News Live-Action ‘Cowboy Bebop’ tv series in the works

[JD]

It helps to explain why the English dubs of some Japanese anime often differ wildly from the English subtitles. My guess (for what that's worth) is that at first only subtitles are produced at minimal cost . The dub is created later when the anime gains success outside Japan. This dub uses a new translation that tries to improve on the crappy subtitles. Often it seems that redoing the subtitles is deemed an unnecessary expense.

It's not just anime, the last time I watched Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was the first time I'd watched the dubbed version instead of the subtitled version, and I was amazed how different the dialogue was. I'd always assumed the dialogue in subtitled and dubbed versions of movies and shows were exactly the same, but it was very different, and actually went into a lot more detail on stuff that was either left vague or not covered at all in the subtitles. The dialogue not matching the mouths and the often times back acting in dubs annoy me, but in this case it was kind of nice getting all of the extra background we didn't get in the subtitled version.

 

[Christopher]

It helps to explain why the English dubs of some Japanese anime often differ wildly from the English subtitles. My guess (for what that's worth) is that at first only subtitles are produced at minimal cost . The dub is created later when the anime gains success outside Japan. This dub uses a new translation that tries to improve on the crappy subtitles. Often it seems that redoing the subtitles is deemed an unnecessary expense.

I don't think it's a difference of quality, just of different choices being made. There's no one "right" way to translate one language into another, especially two languages as profoundly different as Japanese and English. The best you can do is approximate, and no two translators will make the same choices of how to do that. And with dubbed dialogue, there's the added factor of having to match the mouth movements and number of syllables, which often requires a less accurate or more embellished translation than the subtitled version.

In a lot of the subbed Japanese shows and films I see, I notice that the translators will often use a range of different synonyms when the original dialogue uses the same word or phrase over and over. English just has a lot more synonyms than Japanese, because our language is more of a hodgepodge. Like, for instance, if a Japanese character says "Uso! Uso! Uso!", the subtitles might say something like, "You're lying! It's not true! It can't be!"

 

[valkyrie013]

Ed's real name is: Françoise Appledelhi and is a her, and goes through a runing gag of people calling her a he.. in the dub it just gets lost in the translation.

If they want to get a Non Binary to play her, egh.. there show, do what they want.

So, having watched the whole live action series, if your expecting .. well anything close to the anime, your S%& out of luck.. names are the same, some odd stories are referenced, but its not really even close. and the whole Vicious/Julia story on almost all episodes is super annoying.

John Cho does a passable Spike, some good moments, Daniella as Faye is.. okay, not really played the same as the anime character. Mustafa as Jet is.. Spot on, he's the best character on the show, and is really close to the anime.
Stories.. Meh, didn't need the brothel, nudity etc. It's quite rated R, I'm of the mind, if it doesn't need nudity or foul language to further the script, it doesn't need it. some anime episodes are done, but done differently, and almost all related instead of episodic like the anime.

But I did in general enjoy it, one of the best anime adaptations there is, but the bar is super low on that.. An ant can't limbo under it.. Death note? DBZ? Blahh... Will watch a season 2 if made, but in general, if your not going to follow the original.. whats the point of doing it.. just alienates your so called "base Audience" and ends up being a forgettable series.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Oh well, I don't understand Japanese so I'd accept the unbiased interpretation of anyone who does. It does demonstrate the folly of relying on only one translation when trying to deduce the subtext of a show in a foreign language. Even if I were to learn Japanese fluently, I would probably apply my own bias on the meaning of the words being uttered.

 

[Christopher]

if your not going to follow the original.. whats the point of doing it.

I feel just the opposite. If all you do is copy the original, that has no point, because the original is already there and duplicating it is redundant. The word "adapt" means "change to fit new circumstances," not merely "copy." The only thing that makes an adaptation worth doing is the chance to do something different with the core idea, to bring out new potentials and complement the original work rather than just being an unimaginative replica.

After all, Cowboy Bebop is inspired by jazz, and jazz is all about improvisation and experimentation and playing around, creating new variations on a theme rather than just following the sheet music exactly. To be true to that spirit, a new version of Cowboy Bebop absolutely should play around with its ideas and elements and put them together in a new and unique way. If anything, I get the sense that the show hasn't done that nearly enough.

