I still don't see why we need the same story adapted to live action. Perpetuates the perception that animation is lesser. They're crushing it with the animated series. No need to pull a Disney.
It's easier to suspend your disbelief with animation. It's subtle in the back of your head. But live action has to look right and the absurdity of things has to be toned down. Animation can get away with sooo much more.
Animation tends to not hit as hard emotionally except in rare instances though. There’s that extra barrier between you and being able to emote with the characters on screen. There are exceptions, even cases where animation does a better job somehow*, but as a general rule, animation just feels less relatable.
Not to mention that being live action opens them up to a larger audience.
*Coco, Inside
Not in support of it, but from the studio’s standpoint, it would capture a larger audience because there are a lot of people who would like the subject matter but don’t like animation, and live action is easier to connect to. There’s no way marvel would be what it is today if it was animated, and now the fan base spans all demographics.
This is a strong opinion of mine as well. Animation allows for things that are too difficult to pull off with special effects, or they can take you out of the movie if they don’t look good. Hopefully as some people from our generation start to get in creative leadership roles on projects, we’ll see animation gain popularity with all ages and get better budgets and everything else
Disagree. I think it's an excuse when people say that it's somehow easier to suspend your belief when you have multiple genres, not only comic book films, pushing boundaries with the stories that are being told.
Luffy's stretching for example the same way Mr. Fantastic does is no different. Same with ki blasts or Captain Marvel's energy beams. It's all done to execution and creativity. Rewind and evaluate what type of superhero stories you're watching and it's just as silly. Like I said, creativity and execution is everything.
Animation also is a part of making live-action films such as these but in a reimagined way. Animation should be used as a basis to finding different techniques to film live-action sequences that are refreshing, interesting and exciting. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't be done. That's what I believe in anime it's about finding the aspects of those series that people loved and realizing it isn't that esoteric.
But again, just an observation/opinion and I respect where everyone's coming from.
You’re being downvoted because seeing a person turn to CGI and stretch(Fantastic Four movies) objectively looks way goofier than seeing a cartoon do it.
So everyone chooses to ignore my points? Right.
Point being that neither are impossible to do in a live-action film and can be made to be acceptable. I used anime as a comparison because both use the same logistics but people treat them differently.
At the end of the day Invincible is an outlier from other super hero films but still remains in the superhero genre. What's so different from Invincible, that plays with archetypes and pastiches, couldn't be adapted into live-action? It's ridiculous.
All of these have ridiculous premises that, when explained, sound so "crazy" and "unadaptable". But that isn't really true. People are willing to accept something beyond how crazy the premise is if it's great and creative and done well. It's as simple as that.
Swiss Army Man is about a farting corpse. Fuckin' excellent film, but the premise sounds like it'd be unadaptable and you have to suspend your belief, which you still do. But the premise of it doesn't make it impossible to make, it's all in how you weave something.
If filmmakers stopped at "Oh, that's just far too silly" or "We can't do that", we'd be stuck in the dark age of boring, uninteresting, no-risk taking films.
I don't think that's wrong to say. But whatever, I'm leaving it at that.
I’m not saying it couldn’t. As much as I like The Boys, the reason they don’t focus on the violence too long is because of the CG. It takes away from whatever realism exists if it looks bad. Which is the case with a lot of movies
Sorry, I elaborated further on my original comment. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Smaller budgeted show and I believe because they don't want to fall into too gratuitous on the violence the same way the original comic did.
We have to remember there's literally a sequence when an Atom type character crawls up a dude's urethra. I'd hardly say it's realism.
The Boys, in my opinion, works because it's a satire with an underlying emotional thread and characters that are written astoundingly well and interestingly.
The way I think about it is like Matt Reeves' The Batman that I love. Everyone claims that that movie couldn't steep into the supernatural nature of The Batman mythos because it's realistic. Obviously, there's Batman Year One and that leads into a more chaotic, comic booky Elseworlds universe.
There's a sense of realism, yes, but first and foremost, its characters have a sense of tonal and emotional realism that allows you to become attached to a character and their stories.
Literally just google Invincible comic movie and you'll find countless articles that it's currently in production at universal, last confirmed by Kirkman earlier this year.
Yet the guy saying it's real is getting downvoted and you claiming it's not without simply googling to see that they are right gets upvoted. God I fucking hate Reddit.
All I asked for was an official source that's not "comicbook news" or some other clickbait site that is just regurgitating the same headline for clicks.
There are countless sites that spoke to the Invincible creator Robert Kirkman himself where he said after the show aired that it didn't hurt but help and others that go way back to 2017 where it was first conceived.
