they did a 1-shot OVA 10 years ago for UY with all the modern effects
I thought it was amazing simply that they had 95% of the same voice actors still alive 30 years later
I'd be on board if by some miracle that longevity of seiyu endured to today
maybe dreams come true

Someone didn´t read Ashita no Joe if you think that Megalo Box is either a replacement or even a worthy adaptation of one of the all-time classic comic books. The anime was a flop, so the market agreed with me. The Blu-Rays bombed hard and there are no indications that (legal) stream did anything for the now forgotten show. A series that isn´t even a year old! To think that TBS of all people would drop the ball so hard and run out of animation budget after only 2 eps.
Megalo Box is actually a good example of what NOT to do. Aka. inserting famous characters in a wholly new script, setting, tone and frankly genre. Also known as the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies syndrome, just in a more advanced stage.
And yes, I am well aware that Gankutsuou is the best adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo to date. All the stars aligned for that crack-cocaine-fueled fever dream of an adaptation.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I would love to see a direct 2 cour adaptation of Akira, despite me already knowing that the movie can´t be topped. Especially animation wise! Somewhat realistic dream projects as that are exactly what I meant when I wrote that adaptations can coexist and even complement each other. No anime ever looked better than 1988´s Akira (2 full hours of 24 fps animation!) or maybe 2005´s Steamboy due to its record budget. 2009´s similarly expensive Redline is also in the running. On to my main point.

The poll´s premise that the 2010s present the peak in "animation standards" is ultimately too wrong on most levels to even get into. TV animation standards especially are in a freefall, due to 150-180+ shows coming out every year. That escalation started in the mid-2000s, to be fair, but only got worse this decade. Even most of the occasionally very impressive CG films can hardly measure up to even mid-budget Hollywood productions. Just look the top tier CG heavy to CG only Netflix toons. The budget and animation talent on the del Toro CG shows is next level. Gantz:0, Resident Evil: Vendetta and obviously Kingsglaive: FFXV still prove that Japanese CG animation is no slouch... if the money is there. (The scripts are another issue entirely.) That aspect of the industry is ONE part that objectively gets better year by year. 3D to 2D animation blending has come a long way too. Meaning that I fully welcome CG adaptations by properly funded teams, as rare as those are. Aka. my Akira dream anime. I wouldn´t have said the same at the start of the millennium, or even the mid-00s...

Last edited by residentgrigo at 4:05 pm, Feb 25 2019

________________
I also read EU/US comics and am a librarian.
Manga-Masters, My ANN-Lists + Imdb

Somebody seems to have missed the point, which is not that Megalobox was a worthy successor to Ashita no Joe or that it was popular. All shows are going to have their fans and their detractors. Plenty of people love NGE, many people detest it. Lots of people think that Cowboy Bebop is a classic, some people think its overrated, etc, etc. Some shows get a visual facelift which is why I mentioned Space Battleship Yamato 2199 and others get a major overhaul and that's why you end up with Megalobox. I was explaining reasons why an old anime maybe updated and the extent not whether its successor was popular or not.

I agree with your statements concerning anime, CG (it can be good if there's enough money and talent there), and I wouldn't mind a 2 cour adaptation of Akira.

I'm not a fan of remakes. If the plot is substantially different and I loved the original, I'd be annoyed that the plot changed (regardless of whether or not plot #2 was more faithful to the source material) and if only the animation and/or minor details changed, I'd view it as a money grab. Rather than pointlessly remaking shows, devote that time and money to creating a great new one.

1. Who cares?
2. What's wrong with the old look?

So what?
That's what they are. There is nothing wrong with that.
Besides: There are plenty of great works that I've enjoyed, that are from times that predate my birth.

Well then don't.
Also, it's rather ironic that you'd say that, given that you're the one defending remakes. (where they do, exactly that)
Unless they change the character, beyond recognition
...thus making the character a completely new and different one, in all but name.
Hence begging the question:
Why even attempt to claim, that it's a reboot of the same character?

No it isn't. At all.
It is heavily inspired by Ashita no Joe (though different in several ways ...though I'm not familiar with either series, so I don't know the details or extent, by any means...).
A spiritual remake, you might argue.
That's kinda different. Very much a related thing, but...