 

[valkyrie013]

@Christopher
I agree, to a point.
In adapting other media say from a book or comic to live action, changes will be made, parts of the book condensed characters amalgamated etc. That's expected.
But the core message, the general tone should be followed. You follow the source material as close as you can based on what you can do in the other medium.
In this instance, it was an anime, another visual medium. It could have been copied shot for shot.
But again, not asking for that because you have budgets, limits on actors, etc.
But if your going to call it Cowboy Bebop, I'd expect a close retelling.

In this instance, it's no where close to the original. Story is different. Characters are different, etc.
If your going to tell a different story.. Why name it Cowboy bebop. If you want to tell a different story but want to have it in the same universe, come up with new characters set in that universe.

Fans have a certain expectation when say a book is optioned for live action, the look forward to certain scenes done in live action. Etc. Not bastardized.

 

[DigificWriter]

Fans have a certain expectation when say a book is optioned for live action, the look forward to certain scenes done in live action.

And that's an unrealistic and foolish expectation to have.

@Christopher is 100% correct in his view that there's no point to adapting something from one medium to a different medium if there aren't going to be changes - of any size or scope - made in the process.

In some cases, changing things even improves the source material, such as with The Hobbit and Lord of The Rings Trilogies and the new Wheel of Time series on Amazon Prime Video.

 

[valkyrie013]

@DigificWriter
Agree to disagree. Everyone's opinion and expectation is different.
If you and Chris agree that you want a complete rewrite,other than a faithful adaptation, then that's up to you and it's completely okay.

 

[Christopher]

But the core message, the general tone should be followed.

Yes, exactly. The defining tone and spirit of Cowboy Bebop is jazz. Jazz means improvisation, playing around, going with how it feels in the moment. Clinging rigidly to a pre-defined pattern is anathema to jazz, and thus it would be profoundly unfaithful to the message and tone of Cowboy Bebop to do it that way.

But if your going to call it Cowboy Bebop, I'd expect a close retelling.

Why????? What is even the point of just duplicating something that already exists? It could never be as good as the original. Nothing can ever be as good at copying something else as it is at being itself. So the best thing to do would be to capture the essence of the characters and the world they inhabit, but tell new stories about them, stories with the same style and tone but adding something new. Look at how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken bits and pieces from the comics but put them together in new ways that bring new life and meaning to them. What you need to capture is the core, not just the surface details.

In this instance, it's no where close to the original. Story is different. Characters are different, etc.
If your going to tell a different story.. Why name it Cowboy bebop. If you want to tell a different story but want to have it in the same universe, come up with new characters set in that universe.

That is a profound misunderstanding of how creativity works. All creativity is about taking existing elements and combining them in new and different ways.

Fans have a certain expectation when say a book is optioned for live action, the look forward to certain scenes done in live action. Etc. Not bastardized.

I really, really resent it when people try to claim that their personal prefences represent the monolithic will of all fandom. It's obnoxious, egocentric, and deeply insulting to all of us fans who hold a wide range of different perspectives. I absolutely am a fan, and you have no right to tell me I'm not just because I disagree with you. Good grief, anyone who's spent any time at all among fans should know how utterly preposterous it is to claim that they all share a single opinion about anything. So have the courage to own your opinions as yours rather than hiding behind the obvious lie that everyone agrees with you.

 

[DigificWriter]

If you and Chris agree that you want a complete rewrite,other than a faithful adaptation, then that's up to you and it's completely okay.

There's no such thing as a 'faithful adaptation'; the term is the base definition of an oxymoron.

People very frequently misuse the word adaptation when talking about their expectations for what they want to see when something they love is transferred from one medium to a different medium. What they want isn't adaptation, it's translation.

 

[valkyrie013]

Yes, exactly. The defining tone and spirit of Cowboy Bebop is jazz. Jazz means improvisation, playing around, going with how it feels in the moment. Clinging rigidly to a pre-defined pattern is anathema to jazz, and thus it would be profoundly unfaithful to the message and tone of Cowboy Bebop to do it that way.




Why????? What is even the point of just duplicating something that already exists? It could never be as good as the original. Nothing can ever be as good at copying something else as it is at being itself. So the best thing to do would be to capture the essence of the characters and the world they inhabit, but tell new stories about them, stories with the same style and tone but adding something new. Look at how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken bits and pieces from the comics but put them together in new ways that bring new life and meaning to them. What you need to capture is the core, not just the surface details.




That is a profound misunderstanding of how creativity works. All creativity is about taking existing elements and combining them in new and different ways.




