POV: Live-action adaptations of animated works are a blight on society | An essay using Avatar: The Last Airbender
How Netflix's Avatar: The Last Airbender adaptation doesn't understand its source material and how it is an endemic issue with almost all live-action adaptations
Welcome to POV! POV - or Point of View - is a series where I will be discussing some things on my mind and give my completely honest opinion. It is a very broad category that I couldn’t fit into other series of mine, so I might discuss anything and everything.
Okay, I admit that I am being a bit dramatic with the ‘blight on society’ part. But I didn’t know how else to put it to convey just how strongly I feel about this topic.
A disclaimer: This is going to be a very opinionated article, and my most negative post thus far. I’m not saying that you should not enjoy the works I will mention here. I just have strong opinions about what they mean as an art form, the intentions behind creating these works, and how these intentions have an effect on the legacy of the original work.
What made me sit down and write this article was seeing the promo poster for Season 2 of the Netflix live-action adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender (A:TLA). As soon as I saw it, I felt a surge of annoyance rising within me, so I took a deep breath, took a sip of water, and sat down to write my thoughts.
Believe it or not, I tried writing about this topic before, nearly 2 years ago. Here is the screenshot if you don’t believe me:
That post is still saved in my drafts, with 2k+ words and still unfinished. I decided against publishing it because I thought it was getting too negative and a little nitpicky, which put me in a mood that I don’t like to be in when I’m writing.
The original post was about some of my favorite original works getting subpar adaptations for the sake of consumerism. In this post, I will specifically be talking about live-action adaptations of animated works, mostly A:TLA, but similar points apply to most book-to-movie adaptations. The difference is that books are written media, whereas both animation and live-action movies are visual media, which makes the live-action adaptation approach to animations all the more unnecessary and incomprehensible (except for, you know, more money I guess).
And another very important disclaimer: none of what I’m about to say is written to bring down the young actors in this series. They are very enthusiastic about this series and have very big shoes to fill, which must put a lot of pressure on them. What I’m about to say about their characters doesn’t have anything to do with the actors themselves.
Why does it exist?
There is a reason why we still talk about the original Avatar: The Last Airbender even 17 years after it ended, and not the Netflix adaptation that was released in 2024. I had completely forgotten about its existence until the Season 2 promo poster was released, whereas I still think about the original A:TLA from time to time - how it handled such heavy topics like war, genocide, and loss of loved ones, how it teaches us that power without restraint is destructive and how it shows us that friendship and camaraderie is the key to achieving peace. For a kids’ show, it handled these topics beautifully.
It baffles me how the adaptation manages to miss the point entirely. I try not to go too much into the little details on the exact moments, but it makes me question: why does this adaptation exist? Why did they choose to make it? It doesn’t tell us anything new. It doesn’t give us a spectacle or improve on the visuals - the original show was beautiful and exciting enough. It doesn’t give us more interesting characters.1 It doesn’t give us more dynamic music.
So, what does it give us?
Why does this exist at all?
The most obvious answer is: money. Capitalism. Milking the nostalgia. They can “get away” with half-baked characterization and direction because it already has a really strong fanbase.
But why should I continue watching this with its awkward direction and acting, and less fleshed-out characters, when I can watch the original again?
It says a lot that much of the behind-the-scenes stuff between the actors is way more interesting than what is going on in the show. The chemistry between the actors is fun to see in the promotional material — not so much of it is present in the show.
Misunderstanding the source material
For those who have not watched the show, here is a very short summary of the premise:
Aang, as the Avatar who is the only one with the incredible power to bend all elements and summon the strength of the previous Avatars, needs to defeat the Fire Lord before the latter takes over the world. Aang is the last airbender in the world after a cruel genocide, and he is tasked with the duty to bring balance back to the world.
It has a lot more nuance than just this, but for a children’s cartoon, it handles some heavy themes remarkably well, and the characters are very interesting and multi-dimensional. There is a reason why it’s considered a classic now.
Anyway, I don’t want to go too deep into nitpicking the moments that the adaptation fails at, but I do want to point out something that royally pissed me off when I was watching it:
Netflix’s version of A:TLA is obsessed with power.
And I hate it.
It goes against everything that the original A:TLA stood for. In the original, Aang, the main character and the avatar, was afraid of his power. This pacifist kid, who believed that even the smallest life is sacred, is given the world’s most immense and destructive power.