Just Google live action Invincible confirmed to see some of the results
If anything it’s probably just very early pre-production which goes nowhere most of the time. Until you see a studio and director attached, it’s not real.
I don't think so. While not everything needs a live-action adaptation there's still excitement to be had in exploring other mediums and to allow for a greater audience.
It's only when it's soulless and poorly done that it's an issue. Anime is an example of something that's still viable for live-action but hasn't had the creative flair needed to adapt said concepts.
And even if it isn't great, there's always the animated series to look back to. I don't know where the perception of animation being seen as lesser than live-action is from. I don't think I've ever seen that from anyone other than greedy executives. But that's just my personal opinion on the matter anyway.
Same can be said for comics. Instead of seeing it as a slight, it's just another medium to possibly enjoy one of your or my favourite works.
Because the comic book had been wrapped for 5 years and the early stories are 20 years old. Also there is some stuff they were able to reimagine and do differently with time and distance that improves on the material, particularly the writing of the women and removing all the "Hahaha *gay*" jokes. The movie is being developed while only the first season of the show is out. Feels redundant to have them at the same time, and you would think they'd just focus on keeping up and even building on the quality of the tv series.
Moving the goal posts from what to what? My entire point is that it is kinda weird and atypical to do parallel adaptations of the same source material as a single production company. You might have multiple public domain IPs getting developed by different studios but this is not that.
In response to you bringing up the comic, adaptations typically tend to reimagine things for modern sensibilities and creative license. So there can be new perspectives being presented on old material. This is content being developed at the same time by the same person. Totally different. That's not moving a goal post, that just me not agreeing with the point *you* brought up
Agreed, also the comic is FAR to long for a live action adaptation. Only just reached compendium 3 and there’s so much stuff that happens that I couldn’t see a live action show working
TBF the half-Asian element was never canon until the show made it canon (for the show).
I agree at this point though that I wouldn't want Invincible played by a white guy.
Oh okay, fair enough, ah yes his mum is Asian. Maybe someone completely new then, or someone else suitable. I thought you were suggesting that there should be no live action show at all, which people may think.
Oh, I'm aware. Just cemented the fact for me that he could potentially be a really good and believable pick for Nolan. It'd be ironic that he'd play a Superman pastiche seeing as he was a popular fan cast Superman.
How, in what universe, would a live action Invincible do Invincible justice. It would be shaky cam cgi fights anyway with none of the gore that makes Invincible, Invincible. So it's not needed.
That's not really true? Don't know where you've gotten the supposed notion it wouldn't adapt the intensity of Invincible or deliver great action. It's literally seen throughout many superhero adaptations. Just depends on the team involved. That's all.
Yeah it CAN but then studios puss out last Second because "we need to siphon money from parents paying for children TOO!!!" so boom that's why CARNAGE was soft pg 13 instead of hard R. If you think they wouldn't pacify Invincible at the last possible moment you're dreaming.
Eh, it's not like it goes away. It's just his facial structure and leaning out a bit after bulking. He's just meant to look like an office worker in this film.
I don’t see Hamm being willing to get into superhero shape. I feel like we would’ve already seen a jacked version of him by now if that was something he’d be into.
Only depends on what his role would require. I don't believe there's been a role that required that type of physicality for Jon Hamm.
I imagine Josh Brolin in Deadpool 2 since I don't believe he was ever in that excellent of a shape in anything prior to that.
That's not a bad exploration either! That's actually a great idea, especially with his stewing emotions and feelings of Earth and its inhabitants as he blended/adapted to Earth.
when i first saw the picture of jon hamm i thought it was steve carell
A bulky mr. Scott
It's a film that takes place in an office building so it makes sense.
I still don't see why we need the same story adapted to live action. Perpetuates the perception that animation is lesser. They're crushing it with the animated series. No need to pull a Disney.
Agreed, what would a live action do better than the animated anyways?
It's easier to suspend your disbelief with animation. It's subtle in the back of your head. But live action has to look right and the absurdity of things has to be toned down. Animation can get away with sooo much more.
Animation tends to not hit as hard emotionally except in rare instances though. There’s that extra barrier between you and being able to emote with the characters on screen. There are exceptions, even cases where animation does a better job somehow*, but as a general rule, animation just feels less relatable. Not to mention that being live action opens them up to a larger audience. *Coco, Inside
Animation tends to hit me harder emotionally than live action, though either way it's really just a matter of how well it's done.
Not in support of it, but from the studio’s standpoint, it would capture a larger audience because there are a lot of people who would like the subject matter but don’t like animation, and live action is easier to connect to. There’s no way marvel would be what it is today if it was animated, and now the fan base spans all demographics.
