I love the original, and I would 100% watch this. This would be the kind of show that is self aware enough to know not to take itself seriously and it would be fantastic because of it.
I watched all but the last episode before I just couldn't do it anymore. The show had its moments, but it just never quite came together. The acting for the main crew was pretty decent, Jet was phenomenally done. The changes they made for Vicious and Julia are pretty sacrilegious and hard to watch.
Same, except I did watch the last episode. Agreed on Jet (perfection), and Julia/Vicious (what the everloving fuck). Spike and Faye were fine. Even with the missteps, I was still willing to see where they were taking it, if given time for a few course corrections. But they hit that cancel button pretty much immediately.
I think it was just a poor choice for a live action adaptation in the end. It's a character driven show that thrives on nuance and atmosphere and a lot of that just doesn't translate. I would have been willing to see what they grew into, but I lost a lot of faith in the writing with how badly vicious and Julia were butchered. It was just so bad watching them turn Vicious into a bumbling, incompetent clown and Julia an abused housewife. Maybe if Watanabe was involved in the same way that Oda was for the One Piece adaptation it may have had a chance.
I think it could have worked if the people involved showed actual care for the show. Unfortunately, it seems most adaptations these days are written and directed by people that not only don't care about the original, but actually harbor resentment toward the original and want the adaptation to fail.
Time and again we see adaptation after adaptation seriously deviate from the original and are met with critical and financial ruin. It really makes you wonder why they insist on repeating the same choices that keep leading to failure.
I agree that I don't think the writing team were truly fans of the show or at the very least were receiving pressure and editing from those that were not. That was my overall impression as well.
I think it's important to keep in mind though that typically an adaptation isn't meant for people that are already a fan of the show. They are usually created with the intent of attracting new fans thatay have been put off by the previous medium.
I'd argue that if the show was written with the same level of love for the show that fans of the original have, then it will be successful both in keeping the original fans, and attracting the new people as well.
It is understandable that some changes are necessary when moving from anime to live action, everyone understands this. Anime lacks the detail of live action and therefore is exaggerated in order to convey feelings or thoughts of characters, where live action may only need a subtle gesture or body language to convey the same thing. But that doesn't mean characters or major plot elements need to be altered in any way.
A video game example of this is Elden Ring. FROMSOFTWARE did not make a game to appeal to the mass market. They made a game that fans of their previous works would love, that due to its difficult nature should have been opposite of what the mass market wants. And yet the game was successful at captivating both audiences and sold a huge amount of copies having passed 20 million copies as of February 2023. Compare this with anything that gets altered to "appeal to a wider audience." That phrase is literally a death sentence. Neither fans of the original or new people end up liking it. Yet people keep choosing that path, and keep wondering why everyone says their work is garbage.
Dude, it was shit. It was shit because it was another IP that some writers got ahold of who had contempt or at least no understanding of the source material.
I love the actors they chose for Spike, Jet, and Fey. But the writing and direction was awful.
This series reminded me of The Witcher, in the worst ways, and I'm a huge fanboy of both IPs
Frankly this catch phrase never made any sense to me, from a logical point of view.
It assumes that:
If buying = owning
then pirating* = stealing,
because you own it without buying.
And if buying =/= owning
then pirating =/= stealing,
because you can't own it otherwise.
But the justification in the second statement is completely irrelevant to the first statement. You still own it without buying. It's still stealing.
UNLESS - we examine what "stealing" is. This is where the arguments about being in a digital space vs. a physical space comes in. Where the question is raised: Is making an exact copy really "stealing"? Or, consider what is being "stolen"? The original item? The idea? We need to think about this more.
But it's here the argument should be made and here the debate should be. That's where "pirates" have a chance of winning. Let's get rid of this flawed, easily repeatable, but fundamentally incorrect catch phrase and come up with a better one already. One that makes sense.
*(Nevermind that most of you technically aren't even pirating, you're just downloading the fruits of someone else that pirated.)
