"Live Action Dragon Ball Z Movie"

[ABED]

Literally zero point in only copying Toriyama's voice. I want to enjoy the humans making the film, not get some robotic MCU/Nolan bullshit.

Batman Returns is something a Dragon Ball film can and should look to for inspiration. It's an ode to set design, to German Expressionism, to creepiness, to sexuality, to eroticism and to the love of acting and music.

Worse part of the film is that fucking Bat suit that nobody can move in.

Goddamn, I love rewatching the scene where Selina makes her costume. Still scares the shit out of me.

I want to enjoy the film, not the person making the movie. And I don't give a damn about it being an ode to set design, I just want a wet design that doesn't distract from the movie and tells the story. The problem with the movie is that it's not a Batman movie, its'a Tim Burton movie that just happens to have Batman movie in it.

And there is a point in copying Toriyama's voice - it's his story and his characters. American superheroes are different in that they don't have a singular author. It's a bunch of different takes with certain identifiable characteristics.

Look, an artist's tastes and interests and voice are going to come through if they aren't hacks, but it should be like seams on clothes - as hidden as possible.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that either Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan should direct a Dragon Ball movie. Were those ever popular fan casts?

Not Burton, but Nolan years ago was basically fan-chosen for damn near everything.

Also, how has Guillermo Del Toro never been a popular fan cast?

He might put emphasis on Piccolo given that he loves monsters.

[MasenkoHA]

You know what I like from my comic book movies? To be based on the fucking comic books. Tim Burton's films have fuck all to do with Batman

Batman doesn’t really have one single interpretation though. This isn’t like Dragon Ball where there’s one linear story that’s mostly one man’s artistic vision. Batman has been everything from a glorified cop to a swashbuckler to a pulpy vigilante to a psycho fascist playing dress up.

. Batman's rogues are not "freaks"

Since when? His rogue gallery include a psycho killer clown, an eco terrorist plant lady, a pedo obsessed with a public domains kids book, a sewer dweller with a really bad skin condition, a guy who thinks he’s the God Zeus, a guy living permanently in subzero conditions, etc etc

. The villains don't have dual identities.

Some of them quite obviously do. Selina Kyle doesn’t live her entire life as Catwoman.

Gotham City is not bleak and rotting or weird-looking or whatever the fuck.

Since the 90s and beyond it pretty much has been. Like what?

There's a lot going for Batman Returns and Tim Burton's work I admit, and I get why fans love it. But let's not confuse that for making a good Batman film.

I don't have much hope for the perverted humor though. It would be a shame to do without it, which is why I think television might be better for live action DB.

Most of the perverted humor would not fly in the #MeToo era and for good reason. I think you can still have Roshi owning girly mags and drooling over shows with women in skimpy clothing.

I think characters like Oolong, Puerh and maybe Chiaotzu could be CGI with motion capture or whatever.

If we’re going to include characters like Oolong and Puerh I’d rather they go full on muppets for characters like that.

[WittyUsername]

Not Burton, but Nolan years ago was basically fan-chosen for damn near everything.

Now that you mention it, there was a point when his name was practically inescapable when it came to fan discussions about geek projects, but I think at least a few of them were meant to be ironic.

[jjgp1112]

Since Bradford Jackson gave Oolong a Brooklyn accent in the dub, just cast Danny Devito, apply some make-up, prosthetics, and light CGI, and voila.

If Danny's busy, Joe Pesci.

[MyVisionity]

Batman doesn’t really have one single interpretation though. This isn’t like Dragon Ball where there’s one linear story that’s mostly one man’s artistic vision. Batman has been everything from a glorified cop to a swashbuckler to a pulpy vigilante to a psycho fascist playing dress up.

Not one sole interpretation but that's why you look back over the entire run and either synthesize or pick one. Burton just did Burton. Or are you saying it's ok to just create something entirely new for a movie?

Also the idea that there are a "bunch of different takes" or "multiple interpretations" in comic books is an overstated and misconceived notion. Just because different writer/artists come aboard doesn't mean that the story and characters suddenly diverge with every changeover.

. Batman's rogues are not "freaks"

Since when? His rogue gallery include a psycho killer clown, an eco terrorist plant lady, a pedo obsessed with a public domains kids book, a sewer dweller with a really bad skin condition, a guy who thinks he’s the God Zeus, a guy living permanently in subzero conditions, etc etc.

That's just standard comic book villainy. Burton takes the "freak" thing too literally with them being outcasts and zombies/mutants etc.

. The villains don't have dual identities.

Some of them quite obviously do. Selina Kyle doesn’t live her entire life as Catwoman.

Selina Kyle and Catwoman are one in the same. Catwoman's life is Selina's life. Either way the point is that the importance of duality in Batman is often overstated.

Gotham City is not bleak and rotting or weird-looking or whatever the fuck.