Edit: *reads residentgrigo's comment* Okay... So Megalobox is just further evidence, for why you shouldn't remake a work that is already good and which isn't a poor adaptation. (either by being a good adaptation, or an original work)
I fail to see why you'd even bring it up, if you want to defend remakes.

Edit2: I'd like to add that I'd love a remake of Kemono no Souja Erin.
I utterly love the series, but...
Some of the things they added, in the adaptation (it's based on two books), were pretty crap. (some changes I like, mind you. I'm not sure which you should read/watch first ...not that the books have been translated in English, mind you, so most don't have much of a choice)
1. They added a couple of pointless, slapstick, comedy relief characters (and there is no need for comic relief), who only serve to annoy, distract and create a bit of internal inconsistency.
2.
3. They had the main character be a child genius, with impossible instincts, as a young child, which is annoying and detracts from the work. It doesn't mesh well, with what follows and lacks the depth and implications you get, in the original.
4. They had the love interest (whom they introduce way too early) meet the main character, when he's an adult and she is a little child... really creepy and pedo-y.
...
There were some other issues, I think, but I can't remember them, off the top of my head.

Last edited by zarlan at 1:16 am, Feb 26 2019

It really depends. For me, a classic, good anime is a combination of a great director, great voice acting, great writing/script, and talented artists/animators. If an anime has all of those, no matter how "dated" it looks, then I think it needs no update at all. For what reason? In the interest of art, I might be able to support a director who wants to completely change the tone and/or setting of an older anime in order to match the theme with current times (for example: making a play on current politics, culture, or other media).

One thing that concerns me about reboots is that people focus on just updating and making prettier animation and don't pay attention to the other aspects of what makes a good anime. What's the point in having the best animators in the business on the reboot if the writers can't make the script any better than the original? Or the director is someone lacking in imagination and just copies the style of the previous director? Maybe I'm a snob, but I don't see the value in remaking something if it doesn't bring something completely new to the table.

________________
;D

HOW? WHY? Explain why classics have to butcher EVERYTHING that makes them classics only so that "a new generation of people will understand it"? Or do you think that people are so stupid that they don't have the brain capacity to imagine and become immersed in different cities, countries, regions, continents, eras, or even planets than their own?

Under who's authority, and so what?

The BBC did that when they made Sherlock, and that series was a global hit, last I remember.

Going what I've been told on the Evangelion Rebuild films, they suck. And removed EVERYTHING that made the original "special" (And, I've even some some Eva haters agreeing with that sentiment).

You do realize that you don't have a damn clue what you're talking, right? EVERYTHING is timeless. If you ever bothered to look up the 6000+ years of human history, you'd see that absolutely NOTHING has changed. Yeah, technology has advanced, but that's hardly worth of note since you had "savage" cultures accurately studying and recording and declaring scientific facts for thousands of years that still reign try even to this very day. The calendars used by the Ancient South American civilizations was more accurate than anything and everything European and Asian cultures had created. The Indians and Egyptians had their mathematics and sciences; the Romans and Greeks had their plumbing, governments, architecture, and libraries; the Chinese had their gunpowder and paper; the Semitic races gave us religion and morals; the only BIG difference between back then and today is that today's world is a result of everything mixing together over the past two thousand years.

You do realize that Ghibli (Or I should say Miyazaki) has primarily been remaking the same 5 works for the past 33 years. Seriously, explain to me how any of their works isn't a remake, remix, or "spin" on:
-Future Boy Conan
-Lupin the III: The Castle of Cagliostro
-Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
-People of the Desert
-The Journey of Shuna


________________

To gwkimmy:
Well said. You expressed the issue admirably well, as well as pointing out several important and relevant issues and viewpoints, that hadn't been pointed out.

Also, that last sentence made me remember that I've said much the same, in regards to song covers. Hell, it applies to any remake/reboot, of any kind.

...
Those ancient studying and scientific facts, where not all that accurate.
Most of their knowledge, has been shown to be very wrong.
Often in ways that are unfathomable, to modern people.
Some of their findings (which tend to be the ones we hear about the most, these days) were fairly accurate (admirably so, given their primitive tools and knowledge), but several orders of magnitude less accurate, than what we currently know.
This is also, very much, true of South American calendars.
Sure, they were amazingly accurate for the time and general level of development, but... (they have, in modern times, been ridiculously over-hyped)
Also every other example you mention.