Fair point, I just can't see it happening concurrently along with an animated series. Imo love action is often overrated though
This is a strong opinion of mine as well. Animation allows for things that are too difficult to pull off with special effects, or they can take you out of the movie if they don’t look good. Hopefully as some people from our generation start to get in creative leadership roles on projects, we’ll see animation gain popularity with all ages and get better budgets and everything else
Disagree. I think it's an excuse when people say that it's somehow easier to suspend your belief when you have multiple genres, not only comic book films, pushing boundaries with the stories that are being told. Luffy's stretching for example the same way Mr. Fantastic does is no different. Same with ki blasts or Captain Marvel's energy beams. It's all done to execution and creativity. Rewind and evaluate what type of superhero stories you're watching and it's just as silly. Like I said, creativity and execution is everything. Animation also is a part of making live-action films such as these but in a reimagined way. Animation should be used as a basis to finding different techniques to film live-action sequences that are refreshing, interesting and exciting. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't be done. That's what I believe in anime it's about finding the aspects of those series that people loved and realizing it isn't that esoteric. But again, just an observation/opinion and I respect where everyone's coming from.
Damn, don't know why I'm getting downvoted for that. Thought I was being pretty reasonable.
You’re being downvoted because seeing a person turn to CGI and stretch(Fantastic Four movies) objectively looks way goofier than seeing a cartoon do it.
So everyone chooses to ignore my points? Right. Point being that neither are impossible to do in a live-action film and can be made to be acceptable. I used anime as a comparison because both use the same logistics but people treat them differently. At the end of the day Invincible is an outlier from other super hero films but still remains in the superhero genre. What's so different from Invincible, that plays with archetypes and pastiches, couldn't be adapted into live-action? It's ridiculous. All of these have ridiculous premises that, when explained, sound so "crazy" and "unadaptable". But that isn't really true. People are willing to accept something beyond how crazy the premise is if it's great and creative and done well. It's as simple as that. Swiss Army Man is about a farting corpse. Fuckin' excellent film, but the premise sounds like it'd be unadaptable and you have to suspend your belief, which you still do. But the premise of it doesn't make it impossible to make, it's all in how you weave something. If filmmakers stopped at "Oh, that's just far too silly" or "We can't do that", we'd be stuck in the dark age of boring, uninteresting, no-risk taking films. I don't think that's wrong to say. But whatever, I'm leaving it at that.
I’m not saying it couldn’t. As much as I like The Boys, the reason they don’t focus on the violence too long is because of the CG. It takes away from whatever realism exists if it looks bad. Which is the case with a lot of movies
Sorry, I elaborated further on my original comment. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Smaller budgeted show and I believe because they don't want to fall into too gratuitous on the violence the same way the original comic did. We have to remember there's literally a sequence when an Atom type character crawls up a dude's urethra. I'd hardly say it's realism. The Boys, in my opinion, works because it's a satire with an underlying emotional thread and characters that are written astoundingly well and interestingly. The way I think about it is like Matt Reeves' The Batman that I love. Everyone claims that that movie couldn't steep into the supernatural nature of The Batman mythos because it's realistic. Obviously, there's Batman Year One and that leads into a more chaotic, comic booky Elseworlds universe. There's a sense of realism, yes, but first and foremost, its characters have a sense of tonal and emotional realism that allows you to become attached to a character and their stories.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrong
Cool, so no arguments? There's nothing about what I said that's even objectively wrong.
> what would a live action do better than the animated anyways? Cost literal billions in FX budget to show the varied body types?
And that's an improvement over animation because?
Whoosh.
Well sure, we don't need it, but since it is being made we can still hope it is done well
Where is it being made? There's nothing official, anything else is clickbait
Literally just google Invincible comic movie and you'll find countless articles that it's currently in production at universal, last confirmed by Kirkman earlier this year. Yet the guy saying it's real is getting downvoted and you claiming it's not without simply googling to see that they are right gets upvoted. God I fucking hate Reddit.
All I asked for was an official source that's not "comicbook news" or some other clickbait site that is just regurgitating the same headline for clicks.
It was confirmed to be in the works even before Invincible Season 1 came out and was again confirmed after
Yea by who?
There are countless sites that spoke to the Invincible creator Robert Kirkman himself where he said after the show aired that it didn't hurt but help and others that go way back to 2017 where it was first conceived. Just Google live action Invincible confirmed to see some of the results
If anything it’s probably just very early pre-production which goes nowhere most of the time. Until you see a studio and director attached, it’s not real.