Piracy technically isn't stealing, it's intellectual property reproduction license violation. Clever bastards those lawyers. You basically don't purchase the music, you purchase the right to reproduce it for non-commercial purposes.
Exactly. If I stole an item that belongs to you, I'm denying you the possession of that item, and you'll either have to acquire another one, steal it back, or just not have it at all. When someone commits an act of digital piracy, they aren't denying anyone the possession of it, therefore it isn't the same as stealing.
Calling it theft is, in my opinion, emotionally manipulative and prevents any serious discussion on the ethics of piracy.
Even the word piracy is a bit suspicious to me; original pirates robbed ships in international waters and were considered enemies of mankind, so calling a much lesser act piracy sounds very manipulative... I wonder where the word piracy was first used to describe copyright violations, can't seem to find anything about it.
Piracy was used as far back as the 1700s to refer to illegal copies of books or unauthorized publishing outside of publishing monopolies. In general, I get the feel of breaking monopolies, turning to less savory methods to get what is owed, and liberating goods from the hands of wealthy hoarders.
For a while, the U.S. publishing industry was based on pirating British books, many of which were previously pirated from France. The only significant difference between the usages is the freeing of information vs keeping goods for oneself.
The theft is monetary and the creator and distributor of what's being pirated are the victims, it's not theft in the sense that you're taking something from someone and they don't have access to it anymore, they can still sell copies, by not paying for it what you're stealing is the money that should have been transferred to them.
What I'm saying is that this isn't theft, I'm not saying there is no harm in piracy, but there is a clear difference. When you steal something from a store, they would need to acquire the merchandise again to restock, as well as being denied the money that item would have otherwise be sold for.
I'm not saying piracy is victimless, or that it is ethical, but it's clearly a different level of crime, so it should not be called theft.
By this logic wage theft isn't theft since the employee never had the money in their possession.
Let's exaggerate things. An indie dev sells a game for 5$ and when all things are split up they have 2$ going to them. They sell one copy but with the tracker they put into the game, they can tell that there's a million person that have played it. Their income for the work they put in is 2$, a million -1 people got to enjoy what they created through piracy. So you're telling me, no one has stolen anything from that creator?
Wage theft is different from piracy. When you work for an employer, you are giving them hours of labour in exchange for the compensation, I have a limited amount of labour hours to use in my lifetime, whereas copying a work can be done an infinite amount of times without requiring an additional labour time to recreate it.
I'm not saying that piracy is ethical, there are many cases where it is unethical, but it is not theft.
I see this as an anti-ad. By that, I mean that it takes almost $30 to satisfy a deprived appetite at the chain these days.
Furthermore, Taco Bell has not only increased prices since 2020, but has reduced portion sizes and cut back on staffing.
I stopped going there even though I prefer their flavors. Now, Del Taco is the better bang-for-buck Mexican fast food option in this dystopian capitalist hellscape.
Shit, even the local taco trucks/pop-up stands/street vendors of any quality charge out the ass now around where I live. 🤷♂️
Really? Last I went it was around 5 USD for a crunchwrap and the cheese burrito nonsense was less than 2 USD a piece. 28 USD would be an absolutely obscene amount of food even by American standards
Yea, it’s a ton of food. But, I remember when it was cheaper. Maybe I’m just old now. I don’t have the prices memorized of my local place but the last time I went it was more than I expected (but not $28 for just me…)
No, she literally replied to a protester who asked her if she would call for a ceasefire fire, and I quote, "Go back to China where you headquarters are". Stop defending people who are complicit of genocide (an actual crime btw).
I find memes with the mouse strictly idiotic. No one could've prevented those memes even before the character became public domain. The point of public domain is that someone can create and monetize shit. I'll be impressed when someone will make a successful cartoon or like add this character to an existing major game, not stupid memes.
Green Day's music video for their new song "One eyed bastard" features Steamboat Willie pretty prominently. Not exactly a cartoon or a game, but definitely monetized.
memes
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.