And he has nightmares about it.
He hurts people with this power, and it deeply affects his psyche. He never wanted to be the avatar, he never wanted this power. Aang is scary whenever he uses the Avatar state, and seeing this peace-loving, happy-go-lucky kid enter such a state is jarring, as it’s supposed to be. All the other avatars that he speaks to have always been understanding of Aang’s struggle with this power.
The Netflix adaptation, on the other hand, loves it. It loves this huge and grandiose show of power. Whenever Aang goes into the Avatar state in the adaptation, we are supposed to be impressed and not sad that this kid’s body is being used as a vessel for destruction outside of his control.
When Netflix’s Kyoshi talks to him about being the Avatar, the dialogue goes like this (emphasis mine):
Kyoshi: There are many dimensions to being the Avatar. You need to be a guardian, a general, a mediator, a guide. You must fill several roles, and many of them require unparalleled strength.
Aang: That’s why I need to master all the bending disciplines? To become strong?
Kyoshi: Yes. And to help you gain control over the ultimate power. […] The Avatar State gives you the strength of a thousand benders.
Aang: I’ve seen it. It’s dangerous.
Kyoshi: If uncontrolled, yes, but it can also be the ultimate weapon, and it can save your life.
Do you see what I’m seeing here? This emphasis on being the ultimate weapon and having an unparalleled strength is upsetting, especially coming from an old avatar, who should know how scary it actually is. We know just how much this power actually damages Aang’s psyche. They had the headstrong and determined Kyoshi tell this to Aang for a reason and not the soft-spoken, old Roku.
Kyoshi telling him this in an almost shouting, scolding way is just infuriating (emphasis mine):
Kyoshi: [Turns to face him again.] And how many have already been hurt because you haven’t been here? [Incensed.] Run away from your responsibilities again, and even more will be hurt! Being the Avatar means putting your duties above all else. Even your life!
[…]
You asked me what it means to be the Avatar. It means being a warrior. [Kyoshi rises as her voice distorts.] A mighty, merciless warrior.
First of all, girl, what the hell are you talking about? Aang, in this version, never ran away from his responsibilities. He just went out to clear his head! He was going to come back! It’s not his fault that he got caught by a storm while he was doing the airbender equivalent of “taking a stroll”.
And Kyoshi, an actual avatar, telling this 12-year-old pacifist monk that he has to be a “mighty, merciless warrior” has to be a joke. Where is the wisdom? What is this power-hungry approach for a show that is supposed to teach us the importance of peace and understanding? Yes, Kyoshi in the original was ruthless when needed to be, but she understood what this immense power brought. I feel like they took the fan interpretation of Kyoshi and ran with it. They did not bother to look deeper. The emphasis on words like “merciless, ultimate weapon, ultimate power, strength” is upsetting in this adaptation and shows me that the writers did not understand the core message at all.
The avatar was supposed to be the bridge between the physical world and the spirit world — someone who brings peace and mediates conflicts. Where did this “mighty and merciless” stuff come from? Since when is an avatar supposed to be merciless?
I don’t know how they achieved this fundamental misunderstanding of Kyoshi’s character. This “girl-bossification” of her — and frankly, many of the other female characters — makes me afraid of what they will do with Toph. Katara is the worst offender so far. She is not strong because she is the heart of the group, she is not strong because she still cares so deeply despite all the hurdles she had to overcome. No, she is strong because she can beat someone’s ass (plus, she realizes her strength because two male characters in the show tell her that she is strong. Like, come on, do I need to say more?)
Bumi, the legendary earthbender, is another adult who is supposed to serve as a guide for Aang. But in this version, he also keeps treating Aang like a carefree kid who doesn’t take his responsibilities seriously - which is SUCH a disservice to both Aang and Bumi. Aang, in this version, is very aware of his responsibilities and never ran away in the first place!
Why are all these adult figures, who are supposed to guide Aang, just keep yelling at him and telling him he sucks?2 What are we trying to accomplish here, hello? If this was an attempt at enhancing Bumi’s character and diving deeper into his characterization, it fails miserably because that is not Bumi. That is not the master earthbender whose whole character is about the neutral jing - waiting and listening. This one is not a wise character.