Since the 90s and beyond it pretty much has been. Like what?

Which was a direct result of the Tim Burton films. The first fifty-plus years this wasn't the case.

I think doing Gotham like that turns Batman more fantastical and loses its grounding.

Most of the perverted humor would not fly in the #MeToo era and for good reason. I think you can still have Roshi owning girly mags and drooling over shows with women in skimpy clothing.

If he can drool over women in videos he should be able to drool over the women right in front of him, or is that too much? Whatever the case it would likely require talented writers who know how to get creative and bring the perverted aspects of the series to life without causing too much trouble.

I think characters like Oolong, Puerh and maybe Chiaotzu could be CGI with motion capture or whatever.

If we’re going to include characters like Oolong and Puerh I’d rather they go full on muppets for characters like that.

I think Muppets would make it seem a bit cheesy. Also they shapeshift and fly around.

[Shaddy]

If he can drool over women in videos he should be able to drool over the women right in front of him, or is that too much? Whatever the case it would likely require talented writers who know how to get creative and bring the perverted aspects of the series to life without causing too much trouble.

There's a pretty fucking gigantic difference between being a gross creep thirsting over women that willingly* put images of their bodies in media sold for a profit, and being a gross creep thirsting over whatever attractive woman happens to be around at a given time.

I think just having him be gross and vulgar and too public, should we say, is enough to get the character across without burgeoning into sexual assault territory.
*with acknowledgement that said products are those of a misogynist hellscape of unregulated capitalism and can only debatably be called "consensual", but this extends beyond pornography

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

I'd rather have Guillermo Del Toro or James Gunn direct a Dragon Ball movie than someone like Snyder or Nolan. I respect the latter two, but a live action adaptation of this series should be given to a director who works well in more fantasy-oriented stories with non-human characters and wouldn't go too dark for the source material.

[MasenkoHA]

Not one sole interpretation but that's why you look back over the entire run and either synthesize or pick one. Burton just did Burton. Or are you saying it's ok to just create something entirely new for a movie?

He’s presented as a rich guy with dead parents who uses his inheritance and martial arts skills to fight crime (and yes I am aware the fighting skills is barely portrayed in Returns). Where exactly did Burton not portray Batman accurately? Admittedly the Schumacher and Nolan films captured the handsome playboy billionaire aspect of Bruce Wayne way better but fans way over exaggerate the liberties Burton took with Batman’s character.

That's just standard comic book villainy. Burton takes the "freak" thing too literally with them being outcasts and zombies/mutants etc.

None of them were zombies. Only Penguin had a deformity. And yeah he heavily rewrote Penguin’s character but Penguin is kind of a boring villain tbh. A lot of Batman villains are outcast.

Selina Kyle and Catwoman are one in the same. Catwoman's life is Selina's life. Either way the point is that the importance of duality in Batman is often overstated.

And it’s the same as Returns? She doesn’t develop dissociative disorder . She just snaps and loses her shit.

Which was a direct result of the Tim Burton films. The first fifty-plus years this wasn't the case.

And for a good 20 ish years Batman regularly fought aliens and was an honorary police officer. Media adaptations influence comics all the time. The 1940s serials introduced the Bat Cave and thinned out Alfred. The 1960s tv series made then relatively obscure villains like the Riddler a big deal and brought the classic rogues gallery back to the forefront. And Tim Burton’s first Batman movie influenced the design of Gotham for decades to come. So what?

I think doing Gotham like that turns Batman more fantastical and loses its grounding.

This idea that Batman is a realistic super hero because he has no powers has always been silly. Who cares if Gotham is larger than life when Batman and his villains already are?

If he can drool over women in videos he should be able to drool over the women right in front of him, or is that too much? Whatever the case it would likely require talented writers who know how to get creative and bring the perverted aspects of the series to life without causing too much trouble.

Depends on the level of drooling. Asking (hopefully an adult ) Bulma on a date is one thing. Asking to rub
his face in her tits is another.

I think Muppets would make it seem a bit cheesy. Also they shapeshift and fly around.

Dragon Ball is cheesy. I’d rather see Oolong and Pu’erh removed entirely. But if you’re gonna use elements like talking animal people might as well go full camp.

[LoganForkHands73]

Batman doesn’t really have one single interpretation though. This isn’t like Dragon Ball where there’s one linear story that’s mostly one man’s artistic vision. Batman has been everything from a glorified cop to a swashbuckler to a pulpy vigilante to a psycho fascist playing dress up.

Not one sole interpretation but that's why you look back over the entire run and either synthesize or pick one. Burton just did Burton. Or are you saying it's ok to just create something entirely new for a movie?

Not him but I'd say yes, definitely. Is the alternative keeping everything literally identical to the source material? Because that's not always possible with a different medium.

