With several of the big animation- or anime-turned-live-action movies coming out this year, and some of our recent favorites evolving from one genre to the other, it begs the question—how well does this concept really work? Don’t forget, “Spider-Man” was a cartoon (and of course a comic) long before Tobey Maguire was the webbed wonder. Yet who among us wouldn’t love the real-life chance to swing above the streets like the budding super hero did in the first film?

There definitely have been some questionable choices in the past though. (Um…“Garfield?” “Scooby-Do?”) The transformation from animation or anime to live-action isn’t always a great idea, and the topic is definitely a great conversation starter among film buffs. We asked a few opinionated movie bloggers to offer their takes on this topic. If you’d have something to add, feel free to post your point of view below as a comment.

1. How do you feel about animation stories turned into live-action movies? Why do you think some work well as live-action and some don’t?

Alex Kittle, Film Forager: To adapt an animated movie or series into a live-action film often seems silly to me—when something is animated, it usually seems to be so that the writers and directors can work freely without the boundaries of real life: animals can act like humans, people can talk underwater, fantastic beasts can come alive without the fear of looking out of place in their environment. They are able to tell a story with so few limitations. I think that the main appeal of moving from animated to live-action lies in the draw of big names (both actors and filmmakers) as well as the stigma on animation as being only for children (and indeed, most are aimed at kids) or nerds.

For example, there are various anime-to-live-action projects in development right now (notably “Cowboy Bebop” and “Akira”), designed to bring the shows to a wider American audience. It's generally not cool to like anime, but it will be cool to like a high-profile action movie with Keanu Reeves or Leonardo DiCaprio. Unfortunately, one of the best things about something like “Cowboy Bebop” is its animation, which is beautifully fluid and eye-catching. That visual aspect would definitely be lost in a live-action adaptation. The character designs are also wonderful, and will either look ludicrous (à la the live-action “Dragonball”) or untrue. Now that we have the technology to make more realistic spaceships and futuristic cities, I suppose that will be at least look okay, but it's not the same.

Jen Johans, Film Intuition: Basically, I’m open to all forms of cinematic creativity and think it’s important for filmmakers to try even if the results don’t end up the way they’d initially hoped. Above all, the success of the films most likely depends on the talent and skill level of those involved and the freedom with which they’re allowed to ensure their vision makes its way to the screen but perhaps the best litmus test would be asking those working on the movies the true reason they’re making the adaptation. If they don’t have anything new to bring to the material—a unique take on it, or an unparalleled passion for the project—then that becomes quickly apparent to the viewer who realizes that they’re just seeing a bunch of loud rock ‘em sock ‘em robots or machines to rule the box office instead of something purely creative.
 
Of course, the other thing to take into consideration here is the source material and how easily it lends itself to live action films. Honestly, there’s nothing more distracting than way too much CGI in some sequences blended together with human beings or the sense that because too much of it was filmed in front of a green screen—like “The Spirit,” which originated from a graphic novel, or “Speed Racer,” which came from television—then all we have is something better suited to a video game.



Nick Jobe, Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob: It's a tough subject (at least for me), because at least half the cartoons out there that have been made into live action films were originally based on something else to begin with (such as comic books/manga). Most of the ones that work do so because they have one basic story that you can pull anything from or mold around and still be faithful (because they're episodic). The ones that often don't work are those that are more arch-based, and the live action films tend to either try and cram too much in, cut too much out, or change it completely and upset all fans (usually one of the latter two).

Also, some fail because parts of them are too fantastical to make live action. And when these movie makers try, it ends up just looking ridiculous.

 

Trista, 10 Movies To See Before You Die: Animation is a very different beast than live-action. A source that is created and produced strictly as animation will inherently have a different base from which it works. With the exception of the fluffiest animation, or animation intended only for very small children, animation is generally created from a very specific mythos. There is something freeing about seeing a story unfold in an animated format that allows the mind to go with the story and suspend disbelief. For instance in “GI Joe” the Joes fly around, leap great distances and take far more bullets than a human could ever. The explanation for this? They’re GI Joe. This simple explanation was fully sufficient to harness the imagination of every school aged boy in the ’80s and yet in the live-action movie apparently this wasn’t sufficient, instead supplying them with “accelerator suits,” which allow them to do the same things. For some reason the suspension of disbelief wasn’t considered to translate well enough to warrant not changing this simple and fundamental part of the show.
 
Worse than that, the need to “explain” everything that happens in a live-action version of an animated source simply defeats the purpose. Rarely is it fully necessary as the stuff of animation is so outlandish to begin with. What’s more, it simply misses the point. Animation is steeped in mythos and engenders a following from its viewers that few live-action films do, and those that do are generally chock full of their own mythos (see: Star Wars 4, 5 & 6). Over explaining and trying to “realize” the plots and characteristics of animation simply cheapens it and often misses the point. Unfortunately, many of these movies are heavy box office draws and therefore, the story is the least of the studio’s concern.

2. What's an example of one that really worked?

Jen Johans, Film Intuition: Again, I’d go to the graphic novels and adaptations like “The History of Violence,” “Sin City,” “Road to Perdition” Frank Miller’s update to a darker “Batman” and “Ghost World” had such rich storytelling that it helped immensely. After all, everything begins at the screenwriting stage or should before you think about how to visualize it since—even in this genre—the story is the starting point and if problems can’t be solved at this stage, the only thing filmmakers are doing with CGI then is trying to distract from the flaws.
 
