Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Ponyo (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Michael, simply because of the comment that the reviewer made that he considered it a remake.

The reviewer made no such statement. Other people may have, but the reviewer did not.

Originally Posted by kemcha


What we're simply saying is that Ponyo is not a remake. That's what we're commenting on.

That's fine, but it's a discussion with what you called (in a different context) "community members". It's not a response to the review, and it's certainly no reason to ask for a note repeating something that is already stated in the review.

(BTW, the reviewer's name is Matt, not Adam.)

 

[RickER]

Something to ponder...

Japan and the US are both Region A. They tend to have a higher price point on Blu-ray titles in their own country. So if a US title of one of their movies is cheaper, and has the same quality, or dare i say, is even better, they would have a large amount of people buying the US version, and not the Japanese. Even with import mark up, and shipping a US title would be cheaper to buy (in many cases) than the Japanese version. Go look at the price of stuff on Amazon.jp, its insane what many titles cost.

Also, I have seen a number of anime titles on Blu-ray in Japan that are not available here. Tenchi Muyo the Movie ( Blu-ray) being one i looked at, doesn't have an English dub on it ( no surprise) and it also doesn't have English subs. So, unless you speak Japanese its no good to most of us.

I assume its all to keep people buying the title in their own country, with the studios that have distribution rights in each country. Even if it is the same region code.

Just a few things i was pondering.

 

[kemcha]

Michael, I suppose your right. What we're debating is the comment/statement that Adam made:

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich



I look at this release essentially as a remake. If it were a live action film it would have been an full scale remake with a new cast. Since its animated Disney was able to use the existing footage and just "remake" it by recasting the voices.

This is what's being refuted here and I think that Adam didn't choose his words carefully enough. Most anime fans are very knowledgeable and informative about how anime licensing works and the process by which anime is released. In the case of the Studio Ghibli movies, this is widely available news as Hayao Miyazaki had some huge reservations about his movies being released in North America. This stems from the previous 80's release of his fan-favourite anime film, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

The movie was horribly edited and recut, turning it into a real remake of the original movie. It resembled nothing of the original movie. However, this changed when Disney approached Studio Ghibli about releasing the Studio Ghibli catalog of titles into the United States. Miyazaki had one stipulation, that nobody at Disney be allowed to edit one single piece of footage in any of his films.

By Adam's comments, every single foreign movie is a remake because they make use of English dubs. This is a big fallacy that exists among those studios who release classic foreign films into the United States. Godzilla, Gamera, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Bruce Lee movies, Jackie Chan movies, and so on ... they're all considered remakes because they use English dubs? I douobt you could find a single consumer who would agree with you on that point.

A remake makes the assumption that the original film/video is reproduced or reinterpreted, much in the same way that movies like The Ring and The Grudge have been remade. Those are true remakes and define that category. Ponyo doesn't even come close to fitting that category where it comes to the definition of remake. By that glance, then you would have to reclassify every piece of film that has been transfered to Blu-ray as a remake because the audio or English dub that accompanies each piece of video had to be enhanced in order to improve the audio for the new HD format.

 

[kemcha]

(Continued)

You just cannot apply one standard to live action work and then a different standard to animation. Because it's uneven. It's just disrespectful to the original creators of that work.

What we're saying is that dubbing a piece of work from another language into English is not considered a remake.

English dubbing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubbing_(filmmaking)

What is a remake? The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source. For example, 2001's Ocean's Eleven is a remake of the 1960 film, while 1989's Batman is a re-interpretation of the comic book source material which also inspired 1966's Batman.

 

[TonyD]

Even though Adam hasn't responded to it, I still think he was just making a point by saying it's a remake, not that he believes it to be a straight remake, (I hope).

 

[Edwin-S]

Frankly, his use of the word "remake" (used incorrectly) isn't nearly as bad as his belief that the original voice actors of Japanese animated films can be easily dumped and replaced because, unlike the actors of live action Japanese films, they don't add anything to the character since the character's "performance" is totally dictated by the animator. I hope that attitude never catches hold with companies releasing anime in the U.S., especially with a company like Disney which is always looking to cut costs. It would be disastrous for real fans of anime: who want the original voices left intact on anime releases.

 

[kemcha]

To be frank, I don't see how Adam thinks it's a remake. The terminology that he may be using is a very broad technical definition of the term, which could be used to apply to every form of video production ever made. That includes movies, television shows, animated productions, music videos and the like.

