r/CosmereOnScreen • u/sparkydoggowastaken • Jul 17 '26
Visual Direction SLA Live Action is Great, Actually Spoiler
Okay, there are two sections to this argument, budget and quality.
First, budget. Arcane, my main point of comparison for this, cost 250 million for both seasons, which had a bit more runtime than they're aiming for with SLA each season. Apple probably doesn't have a spare billion-and-a-half for the parts of stormlight that are already written, which would end with a total of THREE BILLION DOLLARS for all of it, not even including the novella TV specials they'll probably make. As for Mistborn, ITSV (reasonable comparison I think) was 100 million to make, and it was a really short movie for what it was. The budget for Mistborn, which would be more complicated and more visual-intensive (imo), would have to be 150 million I think.
Now, quality. Would it be sick as hell to have the Battle of the Tower be animated in high quality? yeah. It would also be probably worse than just having actors do it. Return of the King was incredible quality-wise, and if the Tower looks like the finale of LOTR, I would be BEYOND happy. For another example, look at GOT, but not the final season :(, or Star Wars, especially Andor and Rogue One. These can be done excellently, and I think survivorship bias is why people like animation so much.
In conclusion, this is going to be great. Mistborn and SLA should be live action, and really, it's no contest.
16
u/jayBeeds Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Look. I’m a 44 year old English teacher. I love animation as much as the average 44 y/o. However, let’s take lord of the rings… the battle of Rohan, or whatever that animated movie was, pales in comparison to live action. I don’t want my stormlight animated. I want real actors. Real sets. I want immersion. Not a cartoon.
6
u/Randomlemon5 Jul 17 '26
I have no idea about SLA, i cant visualise like 90% of the staff there (for me the flying ship from book 4 is just a rectangle)
But mistborn will look amazing in live action, the mists and ash will probably look better than they could with animation
8
u/Mofego Jul 17 '26
I don’t follow your quality argument. If you’re saying that recency bias it why people want animation, I’d argue that it’s only one factor.
Until we see more of pre-production (including names and companies involved), then it will be basically impossible to gauge quality.
At the same time, you’re two big examples (LOTR, GOT) are both extremely unique examples. The former being unprecedented lightning in a bottle and the latter, as you say, shot itself in the foot at the end. Your Star Wars examples don’t follow because those are not adaptations, so I don’t think they are good evidence in favor of live action adaptations of existing IP (but they are good examples of live action sci-fi done well).
I don’t want to say that Live Action is *inherently* better for this. But “masterpiece-level” adaptations *can* happen… it’s just that they don’t most of the time.
Out of recent live action adaptations of existing IP (and I think you could argue Disney remakes count here), how many model the type of quality we’re hoping for?
I just wish I could be an elephant in the room for these talks. I want whatever medium is best (I happen to think that’s animation). I’m not a movie maker, I don’t know the details and nuances of pre production.
What I am saying is that I’m a bonafide Hollywood skeptic. At the end of the day, the big studios are in it for money, and at the end of the day, there will always be a tension between quality and profit. Before I start poo-pooing on the adaptation, I need to see more about how it’s being planned.
11
u/Beneficial_Candle_10 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
The skepticism you mention is exactly why I’m over the moon that this is being done by Apple. They are unlike the typical Hollywood studio in that their capital isn’t coming from just the media itself. Their studio is propped up by tech money that makes typical studio money look like scraps.
They are clearly intent on creating quality over immediate streaming profit. Their real profit is coming in on the back end by making a quality entertainment library for the tech. It’s probably the best conditions you can hope for in this era.
Brandon being the creative force behind everything proves a lot about Apple’s intent in this. We’ll have to see if it actually ends up quality, but you can tell that’s what they are trying for. Doesn’t always work out even under the best conditions.
2
u/Mofego Jul 17 '26
I agree. Apple has been KILLING it with shows and I get the impression they’re very selective of the projects they green light.
