Only about half done the series so far and my thoughts are not what I expected. I expected to either love or hate the adaptation and I don't feel either.
I understand those who are disappointed. I had similar frustrations with the LotR and Hobbit movies. As many have pointed out however, my expectations don't make the movies bad. They just make it difficult for me to enjoy them.
Most of the complaints I've read fall into similar pitfalls. From my perspective, all of the changes made, make sense. The original TV series was a cartoon and it was aimed at a younger audience. Animation makes special effects trivial, but also makes goofy interactions more acceptable. Trying to take a character like Sokka and bringing them to live action without some serious character overhaul was never going to work.
Similarly, some (artificial) constraints, like series length have an impact on story telling. One such change is a scene in the opening where Aang is "flying" (according to controversy). I have two problems with the critique of this scene; firstly, I would say that he isn't flying and secondly, it serves a purpose within the context of the new medium. To the first point, if you watch the scene in question Aang never gains altitude, does not stop mid-air for any meaningful period of time and regularly makes use of his environment to control his descent. While it is still a very grandiose performance it does something which is not very well covered in the cartoon, which is my second point. It serves to illustrate that Aang is a prodigy of an Air Bender which explains why, even though he is encased in ice almost immediately after being named the Avatar that he does NOT need further training from Air Nomads/Benders to complete his training. It (along with other dialog in the first episode) demonstrate that Aang is already an Air Bending master.
If this weren't condensed into 8 episodes and it weren't aimed at an older audience details like this would be fine to leave as implied or ret-conned in later.
At the half-way mark, I would say that my only real gripe is with Bumi. While the overall arc works fine, they missed an opportunity to change his character in the same way that they changed Sokka. I have no issues with Aang and young Bumi being silly.
In live action however, the older King Bumi does not work with the silly voice, and the rock candy. It would have been a lot more effective for him to be an old king, with a normal voice and a bit of a sense of humor. The tests he puts Aang through are easily explained simply by painting Bumi as a man who loves and cherishes his friend, but A) feels that his friend abandoned him and B) knows/believes that Aang needs to grow up fast. Those are very serious topics which translate well into live action.
Are there other smaller things I could nitpick about? Sure. It is hard to find any movie, especially a remake of something else, where that isn't the case. I find it telling that most negative comments cite the creators leaving the project as a justification for their complaints.
In my opinion, the creators have abandoned every single attempt at a remake. I'm not trying to criticize them. This point is more a matter of; there is no evidence that a revival of the series with their presence would be any better or worse.
By contrast, I feel like One Piece got a lot of un-deserved praise simply because the author was actively involved. It was a good adaptation. Far better than anyone could have expected given how poorly the manga would have translated directly to live action. However, Netflix's ATLA is a more faithful adaption of the source animation than One Piece.
I think the message this sends is that fans will only accept an adaptation which involves the original creators, but worse, that they are likely to accept whatever atrocity is created, so long as it is created with the original author's hands being involved.
Comments
Post a Comment