Considering the story, what point was there for adaptation to

>>133766885
There isn't. It's an anime adaptation because anime adaptations are the norm for manga. That's it. You might as well ask why The Hunger Games wasn't animated.

>>133766885
Because locations would cost a lot of money. But all in all I loved it.

>>133766978
I'm not talking about the type of a story, but rather how the story is presented.

As an example, Millennium Actress is a story that could just as well be told in live action, but it is the way that it's directed that wouldn't work in live action. You couldn't "copy" it exactly as a live action film and have it work because it uses visual imagery and directing styles that work only, or at least the best, with animation.

But Monster you could copypaste into live action and it would for the most part work well.

>>133767134
>>133766978
>>133766885

maybe
>Considering the story

wasn't a good way to open it up since it kind of contradicts what I was going for

>>133767184
That there's nothing in there in a directorial or screenplay sense that couldn't be done with actors and settings?

I had the same thought when watching it, but it was a nice break from too much highschool set stuff wearing down on me.

>>133766885
If it's just as good, why bother?

Because 3DPD is disgusting.

>>133767134
>But Monster you could copypaste into live action and it would for the most part work well.

How do you do the sequence about the monster without a name in live action without it looking dumb?

>>133769542

Didn't Harry Potter do something like that

File: film is art - war and peace - george lucas and steven spielberg.webm (1MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x480px

Live action sucks and you end up with really shitty performances ruining your story.

Live action film is the lowest form of art.