Nickelodeon sets Avatar: Last Airbender sequel for 2011
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Interview with the creators of Avatar.
At the very end, they reveal who Aang ends up marrying and what they think about the Last Airbender movie.
Read the rest of the interview here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010...avatar-the-last-airbender-on-the-new-spinoff/
At the very end, they reveal who Aang ends up marrying and what they think about the Last Airbender movie.
Read the rest of the interview here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010...avatar-the-last-airbender-on-the-new-spinoff/
No big surprise on Tenzin's mother. It's nice to have it confirmed. Around the time the show ended, some of us speculated that she and Aang would repopulate the world with some new air benders.
They were also pretty evasive when asked about the movie.
They were also pretty evasive when asked about the movie.
I laughed at their studiously neutral answers when asked about the Shyamalan movie.
Anyway, the new series sounds intriguingly different. I can't wait.
Anyway, the new series sounds intriguingly different. I can't wait.
It's hilarious. It's like they want to pretend it doesn't even exist.
What did you guys think of the live-action version of “The Last Airbender”?
Konietzko: We’re just really focused on this new show right now, and kind of taking this off in its own direction and not concerning ourselves with that right now.
So you didn’t follow the casting controversy about the movie version of “The Last Airbender”?
Konietzko: We didn’t head up that film. We’re just happy to be back generating the original content in this mythology, which is what we do.
Holy crap, they must have HATED it, LOL. It's funny cause they did a piece on the S3 DVD with MNS where they were praising his vision and everything!
Konietzko: We’re just really focused on this new show right now, and kind of taking this off in its own direction and not concerning ourselves with that right now.
So you didn’t follow the casting controversy about the movie version of “The Last Airbender”?
Konietzko: We didn’t head up that film. We’re just happy to be back generating the original content in this mythology, which is what we do.
Holy crap, they must have HATED it, LOL. It's funny cause they did a piece on the S3 DVD with MNS where they were praising his vision and everything!
I will never understand the "Hollywood" mentality for adapting an established property to the silver screen...
Studio Exec #1:
"Gee, let's take the unique creative forces behind this really popular concept/show and exclude them wholesale (save in name only) from the creative and developmental process of bringing their vision to life, simultaneously giving our handpicked 'Name' director [with his own unique (read as slanted) vision], a shot at doing what these guys already did in the first place..."
Studio Exec #2:
"Yeah, that shouldn't affect the quality of the source material or alienate the existing fanbase at all!"
Studio Exec #3:
"So who are we thinking about putting in the big chair then?
Studio Exec #1 & #2: (responding in unison)
"Brett Ratner!"
Studio Exec #1:
"Gee, let's take the unique creative forces behind this really popular concept/show and exclude them wholesale (save in name only) from the creative and developmental process of bringing their vision to life, simultaneously giving our handpicked 'Name' director [with his own unique (read as slanted) vision], a shot at doing what these guys already did in the first place..."
Studio Exec #2:
"Yeah, that shouldn't affect the quality of the source material or alienate the existing fanbase at all!"
Studio Exec #3:
"So who are we thinking about putting in the big chair then?
Studio Exec #1 & #2: (responding in unison)
"Brett Ratner!"
Wow. When this was first announced, I'm pretty sure it was just intended as a one-off special. I had no idea a whole new series was in the works! Kewl.
The explanation is that the existing fanbase is not the primary audience for a feature film. Any film that only drew in a franchise's dedicated fanbase would be a total flop at the box office, because the numbers would just be way too small. To succeed, a feature film needs to draw in a large general audience. So the studios try to go for what's worked at drawing in general audiences in the past, which leads to a certain homogenization. (And let's face it, usually the existing fanbase will pay to see the film anyway even if they scream bloody murder about it afterwards.)
The other thing to understand is that movie executives don't do adaptations out of loyalty to the original material. Rather, studios need to turn out a certain number of movies per year, and they need to get material for those movies anywhere they can, and existing properties are a useful thing to mine for material because the basic development work has already been done and they've proven they can draw an audience. (And while the existing fanbase may not be enough on its own to make a film profitable, it doesn't hurt to have a pre-existing audience for a property.) The fanbase looks at it as though the process of making a movie is a means to the end of adapting the source material; but to the studio, the process of adapting the source material is just a means to the end of making a movie and hopefully making a profit.
It never seems to occur to these executives that the reasons the fan base love something to begin with might translate to a bigger audience. I simply don't believe that creating a vision much closer to the TV series would have resulted in fewer people going to see the movie.