Also I recommend, for more on this (and just generally) this lecture.

There are countless religions that predate judaism, and anyone who thinks that we didn't have morals, before judaism, is a moron.
You cannot have societies, or even smaller groups, without morals.
Any such group, would have quickly died off.
Hell, morals predate humanity. (and is far from exclusive to humanity, though it is significantly more advanced, in humans)

...and what about the many parts of the world, that didn't adhere to (or in many cases even heard of) judaism or it's descendants? (i.e. christianity and islam)
And, in many cases, still don't.

Today, only about half of the world population (with that number being FAR lower, historically) believes in any of them (and there are some errors in these figures, as some only say they are, to avoid persecution and/or other negative consequences ...and some say they are, purely due to traditions from their ancestry, rather than their actual beliefs, but I guess you'd count that, for your argument here)
Are you saying that those people (including about 99% of Japan, of course), are all completely devoid of morality?

Not to mention the issue of how good it is, to have religion ...if at all.
Or whether it is, indeed, more of a blight on humanity.
I don't want to let this thread get wildly off topic, so I'm not willing to have a debate about that issue, here, but...
Suffice to say, that the benefit, if any, is very much debatable.
It is far from an obvious and established fact, that it is good.
Some say it is, some say it isn't ...and many who say it is, only say that of their own specific religion (and possibly, to a lesser extent, the others in the same "lineage" ), and therefore reject the good of the others.
Thus making it rather foolish, to list is as an obvious and unquestionable good.

Eh, no.
There is a focus on certain themes, but...

So, you're saying that my statement is wrong because they did have the knowledge and brain-power that far exceeds what they should have been capable of at the time, especially considering their limited understanding of the universe? You do realize that, 60 years ago, every single top scientist in the world stated that it was impossible to get to the moon, right?


A video that is literally "You're wrong, I'm right"? Seriously, do you have a better argument than that.


You're right, every single society had some belief in their origins and spirituality. However, look at how many of them are still around? The only one you can really point to is Hinduism. Everything else has either been replaced or died out.



Excuse me, how does 84% of the world's population believing in A religion equates to half? Also, of those 16% who are "unaffiliated", how many are agnostic, not atheists?


You mean to tell me that Francis Bacon, William James, George Washington, Carl Jung, Alexis Carrel, Henry C. Link, Gandhi, and the thousands of people Dale Carnegie (A man who admits that he's still skeptical about religion) has interviewed, received letters, and read works from ARE ALL WRONG IN THEIR ASSESSMENT?


One, you shouldn't have said anything then if you didn't want this discussion to continue any further. TWO, that "but" invalidates you're point about how you DON'T want to have this discussion.


Oh, so you do agree with my assessment. Thank you.

Edit: Just wanted to fix some typos.

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 9:30 am, Feb 27 2019

________________

What is with these answers... They're basically just
No
Yes
No
Maybe
Maybe
No

I personally would watch a remake of a classic anime not because I like the current look of anime, but because of what they can do with it. Like how Devilman Crybaby recontextualizes the series to the modern era, or how Jojo became more heavily stylized to fit the atmosphere of its source material. I'd go so far as to say Dororo as well, but that doesn't really fall under a "classic" since it was so, SO long ago. So that's a "Yes, especially if there are changes"

It's also the case that defendants on both sides will only point to the best examples of their point without even remembering or acknowledging the ones that clearly did not support their point. They also ignore cases where both the classic and the modern adaptations were pretty good.

As you aren't making any counter-arguments, in regards to the morality issue, I take it that you agree that you were wrong, there?
...just unwilling to admit to your error, due to too fragile an ego?


I never said anything that comes anywhere close to that.
I said they did well, considering the limitations.
That they sometimes (not always) did relatively well.

I never suggested that they exceeded their limitations.
Also, I never said anything about brain-power.
Brain-power is completely irrelevant, to these issues. (and has not really changed, to any significant degree, since the stone age. Well, not at a genetic level, but there are some other factors that have actually notably improved, since ancient times ...but either way, that's not really relevant).

Also, are you still maintaining that they were accurate?
...and that most of their "knowledge", wasn't preposterously, laughably, wrong?

If that's what you think the video says, or is about, then you clearly didn't watch the video.
If you did, and still only got that, out of it, then you are hopelessly stupid.

