I'm not an idiot, I understand the economics of the film industry and the incentive to localise these stories in order to cut costs.
|One is a teenage, Japanese leader of a motorcycle gang in a rebuilt Tokyo.|
The other is a 34 year old American actor whose career highlight was dying from hypothermia.
|One had authored several successful manga series before going on to write the genre classic Akira.|
The other is a video game journalist with currently no completed films against his resume. But that's okay, he's written a couple of comics too...about video games.
|Christian Bale lost over 60 lbs to live up to the lead role in The Machinist.|
Reeves can't even bleach his fucking hair.
San Francisco isn't fucking London either. Grand occult history my arse.
|One was deeply rooted in Celtic Arthurian stories.|
The other was ineptly mired in cashing in on the Harry Potter craze. With Vikings.
And again, relocated to America.
But I worry about the way America constantly recasts itself as the mythic centre of everything. It's a new, distributed age...time to let go of even the idea of a centre anymore.
The recontextualising of Akira to an American setting - "New Manhattan" v "Neo-Tokyo" - just strikes me as particularly offensive, given that a major theme of the original story is the effect on Japanese society of the atomic bomb and the threat of it happening again.
Or to borrow the words of Paul Mooney:
I mean Hollywood is crazy, The Last Samurai starring...Tom Cruise? He's the last samurai? Give me a break, that movie was offensive, I mean hollywood is crazy. First they had The Mexican with Brad Pitt and now they have The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise. Well i've written a film, maybe they'll produce my film. The Last N*gger On Earth starring Tom Hanks, how about that.