^That's just not the way they're approaching it. To the executives, any given movie is just one installment in their slate of films, and where it comes from isn't really that important. I've heard stories about cases where movie executives didn't even know that a film they were producing was based on a book. The decision to purchase a book and turn it into a script was made at a lower level. All they knew was that the project existed as a film. And they made the decisions that they thought would make it work as a film.
Of course, in the case of an adaptation of a popular book series or TV series, one would expect there'd be somewhat more awareness of the original. Still, it comes down to the rights of the individual creator to tell a story in one's own way. When you hire a feature film director or producer, you're not hiring them to follow someone else's lead. You're hiring them to make a movie their way. They may be using someone else's material as inspiration, but their job is to create something of their own, to retell the story as filtered through their own vision.
Sometimes that works very well. Blade Runner bears virtually no resemblance to the novel it's based on, having only a few vague concepts and the dialogue in one single scene in common; it's overwhelmingly the creation of Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher, David Peoples, Lawrence G. Paull, Syd Mead, Jordan Croenenweth, etc. And it's a great film -- probably a better work of cinema than a literal adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? would've been. In that case, it worked because the people bringing their own vision to bear had really good ideas and pulled them off really well. But if the people making the movie aren't the right ones for the job, if their ideas for a new approach aren't that good or aren't well-executed, then you get something like The Last Airbender. It's not about whether you're faithful to the original or not, it's about how good you are at making a movie.
If TLA had been made by a better director and screenwriter, they could've made enormous changes from the source material and still produced a wonderful film. Instead, the person chosen to write and direct the film was totally wrong for the job, and so the results were poor.
Of course, in the case of an adaptation of a popular book series or TV series, one would expect there'd be somewhat more awareness of the original. Still, it comes down to the rights of the individual creator to tell a story in one's own way. When you hire a feature film director or producer, you're not hiring them to follow someone else's lead. You're hiring them to make a movie their way. They may be using someone else's material as inspiration, but their job is to create something of their own, to retell the story as filtered through their own vision.
Sometimes that works very well. Blade Runner bears virtually no resemblance to the novel it's based on, having only a few vague concepts and the dialogue in one single scene in common; it's overwhelmingly the creation of Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher, David Peoples, Lawrence G. Paull, Syd Mead, Jordan Croenenweth, etc. And it's a great film -- probably a better work of cinema than a literal adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? would've been. In that case, it worked because the people bringing their own vision to bear had really good ideas and pulled them off really well. But if the people making the movie aren't the right ones for the job, if their ideas for a new approach aren't that good or aren't well-executed, then you get something like The Last Airbender. It's not about whether you're faithful to the original or not, it's about how good you are at making a movie.
If TLA had been made by a better director and screenwriter, they could've made enormous changes from the source material and still produced a wonderful film. Instead, the person chosen to write and direct the film was totally wrong for the job, and so the results were poor.
^Why would they wait so long? I think it's more likely that Tenzin will be an adult mentor figure. They say in the interview that this series will be skewing older in tone and content than A:TLA. (Although I'm sure Korra will have various teenaged friends and allies who just haven't been mentioned yet.)
I don't think the current Avatar has to die before his successor is born. The successor to the Dalai Lama is typically already several years old when they're discovered, right? And I don't think they start looking until after the last Dalai Lama has already passed, though I could be wrong about that.
My guess is that Tenzin is closer to Uncle Iroh in age, and he'll be more of a mentor to Korra than a potential love interest (I'm still worried that Korra will turn out to be Aang and Katara's granddaughter
).
ETA: Bah. I really need to refresh threads before I post.
My guess is that Tenzin is closer to Uncle Iroh in age, and he'll be more of a mentor to Korra than a potential love interest (I'm still worried that Korra will turn out to be Aang and Katara's granddaughter
).ETA: Bah. I really need to refresh threads before I post.
"The Avatar and the Fire Lord" showed Aang being born at the very moment Roku died. Whatever Tibetan belief may say, I do think it's part of this franchise's ground rules that one Avatar must die before the next is born.
My guess is that Tenzin is closer to Uncle Iroh in age, and he'll be more of a mentor to Korra than a potential love interest (I'm still worried that Korra will turn out to be Aang and Katara's granddaughter
Unlikely, because that would make Tenzin her father or uncle, and the press release treats him more as a teacher and says she has to travel to Republic City to train under him.
Besides, Korra is already the spiritual heir to Aang, so it's unlikely they'd make her a biological heir too. Remember, in the original series they deliberately drew a parallel between Aang as Roku's spiritual heir and Zuko as his biological heir. The two were kept distinctly separate and parallel.
Oh yeah, I remember now! Thanks. I'd forgotten about that. I'm going through the series again right now, but I haven't reached that episode yet.
