as if they happened to someone else. Even so, almost all of the flashbacks had one common theme they kept hammering in: this girl won't back down. She gets back on her feet and tries again. Ie, she's strong.
At no point did Fury seem necessary for her avoiding capture, as she could effortlessly plow through pretty much anything SHIELD could throw at her. Plus (spoiler alert) the person in charge of SHIELD wasn't the enemy.
And Cap's foray into the Hydra base eventually led to him being frozen in the ice. In TWS, his actions led to the destruction of SHIELD (and Hydra buried within, but still). In CW, they led to the Avengers breaking up and ended with him a fugitive.
Regardless of whether you think his actions were justified, there were real consequences, both for him and the people around him.
Cap disobeying orders did not create him being forzen in ice. HIS actions didn't create that scenerio. Red Skulls did.
Carols actions are the ones that got her captured by the kree. Then captured by the skrull. Then captured by the kree again.
The fact that she came out on top of each of those situations is every one of these movies. Only like... 4 of them have the protagonists walk away from the movie actually worse off then when they started.
Neither of these characters struck me as mining the true depths of courage and self-sacrifice. At best they gave us Goku vs Cooler levels of power-up wish fulfillment, and that can be an enjoyable enough experience on its own.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Neither of these characters struck me as mining the true depths of courage and self-sacrifice. At best they gave us Goku vs Cooler levels of power-up wish fulfillment, and that can be an enjoyable enough experience on its own.
I agree with you on that. Neither character were really "good character", but I would say Captain Marvel was a bit better if only because the rather lackluster performance of Larson was better then the poor performance of Salazar which is a bit strange since both actress were known to do better.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Neither of these characters struck me as mining the true depths of courage and self-sacrifice. At best they gave us Goku vs Cooler levels of power-up wish fulfillment, and that can be an enjoyable enough experience on its own.
Agreed. I liked Alita better, but neither went far beyond enjoyable popcorn entertainment, while I felt CM fell a little short of even that. I suppose my expectations going into Alita were a little lower as it was an unknown quantity, while I felt CM fell short of the usual Marvel standard.
Not just in talent, but Cash and Tech. I know Alita was like 500 theatres less than How to Train Your Dragon at its best. I saw very little Promotion for Alita outside of Movie Previews. If not for those I would have never heard of it. Captain Marvel was all over the place with sneak peaks and such like all Marvel movies.
I agree we all have fond impressions of the MCU in general so every movie is a Sequal in one way ala Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. They have a built in fan base like us. It is trying to get those that don't like Comics, Nerd stuff, Sci-Fi to go and see it. MCU has cracked that barrier fairly well.
Not just in talent, but Cash and Tech. I know Alita was like 500 theatres less than How to Train Your Dragon at its best. I saw very little Promotion for Alita outside of Movie Previews. If not for those I would have never heard of it. Captain Marvel was all over the place with sneak peaks and such like all Marvel movies.
I agree we all have fond impressions of the MCU in general so every movie is a Sequal in one way ala Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. They have a built in fan base like us. It is trying to get those that don't like Comics, Nerd stuff, Sci-Fi to go and see it. MCU has cracked that barrier fairly well.
Alita did had little marketing, but is a popular manga (or so I heard). It's also a movie of James Cameron, one of the biggest name in Hollywood who is known to have produced several of the most loved science-fiction movie and to be a master of the visual spectacle. That certainly could attract crowds.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Neither of these characters struck me as mining the true depths of courage and self-sacrifice. At best they gave us Goku vs Cooler levels of power-up wish fulfillment, and that can be an enjoyable enough experience on its own.
I agree with you on that. Neither character were really "good character", but I would say Captain Marvel was a bit better if only because the rather lackluster performance of Larson was better then the poor performance of Salazar which is a bit strange since both actress were known to do better.
Interesting. My opinion is that Salazar did quite a bit better than Larson. I felt Alita seemed more... human... than Captain Marvel did.
Ah, well. Everyone has their own opinion, nothing says we have to have the SAME opinion!
Vulcan wrote: Interesting. My opinion is that Salazar did quite a bit better than Larson. I felt Alita seemed more... human... than Captain Marvel did.
Ah, well. Everyone has their own opinion, nothing says we have to have the SAME opinion!
Alita has a huge romance subplot which makes a more classic feminine character, the kind we are more used to see and relate to. I didn't clic with the romance plot of Alita, but clicked much more with the life story of Captain Marvel. Maybe this explains our difference in opinion.
I liked the romance plot in Alita because it felt pretty realistic. It’s a crush but at a certain age a crush is all one knows of love. When she holds out her heart to him, that’s a beautiful example of something Tolkien said about fictional characters — they get to be on the outside what we feel like on the inside (paraphrasing).
I'm admittedly quite late to the party but I just watched this last night. I was initially turned off by the big goofy eyes in the first trailer (despite being a fan of anime since the mid 80s) as a faux live action effect so skipped it during the theatrical run. A recently returned interest in cyberpunk reminded me of this and I watched it. It's better than I expected and I quickly got used to the BESM effect on the main character model. Regarding the romance aspect, it was a bit contrived but didn't feel forced though IMO. She went full on creepy overly attached girlfriend like the YouTube skits from a few years ago but I like that it was jokingly referred to as such.
I don't currently have a 4k HDR setup as I'm still rocking my now outdated 2008 1080p LED dumb tv combo. For those with an upgraded system, would you consider Alita as a title that takes full advantage of that? It doesn't have to be a showcase for viewing tech like the 5th Element was in the 1990s but I'm curious if it'll be a worthwhile experience to rewatch if I upgrade. I'd expect that James Cameron spared no expense being associated with this but my opinion of him has somewhat soured in recent years.