I really, really resent it when people try to claim that their personal prefences represent the monolithic will of all fandom. It's obnoxious, egocentric, and deeply insulting to all of us fans who hold a wide range of different perspectives. I absolutely am a fan, and you have no right to tell me I'm not just because I disagree with you. Good grief, anyone who's spent any time at all among fans should know how utterly preposterous it is to claim that they all share a single opinion about anything. So have the courage to own your opinions as yours rather than hiding behind the obvious lie that everyone agrees with you.

I've stated that it's my opinion, that i like a more faithful adaptation, you've stated your opinion that your okay with it not following the source faithfully and open to interpretation.
Never did I say I speak for ALL fans just as you don't speak for ALL fans. You speak for yourself, as I speak for myself. Others can agree or disagree. It's not any monolithic fan base all agreeing by consensus.
If you want me to say "some fans" would like a more faithful adaptation, I would venture an opinion that it's a majority. But thats my opinion. Sorry if you think me saying "fans" means everyone. That's not a realistic interpretation.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

My two cents is when something is adapted well it will feel right. I don't think there's a right way, it can be quite divergent from the source material and it can be really damned faithful. I don't think there's no purpose in a faithful adaptation and just going from animated to live action alone is going to be different.

@Christopher in the Batman thread tells us many definitive things about what and who Batman is so I think is so while there may be no point to an adaptation without changing it up (and I think that's debatable) we go in with some expectations. Maybe it'd be more productive to focus on why a change fails for us rather than the fact that it changed. Though sometimes we do just want a character or story to be a certain way and that alone is why it may not work for us personally and that is all there is to it but I've seen a lot of comments where people simply state something isn't how the source did it as if that was damning enough.

I think the live action Bebop sometimes works too hard to literally put the anime on screen rather than figuring out how to best make it work within the new medium. At it's best it can be like the anime came to life but at its worst it can be like watching a cosplay skit.

Some of the adaptations I did like as I've mentioned before was changing Spike's slippery shuffling fighting style to a more improvisational one in the live action. It still seems true to Spike's nature in my mind but delivered in a different manner. I felt like Pineda's Faye in as a natural part of this series whereas some of the characters felt like they were dropped in out of a different show. Perhaps the decision to tone down her sexuality also allowed some flexibility with the character. Ed for me didn't work in that brief scene because it was like someone out a cartoon popped into the real world like Roger Rabbit (Actually, I was surprised to find the actor is 13 so I'll give them some slack to find their footing).

 

[Christopher]

My two cents is when something is adapted well it will feel right. I don't think there's a right way, it can be quite divergent from the source material and it can be really damned faithful. I don't think there's no purpose in a faithful adaptation

The question is what "faithful" means, though. When people talk about "faithful" adaptations, they usually mean it in a very superficial way, exactly copying the letter of the text. But true fidelity is to the substance, the spirit of the work, not just its surface. The first two Harry Potter movies are the most slavishly faithful ones to the letter of the books, but they do the worst job at being faithful to their essence, to their sense of wonder and magic. If all you look at is the surface, you miss the heart of the work.

And sure, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing a faithful adaptation from time to time. What I object to is the lazy assumption that every adaptation needs to be faithful. And it's particularly misguided here, because, as I've said, CB is jazz, and jazz is about freedom from strict forms. The fidelity should be to that spirit, to the characters, to the world. Everything else should be freely reworked and played around with.

and just going from animated to live action alone is going to be different.

Which is exactly why it's a bad idea to try to duplicate the visual style of animation or comics too closely in live action. That tends to look campy in a way that the original work didn't. What you want to do is find a way to convey the same sensibility using the visual tools and language of live action, instead of trying to copy how it was done with the language of animation. Fidelity should be to the goals, not just the methods.

I felt like Pineda's Faye in as a natural part of this series whereas some of the characters felt like they were dropped in out of a different show. Perhaps the decision to tone down her sexuality also allowed some flexibility with the character.

The thing about Faye in the show is that, when it comes to her dialogue and behavior, she isn't usually defined by her sexuality. She's not usually expressing herself or interacting with others in a sexual manner, but is more characterized as a bratty, cynical tough girl out to make money by any means she can, and angsty about not remembering her true identity or her past. She just happens to be scantily dressed and striking fanservicey poses while otherwise going about her non-sexual business. It's a surface veneer most of the time. She does occasionally seduce people to get what she wants, but it's a tool in her kit, a facade more than something that really defines her. We do see her genuinely attracted to various men from time to time, but it rarely works out well. Like in "Cowboy Funk" where she thinks Andy is cute and gets herself invited to his yacht, but quickly sours on him when she realizes he's shallow and self-obsessed. And even there, I think she was mainly trying to beat him to the bounty.