I just have a hard time in understanding how someone can associate the addition of an English audio track as akin to being a remake. Most look at remake as a dramatic reproduction of the original, not a copy, which is what Ponyo is. I could invite a veritable ocean of people who would disagree that adding an English audio track constitutes a remake.

It would be helpful if Adam could be a little more descriptive as to why he believes it's a remake. Simply stating that it's a remake and then leaving the conversation there does nothing but stimulate animosity from those who appreciate the Japanese anime genre.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by kemcha

To be frank, I don't see how Adam thinks it's a remake. The terminology that he may be using is a very broad technical definition of the term, which could be used to apply to every form of video production ever made. That includes movies, television shows, animated productions, music videos and the like.

I just have a hard time in understanding how someone can associate the addition of an English audio track as akin to being a remake. Most look at remake as a dramatic reproduction of the original, not a copy, which is what Ponyo is. I could invite a veritable ocean of people who would disagree that adding an English audio track constitutes a remake.

It would be helpful if Adam could be a little more descriptive as to why he believes it's a remake. Simply stating that it's a remake and then leaving the conversation there does nothing but stimulate animosity from those who appreciate the Japanese anime genre.

It is due to the fact that you are taking his use of the word "remake" too literally. He was not intending to suggest that the film was a literal remake by the use of an English dub. He was suggesting that using an English dub makes the film more accessible to the average U.S. film patron. By that, I mean a non-anime fan. His use of the word "remake" was unfortunate, because his real meaning was "Amercanization", as in the use of an English cast, allows the film to be easily "Americanized" and, therefore, more accessible to a wider audience. With foreign animation it is, supposedly, easy to do this by replacing the voice cast with an English cast. "Americanizing" a foreign live action film is more difficult. In most cases, it requires a complete re-filming and/or reinterpretation. It can be done through English dubbing; however, the results are usually poor.
The preceding is what I think he was trying to say when he used the word "remake". He can correct me if I'm misinterpreting his remarks. I don't necessarily agree with his view regarding the dubbing of anime, but I can see what his actual intent was when he used the word "remake" in such a broad sense.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I don't want to get into a debate on the remake comment. What I would ask is that in the future, if an HTF review is being done on a foreign film where the English dub is being featured - animated or not - that the reviewer include a brief report on the original language track, and whether it has proper English subtitles.

We don't need a huge description, but this thread initially contained erroneous information about what the subtitle track was (SDH, which is what you get listening to the English track), which in my case caused me to not purchase the title while it was on sale, and now it gets backburnered or not bought at all - which I doubt the studio was hoping for in sending out a review title.

 

[kemcha]

Edwin, the problem is that he compared the film to being a remake, when it really isn't I don't how else to put it. It has nothing to do with being technical, it either is or it isn't, there is no in-between.

According to the definition from Merriam-Webster, the explanation of "remake" is defined as "to make anew or in a different form." There is nothing technical about that definition. To remake something simply means that you have taken the original work from the original creator and that youo actyually re-create the entire piece of work. In the case of the Ponyo anime, nothing was changed in the anime itself. Matter of fact, the original anime is intact, nothing has changed and so it doesn't fit the definition of being a remake.

If Ponyo was a remake then Disney would have taken the original concept and created their own interpretation of the anime film. Matter of fact, Japanese anime studios recently did a remake of the Lilo and Stitch animated series and created original episodes for release in Japan. The same "remake" ideology was conducted with the "Powerpuff Girls" in which it was remade into an anime series.

Those are the real definitions of "remake." Simply adding an English dub doesn't classify it as a remake.

 

[Carlo_M]

Does anyone know why when the disc starts and English is the default language, the Blu Ray menu says 103 minutes running time, and when I change to the Japanese language version, the running time says 100 minutes?

Thanks!

 

[kemcha]

Carlo, most anime films are set to default to the English dub audio track. Since the film is longer in the English dub, I would guess that it's due, in part, to the extra credits that are at the end of the film that also contain credits for those working on the ADR for the film as it would be released in North America.

 

[Carlo_M]

If it's only due to longer end credits (assuming English language credits) then that's okay. I just want to make sure the cut of the film isn't different.

