• 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@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      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@discuss.tchncs.de
          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@discuss.tchncs.de
              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
                8 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@discuss.tchncs.de
                  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.

  • _lilith@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    I didn’t think there would be so many exact re creations of the animation sequences. Any adjustments to story/pacing seemed to be done to include more from the show rather than try to make a new story. I think this is the best Live action avatar we are going to get

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I actually think several parts were greatly improved. For example, the secret tunnel sequence made way more sense to me. But they made Sokka too horny in the live action.