So maybe it's not really Faye's sexuality that's been toned down, merely the degree to which her visual presentation to the audience is sexualized. I'd say those are two different things. Sexuality is not synonymous with sex appeal. A person's sexuality is about their own desires and feelings and relationships, about the role sex plays in their life and their view of themselves, not merely how they appear to others.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Why does everyone talk like Joss Whedon wrote their dialogue?

Why Does Everyone In Netflix's Cowboy Bebop Talk Like That?

Everybody keeps trying to out Whedon Josh Whedon.

 

[valkyrie013]

I was hoping that they would portray Faye as someone that was body positive, someone that was happy in there body, and that dressed to say, Here I am, i'm sexy and i know it, and I want you to know it too.

If a guy dresses nicely, or shows off in a low cut shirt, etc. he's not called a slut, or whore, etc. But if a woman dresses up sexy, there labeled as that or Easy, or "Looking for it" alot of Victim blaming, she was dressed like that so she was looking to be harassed. That needs to change, and I was hoping, like the anime version, the live action Faye would help accomplish that.

Thats what I got from the Anime from Faye, I'm sexy, but if you touch me, i'm going to break your fingers, if you call me names, i won't care, or more than likely she'll break there nose for it.

Body positivity, Dress like you want, without regard for what other people think or say. To quell mens "urges" women must dress more modestly, or else the men would go into a rage and attack, thats bull. And women talking about other women.. thats sometimes worse than whatever men would say..

Just be yourself, dress however you like, without regard to other peoples opinions.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The way Faye was attired was the least of the series' problems and it didn't matter to me - her personality was captured perfectly by Daniella Pineda. The whole Vicious and Julia plotline just didn't work that well. The actors were badly served by the writing. Overall I enjoyed it well enough and I don't consider it time wasted but I'm probably not going to watch it again very soon. Here's hoping the writing is better next season - assuming we get one. I don't really think the property has legs to go beyond two or three seasons.

 

[JD]

Doesn't Netflix tend to end of their series that aren't massive earth-shattering hits after three seasons?

So, having watched the whole live action series, if your expecting .. well anything close to the anime, your S%& out of luck.. names are the same, some odd stories are referenced, but its not really even close. and the whole Vicious/Julia story on almost all episodes is super annoying.

John Cho does a passable Spike, some good moments, Daniella as Faye is.. okay, not really played the same as the anime character. Mustafa as Jet is.. Spot on, he's the best character on the show, and is really close to the anime.
Stories.. Meh, didn't need the brothel, nudity etc. It's quite rated R, I'm of the mind, if it doesn't need nudity or foul language to further the script, it doesn't need it. some anime episodes are done, but done differently, and almost all related instead of episodic like the anime.

But I did in general enjoy it, one of the best anime adaptations there is, but the bar is super low on that.. An ant can't limbo under it.. Death note? DBZ? Blahh... Will watch a season 2 if made, but in general, if your not going to follow the original.. whats the point of doing it.. just alienates your so called "base Audience" and ends up being a forgettable series.

I haven't watched all of the anime, but enough to get a feel for it, and I was pretty impressed with the first two episodes. No, they aren't an exact recreation, but I thought they did a pretty good job with the characters, and the look and feel of the anime.

I feel just the opposite. If all you do is copy the original, that has no point, because the original is already there and duplicating it is redundant. The word "adapt" means "change to fit new circumstances," not merely "copy." The only thing that makes an adaptation worth doing is the chance to do something different with the core idea, to bring out new potentials and complement the original work rather than just being an unimaginative replica.

After all, Cowboy Bebop is inspired by jazz, and jazz is all about improvisation and experimentation and playing around, creating new variations on a theme rather than just following the sheet music exactly. To be true to that spirit, a new version of Cowboy Bebop absolutely should play around with its ideas and elements and put them together in a new and unique way. If anything, I get the sense that the show hasn't done that nearly enough.

And that's an unrealistic and foolish expectation to have.

@Christopher is 100% correct in his view that there's no point to adapting something from one medium to a different medium if there aren't going to be changes - of any size or scope - made in the process.

