Quoted By:
To the people in this thread, I want you to imagine a situation: a Pokémon live action adaptations gets announced, holy shit that is already a concerning scenario. Great directors get attached, great actors, they're basing it on the games, everyone is a huge fan of the series and the project is full of passion, the tone is just right, whatever would make you get into the idea of a live action Pokémon movie. The concept artists are top tier in skill too, but when making the creatures there are two possibilities:
>they stick to the series' lore and designs very strictly, to honor the original idea and stay consistent with the canon, making it a extension of the main series like the spinoffs and manga that stick to the designs and idea even if the style is radically different
>they take artistic liberties and make the designs more biologically and evolutionally(?) accurate and believable, to make it grounded and digestable for the general audience
I'm not picking sides here, I'm asking you to tell us if your stance between those two choices (flying bug that probably has a hard time cutting stuff vs crazy magical ghost in a sword with a scarf). The difference between this and just saying "I like his fanart" or "I don't like his fanart" is the fact that if the jews are making a Hollywood movie and it can have two outcomes, two artistic directions with the same quality, your opinion is more objective and has an impact. It's Pokémon, in real life. What movie do you want to see?