 

[JediFonger]

i emailed AND called about:
1. DTS-HD MA Japanese dub
2. TWO separate Japanese subtitles, 1 based on ENG dubs/script and the other based on the Original Japanese dub script
3. Begged them to release Nausicaa w/the above modifications!

i told them i had to spend $90 to import the Japanese as well as purchasing this for the Lassetar/Miyazaki interview. they said they received other complaints mostly about the soundtrack. but not about the other items =P. i think the subtitle is just as important. just my 2cents =P

 

[kemcha]

I received a response from an industry insider, John Oppliger, who has a much deeper insight into Japanese anime than anyone here. John Oppliger writes articles and answers questions from the anime community for the Anime Nation website blog, Anime Nation.net. I emailed him asking him if Japanese anime that is English dubbed is considered a remake. His response:

To be honest, the "sub versus dub" debate has raged for decades among English speaking anime fans, and nothing I can say will bring any resolution to it. Rather than rehash the entire debate and all of its varied points, allow me to concentrate very precisely on addressing only the question you've posed. I agree with the observation that calling dubbed anime a "remake" is a bit extreme. In common use, the term "remake"denotes a completely new product based on an earlier work. Since English dubs don't utilize original animation footage, they're not entirely new, previously unseen work. Adding to or revising an existing production is definitely different from creating an entirely new production inspired by an earlier work. Rather than calling dubbing a "remake," it should be more accurately described as a new or re-interpretation of an existing work. In the case that a dub strives to be a faithful recreation of the original dialogue track in a new language, it may be called a translation. In a situation such as AD Vision's English dub of "Ghost Stories," in which the original Japanese presentation was a serious horror drama and the English dubbed presentation was a comedy, the dub should be accurately defined as an adaptation or reinterpretation.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

It is due to the fact that you are taking his use of the word "remake" too literally. He was not intending to suggest that the film was a literal remake by the use of an English dub. He was suggesting that using an English dub makes the film more accessible to the average U.S. film patron. By that, I mean a non-anime fan. His use of the word "remake" was unfortunate, because his real meaning was "Amercanization", as in the use of an English cast, allows the film to be easily "Americanized" and, therefore, more accessible to a wider audience. With foreign animation it is, supposedly, easy to do this by replacing the voice cast with an English cast. "Americanizing" a foreign live action film is more difficult. In most cases, it requires a complete re-filming and/or reinterpretation. It can be done through English dubbing; however, the results are usually poor.
The preceding is what I think he was trying to say when he used the word "remake". He can correct me if I'm misinterpreting his remarks. I don't necessarily agree with his view regarding the dubbing of anime, but I can see what his actual intent was when he used the word "remake" in such a broad sense.

You pretty much nailed it Edwin, thank you. With a live action film the only way to "Americanize" it is to do a "real" remake--new script, new cast, etc. With an animated film you can just recast the voice actors and walla an "Americanized" version of the film.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

What I would ask is that in the future, if an HTF review is being done on a foreign film where the English dub is being featured - animated or not - that the reviewer include a brief report on the original language track, and whether it has proper English subtitles.

Good feedback. Thanks Jeff.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

It would be disastrous for real fans of anime: who want the original voices left intact on anime releases.

Please note that I feel very strongly that this should be included on all releases (in lossless no less). Just like the original mono tracks should be for films that have remixed audio.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Those are the real definitions of "remake." Simply adding an English dub doesn't classify it as a remake.

Jaref-
I have tried indicating that you are talking things too literally. I have been trying to communicate a concept that happens to be my opinion. You are too wrapped up in specific words that you aren't seeing the forest through the trees. See post #76 above as Edwin did a nice summary of what I was trying to communicate without using the "R" word.

 

[kemcha]

Adam, my apologies. It was never my intent to create friction on this subject nor to start an argumentative discussion. There are, what I would call, several groups of core entertainment fans who believe so strongly in a certain area of entertainment and while I'm not a hardcore fan of anime, I have been collecting this form of entertainment, watching it and reviewing it that I happen to know much more about the genre than your average viewer.

My insistence on the issue that the term "remake" wasn't used properly in describing anime is well defended by even those professionals in the business. The thing is that many entertainment enthusiasts still look down on anime as being cartoons and unfairly categorize them as cheap, childlike and not very entertaining.

I just think it's important that respect to this form of entertainment be given the same respect that other forms of entertainment for "home video" is shown by many of the members and reviewers here. This is why I have just recently posted a response I had received from John Oppoliger, who likes detailed articles about the anime industry over at the Anime Nation.com website. He's been writing and reviewing anime on their website for almost as long as I have been collecting it. Matter of fact, he's contributed to many published books that have been written on the subject of Japanese Anime and Manga and is highly regarded among many anime and manga publishers in North America.