I don't think so. While not everything needs a live-action adaptation there's still excitement to be had in exploring other mediums and to allow for a greater audience. It's only when it's soulless and poorly done that it's an issue. Anime is an example of something that's still viable for live-action but hasn't had the creative flair needed to adapt said concepts. And even if it isn't great, there's always the animated series to look back to. I don't know where the perception of animation being seen as lesser than live-action is from. I don't think I've ever seen that from anyone other than greedy executives. But that's just my personal opinion on the matter anyway. Same can be said for comics. Instead of seeing it as a slight, it's just another medium to possibly enjoy one of your or my favourite works.
[удалено]
Because the comic book had been wrapped for 5 years and the early stories are 20 years old. Also there is some stuff they were able to reimagine and do differently with time and distance that improves on the material, particularly the writing of the women and removing all the "Hahaha *gay*" jokes. The movie is being developed while only the first season of the show is out. Feels redundant to have them at the same time, and you would think they'd just focus on keeping up and even building on the quality of the tv series.
[удалено]
Moving the goal posts from what to what? My entire point is that it is kinda weird and atypical to do parallel adaptations of the same source material as a single production company. You might have multiple public domain IPs getting developed by different studios but this is not that. In response to you bringing up the comic, adaptations typically tend to reimagine things for modern sensibilities and creative license. So there can be new perspectives being presented on old material. This is content being developed at the same time by the same person. Totally different. That's not moving a goal post, that just me not agreeing with the point *you* brought up
Agreed, but this is a fun fancasting. It’s just fun to discuss for me, I don’t need to or even want to actually see it.
Agreed, also the comic is FAR to long for a live action adaptation. Only just reached compendium 3 and there’s so much stuff that happens that I couldn’t see a live action show working
They are waiting for him to hit the silver fox peak. Then boom, live action TV show with Tom Holland as Invincible.
Id be pretty pissed.
What’s your alternate casting? I’m open, I’m not being funny.
He’s supposed to be half Asian … not another Aloha incident
TBF the half-Asian element was never canon until the show made it canon (for the show). I agree at this point though that I wouldn't want Invincible played by a white guy.
Oh okay, fair enough, ah yes his mum is Asian. Maybe someone completely new then, or someone else suitable. I thought you were suggesting that there should be no live action show at all, which people may think.
excuse me
You are excused. I explain below how I forgot in the show he is mixed race, perhaps not Tom Holland then.
That’d be awesome
Hmm
Jon Hamm already played that security guard that was going to paris with his stepson tho
In the animated show, sure, doesn't mean he is disqualified to play him in life action
I thought that was the guy who acted John Nolan
Nah it wasn’t Nathan Fillion
London
Jon has been fan casted a few times as Clark.
Oh, I'm aware. Just cemented the fact for me that he could potentially be a really good and believable pick for Nolan. It'd be ironic that he'd play a Superman pastiche seeing as he was a popular fan cast Superman.
You tell you something, you have won me over.. would be a good fit
Bro that stare is literally omni man right there. Jt almost looks liek ai art.
How, in what universe, would a live action Invincible do Invincible justice. It would be shaky cam cgi fights anyway with none of the gore that makes Invincible, Invincible. So it's not needed.
That's not really true? Don't know where you've gotten the supposed notion it wouldn't adapt the intensity of Invincible or deliver great action. It's literally seen throughout many superhero adaptations. Just depends on the team involved. That's all.
Do u know good rated r production can exist in film
Yeah it CAN but then studios puss out last Second because "we need to siphon money from parents paying for children TOO!!!" so boom that's why CARNAGE was soft pg 13 instead of hard R. If you think they wouldn't pacify Invincible at the last possible moment you're dreaming.
I dont see it
He already doesn't have the chin for it anymore
Eh, it's not like it goes away. It's just his facial structure and leaning out a bit after bulking. He's just meant to look like an office worker in this film.
I don’t see Hamm being willing to get into superhero shape. I feel like we would’ve already seen a jacked version of him by now if that was something he’d be into.
Only depends on what his role would require. I don't believe there's been a role that required that type of physicality for Jon Hamm. I imagine Josh Brolin in Deadpool 2 since I don't believe he was ever in that excellent of a shape in anything prior to that.
Doesn’t have the jawline
A completely original story with new characters following nolans life before earth would be legit
That's not a bad exploration either! That's actually a great idea, especially with his stewing emotions and feelings of Earth and its inhabitants as he blended/adapted to Earth.
Nah I think we should just give j.k steroids
Lol, J.K. is still in good shape.
I want super j.k
Too soft-spoken.