Also the idea that there are a "bunch of different takes" or "multiple interpretations" in comic books is an overstated and misconceived notion. Just because different writer/artists come aboard doesn't mean that the story and characters suddenly diverge with every changeover.

I don't think it's misconceived at all. Nick Spencer's Spider-Man is totally different from Dan Slott's, just as his was different to JMS, etc. Grant Morrison's X-Men was toootally different from anything that came before. Every new writer projects their own ideas and notions onto the characters. With ongoing comic book franchises, it's unavoidable.

I don't think Burton did anything that could be considered too extreme a divergence compared to some of the bizarre shit Batman's been given over the decades, especially in recent years. I mean, Batman Ninja? Dark Nights: Death Metal? Ugh...

. Batman's rogues are not "freaks"

Since when? His rogue gallery include a psycho killer clown, an eco terrorist plant lady, a pedo obsessed with a public domains kids book, a sewer dweller with a really bad skin condition, a guy who thinks he’s the God Zeus, a guy living permanently in subzero conditions, etc etc.

That's just standard comic book villainy. Burton takes the "freak" thing too literally with them being outcasts and zombies/mutants etc.

Is there really much difference? They are all definitely freaks.

[JulieYBM]

The only 'freak' was The Penguin and even then that's some pretty ableist language to use to describe him. Of course, than actual ugliness was in his heart but even then he was fucked over since birth.

[MasenkoHA]

With long lasting comic book super heroes I’d say you only need to get their basic characterization as understood by pop culture osmosis.

Batman is a rich guy with dead parents who uses his wealth to fight crime in a batsuit

Superman is an alien refugee from a dead planet who in his day to day identity wears glasses and works as a news reporter

Spider-man is a former high school dork who got bit by a spider and has a dead uncle ben

Any creative liberties or artistic interpretations beyond that basic stuff is fine.

[MasenkoHA]

The only 'freak' was The Penguin and even then that's some pretty ableist language to use to describe him. Of course, than actual ugliness was in his heart but even then he was fucked over since birth.

Without deconstructing what freak is referring to in this context both the Penguin and Catwoman were societal outcast. The Penguin was born into the one percent and rejected by his parents for being deformed and then raised by circus performers. Selina suffered from “living in a man’s world” where her own boss treated her like a pet and not an actual human and his associates laughed along with his demeaning comments toward her.


The Joker though? Nah. Burton’s Joker was just a petty crook with narcissism and anti social personality disorder who rose to the ranks of second in command in Gotham’s biggest crime family and then took over. He just thought he was better than everyone else and wanted attention.

[WittyUsername]

If we’re still talking about Batman, I was never all that big on Michael Keaton’s portrayal. As good of an actor as Keaton is, his Batman just doesn’t fit how I imagine the character. Even ignoring the fact that Keaton was never a very physically imposing guy, his Bruce Wayne feels too much like a typical Tim Burton protagonist.

The writing doesn’t exactly help either. Aside from the fact that Keaton’s Batman kills pretty indiscriminately, even though the no-kill rule has been a major part of the character for decades, the climax of Returns has him trying to plead with Catwoman to not kill Max Shreck. Where exactly did that come from? Batman spent that whole movie setting thugs on fire and strapping bombs to them with a smirk on his face, and he makes it clear that he knows Shreck is a criminal, so why is he so against Catwoman killing him? It just makes him look like a hypocrite.

Back to Dragon Ball, are there any potential actors who people could see as Goku? I guess it would preferably have to be someone of Asian descent.

[ABED]

If we’re still talking about Batman, I was never all that big on Michael Keaton’s portrayal. As good of an actor as Keaton is, his Batman just doesn’t fit how I imagine the character. Even ignoring the fact that Keaton was never a very physically imposing guy, his Bruce Wayne feels too much like a typical Tim Burton protagonist.

The writing doesn’t exactly help either. Aside from the fact that Keaton’s Batman kills pretty indiscriminately, even though the no-kill rule has been a major part of the character for decades, the climax of Returns has him trying to plead with Catwoman to not kill Max Shreck. Where exactly did that come from? Batman spent that whole movie setting thugs on fire and strapping bombs to them with a smirk on his face, and he makes it clear that he knows Shreck is a criminal, so why is he so against Catwoman killing him? It just makes him look like a hypocrite.

Back to Dragon Ball, are there any potential actors who people could see as Goku? I guess it would preferably have to be someone of Asian descent.

The no kill rule is dumb and yes, he's a hypocrite and that's partly the point. He cares for her and doesn't want her becoming like them.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of fancasting as it doesn't typically leave room for unknowns.

[WittyUsername]

If we’re still talking about Batman, I was never all that big on Michael Keaton’s portrayal. As good of an actor as Keaton is, his Batman just doesn’t fit how I imagine the character. Even ignoring the fact that Keaton was never a very physically imposing guy, his Bruce Wayne feels too much like a typical Tim Burton protagonist.