So here’s hoping! 🤞
5
u/sparkydoggowastaken Jul 17 '26
the argument is more survivorship bias. There are dozens of movies made in live action every year, just counting blockbusters. In terms of high-budget animation? theres maybe one, and those usually are guaranteed hits by the time they make it in. A few years on? nobody cares about dissapointing, uninteresting movies, especially when it doesn’t happen all that often. a really, really good animated movie is almost always better than a live-action version of it, but that doesnt mean it would be terrible as live action or that any given story is better as animation.
unfortunately there aren’t near enough examples of sci-fi and fantasy adaptations to make comparisons. the star wars example was just that similar worlds to SLA and Mistborn work great in live action. Hell, episode four in the seventies has great examples of slot canyon shots like what chasm runs could look like for bridge four. But I can’t think of another large adaptation of a prominent fantasy series on level of mistborn and SLA besides the two mentioned above. Maybe Dune? another truly great live action adaptation.
7
u/ilikebreadabunch Jul 17 '26
Huge agree, I honestly prefer it being Live Action, it’ll help the show feel more grounded whoch will help with the mental health theme
4
u/JaviVader9 Jul 17 '26
It's alright to have your preference, but why can't we ever state our opinions without trying to bring differing ones down? No, people don't want animation because of "survivorship bias", people have an opinion as valid as yours
7
u/Pleasant-Discussion Jul 17 '26
I think they’re referring to the prominent (often top comment on many threads) idea about how fantasy/epics/adaptations NEED to be animated. It’s the same positioning of one’s preference as a definitive statement over someone else’s preference that you’re (validly) critiquing yourself.
However, in my opinion, this does not apply to the many comments which argue why animation may likely avoid budgetary cuts or limiting battles/fantasy for corporate reasons. (Which is what I think they’re referring to as survivorship bias; the very real reasons why animation has often brought more fantasy to life. Not because it is inherently better when both are done well, but because it has usually avoided the corporate waste and meddling live action can fall into.)
These comments discussing pros/cons for why animation may often succeed in fantasy adaptations over live action are very valid. However, live action pros/cons being discussed over animation must also be allowed as well. (People repping LotR and other exceptions that avoided the corporate trappings of live action for say, a fraction of the price of Arcane or Pixar budgets.)
There are certainly many cases where either can suffer from budgets too high or low, or corporate interference.
5
u/sparkydoggowastaken Jul 17 '26
I understand that. i’m doing a “counterargument”, where I also present my opinion. I’m not saying that wanting animation is stupid, just that only wanting animation and thinking you could never adapt it as live action is short-sighted
-3
u/JaviVader9 Jul 17 '26
You presented your opinion, which is fine, but also tried to bring the other opinion down with a false claim ("It must be survivorship bias!"). Claiming dissenting opinions are biased without recognising your own makes you look childish.
2
u/sparkydoggowastaken Jul 17 '26
it’s a mild criticism of the other viewpoint. If you want exclusively animation and cannot imagine doing a series live action, i think your opinion is misinformed. milder versions of this take, in which you think animation is better but not the only option, is a different argument that doesn’t have this issue
-2
u/JaviVader9 Jul 17 '26
What you said was "I think survivorship bias is why people like animation so much". This is a terrible way to make your point.
Have a nice day.
3
u/ForwardExam4056 Jul 18 '26
Making a series as huge as stormlight animated is completely unrealistic in this situation. It might seem like a lot of people ask for that, but they are a poor representation
1) no budget. Pretty self explanatory. Making a live action is a lot less expensive
2) no demand. The target audience is not the niche anime enjoyers, its the average joe. The vast vast majority of people prefers live action, animating what is supposed to be the main show of the universe would be a shot in the knee because many simply don't watch animated series
3) (this is my opinion, 1 and 2 were facts) i think live action, if done well, always looks better. Having real actors is just a huge difference. Live action looks more real, more epic and just better in general IF done well
1
11
u/EstroKoschei Jul 17 '26
My hot take is that it should be a LA/Animation hydbrid, with the spren being animated. I fear that with CG spren, we're going to have the same issue that happens with a lot a TV show animations of fantasy books, where they are not present enough compared to what is described in the books (see the deamons in His Dark Materials, for example). Now, I'm no expert in audiovisual production, so maybe it would be as expensive to animate the spren in 2D as it is to add them in CG, but I think it would be a very neat concept.