• tissek@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I may be a grouch. But apart from MONEY what is the point of live action remakes? Especially of critically acclaimed shows/movies. I just don’t get it. Why not tell new stories?

    • jol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      Some people, like my SO, are not a fan of goofy cartoons. They had no interest in watching the original ATLAB but loved the live action. It’s cheaper and more reliable to make a live action from an existing story than coming up with totally new lore. And you get free publicity.

      • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        The live action is dumbed down so much that the animated show is way more mature than the live action show.

        • jol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I disagree, but it’s fine, we can have different opinions.

          It took me several years to finally watch the cartoon because I just couldn’t stand the bad animation and goofy pseudo-anime style. And I’m someone who watches anime and cartoons. The story of ATLAB was worth it when I was able to look past that, but to this day I still dislike the style.

            • all-knight-party@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Probably just used to more modern animated shows that look smoother and have more complex and nuanced backgrounds. I think ATLA still holds up, but it is definitely an older animated show, I mean it’s still in 4:3 ratio.

            • jol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              Some battles and effects look nice, but 90% of the time the animation is really sloppy, really low frame rate, and poorly drawn. Even for the time, it was poorly animated.

              • Yucky_Dimension@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Are we watching the same show?

                sloppy, really low frame rate

                It’s no Lion King, but I wouldn’t call it sloppy. The animation is simple, that’s true. But it’s funny you mention anime, because that’s a typical anime problem, with often still images with only the mouth moving. That’s because it’s faster and cheaper, so they can focus their energy on the fight scenes. If it bothers you here, it should bother you in anime.

                poorly drawn

                Again, I don’t know what you mean. I’m literally watching the show as I write this. You can say that you don’t like the art style. That’s your personal preference. But poorly drawn just seems objectively untrue.

                for the time, it was poorly animated

                See, I would argue that modern shows are often poorly animated. If you compare earlier Simpsons episodes to newer ones, you can see a clear difference. I believe it happened when they switched to computer animation. The new stuff is cleaner, with a higher frame rate, but imo lacks the soul. There are probably countless of examples. Spongebob would be another one. Again, the show is not the pinnacle of animation, “poorly” is just not the right word. If you want to watch an actually poorly animated show, just watch Invincible.

              • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                What you might be seeing (depending on the source) is the exceptionally low release quality.

                ATLA has notorious problems with interlacing, frameskipping, inverse telecine blending… if you watch a bad source, it looks like a low-res oversharpened slideshow.

                I wouldn’t say its bad though. The sequel series in particular… other than the ugly CGI, I can’t even pause the show anywhere and say “wow, that looks hideous and lazy.”

                • jol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Its not just that. Some battle aninations are fluid while others have very few frames dedicated to them. The character expressions are exagerated and unrealistic, like a caricature of anime. But yeah, the CGI in the sequel must be the worst sin they committed.

                  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    ATLA is kinda immature and exaggerated in some places yeah (which is something way too many people overlook) but the second?

                    Missing frames? Exaggerated expressions? Outside of a few comical scenes, LOK much more subdued and refined. Most fights are meticulously detailed and not missing frames, even setting aside the realistic posing they do for both shows.

                    A lot (but not quite all) of the animation is 12p, but this is standard for anime, no?

                    I know because I went through parts of both shows frame by frame, trying to get training data… There are some sketchy parts Studio Pierrot did for Book 2, and all of Book 2 is interlaced, but other than I could hardly even find bad example frames.