No, not all.
But a whole lot of them.
Countless ones (the vast majority, in fact), far predating judaism, or the introduction of an Abrahamic faith to that region.

That is completely irrelevant.
You said that humanity only got religion, thanks to judaism.
All religions that have died out, are perfectly valid examples of religions that disprove that notion.
Especially those that died out, due to conversion to judaism, christianity, and/or islam.

No.
There is also (and this is a woefully incomplete list):
Hinduism, buddhism, jainism, zoroastrianism, confucianism, taoism, various African religions (maybe 20-30 different ones, at least. Can't be bothered to look into it, all that deeply), Chinese folk religion, shinto, Ainu religion (most modern Ainu have abandoned it, but not all), Korean shamanism, Ryukyuan religion...
I could probably find a whole lot more, if I tried. These are just the ones I could find, quickly and easily.
Note that I limited myself to religions from around the time of the founding of judaism and older, that still survive.

We're not talking about A religion, but specifically an Abrahamic religion.

Whether they are wrong or not, is completely irrelevant.
I could easily give a long list of people who are at least as impressive (and some of the people in your list, are far from being all that admirable or great. I could easily make a much better list of great people, who think religion is good), who say that religion is negative, but that list would be as useless as yours.
More importantly, however:
I told you that I'm not going to debate whether or not religion is good, bad, or neutral, as this isn't the place for that.

What I will point out, is that it is NOT a universally agreed upon thing, that religion is good.
Hence including it, among clear positives, is foolish.

I don't mind this discussion continuing
...but I'm not having the separate discussion, about whether or not religion is good or not. That is an issue that is beside the point, and cannot possibly be settled with a discussion between two random guys on a forum (it'd be unlikely for either of us, to convince the other, in just a single discussion, but even if we did, that wouldn't change the fact that it still a very debatable issue. It would just make it so that a mere two specific people, no longer disagree about it).

If you think that including a similar theme, makes something a remake, then EVERY WORK EVER (aside from a few absurdly early ones) are remakes.
Thus rendering the term "remake", essentially completely devoid of meaning.
It becomes completely useless.
Also, that means that your idea of what a remake is, has absolutely no connection, with how the word is used by any one else.

Last edited by zarlan at 3:39 am, Feb 28 2019

I guess I'll give it a chance...

________________
[img]https://i.imgur.com/ERg8slD.gif[/img
[img]https://i.imgur.com/HphHlPh.gif[/img]
Tv Tokyo - Anime & Manga ~ MinatoAce

All of those came AFTER the Hebrew religion (Which goes as far back as the 11-13 century BC, 16 century in some places), you little twit. Judaism is a perversion of the Hebrew religion that primarily came as a result of a century under Babylonian rule (Which is also how the Jews got their "Bible", the Talmund).

________________

That may be true of a few (though not all) of the ones you quoted (funny how you ignore the many others, in the list...), but...

As I said:
None of that matters, anyway.
There are countless millions of religions, that predate the Hebrew people, not to mention their religion. Whether or not they have survived, is beside the point.
Hell, even that is irrelevant, given that you can't list religion, as a clear/obvious positive. (you can argue that it is)

Aside from ignoring the two points I, again, pointed out above, it would seem that you have chosen to ignore a very large amount of issues.
Far more important issues, than the single one, that you did address.
Indeed, everything that is relevant to your initial claims, and the validity/invalidity of either of our positions.

You seem to want to just respond to a bit of minor, insignificant nonsense, and try to sweep everything else (everything that actually matters), under the rug
...because you realise that you have no answer, to those issues.

You seem to love to aggressively and insultingly attack others (using any and all, even the very slightest, excuses [valid or not], to insult and demean)
...but when you get the slightest push-back, you show that you can't actually defend your words. (maybe you shouldn't talk so strongly/confidently, about things that you don't know anything about?)
A fact that you want to dishonestly hide, as the insecure coward, that you are.
...
Why am I even going along with this nonsense? Enabling it?

Unless you make a proper response, I'll not bother to reply.
I.e. unless you, at least attempt to, respond to stuff that isn't just minor irrelevant nonsense.
In fact, I'll require that you address every single reply and counter-argument/-evidence of mine (aside from those, in regards to issues that I've pointed out, don't really matter, anyway. I should have just pointed out why they're irrelevant, and not commented further)