Is it possible to make an Dragonball movie like Space Jam??

[Lujin_16]

Imagine a story about a real person who is an Dragonball fan and something happend to him that he travels to the Dragonball Universe

[Cure Dragon 255]

DIOS MIO NO! God forbid it!

[JulieYBM]

Live action is boring and mostly unpleasant to look at, so I would not be particularly interested in merging it with hand drawn animation, let alone the subject of Dragon Ball at all.

[Gyt Kaliba]

I will accept this only if it becomes more of a Toriyama world than Dragon Ball alone, so that Arale (and Jaco) can also be on the team, Toribot is the announcer, and the big bad turns out to be a human (live action) dressed up as some big, foreboding DB style villain, only for them to unmask him (ala Scooby Doo) and it's Justin Chatwin.

[Kunzait_83]

Live action is boring and mostly unpleasant to look at

Couldn't possibly disagree more with this. Live action film cinematography has given us some of the most indelible artistic images in all of modern culture for close to the last century. Not only would culture be severely less enriched without it, but a tremendously great deal of some of the very best animated works out there would lose out on a crapton of some their most valuable creative influences (including, y'know, the one we're all discussing in this place). This is the reverse extreme of dismissing all of animation as being inherently nothing more than "simplistic fluff": and is no less stunningly wrongheaded. Both are equally of value and merit for their own distinctive reasons.

Also the concept put forth in this thread is brain-meltingly vapid and the kind of hacky garbage that some shithead 80s or 90s studio exec would come up with. Kinda like, y'know, Space Jam itself.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

If you wanted to make a total abomination of a product, one the likes of which will destroy film as a whole for generations, yes, you can make Dragon Ball Space Jam.

[Bansho64]

Even with the pure and unadulterated nostalgia and love that I have for this film, I would never want this to happen. It just.....no. It'd be horrible.

Live action is boring and mostly unpleasant to look at

I can't understand this viewpoint at all.

[Cipher]

I'm going to avoid adding yet another response to JulieYBM's post, which I completely and utterly disagree with, and just say that my initial interpretation of this thread was that it was asking about the possibility of a film about the Dragon Ball cast having to play basketball to obtain their freedom from alien warlords, filled to the brim with cynical and immediately dated pop-culture references and product placement, and my response to that is not only could there be such a movie, there absolutely must be.

Also, JulieYBM, do you need some movie recommendations, man?

[Hellspawn28]

I could see it working if Toei wanted a Kamen Rider and Super Sentai crossover with their anime TV shows.

[Robo4900]

I'd set the film during original Dragon Ball, and centre it around a Tenkaichi Budokai, but -- like Gyt Kaliba said -- with other Toriyama characters involved. The fan would spend the early portions of the movie training with Master Roshi, Goku, and Krillin. The final boss contestant would be Barry Watson, and the music would turn into generic-sounding grunge whenever he's on-screen.

[TheGreatness25]

So like... Derek Jeter gets sucked into the Dragon Ball world to... play baseball against the new foe trying to enslave the Dragon Ball characters?

[JulieYBM]

Live action is the go-to medium for beginners and, perhaps worse yet, where weak filmmakers dawdle for decades. It's chaos without precise control, something dictated by the impossibility of controlling everything within the camera, and films under its banner more often than not come off as imprecise and clueless. Art is all about attacking the pleasure centers of the brain, something clearly less possible with a medium with less precision. Live action's the easy, go-to format for would be filmmakers, especially fans trying to make fan films. That the film community considers it the 'high art' and geeks the holy grail of franchise evolution saddens me.

Live action really has little if anything inherent to it that gives it any sort of superiority as a medium of film. You can do crowd scenes, which would take forever to do properly with animation, or car racing, but ultimately live action is restricted by what is possible only in the realm of the 3D. That heavy-as-sin camera is going to eventually come back to bite you in the ass. This is a reason I wouldn't be up for a Space Jam or Who Framed Roger Rabbit-esque film, it'd be restricted by the limitations of the camera. The rest of the film would have to be in-synch with live action actors, which would either restrict everyone else on the production or make for horribly ill-placed live action segments.

I saw Intolerable Cruelty for the first time in a long while recently. Hilarious as fuck scripting and acting, with the occasional good shot, like the scene with Herb where Mozart plays to underscore the ridiculousness of the scene. Clearly, a lot of the individual parts are fantastic, but I'm not sure I would call the finished product of combined elements a good film. I would say the same thing about The Addams Family. The fantastic acting is superb, and Raul Julia slays, but a movie that relies only on its acting is hardly a good movie. Or Amadeus, a movie that truly utilizes its musical score to maximize emotional conveyance, but still only gets halfway there because its music is the only way it communicates. If that is all film is good for one is better off seeing a live stage play.