The writing doesn’t exactly help either. Aside from the fact that Keaton’s Batman kills pretty indiscriminately, even though the no-kill rule has been a major part of the character for decades, the climax of Returns has him trying to plead with Catwoman to not kill Max Shreck. Where exactly did that come from? Batman spent that whole movie setting thugs on fire and strapping bombs to them with a smirk on his face, and he makes it clear that he knows Shreck is a criminal, so why is he so against Catwoman killing him? It just makes him look like a hypocrite.

Back to Dragon Ball, are there any potential actors who people could see as Goku? I guess it would preferably have to be someone of Asian descent.

The no kill rule is dumb and yes, he's a hypocrite and that's partly the point. He cares for her and doesn't want her becoming like them.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of fancasting as it doesn't typically leave room for unknowns.

The no-kill rule is unrealistic, but if people are going to grill Zack Snyder for having Batman kill, there’s no point in giving Burton a pass.

[MasenkoHA]

The no-kill rule is unrealistic, but if people are going to grill Zack Snyder for having Batman kill, there’s no point in giving Burton a pass.

Burton never got a pass for the killing thing. That was always one of the most common criticisms for those movies. Despite again it being dumb in the first place.

[MyVisionity]

The no-kill rule is essential to the character and his commitment to justice. Batman's love and compassion are what makes him what he is. Batman isn't evil nor does he like death. And he isn't a soldier in the military, fighting a literal "war".

I think doing Gotham like that turns Batman more fantastical and loses its grounding.

This idea that Batman is a realistic super hero because he has no powers has always been silly. Who cares if Gotham is larger than life when Batman and his villains already are?

Because then Batman and his villains lose their impact. There's nothing weird and disturbing about them anymore if that's just how the world around them is. And again, it takes Batman too far into the realm of fantasy. In a story about police work and solving crimes and getting justice, the grounding is important in order to resonate with readers.

The idea that Batman is "realistic" is not because he doesn't have powers. It's because he is a detective who solves crimes and because the stories involve the justice system and issues within society, as well as human drama.

Dragon Ball is cheesy. I’d rather see Oolong and Pu’erh removed entirely. But if you’re gonna use elements like talking animal people might as well go full camp.

I wouldn't call talking animal people cheesy or campy. Make them real enough to feel natural. The whole world in DB is absurd on its face to begin with.


I agree that the main cast, particularly Goku, should be unknowns.

[ABED]

His no kill rule is there to justify keeping around villains for a monthly book, nothing more.

Because then Batman and his villains lose their impact.

For you. I like when Gotham is a craphole. It makes his world stand out and justify the need for something so extreme. Even in a world a lot of over the top stuff he stands out, just like Goku still stands out in a world of goofy over the top stuff. it's easier to buy into DB's fantasy if it all feels like part of a whole.

If they made a good live action movie, I'd want them to embrace the silly aesthetic with things like the rounded buildings, talking animals, etc. Don't be ashamed of DB being what it is.

[MyVisionity]

His no kill rule is there to justify keeping around villains for a monthly book, nothing more.

So otherwise he would just kill everybody? I don't think so. There is no way to justify why Batman would go around killing villains and criminals.

The no kill rule is about characterization.

For you. I like when Gotham is a craphole. It makes his world stand out and justify the need for something so extreme. Even in a world a lot of over the top stuff he stands out, just like Goku still stands out in a world of goofy over the top stuff. it's easier to buy into DB's fantasy if it all feels like part of a whole.

Dragon Ball is a fantasy overall. Batman is not. It has fantasy elements, but that doesn't mean the world itself has to be a fantasy. So many of science fiction and fantasy series are the same, set in the real world but with weird and unusual elements. I mean look at Yu Yu Hakusho, set in real world Tokyo but featuring supernatural and martial arts fantasy. Hell the entirety of Marvel Comics is like this. You don't have to justify the need for any extremes because it's superhero fiction.

[WittyUsername]

Batman’s no-kill rule was initially conceived as a way of making the character more kid-friendly, but it’s since been made into a major part of the character and has served as a source of conflict in-universe on multiple occasions. It’s pretty far-fetched to believe that Batman is able to regularly give criminals beatings without killing any of them, but the character’s aversion to killing has come to define him, so any adaptation that has him casually killing bad guys is deviating from the source material.

In terms of realism vs. fantasy, even though Batman comics are inherently fantastical by virtue of taking place in a world where super powered aliens and gods exist, you can still make a relatively realistic adaptation of Batman, which is what Christopher Nolan did. The same can’t be said for Dragon Ball. The entire core of the series is rooted in fantasy and magic. You can tone down the fantasy elements by getting rid of characters like Oolong and Puar, but there’s no way of getting rid of the fantasy elements altogether.