For a true “animated” movie that turned live action— I’d say that the made-for-TV version of “Gulliver’s Travels” was miles ahead of the original one from the ’30s.
 
However, Tim Burton was the master of this by taking the iconography of some of the elements in the Walt Disney animation department in which he used to work and finding inspiration in their great “Ichabod Crane” short, which he weaved into his brilliant “Sleepy Hollow.”
 


Nick Jobe, Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob:  I think the best one I can think of, despite the director, is the first live action “Transformers” movie. Granted, it's based on a toy line first, cartoon second, but it's still based mostly on the cartoon. The reason I feel it works is it takes the essential point (giant robots that transform to and from automobiles destroying things), the basic character personalities and interactions from the show, and then a little fan fare... mixes it all together... and makes an entertaining summer blockbuster.

I'm also hoping that the upcoming “The Last Airbender” will enter this realm (again, despite the director and his more recent foray into film) and not the next one.

Trista, 10 Movies To See Before You Die: As silly as this is going to sound, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (the first one) worked really well. It wasn’t the best movie ever made but, to be fair, the source material wasn’t all that brilliant either. What they did manage to keep was the feel and heart of the story. Instead of turning it into one fight scene after another with little point they kept to the heart of the story, which was that brothers are brothers whether you’re human or you’re a mutant turtle with crazy ninja skills. Their struggles for power, their struggles with obligation within the family and their need to be loved as unique individuals while still struggling to fit in are universal–which is why this show was a hit in the first place. It doesn’t matter if your dad is a mutant rat who trained under great ninja masters, everyone can relate to wanting their dad to love them. Despite the fact that they’re mutant turtles that fight crime it’s their human struggles and emotions that the audience connects to. I felt that the movie did a great job of capturing the ideas and feelings of the show and channeling them into a good, solid story that the audience could get behind.

Alex Kittle, Film Forager: I know it's not a landmark piece of cinema, but I quite enjoyed the Wachowski brothers' “Speed Racer.” It was fun and fast-paced, and visually breathtaking. Instead of trying to be either too literal or realistic, they took the zaniness of the series and just amped it up. They created their own candy-colored world and didn't hesitate to acknowledge the cheesy writing and overall ludicrous aspects of the cartoon. I haven't seen too much of the show, but I do feel the film version did a good job both paying tribute to the original and making something wholly new that incorporates the benefits of live-action.

3. And an example of one that really didn't?

Nick Jobe, Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob: There are so many to choose from. For instance, I could say “Death Note,” based on the Japanese manga and anime, which failed for numerous reasons: it tried to do too much (yet not enough) of the original story, and the CGI just looked terrible, because they tried to make the Shinigami look just like the manga/anime. However, if there were any that I say failed above all others, I would say “Dragonball: Evolution.” It failed not because it was based on manga/anime, but because they ignored the source material completely (and I mean completely). They took the basic concept and basically gave Akira Toriyama the finger.

Granted, had they followed the story as-is, it would have been too difficult, because each "saga" is so long and epic in scale, it would have been a task in and of itself to make it concise for one film. It's really difficult to take stories like “Dragon Ball,” “Death Note,” or “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” all of which have these detailed stories and source materials, and make them into concise films. One of those failed epically. One of them was so-so. And I'm hoping the third actually does well against all (casting) reason.

Trista, 10 Movies To See Before You Die:
“Transformers” really missed the boat. The show was successful for two reasons: a) transforming robots from outer space and b) it was a show about a boy and his car, which just happened to be a transforming robot from outer space. The show was an epic battle between forces of ultimate good and ultimate evil, rarely blurring those lines. Instead of a great story with humanity at its heart, the movie was a military joyride designed to keep those in the audience with ADD happy as it sent from one slap-stick gag to the next, intermixed with great shows of military might. You have to ask yourself, “What does the American military do in response to the threat of an organic machine invasion?” Answer? It doesn’t matter; it should be a movie about a boy and his car. Unfortunately, so much was so substantially changed that it betrayed so many of the characterizations and plots that the fans loved from the show that there seemed little point in adapting it, other than to piggyback on the success of the television show and the “everything old is new again” mentality of development execs these days. So disappointing.

Alex Kittle, Film Forager: Oh goodness, there are so many. I would first say “The Flintstones” off the top of my head. Part of its failing is that it was just a dumb idea. Did people really want to see a feature-length version of that show? Did it really have the story potential? The live-action issue was another problem. In the show, a lot of the jokes came from sight gags, such as Fred's fast-moving feet as he drove or the servant dinosaurs doing household tasks. When taken out of a fully realized animated world, it just looks uncanny and stupid. It's sort of sad to see a real-life grown man engage in such antics, and the puppet dinosaurs didn't add much realism to the atmosphere. One cannot be drawn into the movie, because nothing is real or solid enough in its relation to the world around it. With animation, everything can be on the same level and relate easily to everything else. It can open the imagination of the viewer for the duration of the film. We'll see how the live-action “Jetsons” film does, though I hesitate to completely disavow it due to Robert Rodriquez's involvement.


Jen Johans, Film Intuition: Wow, there’s been several of these but Roberto Benigni’s woefully misguided “Pinocchio” springs to mind as well as some of the classic cartoons turned movies… for we all remember the horror show that was the big screen adaptation of “The Flintstones.”