I'm watching Legends of Tomorrow as I write this post. The storyline is pretty interesting, but everything else about it is terrible. Shots of characters during dialogue scenes just glide for no reason, generating unnecessary noise that has no rhythm. The camera cuts too much during the course of a single line of dialogue, either because the actor can't perform the line proper in a single take or because whoever is editing the episode has the whacky idea that it will add speed and tension to a scene. Background music is just noise, its presence never signifying anything of significance. It doesn't feel like the directing has any sort of method behind their madness. Actors struggle with the slightest amount of emotion.

I've said what I've had to say, so I think I'll end this already overly long post here.

[Kid Buu]

Well, every medium is gonna have good and bad. I can understand having a preference, but I wouldn't write a medium off entirely.

That being said. I do prefer live-action since it is easier for me to relate to, but I like a lot of animation too!

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, it definitely is possible. i doubt any film studio will view it as a worthy investment though.

[MozillaVulpix]

Sounds a bit like Heroes. Or the plot of Fusions. Or even Xenoverse, really.

[Saikyo no Senshi]

Not a fan of live action either. I very much prefer animation to it. I kind of agree with Jacob especially on live action films' over-reliance on good acting and music to hide the weaknesses behind the camera. If all a film has to offer is good acting and music then it's not a good film.

It's maybe just me but I hardly see any interesting things going on behind the camera with the recent live action films. The Marvel movies are the worst offenders of this. I don't hate the medium entirely though. I do like some of the movies and television series, but they are very very very few.

As for the topic, Space Jam? No, thanks.

[Fionordequester]

I'm a bit confused; what do people mean when they say "things going on behind the camera"? What is that referring to?

[Saikyo no Senshi]

I'm a bit confused; what do people mean when they say "things going on behind the camera"? What is that referring to?

Direction mostly, but it also refers to other technical aspects like editing, cinematography, sound mixing et cetera.

[Cipher]

I'm sorry, but the people here talking down about the creative framing and directing available in love-action clearly haven't delved as far into the medium as an art form as they have with animation if we're citing tepid, sterile products like Marvel movies and network TV shows. I would also probably think all live-action was hacky and careless if they were my only exposure to the medium. (Though it's not as if there aren't hordes of equally hacky and obvious animated shows.)

The ability to capture and manipulate real moving imagery, real people, is such a staggeringly powerful idea I occasionally have trouble comprehending how truly awesome it is, and it's been used to create any number of carefully planned or serendipitously effective shots since its invention that are capable of speaking through imagery alone (some more so through dialogue and music on top of that, as if those combination of elements, also shared with complete animated works, somehow invalidate the craft).

Acting is typically the last thing I think of when I think of live-action, as when it's effective, it's an invisible element. To imply good or bad acting is unique to either medium is absurd.

But, hey, it's not a competition. Both mediums have their strengths, and a range of material ranging from the execution of an idividual scene to an entire concept that would only work in one. At best, you hope to encounter material that seems designed to work with its medium, that could only be presented as effectively through its techniques. Everything else is a little milquetoast. Don't use milquetoast films as a basis for an opinion on live-action as a medium, and I won't use Dinosaur King as the basis for my opinion on animation as a medium. Okay? Let's make sure before we make sweeping value judgements that we're looking at the best of both worlds.

[precita]

Live-action is only really popular because for decades the general population was convinced that "cartoons are for kids" and that no adult should be watching animation.

That and people want to see their favorite Hollywood big named actors in roles, for obvious reasons. Most Hollywood actors aren't even great actors, people just like the real life people behind the roles.

[Cipher]

Live-action is only really popular because for decades the general population was convinced that "cartoons are for kids" and that no adult should be watching animation.

That and people want to see their favorite Hollywood big named actors in roles, for obvious reasons. Most Hollywood actors aren't even great actors, people just like the real life people behind the roles.

People realize there are movies made outside of Hollywood, right?

Live-action filmmaking is popular because it's powerful. Animation is popular because it can also be powerful. The stigmas you're talking about certainly exist, and they're unfortunate, but just as we're all here because we realize those Western (caveat: not true of all Western countries) stigmas surrounding animation, comics, etc. aren't valid, so too should anyone who wants their opinions on fiction and art to have a shred of validity be capable of realizing one industry of live-action filmmaking and its lowest-common-denominator output don't represent the medium as a whole.

I can't even wth this conversation.