Thread: Pokemon Live-Action Movie

This, like many things, is an idea that is probably left ignored.
It's one of those pointless "What if" things, where you end up deluding yourself.
Don't bother thinking about it.

Originally Posted by The Zorua

Super Mario Bros the movie was crap. So would a live action Pokemon movie.

That was so crap, it was good. A Pokémon live-action movie though...would be absolutely terrible.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/anime-news-nina/2009-01-21
This sums it up.

I can see it happening ten to fifteen years from now, when it's reached the point in the consciousnesses of manchildren with actual influence that Transformers and GI Joe and everything else has reached now.

And only if WETA or ILM handled the pokies themselves.

it's just a waste of money..

They made a Yatterman movie, and it was awesome. A Pokemon movie could absolutely work.

I think a live-action movie is a plausible concept, as long as the story makes sense.

Depicting the Pokémon themselves shouldn't be a problem—various methods could be used to bring them to life.

The Star Wars films have shown that people in suits make fairly convincing otherworldly creatures, with such creatures as Wookiees, Neimoidians and Mon Calamari.

Puppetry is also a viable option. The 1986 film Little Shop of Horrors gives us an extraordinary example of this in the form of Audrey II, a man-eating plant with a kickass singing voice.

When there is no other choice but to fall back on CGI, I think all I need to say is Avatar and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Rudimentary concepts of what real Pokémon would look like can be found all over the Internet. Although some of these Photoshopped images are rather crude, others are really good.

But visual effects aren't everything. A movie also needs to have a good story. But whether or not the story is any good depends entirely upon the writer(s) hired. And to carry the story, good actors are needed. And to guide the actors, a good director. All of which depend primarily on one thing:

What's in it for them?

A little James Cameron style magic in the movie, and it might turn out pretty well.

We already have twelve *actual* movies, with a thirteenth on the way. A live action movie for the sake of being live action isn't necessary.

Michael Cera is a normal high school boy until he discovers the strange world of Pocket Monsters. Now he's on a quest to catch them all and be the best that he can be.

Michael Cera is, Pokemon.

Originally Posted by Dogasu

We already have twelve *actual* movies, with a thirteenth on the way. A live action movie for the sake of being live action isn't necessary.

And how many of those thirteen movies feature Red, as opposed to Ash?

....

That's right. Zero.

It seems like this thread comes about every few months, so I'll add my two cents like I usually do.

Pokemon Live Action could be okay if the creatures themselves were given a TON of attention and detail like James Cameron's AVATAR. The CGI creatures in that movie were both realistic and imagative.

The only way it would work is if they somehow managed to make the Pokemon look both realistic enough to be believable co-stars next to the human actors AND look true and recognizable enough to not look weird. For example, Pikachu MUST look like Pikachu or else the movie would fail. And Pikachu must not look too cartoony next to a human or else the movie would fail.

So basically, unless they somehow got like a billion dollar budget, the movie would fail.

Originally Posted by InfernoFlames

A little James Cameron style magic in the movie, and it might turn out pretty well.

What? You mean unoriginal, underwhelmingly designed creations that can only brag about the advanced technology used to create them?
James Cameron tends to aim to make a movie as big as possible, with little regard for the actual quality. That is the exact opposite of what a Pokémon movie would need, if it needed to exist at all.

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless

What? You mean unoriginal, underwhelmingly designed creations that can only brag about the advanced technology used to create them?
James Cameron tends to aim to make a movie as big as possible, with little regard for the actual quality. That is the exact opposite of what a Pokémon movie would need, if it needed to exist at all.

But what about Titanic?


As for a Pokemon live-action movie, I really, really cannot see how it would work well. If it all.
The biggest concern would be how the would choose to physically portray the Pokemon in a manner that looked 'realistic'.
Plus, I can't think of a video-game based live-action film I've seen and liked. The Super Mario Bros. film, Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li. That film killed my favourite Street Fighter character, I'd hate to see what it would do to Pokemon for me.

Titanic was a love story on a boat the audience knew would sink.

Not exactly the deepest plot ever.

To be honest, any film adaptation of anything, video game or not, can turn out either way. Try reading the Harry Potter books and then watching the movies. When you're done, read The Dark is Rising and then watch The Seeker. Odds are you'll find the Harry Potter films to be reasonably good adaptations while you'll absolutely hate The Seeker.

And one of the main reasons why The Seeker turned out lousy is because the screenwriter didn't even like the book. Or finish reading it, for that matter.

Another thing: people keep using Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter as example of video game movies that suck. News flash: Pokémon has a far more substantial plot than either of those.