I think it could have been interesting to see a character study on someone who saw the world crumbling down, having to endure despite everything, and lashing out because of it, but that’s not Bumi. That’s someone else in his costume.
I just… yeah.
Look, I know I said I wasn’t going to go into too much detail, but I get worked up just thinking about it. There are too many things about this show that I just can’t look past…
Like how they decided to explicitly depict the genocide of the airbenders to give the show a more ‘‘mature’’ vibe - because, violence, right? Nickelodeon could never do that, but we at Netflix can do it! Let’s use a whole genocide to show it! Because we want Game of Thrones fans to watch this!3
Like how Aang never has to come to terms with his past “mistake” - the actual Gyatso explicitly tells him that it was not his fault. He never has to forgive himself; it is done for him instead.
It’s all so explicit, nothing implicit, and it makes for a much worse storytelling experience. We are not allowed to come to our own conclusions. We are not allowed to think that the characters are flawed, no way.
Live action as a “superior form of art”
All these live-action remakes make me question this: do stakeholders see live-action as inherently more valuable? Is it somehow superior to all other forms of media that we keep getting live-action adaptations? Or is it just more digestible and marketable to a bigger audience?
As I said above, I can sort of see the value in adapting written works to movies - they are totally different types of media. The Lord of the Rings movies remain incredible, and they don’t take away from the value of the books either. The cinematography, the music, and the use of practical effects combined with CGI all show a certain respect to the original work.
Video game adaptations can vary in this aspect. Video games are also a visual form of art, but the interactivity makes them unique. Did we really need an adaptation for The Last of Us? Not really. It was solid, but not really groundbreaking. Because the video game had already done the groundbreaking part - everyone on this platform probably knows the effect The Last of Us had when it first came out. The game already had great cinematography, great acting, and great music. What did they do differently in the adaptation? Did we get a more thorough character study on Joel’s psyche, or did we just get a more palatable form to tell the story?
But especially when it comes to animations, I don’t understand the need to make it live-action. Most of these animations have magic or supernatural elements in them, which make the live-action look either uncanny valley or straight up bad. Think of The Lion King and its adaptation: which one gives us more emotions on the characters’ faces? Also, despite Disney’s efforts to imply otherwise, I vehemently disagree that it is a live-action adaptation — it is almost entirely animated. Which makes me question, again, WHY did we need this? Why did we need to make another animated movie but market it like it was actual lions on the screen?
I guess 3D, photo-realistic animation is more preferable to 2D, cartoony animation, which is such a shame because hand-drawn animation is so flexible, expressive, and dynamic. And honestly, looks much better. Compare the use of colors and lighting in the image above — which one appeals to you more?
New IP, what is that?
I’ve gotten fed up with this era of remakes and adaptations, especially when they are done with the intent to squeeze out more money and not enhance an experience. A lot of game remasters are actually good because they bring the games to modern platforms and add quality-of-life changes. Or the Final Fantasy VII Remake games — I have my own criticisms about them, but at least they are telling a different story and actually enhancing the characterization. Whether you like it or not, it tries to do something different.
Riding the hype of a successful IP is understandable. Many game sequels reached success this way, to varying results. There is an existing fanbase who want more of just the same, so why not capitalize on that? I wouldn’t normally mind it.
What I dislike heavily is when they do it so haphazardly. It feels like they do not analyze character motivations. No deep dives into world-building. No effort to make the world look authentic.
Animation and live-action have very different principles when it comes to character design. The silhouette for an animated character is important, which is why we have wildly different hairstyles for each character. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a main character who has a boring style in the cartoon. They are exaggerated because animation allows us to suspend our disbelief easily. But trying to replicate these styles in live-action fails, because it just cannot translate with the exact same details. You need to take some liberties, or else the viewer will see it as a wig.
Anyway, I’m getting off track here. What I’m trying to say is that I want to either see new IPs, or adaptations done for the right reasons and not just retellings of the same story over and over and over again. I’m aware that in this world, it’s a very idealistic way to look at it. But it can be done. Just look at Netflix’s Blue Eye Samurai! It’s a new IP, and it was so incredible. Look at Arcane, a video game adaptation, which was amazing, and it tells a completely different story. I did find Season 2’s writing to be weaker than the first, but the amazing art direction is still there. Can you imagine if it were live-action? I shudder to think about it.