In some cases, changing things even improves the source material, such as with The Hobbit and Lord of The Rings Trilogies and the new Wheel of Time series on Amazon Prime Video.

For a long time, I was right there with @valkyrie013 when it came to adaptations, but over time I'm starting lean more in @Christopher's and @DigificWriter's direction. For me it's not such much about creating an exact recreation of the source material, but capturing things like the feel and the tone, and the heart of the characters. The other big adaptation that started last week Wheel of Time is a perfect example of this, they're changing a lot of the specifics, but they're still follow the same basic outline of the arc, and I'm actually really enjoying it. I'm reading the book along with it, and it's kind of weird, because what's happening is close enough that you can see the influence of the books, but the exact way it's happening is different.
I like to see at least enough stuff from the source that it's at least recognizable as being taken from it. There have been some adaptations that have gone so far off from the source material that they are completely unrecognizable, and I would consider those a bad adaptation.
One recent one that I still haven't decided if I'd call it good or bad would be The Watch. Most of it is so completely different from Terry Pratchett's books that I would want to call it a bad adaptation, but every now and then something from books would slip through that made me start to reconsider. But even if it is a bad adaptation, I actually enjoyed the first episode as it's own independent creation.

I was hoping that they would portray Faye as someone that was body positive, someone that was happy in there body, and that dressed to say, Here I am, i'm sexy and i know it, and I want you to know it too.

If a guy dresses nicely, or shows off in a low cut shirt, etc. he's not called a slut, or whore, etc. But if a woman dresses up sexy, there labeled as that or Easy, or "Looking for it" alot of Victim blaming, she was dressed like that so she was looking to be harassed. That needs to change, and I was hoping, like the anime version, the live action Faye would help accomplish that.

Thats what I got from the Anime from Faye, I'm sexy, but if you touch me, i'm going to break your fingers, if you call me names, i won't care, or more than likely she'll break there nose for it.

Body positivity, Dress like you want, without regard for what other people think or say. To quell mens "urges" women must dress more modestly, or else the men would go into a rage and attack, thats bull. And women talking about other women.. thats sometimes worse than whatever men would say..

Just be yourself, dress however you like, without regard to other peoples opinions.

The problem with Faye's anime costume is that it's revealing, it's that it is so over the top sexualized that there is almost no way to pull it off without it look absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I know there have been cosplayers who've made it over the years, but there's a big difference between fan cosplay and something in a TV show that is meant to be believable as something someone would choose to wear on a regular basis, and can be taken at least semi seriously.

 

[Christopher]

There have been some adaptations that have gone so far off from the source material that they are completely unrecognizable, and I would consider those a bad adaptation.

Fidelity and quality are two completely unrelated issues. There are adaptations that have almost nothing in common with the source but are undeniably good in their own right -- Blade Runner, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, How to Train Your Dragon. And there are adaptations that are slavishly accurate but quite bad, e.g. Gus Van Sant's Psycho or Power Rangers Samurai.

The mistake people make is assuming that the purpose of the adaptation is to serve the original, and that failing to be like the original makes it bad. But that's backward. The original is what it is; it's not affected one way or the other by how it's adapted. The goal of an adaptation is to create something that's good in its own right, using the original as its starting point, its raw ingredients. The idea is to use the original to serve the needs of the adaptation, not the other way around. If you can use something from the original to make the adaptation good, then you use it. But if you can make the adaptation better by ditching something from the original, then you ditch it.

It never makes sense to say that the quality of a work is determined by what you do. If it were that simple, it would be easy to know how to make something good, and everyone would do it. Instead, what happens is that when a good thing comes along, everyone tries to copy it and most of the copies are bad. Which should prove that it's not what you do that matters, it's simply how well you do it.

 

[JD]

I think you misunderstood, I wasn't talking about quality at all, I was just talking doing a bad job adapting the source material.
Like I said after that, The Watch is a not a very good adaptation of Terry Pratchett's City Watch books, but I still thought it was a good show.

 

[valkyrie013]

Painting with a broad brush there. No one says make every adaptation an exact copy. Some stuff that is beloved by a large audience, yes, be close as you can. Others stuff books etc. Can be used as an inspiration.

Case in point for me, Starship troopers. I would love for them to do another movie and be closer to the book, because the 97 movie just took the characters and made up the rest. Crappy adaptation. But the book is not the best either, to much politics, not enough action. I'd rather an adaptation with more battles, actual cap troopers, etc.