The Tyranny of Live Action Recorded Motion Pictures

Why is the consensus that the ultimate form of a narrative work is a live action movie or TV show?

This question has been at the forefront of my mind since the release of the GITS remake, which had, as I can see, at least two signs that it was a terrible idea from its inception: basing a film on a canonical work of the genre and/or medium (impossible expectations); whitewashing / Scarlett Johansson.

It's more than just the built-in fanbase that guarantees a certain number of viewers, since it's usually these same viewers who think a film/tv adaptation would be the pinnacle of a narrative's existence.

And the recorded part: live theater just doesn't exist in the popular consciousness! Why must the performance be viewed in a movie or home theater in order to be enticing to the prospective viewer?

Just some scattered thoughts so far, guess it was time for me to contribute to ILX beyond making lazy zings about reality TV shows.

live theater just doesn't exist in the popular consciousness! Why must the performance be viewed in a movie or home theater in order to be enticing to the prospective viewer?

one costs $120, one costs $12

two things immediately come to mind:

1. The "LARMP" can do a bazillion things that cannot be accomplished in the live theater. Also, a theater production that comes even close to the values of the LARMP, reaching even a fraction of the audience, would cost a bajillion times more, for a lot less in many departments; specifically whiz, bang, kung fu, and closeups of sex boobies.

2. The "LARMP" generally makes more money and requires less lead time than its animated counterpart. In fact, you can make a 85% animated movie and green screen a few real live beautiful people into it and conventional wisdom says you'll roll around in cash money - just like Smaug, in more ways than one!

Generally though I agree I have no idea why we can't get more rotoscoped digital backlot all-craziness animated films for adults.

ikr

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Bios/Homer_BM_1825.jpg

why won't people show up in my house and perform for me

Gimme a minute

fanboys are a vast natural resource to be exploited and they have little regard for the quality of the product tbh

Tyranny

Why is the consensus that the ultimate form of a narrative work is a live action movie or TV show?

- most people have a tv and an interest in watching things on it
- movies and tv require no active engagement from the audience, unlike books/comics
- movies and tv engage two senses (sight and hearing) simultaneously, unlike books/comics

movies and tv require no active engagement from the audience

clearly you've never dealt with the Verizon FiOS user interface

Why is the consensus that the ultimate form of a narrative work is a live action movie or TV show?

there is no consensus, this kind of talk is marketing/Netflix

movies and tv require no active engagement from the audience, unlike books/comics

except they do require active engagement: message board threads, water cooler discussions, AV Club reviews, essays about how TV IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF NARRATIVE WORK

live theater just doesn't exist in the popular consciousness

"Just another day in paradise, okay?" April 2017 President Trump and oppo dump thread

Mentioning the production-side of the equation is more of a red herring; I'm more interested in why the fans fantasize about their favorite materials being adapted to some kind of visual medium.

there is no consensus, this kind of talk is marketing/Netflix

This tendency I'm pretty sure predates Netflix and the adoption of everywhere-internet, even. I remember in the early/mid '90s Wizard (lol) doing a regular feature where they fantasy cast comics series into movies. The appetite for film/tv adaptation has been there for a LONG time: the Tim Burton Batman was a Big Deal.

- movies and tv require no active engagement from the audience, unlike books/comics
- movies and tv engage two senses (sight and hearing) simultaneously, unlike books/comics

These points seem like a good jumping off point -- my initial thought is that most people lack the imagination to fill up a non-visual narrative sufficiently to make it a mentally multi-sensory experience. I also feel that there's something to be said about photographic/filmic reproduction (I'm venturing into half-remembered Bazin), that all works of narrative arts should aspire to be presented as a performance that captured on camera.

Why is the consensus that the ultimate form of a narrative work is a live action movie or TV show?

this question makes unwarranted and unsubstantiated assumptions. first there is no consensus involved. when there is disagreement there is no consensus and I disagree. second, there's no 'ultimate' involved. narratives saturate our discourse. different forms have different strengths and accomplish different ends.

novels can do things movies and tv cannot do. listening to a storyteller can do things novels, movies and tv cannot do. movies and tv can do things novels and storytellers cannot do. live theater can do... well, you get the idea.

Still tho

Tyranny

I mean that word shoulda been used to bludgeon the proponents in the original such thread ('humour' iirc) to death nb not NV obv

my initial thought is that most people lack the imagination to fill up a non-visual narrative sufficiently to make it a mentally multi-sensory experience

this is a cynical and probably incorrect assumption to make

Still waiting Shakey