Pokémon: Detective Pikachu

Only thing off is the eyes in my opinion. They kind of pop out from the rest of the body. I'd be fine with it otherwise though.

Eh, lots of real animals have eyes like that. I don't know mice enough to say they're one of them, though.

Pokemon are Cartoon Animals, not real animals

edited 16th Apr '16 5:33:18 PM by flameboy21th

I find the eyes more convincing (they remind me of my dog's eyes), but that's why opinion. Pikachu has rather odd proportions for a mouse anyway, being so round and chubby with thin ears and a short nose.

It would be interesting to see how they could take the colorful and anime feel of the creatures and have them be in live action, which is why I feel that it wouldn't work as a realistic film.

Hence, it going the Speed Racer route (which has become a Cult Classic for good reasons, not the reasons as to why Birdemic and the like became cult classics) I feel would be the best choice.

Studios don't want to film Cult Classics that bomb at the box office, no matter how beloved they become over time.

Yeah you don't want a movie that is gonna bomb, ever. Even niche films that accept lower profit margins still have to be profitable.

That is the truth, unfortunately. Hence why there are fewer risks being taken in the movie industry.

What interests me about Legendary's position in the whole war is how Universal Pictures could tie in to this. You see, Legendary has had a five year motion picture financing/distribution agreement with Universal since 2014, and Universal jumped on board with the Warcraft movie once Warner Bros. let Legendary go.

Should Legendary win the rights, there is a pretty certain chance they'll take the project to Universal and they'll split the rights between the two studios, similar to how the Fantastic Four film rights are shared with Fox and Constantin Film. This basically would give Universal yet another franchise to bank on should it prove successful.

Why would Universal definitely want in? Last year, they signed a deal with Nintendo that granted Universal rights to use pretty much all of their characters in the Universal theme parks, with Pokemon likely included in the mix even though that franchise isn't wholly owned by Nintendo. Chances are Universal will want to add to that deal's value, and owning the Pokemon film rights, or in this case at least part of it, would be a big step to that goal.

edited 16th Apr '16 6:21:06 PM by Mario1995

Thread name changed per request.

Hollywood can still take risks, but they take those risks with the project that has less money on the line.

I dunno, Edge of Tomorrow, Mad Max:Fury Road, Kingsman, Guardians of Galaxy, etc...seems like that Hollywood isn't entirely too scared of taking risks.

I wouldn't call any of those movies risks

Edge of Tomorrow has Tom Cruise, aka a license to print money despite his later controversies

Mad Max is pretty much grandfather claused

Kingsman...... eh I guess that counts

Guardians of Galaxy was Marvel, aka license to print money

Pokemon is so goddamn big it's basically impossible for this movie to not make bazillions, no contest. Doesn't matter if it's a Better than Sex or a Fuck You, you've got instant cash upfront.

Yes, they are.

Decision to have A list actors like Tom Cruise IS a risk.

Oh he grandfather claused it...as well as being a grandpa who was stuck with the movie for over a decade because he kept on using (what is considered) outdated and expensive method. That stuff used to be in a real Development Hell.

Oh, it's a Marvel title all right....extremely obscure one, that is. The director even went on to say that if he had a penny every time someone said the movie would fail, he would have about as much money as the movie actually made (it's tons).

A List movie stars being a risk seems counter-intuitive.

Casting A-list actors cost a lot.

And Tom Cruise had to regain a lot in people's eyes, at least, because of his ties to that cult church of his and his behavior on the Oprah show.

We've seen over and over just casting an A-lister, even at the top of their game, doesn't have to equal a box office hit if the movie isn't appealing. I suspect it's partially because nowadays, people follow the movies for being movies, and the actors for their private lives.

I don't think fans of Pokemon would sit well with Hollywood casting an A-list star as the lead role. Given all the furor going on with the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the Ghost in the Shell movie I'm not sure if any of the bidding studios would risk seeing similar backlash.

edited 17th Apr '16 5:38:25 AM by Mario1995

But tell me....

....What about....Morgan Freeman as Professor Oak?

Cool.

The backlash against Johansson being cast as the Major has nothing to do with the fact that she's an a-list actress, it has to do with them casting a white actress to play a japanese character.

A Japanese character with a fake Japanese name and a body that can and has been switched around with other bodies of various genders and ethnicities.

Strictly speaking they'd be whitewashing this movie too but I doubt the fanbase would care nearly as much.