Ok I am replying to this, but I've read through it and I still have yet to see anything that has to do with MAKING SCOTT PILGRIM INTO A LIVE ACTION FILM, which for the sake of YOUR argument, is just about the same as making it into an animated film.
@Ao:
taking a popular series and animating it isn't creating, it's converting..
i don't see the need to adapt a comic that's fine as a comic to a similar medium.
I'd like to use Fooly Cooly here as example, which has a great animated series, as well as a totally different and equally awesome comic. Obviously the comic artist knows the best way to use the medium to it's best, as well as the animator who knows the best way to bring out the most in the animation. With enough creative juices, and a bit of artistic freedom, it's possible to create two different, yet equally awesome artistic pieces out of a similar plot.
comics aren't glorified storyboards for movies and cartoons, they're their own thing.
I was going to reply with HERPADURP I KNOW, but fuck it, you know what, they really are glorified storyboards. Just like animation and film are glorified, yet very very slow comics.
posting those shorts is counter to your argument considering all of those are original works and not based on anything else.
I wasn't arguing there, I was posting a video in order to better convey my idea that Scott Pilgrim would be awesome if animated in that style, and when people inquired, I posted the second video which didn't have much to do with anything.
i'm not even against adapting comics to animation per say, i just don't see the point in it; it almost always results in things being lost in translation. i don't see the point in adapting tv shows to movies, either.
The point is to enjoy a well known story, while experiencing the fruits of another medium, vision, or director.
a lot of it might come down to whether you're an animation or an illustration major/person? if you're an illustrator, the endgame just seems like a comic. there's a comic, it's there, it's done already. if you're an animation major, you just feel like it's incomplete to have the stuff on pages and not in motion, i guess. if there was a cartoon using the style or written and headed by o'malley, that'd be awesome, but literally adapting the comic seems pointless since it already exist in a perfect enough form.
Since I make both, comic and animation, I don't really have that preference. In fact, I became an animation major so that I could become better at making comics.
This particular segment here reminds me of Michelangelo, who considered Sculpture to be the highest form of art. Truthfully, if you were standing in front of David, it'd be difficult to conceive that a painter could recreate it in a way that would equal the original. But if a painter though he could, why would you stop him? If he fails, then that's that, but if he succeeds, then you then have two fantastic works of art.
i don't understand the use of the word 'iconic' here,
i'm using iconic in the sense that the character, scott pilgrim, is stylized in such a simple and visually pleasing way, that he himself could be an icon of the series
but it's not that 'action-packed' for an action comic. a lot of it is gag-based comedy, romantic moments, and even the action scenes are over pretty quick and done in a semi-goofy sort of way half the time. i don't think there's been a single serious and intense fight in the entire series so far…maybe ramona's battles? scott literally wins a battle when the other dude skates so fast he ignites. that's not exactly enter the dragon material...
an action comic that's not action packed
what are you even arguing here, this has nothing to do with anything. are you defending Scott Pilgrim or what?? You do know that I've read the series right? It has fight scenes, inter dimension traveling, and flaming sword fights
did you even fucking watch the movie trailer, it's nothing but fight scenes
what point are you even trying to make here
it's like you're arguing just to argue
honestly, a lot of the stuff in scott pilgrim is needs to be balanced and timed so well, it's hard to imagine it done well in any other medium.
i could imagine it animated quite easily, to be honest
and with bone and jeff smith, that guy started in animation.
bone is less a comic most of the time and a bunch of animation stills to begin with.
it makes sense that guy would push like mad to have a 2-d film for his book.
now this i find offensive
@lordzeb:
That's how its supposed to work isn't it. Its a different medium for delivering a completely different kind of experience. Its like Novels vs Short stories or Poems. There are things you can do in a full length film that you can't explore in a short film while compacting ideas into a short film can have a different effect on the viewer than if they were to sit there and watch the same idea for 2 hours.
I don't see why you have to contrast the two like that. They aren't forms of animation in competition with each other. That problem only arises when people see a short and say it should be made into a full movie while not realizing that in most cases that would ignore the purpose of the original…
i dont think greg really gives a damn about the MEIN KAMPF of short films, but just wished he could enjoy them longer
no need to start some off topic and boring SHORTS V THEATRICALS debate