Closing thoughts
You can see that I’m especially attached to the original Avatar: The Last Airbender. It helped me shape so many of my core values, and I hold this silly little kids’ cartoon to the highest regard because of this. This is why I got so worked up over it, and needed to rant a bit. As you can tell, I’m very passionate about this.
In this era where we get bombarded with content after content, I think that it’s important to be picky about what we choose to spend our time on, and I refuse to accept subpar media that’s created solely for the sake of profit.
I just need art to be made for the sake of art again, and not for putting the consumers’ minds to sleep.
I find it very disturbing how these CEOs and big suits started perceiving art.
How they see art as simply… content. To be consumed and forgotten.
How they expect the consumer move on to the next big thing immediately after…
Joke’s on them, though. As you can see, I don’t move on. And I encourage you not to move on either. I encourage you to hold on to the feelings you felt while watching a show, reading a book, or playing a game, and to ponder what it wanted to tell you, why you loved it, or hated it. I believe that our greatest weapon against corporate greed is intentionality. Be picky. Be selective. Be critical. That’s how we can value art and help it flourish.
In fact, they butcher Katara’s character in such a way that my blood still boils thinking about it. I’m not happy with how any of the characters were adapted, but Katara’s has to take the crown for the worst one. Again, it’s not about the actress at all - from her other works, I think we can agree that she can act. She’s young and is actually fitting for the role, but the direction they took with the character… I cannot wrap my head around it. Did they see the “hate” that Katara was getting for being sometimes hot-headed and rude, so they decided to trim all her edges? What we got was such a different character that I kept thinking that this was a cosplayer and not an actual character. I can’t help but feel like it’s even sexist to make the girly girl character so mellow and docile. Yeah sure, she’s strong, but it feels like Marvel-level writing with how they decided to make her be “strong” because she “is her own master”. But I just cannot see this character leading a riot in a highly secured prison to free enslaved people, or tricking her own friends while trying to help a village full of sick people, or actually stealing a waterbending scroll from pirates (and she really doesn’t - the scroll is just handed to her by her grandmother in the Netflix show). AND you take her whole intro speech away from her, just to give it to Kyoshi? WHY??
Anyway, I’m calm.
Actually, I know why. Because the adaptation is obsessed with power, as I said. And it finds Aang’s pacifism ‘a weakness’, or ‘something to be corrected’. Because it’s naive. Because it’s idealistic and not realistic. Because it’s not flashy.
But do they realize the reason why Aang was written to be such a peace-loving, conflict-avoiding kid? Because in war times, what we need is Aang. Someone like Aang. Someone who will value peace and harmony above all else. Someone with the ability to shape the world to their will, and yet still puts love and tolerance as their highest priority. Someone who won’t use the ultimate power to harm anyone else. And I think that Netflix finds this boring.
Yes, they actually said that: https://www.gamesradar.com/avatar-the-last-airbender-netflix-game-of-thrones-fans/
I think my biggest problem with live action adaptations is exactly what you talked about how they're not really necessary. The best "adaptations", besides LotR, are the ones that take the world and tell a new story. Like Fallout or Arcane (which you mentioned) or Castlevania or even what the Mass Effect adaptation is going for. The Avatar TLA adaptation should have just been taking the world and telling a story about a prior Avatar not retelling the same stuff. I so so so agree with everything you said and wish the industry would get it through their thick skulls.
I mean even Uncharted told something sort of new, it failed miserably but it was trying to be a different story to the games and that's worthy of appreciation.
Also I haven't watched the Netflix adaptation, Aang doesn't run away he's just going for a stroll?!?! WTF! That's such a core part of his character, taking that away is a terrible decision, no wonder the original shows creators left that adaptation.
Do you know why I love animation so much? It is artistic and also incredibly deliberate. To make an animated TV show or films requires creativity, skill, and a lot of forward planning. When done right, the artists have thought out everything to the nth degree. I can read emotions on animated characters far better than real people too, I can understand what they are thinking better, because the animators have considered the intention far better.
So I was also horrified watching the "live action" Lion King, and how a dead eyed Simba was supposedly grieving over his father's death. I heard the emotion, but I certainly didn't see it.
I can't speak to Avatar The Last Airbender, but I fully believe your opinion on the remake. If anything, it has provided me one more reason to watch the original. I was probably too old at the time it started, but now I know age is irrelevant to enjoy something!