Reply With QuoteYeah but vash is essentially the same
Speaking of Trigun, I seem to recall that the manga went in a fairly different direction, no? It's been ages since I saw the anime, and I only ever read the first two volumes of the manga or soething, and even that was back when. I'm not mistaken, though, right?
Yeah but vash is essentially the same
I far preferred the manga over the anime. Dunno why. Maybe the first episodes are a bit weak. Maybe it's Vash's voice actors. He just seems to come across as more of a goofy moron in the anime, rather than an even balance of badass pacifist lunatic.
Been a while, through, perhaps if I watch it again I'd feel different. :/
Probably because the manga is infinitely better. Nightow apparently liked the anime, though. He said that although it was different the anime managed to convey the subject matter well enough.
heh heh heh, sweet. Gotta read the manga now.rather than an even balance of badass pacifist lunatic.
The reason why I liked Trigun though, is presicely because Vash ain't you're typical "crim wandering desert seeking for revenge type." And they still manage to blow a ton of stuff up. It's an interesting depart from the norm. (That being said, glad there's only 20-some episodes.)
Did anyone ever watch Rurouni Kenshin?
"Make sure the room is brightly lit and stay far away from the TV."
another show where the comic is better by miles
That's usually the case with most things isn't it? I mean the source is better. Seems to me that stories told originally as novels, comic or manga tend to be better than their television & movie counterparts. Doubly so with anime or cartoons. Used to piss me off to no end because I'd thought that the changes were too much. i see different now, something like a popular ongoing manga or comic series has tons of content & all of that content can't make it to the big screen. The format just isn't right.TV shows can come closer but they even have limitations in doing so. I think the creators of these stories realize that & try to find the essence of the story & feed palatable bites to the mainstream.
I also like it when the animators take something awesome & make it better too. But that's rare.
I agree. FLCL and Bebop are both pretty good examples of great anime which have lame duck manga adaptions.
Perhaps rehashes are never going to be the same as the original, really, in any media, through; Because whilst the original is trying only to explain it's own world and characters, a second thingy made by different people has to both attempt to show off somebody else's brain-universe and bolt on their own fresh, original things too.
Not to say that there are no good examples at all. It's just naturally harder to work with.
Last edited by Regantor; 02-25-2013 at 10:05 PM.
Funny Games its a movie example on how a "remake" is hardly better than the original. The movie was made by Haneken (winner of this year Oscar for foreign film with Amor) in 1997 in Germany, the movie was soo good that it was actually demanded to be "remaked" for the USA audience (this is almost normal right now, almost every big foreign film has to be remaked for USA audience). The funny thing is that the movie is exactly the same (with the exception of actors) and even the director was the same. But even when this movie was just a copy paste movie, the original is still considered "better" and the "cult example". Other movies like this are Vanilla Sky as a remake (for USA audience) of the claimed "Abre los ojos" by Alejandro Amenábar (weird thing they didn't use the same director, as Amenábar is really good on world level, probably because they wanted to use everything from the movie with some changes so they didn't had to pay Amenábar).
But on the defense of this dispute of Original vs Remake (or any kind of subproduct) we also have really good examples of well done works, like Clockwork Orange, which ending is nothing like in the book and the movie takes a completely different thesis than in the book, and still, when people name "clockwork orange", everyone understand is the movie and no the book (even so the book still should be read). Another example of the same director (Kubrick), we have Sunshine, which is also not similar to the book of King, but it become a movie and a product on its own, even a cult movie (funny thing, King got angrier with Kubrick because of all the changed he did on the script and he said that the movie was gonna fail).
And from a more neutral point we have the whole "Lord of the Ring" thing (we can't say its a trilogy anymore), which its basically a copy paste of the best things of the books and taking away the obnoxious parts (like months of doing nothing in the shrine and months of doing nothing in rivendale... fucking lazy hobbits). But at the same these movies do not do what Kubrick movies did at bringing something new at the table, but rather bringing what people want.
An finally there are examples we don't have, like Greed* from Erich Von Stroheim, 1924. Which is supposed to be one of the biggest treasures of today cinema. As the movie (original) was shown to a really selected audience and everyone said it was the most amazing thing they ever saw, but saddly the movie got burned in a fire accident and now its just a joke of what it was (still you guys can watch it, but it really doesn't represent the narrative abilities of Stroheim as a film maker).
*1899, by Frank Norris. Named as McTeague.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks