It's Time to do a (New) Dragon Ball Live-action Movie

[sangofe]

I heard Ghost In The Shell was pretty good, but, fans lost their s.it because of Johansson and boycott film

It wasn't.
I consider it the most forgettable movie of 2017.

Yet it got a positive review and 4 out of 6 on the site of one of Norway's biggest radio channels known for their reviews: https://p3.no/filmpolitiet/2017/03/ghost-in-the-shell/

[DragonBallFoodie]

At best it'll turn out like those really bad live action YouTube short films where it's all dark and depressing and focuses on "Wow, look at how cool that Kamehameha looks you guys rock!!" while completely removing the humor and simplicity Dragon Ball is known for.

There are probably a lot of people in Hollywood who think that's what DB is so I hope those would be the last people they go to. I don't think the issue with a live action DB is it being possible to do right or not but rather finding people who are both good at making movies and understand what DB is.

If you can find someone who's a good film maker and fully understands and loves DB alongside a studio willing to pay whatever's needed to bring it to life and get people interested then I don't see why it can't work.

I agree.

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Part 4 movie is a prime example of adapting accurately, it just looks dumb.

The concepts of Stands (psychic powers in the form of avatars) itself doesn't feel right. Why make a being that can stop time when you can stop time yourself?



Jojo is awesome but impractical all over. But that's part of its charm.

Also maybe they should have adapted Stardust Crusaders; I consider that the high point of Jojo, and anything after it isn't as good IMO.

It could work, but, I'm afraid of another Evolution or Death Note (I heard Ghost In The Shell was pretty good, but, fans lost their s.it because of Johansson and boycott film)

You know, whitewashing issues with anime are hilarious in a pathetic kind of way. People take issues with Motoko Kusanagi being played by a white actress, and people also take issues with live-action Full Metal Alchemist because the Elric brothers and Winry and all those white characters were played by Japanese actors.

The next big anime movie on the way that I know of is Naruto so fingers crossed they can do something right with it. From a design point it shouldn't be that hard to get right as the majority of characters and locations look pretty normal and not that hard to bring to life.

Coming up this year is live-action Bleach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oblZrnM9p6A



I wonder if it has a chance.


Also coming up this year is live-action Ginama, part 2. The first film was a hit, and faithful enough that people enjoyed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH91vsKfOzs

[emperior]

I wouldn't mind if they did a DB movie set in the Dragon Ball universe, but about a different character than Goku.
They could still put some fan favorites aliens such as Freeza, Beerus etcetera, but Goku and the other characters from the main cast wouldn't have to appear at all. I believe it's impossible to find actors portraying the likes of Goku and Vegeta that would please everyone. Starting from the looks to the voice, it's impossible, in my opinion, to faithfully replicate many of the DB characters in a live action movie.
Aliens such as Freeza, Beerus, Whis, Piccolo etcetera could be done very well with computer graphics and such, so that wouldn't be a problem to have them.

Obviously a Dragon Ball movie can't be one if the magic orbs aren't involved, which means this movie could be set:
- on Earth, in a future time where Goku and co. are long dead (Piccolo and Roshi could still be around)
- in the past, following a story which could fit or not fit in the canon and with the Namekians involved somehow (could be set in U6)
- in a distant past or different timeline, following a story where the Super Dragon Balls and the Gods are involved

A BIG bonus for a movie not about Goku is that it could be deemed "canonical" if it doesn't contradict anything from the main story. Toriyama could, and should, be involved with the script and he could also provide designs for spaceships or clothes or whatever the plot needs.
Of course the movie would have to be a very high budget one with possibly some top film director at the head of it.

A movie set in a world faithful to the one Toriyama envisioned, featuring some top quality effects and perfectly portraying the high speed battles with ki blasts the franchise is known for would be enough for the movie to be a success even without Goku as the main protagonist, and without Goku involved the writers could have much more freedom to tell their story.

[sintzu]

Coming up this year is live-action Bleach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oblZrnM9p6A



I wonder if it has a chance.

The only thing it looks like it'll do is set anime on film even further back than it already is.

[DragonBallFoodie]

The only thing it looks like it'll do is set anime on film even further back than it already is.

I wonder what you think of live-action Battle Angel Alita.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj8mN_7Apcw

Live action anime will keep happening, the best we hope for is that they can get most things right if not all.

[sintzu]

I wonder what you think of live-action Battle Angel Alita.

Live action anime will keep happening, the best we hope for is that they can get most things right if not all.

I've never seen its anime but that trailer looks good and interesting. With that said, I don't know how it compares to the actual anime (I know there has to be differences) or if the movie itself will be good.

Anime as a whole has so much potential to be turned into billion doller franchises so I know they'll keep trying, I just hope they don't waste too many more opportunities as I don't want people to outright give up on them and miss out on ones that actually turn out good.

[Hellspawn28]

There is a lot of good live action movies based on anime and manga. Most of them are from Asia (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong) and are based on Seinen titles. The only good live action Shonen movie that I can think of is the Star Blazers movie that they did in Japan a while back.

[sangofe]

There is a lot of good live action movies based on anime and manga. Most of them are from Asia (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong) and are based on Seinen titles. The only good live action Shonen movie that I can think of is the Star Blazers movie that they did in Japan a while back.

Got a list over hot titles?

[Hellspawn28]

Live action movies based on anime and manga that don't suck in my opinion:

20th Century Boys
Blade of the Immortal
Blue Spring
City Hunter
Crying Freeman (90's Canada film)
Dororo
Himizu
Ichi the Killer
Golgo 13: Assignment Kowloon
Old Boy (2003 Korean film)
Lady Snowblood
Lone Wolf and Cub (Shogun Assassin in the West)
Ruoruni Kenshin (Not the biggest Kenshin fan, but I do agree the live action movies are good)
Space Battleship Yamato (Star Blazers in the West)
Tokyo Tribe
Uzumaki

Other than Dororo, City Hunter, Kenshin and Yamato, these movies are based on Seinen manga. With Seinen, they are based on more realistic and more grounded themes that they work better in live action. I do think a Shonen title like Dragon Ball can work well in live action if you have a proper cast, director, producer and writer. With DBE, Fox didn't care since they made it to avoid losing the license.

[TKA]

The only director in Hollywood that I would ever be okay with directing a Dragonball movie is Zack Snyder. The faithfulness he approaches every film with in regards to their source material is to be admired (he used the actual Watchmen comic as storyboards and hired the original artist to draw out the film's unique ending before he filmed it). Not only does he pay credence to the overall plot, but he keeps the tone and themes intact as well.

Also, his movies are gorgeous and nobody does stylized action better than Snyder.

With all of these in mind, only he can give us a dragonball film we actually deserve. The hard part is finding a studio that would want to do dragonball faithfully instead of Americanizing the shit out of it.

[Robo4900]

The only director in Hollywood that I would ever be okay with directing a Dragonball movie is Zack Snyder. The faithfulness he approaches every film with in regards to their source material is to be admired (he used the actual Watchmen comic as storyboards and hired the original artist to draw out the film's unique ending before he filmed it). Not only does he pay credence to the overall plot, but he keeps the tone and themes intact as well

Also, his movies are gorgeous and nobody does stylized action better than Snyder.

With all of these in mind, only he can give us a dragonball film we actually deserve. The hard part is finding a studio that would want to do dragonball faithfully instead of Americanizing the shit out of it.

Not to be contradictory for no reason, but I wholeheartedly disagree.

Watchmen was a deep, dark deconstruction of the superhero genre and its ultimate message is something Synder actually completely missed; while one could say he's like Alan Moore in that he's willing to dark and gritty, and really gets to the core and questions the issues raised by the works he's adapted, with the way he tends to approach things, and after what he did with Man Of Steel and Batman V Superman, it's become clear to myself and many others that he's more like Frank Miller -- he's not deconstructing things to make a point about them, he's actually serious. The reason it's a faithful adaptation is not that he understands it, but that he simply loves the original work so much that he wanted to portray it in the most true form he could from his perception of it.

Ultimately, if he did a Dragon Ball film, it would end up like what he did to Superman with Man Of Steel -- instead of being a bright, colourful, delightful tale full of whimsy and character, it would be a dull, dreary slog starring mopey leads and devoid of any joy.
The action would be good, but good action scene can't save a crap film, especially with his reliance on shaky-cam meaning you won't be able to see a damn thing that's going on.

This is just my take on it, but I'm thoroughly in this camp.

Anyway, I don't think literally adapting the original work to screen would be the best way to do Dragon Ball; Dragon Ball is very much of its time, and should have work done on its narrative to make it work on screen, otherwise I don't think it'd work all that well.

IMO, best man for the job would be Taika Waititi; he'd capture the wit, charm, and fun of the original, and craft a film that's simply a delight to watch from beginning to end. And the action would be as fun and varied as Dragon Ball can be at its best, with everyone using their full arsenal of techniques and powers to create some of the nicest-looking fights you'll see, with all the attacks looking like the bright-coloured beams of light they were always supposed to look like.

[TKA]

Watchmen was a deep, dark deconstruction of the superhero genre and its ultimate message is something Synder actually completely missed; while one could say he's like Alan Moore in that he's willing to dark and gritty, and really gets to the core and questions the issues raised by the works he's adapted, with the way he tends to approach things, and after what he did with Man Of Steel and Batman V Superman, it's become clear to myself and many others that he's more like Frank Miller -- he's not deconstructing things to make a point about them, he's actually serious. The reason it's a faithful adaptation is not that he understands it, but that he simply loves the original work so much that he wanted to portray it in the most true form he could from his perception of it.

Except Snyder's Watchmen is quite literally Alan Moore's book. That's my point. He respected the source material so much that he threw out the initial plans the studio had for the adaptation. They wanted it to be modern day, with character-in-name-only. In fact, before Snyder stepped in, Watchmen was considered unadaptable.

He righted that ship. He created the visual language of it. He translated it from being an indictment against comic books to being and indictment against escapist comic book movies (hence why his costumes are dark and have nipples on them; that was the trend of the time). That's what I want him to bring to Dragonball: his clear understanding of whatever source material he's tackling.

Ultimately, if he did a Dragon Ball film, it would end up like what he did to Superman with Man Of Steel

You mean a faithful adaptation of the source material with actual gravitas and a firm understanding of what is at the core of the character instead of a disposable superhero romp?

instead of being a bright, colourful, delightful tale full of whimsy and character, it would be a dull, dreary slog starring mopey leads and devoid of any joy.

Oh. That's what you meant.

Yeah, I find whenever people criticize Man of Steel OR BvS on the grounds that Snyder didn't understand the characters, that they themselves have an extremely narrow view of said characters and probably need to read more comics. Instead of turning this into a lengthy Man of Steel and BvS discussion, I'll just say Snyder is faithful to whatever source material he's adapting, and it is doubly true for those films. If you wanna discuss this point further, my PM's are always open.

The action would be good, but good action scene can't save a crap film, especially with his reliance on shaky-cam meaning you won't be able to see a damn thing that's going on.

Nonsense. There is no shaky cam in Zack Snyder's movies. Man of Steel was the only one that used it, and that happened because Snyder wanted Man of Steel to not feel like any other film he's made (to that end, it also has a cinematographer he's never used before or since). Snyder, unlike the VAST majority of directors out there, actually pulls the camera back so you can see everything that's happening onscreen and doesn't hide behind quick cuts. That's why his fight scenes are so lauded.

The ONLY issue with Snyder's fight scene composition that runs contrary to Dragonball is that he has gone on record multiple times saying that he thinks fight scenes should have consequences because otherwise it's just violence for its own sake. That's why the camera didn't hide that people were dying when Superman and Zod fought. Or why Batman's victims got focused on in BvS and why the camera didn't hide that he was killing people, unlike previous Batman movies. That runs contrary to dragonball because the destruction doesn't really matter in dragonball due to the series' namesake.

Anyway, I don't think literally adapting the original work to screen would be the best way to do Dragon Ball; Dragon Ball is very much of its time, and should have work done on its narrative to make it work on screen, otherwise I don't think it'd work all that well.

That's why Snyder's my pick for it. 300 was 8 years old when he adapted it. Watchmen was 20 years old. The various Batman and Superman comics used to make BvS were all from 10-78 years old (except Superman: Earth One, which Man of Steel takes a lot from despite it only being a year old when the movie went into production). He adapted these perfectly to the big screen and produced mega hits; no doubt he'd make the 30 year old dragonball work.

Besides, I find dragonball to be timeless. Toriyama was wise not to ground it in any time period.

would be Taika Waititi; he'd capture the wit, charm, and fun of the original, and craft a film that's simply a delight to watch from beginning to end.

I have to disagree. Jesus Christ, no. No. I want my Dragonball to have gravitas and to be respected. I don't want Goku cracking jokes to pander to a theater audience. I want the material to be respected by the person doing it.

I want a Dragonball film with a distinctive style and substance to it, and not just in the plot but also in the presentation (cinematography, score, lighting, special effects etc). Not a generic-looking blockbuster

[Robo4900]

Except Snyder's Watchmen is quite literally Alan Moore's book. That's my point. He respected the source material so much that he threw out the initial plans the studio had for the adaptation. They wanted it to be modern day, with character-in-name-only. In fact, before Snyder stepped in, Watchmen was considered unadaptable.

He righted that ship. He created the visual language of it.

That's kind of my point. He adapted what was in the books into what became the film, and that's the only reason it worked. Even if you have absolutely no understanding of why a work was good, if you did it as precisely page-to-screen as you could, and made the best possible version you could of that, you'd end up with a faithful adaptation that may just manage to get all the nuance to work... But all you'll have is what was on the page, on the screen. When The Killing Joke did that, people hated it(Yes, I know the 45-minute prologue is the thing people hated the most about that. Look past that; the actual Killing Joke bit was generally not well-liked either).

Again, the thing is, the reason he liked Watchmen is that it's a dark, gritty, intense, brutalist thing. He wasn't adapting it to deconstruct comic books, he was adapting it to put what he sees on the page on screen.

You mean a faithful adaptation of the source material with actual gravitas and a firm understanding of what is at the core of the character instead of a disposable superhero romp?

And that attitude is exactly why Snyder was wrong for Superman. People like you -- no offense -- who don't understand or like what Superman is would have him be a dark, moody downer rather than the upbeat, upstanding nice guy who wants to fight for what's right. And that's what Snyder did.
Basically, if you ever saw the first Captain America, or Wonder Woman, those basically perfectly captured exactly the kind of style and tone a Superman movie should have. Unfortuantely, DC are stuck in a rut of dark grit(I know Wonder Woman is DC. Patty Jenkins had to fight the studio pretty hard to get that film done the way it was, and it very clearly stands apart from the other DC movies), so Superman ends up just being a mopey edgelord.

Snyder doesn't like what Superman is, he prefers the more brutalist, dark, gritty nonsense that Watchmen was a deconstruction of. That's why Man Of Steel and Batman V Superman were such dark, gritty, intense, brutal films.

Captain America and Wonder Woman had a lot to say. There's that line in Captain America, "Do you want to kill Nazis?" "I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from."
It's a tale of hope, an inspirational story about a man who will do his best to right wrongs in the world. Not a brutalist story about two mopey men punching each-other until one of them yells the name their mothers share.

Yeah, I find whenever people criticize Man of Steel OR BvS on the grounds that Snyder didn't understand the characters, that they themselves have an extremely narrow view of said characters and probably need to read more comics. Instead of turning this into a lengthy Man of Steel and BvS discussion, I'll just say Snyder is faithful to whatever source material he's adapting, and it is doubly true for those films. If you wanna discuss this point further, my PM's are always open.

Actually, I think here is exactly the place for that discussion. I'm not trying to argue with you, if that's what you're afraid of, and anyone who tries to make this nasty we can just ignore, I'm just interested in sharing our points of view with each-other so we can hopefully each gain an understanding of why the two of us have our different opinions. And hopefully in the process, the two of us can talk about films we have thougts on, and gain some insight by examining them through a different lens than we otherwise would.

That meta thing aside, honestly, yes, I do think Snyder didn't understand the characters. Perhaps he did understand Batman to some extent, at the very least I think Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman was a really cool take on the character that worked incredibly well, and IMO was the best thing in the movie(And even if I considered it a good movie, that would still be the case; the man was a total powerhouse in the role, and the idea of him playing an aging Batman is a really cool way of changing Batman up for this iteration). But he did make the one critical mistake of putting a ton of focus on him killing people, which is massively detremental to his character... Still, he nearly got there, so credit where credit is due.
Batman V Superman aside(Because really, there's far more to unpack there than what I want to talk about here), the big thing I really want to discuss is Superman. As I said before, Superman is a hopeful figure, an ideal to aspire to. Snyder turned him into a mopey guy who's angsty about the weight on his shoulders, turning him a little generic, and completely dropping the entire core of what his character was.

Nonsense. There is no shaky cam in Zack Snyder's movies. Man of Steel was the only one that used it, and that happened because Snyder wanted Man of Steel to not feel like any other film he's made (to that end, it also has a cinematographer he's never used before or since). Snyder, unlike the VAST majority of directors out there, actually pulls the camera back so you can see everything that's happening onscreen and doesn't hide behind quick cuts. That's why his fight scenes are so lauded.

Alright, I'll give you that.

The ONLY issue with Snyder's fight scene composition that runs contrary to Dragonball is that he has gone on record multiple times saying that he thinks fight scenes should have consequences because otherwise it's just violence for its own sake. That's why the camera didn't hide that people were dying when Superman and Zod fought. Or why Batman's victims got focused on in BvS and why the camera didn't hide that he was killing people, unlike previous Batman movies. That runs contrary to dragonball because the destruction doesn't really matter in dragonball due to the series' namesake.

Except kind of the whole point of Superman is that he would save every single person he could, even if it ended up meaning he dies in the fight against Zod. And Batman took an oath to never kill anyone in the comics, and while a few of the movies in the past have gone against that, just because other movies have done something wrong doesn't mean you get to excuse it in a film that ends up putting a heavy focus on this thing that was mostly glossed over in the other ones.
One of the core principles of Batman and Superman is that they will never kill anyone. The reason Batman vs the Joker works is because the Joker will massacre everyone on the planet until it's just him and Batman so he can see if he can push Batman over the edge, but Batman never will kill the Joker, because if he does, then he's gone against his core principle, and despite the fact he'd be dead, and he'd probably end up saving many people the Joker would have killed, the Joker would have won, and Batman's hands would have blood on them. The Joker would have corrupted Batman in the same way he did to Dent in The Dark Knight.
If Batman's happy to just gun down entire gangs, and Superman's okay to snap Zod's neck, this is totally gone.

Snyder just makes things edgy and brutal because that's his style.

Anyway, as for Dragon Ball and destruction and such, unless your only exposure to the franchise is the dubs of Z, you'd know that Dragon Ball isn't all about people dying and big fights ending with people getting resurrected, it's a charming tale of a bunch of friends coming together and along the way, things getting out of hand, and their adventures slowly esacalating to galactic proportions. The stakes of the show was never about "Oh look how many people have died!" Only time that card was played was to show how cold Vegeta had turned when Babidi possessed him. The stakes in the more intense arcs were about the characters, about how they'll get through this, about what they'll have to sacrifice to get through this situation. In the early arcs, though, it was a straight-up comedy about a group of five people accidentally running into a plot to take over the world, and trying to stop this madman from doing this crazy thing. Even in the darker arcs, this was still a heavy element to the setup. Ever watch the driving episode?
I doubt Snyder would do an even passable job of adapting the fun, adventurous spirit at all.

That's why Snyder's my pick for it. 300 was 8 years old when he adapted it. Watchmen was 20 years old. The various Batman and Superman comics used to make BvS were all from 10-78 years old (except Superman: Earth One, which Man of Steel takes a lot from despite it only being a year old when the movie went into production). He adapted these perfectly to the big screen and produced mega hits; no doubt he'd make the 30 year old dragonball work.

Okay. And let's get him to adapt Jane Austen while we're at it too.
And how about Peanuts, and Garfield too.

I have to disagree. Jesus Christ, no. No. I want my Dragonball to have gravitas and to be respected. I don't want Goku cracking jokes to pander to a theater audience. I want the material to be respected by the person doing it.

Taika Waititi DOES respect the material he's doing. That's WHY it was silly. The original comics were goofy acid trips about god-like men with magic hammers travelling through space on rainbow laserbeam bridges. And no gravitas? Seriously?! Did you not see the scenes with Thor and Loki in the lift? Or Odin's death? Thor and Loki came to terms with the fact that they've drifted apart as brothers, and ultimately despite the fact they do still love each-other as brothers, Thor was articulating the fact that ultimately, he believed that they'd grown too different for their lives to intertwine so closely anymore as it once did. Odin's death features him, the grand king of a boundless civilisation now dying of old age, and seemingly not quite in full grasp of his mental faculties, but nevertheless enjoying his last moments with his two sons on a peaceful shore. He knows they have a massive task to face up to soon, but he can't help them out anymore; he's dying, and even though it's probably ultimately Loki's fault, he simply sits there, takes in the atmosphere, and wishes his two sons the best of luck, and passes on his love to them.
It's beautiful.
And of course it's goofy and full of jokes; these comics were created to be a joy to read, to be a fun experience where you get to ride along with crazy gods and superpowered men having fun adventures.
Make up your mind -- do you want a faithful adaptation, or a dark and gritty brutalist take on something that was never designed for that?

Because, dude... Dragon Ball is an action comedy. It's always heavily leaned in a comedic direction. Even when Funimation butchered it and tried to make it hardcore, it's still a goofy-ass show full of weird characters, perverted antics, and other such silliness. The Boo arc is about a pink blob who turns people into chocolate and then eats them.

I want a Dragonball film with a distinctive style and substance to it, and not just in the plot but also in the presentation (cinematography, score, lighting, special effects etc). Not a generic-looking blockbuster

Distinctive style? Generic-looking blockbusters?
Dude, did you not even see Thor Ragnarok? No other movie looks anything like that film; the bright colours, the intricate designs, everything about the cinematography is entirely different to what you'll see anywhere else. It's completely off the wall, and it's perfect for something like Dragon Ball, or the comics Thor Ragnarok was adapting; a bright, fun, whimsical adventure. It isn't afraid to get heavy, but ultimately, you're here to enjoy yourself.

You want generic, watch Man Of Steel. Bland, similar shades of gray and brown fill the screen as the gray-coloured Superman fights the gray-coloured Zod in a gray city while gray gas clouds and explosions fill the screen... It's bland, boring, and dull. About as generic as it gets.

[Hellspawn28]

I remember people wanted The Wachowskis to do a live action DB movie in the early-mid 2000's because the fight scenes in the third Matrix movie. While Speed Racer was shit, I won't mind if they do a DB live action movie. At least they are fans of Anime and Wuxia in Hollywood.

[Robo4900]

I remember people wanted The Wachowskis to do a live action DB movie in the early-mid 2000's because the fight scenes in the third Matrix movie. While Speed Racer was shit, I won't mind if they do a DB live action movie. At least they are fans of Anime and Wuxia in Hollywood.

Haha.

I mean, the problem with people making suggestions like that is that action is only a small part of why Dragon Ball is great. That's a large part of my thesis against Snyder being the one to do Dragon Ball in live-action.

[Hellspawn28]

I feel like people like Michael Bay, Zack Snyder and Roland Emmerich would turn DB into a mindless blockbuster with a shit load of CG. Dragon Ball was always more than just a mindless action series. There was more to it than just fighting. I don't want Dragon Ball to be another Transformers or MCU type of movie (There's some serious franchise fatigue going on with that series in my opinion).

[TKA]

That's kind of my point. He adapted what was in the books into what became the film, and that's the only reason it worked.

But... that by its very nature is nonsense and not how adaptations work. You can copy the book and still fuck up the process of translating it from book to film. One of the biggest reason Watchmen the movie is held in such high regard is because Snyder managed to transition it from comic to movie so seamlessly. THAT is talent, especially when it was previously considered unadaptable.

And that attitude is exactly why Snyder was wrong for Superman. People like you -- no offense -- who don't understand or like what Superman is would have him be a dark, moody downer rather than the upbeat, upstanding nice guy who wants to fight for what's right. And that's what Snyder did.

Nonsense. Unless you think Dan Jurgens is full of shit for praising Man of Steel. Or the litany of comic book creators who praise that film. Or Jay Oliva, who directed most of the DC animated movies.

And your understanding of the source material is pretty limited if you think Superman is always chipper and happy despite what's happening around him. Man of Steel and BvS take liberally from:

Superman: Birthright
Superman: Earth One
Superman of all Ages
All-Star Superman
Death of Superman
The Dark Knight

Mind you, this is by no means a complete list. What Man of Steel ignores is the Donner Films, which weren't AT ALL accurate to ANY rendition of the comic book character at that point. Donner made up most of those movies and turned superman into a caricature. Snyder has said on numerous occasions that he's adapting the comic book Superman (post-1986) and not the misogynist, irresponsible, selfish cartoon character that is Donner's Superma-

Actually I'll cut this post short. This is the last thing I'll say on any of this. Have a bunchof links becauseI hold the opinion that BvS and MoS don't know the source material to be laughable and by people who have only ever watchedthe movies or cartoons.

Zack Snyder is a real director who makes movies that have real substance. Dragonball deserves that level of detail, and not be pop junk meant to be disposable like Marvel movies or Star Wars movies (since Disney took over from GL).

I feel like people like Michael Bay, Zack Snyder and Roland Emmerich would turn DB into a mindless blockbuster with a shit load of CG.

Zack Snyder has never made a stupid movie though.

300 was an indictment against war propaganda. The movie is literally a story being told to hype a bunch of young men up to charge into a battle where they're outnumbered 3-to-1. The film goes out of its way to show that it's made-up propaganda bullshit by giving the Persians literal inhuman monsters in their ranks. And the most damning part of the film was when Leonidas specifically chose the storyteller to live and "tell tale of how we fought".

Sucker Punch was about a bunch of oppressed and suppressed girls trying to reclaim their lives from their male captors.

Watchmen was freaking watchmen.

Man of Steel was about a guy trying to find his place in the world and living up to the expectations of his fathers.

BvS was many, many things to many different people and is still hotly debated. To some it's an immigrant story. To others it's a story about will to power. To others it's shit.

Love him or hate him, Snyder's films always raise discussion that last well past the time they're on a shelf in a Walmart. Nobody gives a shit about the Transformers movies, Bad Boys, Independence Day 2, 2012 etc. Putting Snyder in that class of filmmakers is disrespectful and myopic.

But I digress.

------------------------------------------

Get back to your regularly-scheduled posting, friends.

[Kuwabara]

IMO, best man for the job would be Taika Waititi

I wouldn't mind this pick myself, he has a visual style that would fit the material. He actually understands comics and animation.

Not that I think Snyder doesn't, his style is very striking in a different way, a way much too dark for Dragon Ball. Maybe he could direct a movie based on the Trunks TV special?

[Lord Beerus]

I wouldn't mind if Zack Snyder got a crack at the whip with a Dragon Ball movie. His visual direction is stunning, but he is a fucking terrible storyteller. You would need someone would really need to reign down on him and make sure none of less desirable traits as a director end up spilling into the movie

If there is a director that I would have total faith in taking Dragon Ball and bringing it into live action with most its unique aesthetics intact, it would be Guillermo del Toro. He is a fantastic storyteller and has the wonderfully unique visionary direction skills to retain the quirks of Dragon Ball battles.

[ABED]

Snyder doesn't make movies of substance. To have substance, you first need to tell a coherent story and none of his superhero films have. Also, he's just tonally wrong for DB. DB even in its darkest moments has a lightness to it that Snyder has yet to show he can handle. There's a whimsy to DB that I think people here are forgetting. The visual aspect is one I'm least worried about. There's no reason for there to be a tradeoff, but if I have to deal with a tradeoff between story and visuals, I'm going with story. I can deal with less than stellar visuals if I'm interested in the characters and the story. I've seen Snyder in interviews and it's clear that he's not as smart as he thinks he is. He comes off as a nice guy, but not the most well spoken person in the world.

Zack Snyder is a real director who makes movies that have real substance. Dragonball deserves that level of detail, and not be pop junk meant to be disposable like Marvel movies or Star Wars movies (since Disney took over from GL).

DB isn't a story of great substance. It's written by a guy with a love of potty humor. I'll give you this much, Snyder tries to put substance in his movies. He's just not very successful at it. At the end of the day, I'd rather a story do whatever it does well. Even if the film is a light comedy, do it well. Toriyama's story does what it does well - e.g. action, humor, likeable characters.

(There's some serious franchise fatigue going on with that series in my opinion).

Based on what?