I tried watching it recently and had to stop as it appeared they wanted to do a whistle stop past loads of major plot points. Not for me since I still have to catch up with reading the manga first.
I've never been into manga in general and my last experience with Alita was watching the anime decades ago (iirc on vhs) so I'm coming at this from the perspective of a largely lapsed anime fan just wanting escapist entertainment.
Overread wrote: I tried watching it recently and had to stop as it appeared they wanted to do a whistle stop past loads of major plot points. Not for me since I still have to catch up with reading the manga first.
This. I started reading the manga out of curiosity, after the film came out and I missed it. The manga's fantastic, even if it does get a bit decompressed and crazy in places. But the film went the other way, cramming the first four volumes in a memberberry, I-saw-it-and-I-clapped kind of way. I'm not entirely sure the storyline was chopped up and tacked back together in a very coherent way, but I don't have much impetus to go back and check.
I am a big Alita fan, it was the first manga I read (as opposed to looking at the pictures) in Japanese and I even read all of Last Order.
If you've read Last Order you know how much of a commitment that took.
Why yes Mr Kishiro, I would like 200 pages of Karate Robots expounding on their personal philosophies. Oh you say we'll get more of the same in the next 3 volumes too? Well then, let's go.
(for the record Mars Chronicles is actually good as opposed to being a hollow echo of a once-great series. Shocked though it's on like book 6 and not much has happened, which goes to show how good the 9 books of Alita were.).
Anyway point being, I liked it. I would not upgrade my DVD player, TV and then pay $30 for the 4k disk however.
But I did like it. And would watch Alita 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Anyway point being, I liked it. I would not upgrade my DVD player, TV and then pay $30 for the 4k disk however.
But I did like it. And would watch Alita 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Fwiw, at least in the US, it's $20 for the 4k UHD HDR disc as a standard price... And it comes with a normal bluray and a 3d bluray and a code for a digital copy. I just bought it this weekend at Best Buy (same price at Wal-Mart but they were seemingly out... Hard to tell as their DVD section was so disorganized that it looked like it was hit by a hurricane and looters simultaneously). I don't have a 4k setup but for $3 over the normal bluray/DVD/digital combo and $5 over the only the DVD it was worth it just to futureproof potentially.
Edit: Apparently I chose wisely (due to sheer dumb luck) for my first ever 4k purchase according to one of the two Youtubers that I'm subbed to in the media review space. The other was also happy with it although not to this extent.
The romance was perfect IMO in that we’ve all been there, thinking that a minor infatuation is a much bigger deal, making fools of ourselves. I enjoyed seeing a teenage female protagonist unreservedly portrayed as a horndog, which is the most actually progressive thing I’ve seen from Hollywood when it comes to “representation of women.“
If you've not read it the romance in the Manga (Book 2 IIRC) is even better and more heart breaking since we don't have the origin and roller derby stories going on at the same time.
Again, I really recommend the original 9 book series. It'll make you want to learn Japanese so you can read the next book before it's translated.
I'd have preferred if she had gone even further away from the "perfect doll" (pun intended) role model trope and don't think that would have detracted from her strong (both mentally and physically) persona.
I know it's not authentic to the manga/anime but I really liked a semi-alternate ending that they initially had planned but it sounds like it was cut to maintain her pure heroine status. Initially, she was supposed to continue to go bezerk (she is after all a UDM Bezerker!) after killing Vector and try to finish her original mission by going up the pipe to the Zalem and Hugo was supposed to be the one to follow her and talk her down. In the end, the pipe cleaner would still come down and cut him to shreds and she'd try (and fail) to save him but I think it would have been a more meaningful progression of her character arc to explicityly completely embrace and then disavow her bezerker heritage than the movie ending we actually got.
I've heard that she's a more complex character and goes through those beats in the obviously longer manga stories so I'm not saying it's a blanket better choice in all mediums but rather one that I think would have been better for a 2 hour movie story arc. Of course, I'm coming at this from an uncharacteristically filthy casual/normie perspective so YMMV.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: If you've not read it the romance in the Manga (Book 2 IIRC) is even better and more heart breaking since we don't have the origin and roller derby stories going on at the same time.
(and there aren't 3-4 villains to distract, as if this was a late 90s Batman film)
Again, I really recommend the original 9 book series. It'll make you want to learn Japanese so you can read the next book before it's translated.
When I went to Japan they'd only translated up to book 4 or 5.
As for now there's the original 9 books (***** awesome), 19 (I think) books in the Last Order Sequel (*** readable but drags), the Ashen Victor side story, the tales of book, and 5 or 6 volumes of Mars Chronicles (****, good character progression, ongoing).
I'd gladly pick up the next book of Mars Chronicles in Japanese if I came across it.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: and 5 or 6 volumes of Mars Chronicles (****, good character progression, ongoing).
I'd gladly pick up the next book of Mars Chronicles in Japanese if I came across it.
Aah. I'd gotten to the end of MC book 6 and somehow got the impression that was it. I thought it was a bit weird considering where the 'present day' stuff left off.
Gotta go, they're calling me back to the room with the nice soft walls.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’d watch a sequel if they made it, but I’m not taken enough by the character or plot to dive into a manga series. The movie was fun enough for me.
I might check it out if I ever find myself enjoying a hot beverage at Barnes and Noble ever again. I probably won't hang out in the manga aisle, as is the tradition, reading with alongside the teens though because I'd feel kind of creepy.
I really enjoyed the animated film the did, it covered far less ground and as a result the romance and character development was far better than the live-action - mostly because they had time to actually devote to the story not just rushing past at a break-neck-speed.
It also sticks closer to the manga - ergo the original story.
That said I really should get reading, I got one of the bundles that they did a while back that contained pretty much everything to the current story arc in one big go. Yet so far I've only made it to the end of the Deathballracing thing.
