jueves, 25 de julio de 2024

Nuevos comienzos

Las ideologías derivadas de la Ilustración tienen un problema a la hora de conceptualizar la Modernidad. 

    En teoría es una avenida hacia la libertad dentro de un marco de mínimos. Se supone que a partir de dicho orden cada individuo desplegará libremente su potencial y, en consecuencia, los grupos humanos se volverán mucho más heterogéneos. Sin embargo, por mucho que asociemos la Modernidad a la ciencia y el orden, lo cierto es que en el siglo XXI es imposible negar que esta se ha probado como una fuerza profundamente entrópica. En la cultura popular se asocia dicha palabra  a imágenes de caos y destrucción , dejando de lado un aspecto fundamental: a medida que la entropía se asienta en un sistema sus divisiones internas se desdibujan. Es decir, se vuelve más homogéneo.

    Es imposible fijarse en el mundo globalizado o las tensiones presentes en tantos países de nuestra órbita (sospechosamente parecidas entre sí) y negar que esté sucediendo precisamente eso. Nos enorgullecemos de tolerar más divergencias respecto a lo normativo en tiempos de nuestros abuelos, sin entender que estamos peleando con monstruos imaginarios: hace décadas que ese mundo desapareció. Pero eso no significa que haya muerto la normatividad: aunque supuestamente tengamos más margen de maniobra, usamos esa libertad para llevar vidas de lo más uniformes. Si no existiera una norma nuestra cultura no podría haberse vuelto tan sarcástica. 

    Cada día es más evidente que la pescadilla se muerde la cola y nos encontramos en el final de una era.  Esta es la raíz de la polarización que se ha adueñado de Occidente: quienes ostentan el cetro se niegan a aceptar que el pozo de las ideas se ha secado y es la hora de mirar las cosas desde otra perspectiva, quizá una más próxima al hombre de a pie. Con esto no voy a ser equidistante: desde hace mucho la pelota está en el tejado de las fuerzas e instituciones que se autodenominan progresistas. A día de hoy representan el elitismo, el clasismo y el inmovilismo mucho más que los conservadores más recalcitrantes. No puede ser que se asusten cuando cada vez más ciudadanos deciden irse al campo de individuos como Trump pero que su única explicación sea que se trata de paletos fascistas ¡Si la gente se decanta por eso es que algo malo habrán hecho quienes llevan las riendas, digo yo!

    En fin. Insisto en que nos encontramos al final de una era, o mejor dicho: el convulso nacimiento de un tiempo nuevo. Si las clases gobernantes y el establishment cultural se niegan a aceptarlo, tarde o temprano acabarán totalmente desplazados. No hay vuelta atrás, y cuanto más nos resistamos a aceptar esta realidad más agitada será la transición y peores las alternativas. 

    No obstante… es un nuevo comienzo. La promesa de volver a ver el mundo con los ojos inocentes de un niño debería ser suficiente para que aceptemos las privaciones del camino. Cuanto antes nos pongamos las botas y salgamos, mejor.

miércoles, 12 de junio de 2024

Cimientos

    En parte estudié Filosofía para encontrar un camino para explicar la moral al margen de la religión, pero si tras ver lo que he visto los últimos once años tuviera que dar carpetazo al asunto diría que la moral sólo puede existir a partir de la religión. No necesariamente dentro de la institución religiosa, pero sí en la base histórica y cultural de las religiones. No puede existir una moralidad asépticamente moderna, racional y científica; lo que hay de bueno en los sistemas que proclaman serlo en el fondo proviene de tradiciones culturales estrechamente relacionadas con el pensamiento religioso. No olvidemos que una de las etimologías propuestas para la palabra religión se remonta mal término religare, que significa reunir o vincular; y me temo que no sólo en sentido de unir al hombre con entidades espirituales o crear comunidades, sino también ser la urdimbre de la existencia que da sentido a lo que de otra forma sería un conjunto de conceptos y experiencias disparejos.

Muchas buenas personas creen que su forma de ver el bien y el mal es perfectamente autónoma, pero en realidad el oleaje ha desdibujado sus huellas y no ven de dónde han heredado los conceptos que usan o incluso sus intuiciones más elementales.

jueves, 30 de mayo de 2024

Donde acaba la comodidad

Creo que ya podemos afirmar con seguridad que el intento de contener y domesticar el espíritu humano para que no volvieran a repetirse los horrores de la Segunda Guerra Mundial ha fracasado. De hecho, de cada vez tengo más claro que el experimento de amansar a la sociedad es la causa de los horrores presentes... y los que comienzan a perfilarse en el horizonte. 

    Quizá habría sido más sensato aprender a vivir con el potencial monstruo que todos llevamos dentro que desterrarlo a un rincón oscuro y pretender que no existía. Dicho de otra forma: al hombre no le basta con satisfacer sus necesidades elementales o tener comodidades. Para vivir necesitamos creer en algo mayor que nosotros mismos, perseguir nuestras pasiones, tropezar y aprender a sortear los obstáculos. Cuando retiramos de la vida diaria la ilusión o la aventura acabamos inventando problemas y desarrollando extrañas patologías para rellenar ese vacío. Ahí es donde acaba la comodidad y comienza el llanto.

sábado, 25 de noviembre de 2023

Una crítica y una recomendación

Mi reseña de Napoleón de Ridley Scott puede resumirse en la siguiente frase: va dando saltos de un lugar a otro sin hilo conductor, fidelidad histórica o explicaciones convincentes. Disgusta al público sin conocimientos de la época porque no sabe qué está pasando en pantalla, y a los aficionados a la Historia por sus múltiples falsedades y oportunidades perdidas. 
    El proyecto de explicar la carrera político-militar de Napoleón y sus relaciones personales en una sola película ya era demasiado ambicioso, pero la falta de talento o ganas de explicar bien uno de los momentos clave de la historia moderna son lo que ha acabado creando un mal producto donde lo único que se salva es la fotografía.  Muchos críticos ya han señalado extensamente errores garrafales como que Napoleón nunca disparó contra las pirámides de Giza ni presenció la ejecución de María Antonieta, así que dejaré de lado estos elementos concretos para centrarme en aspectos algo más generales...

Contexto

No se explica casi nada del contexto, sobre todo las coaliciones contra Napoleón o por qué van a la guerra. Sólo hay una corta escena del Congreso de Viena al final de todo donde se debate qué hacer con él tras su regreso al trono de Francia. Ni siquiera tocan la restauración borbónica ni la coyuntura que lleva a la restitución de Napoleón en los Cien Días.
    Tampoco aparecen ni Italia ni España (aunque a la primera sí se la menciona de pasada). Prusia se asoma pero está casi ausente, salvo una escena del avance de Blücher hacia la batalla final. No se explica nada de la rivalidad con Rusia y Austria, ni se profundiza en sus respectivos emperadores. Tampoco aparecen las guerras en Europa central antes y después de la invasión de Rusia:  sólo una versión cutre de Austerlitz.

Batallas

Las batallas campales son un desastre: hay poquísima gente cuando deberían ser realmente masivas. Los campamentos parecen diminutos y están a tiro de la artillería enemiga. Hay un exceso de banderas nacionales (¡al menos una en cada tienda!) pero se ven muy pocas banderas de compañías, batallones o regimientos. 
    Las tácticas de infantería consisten principalmente en avances frontales en finas líneas de fuego, nunca se ven las columnas de marcha o ataque. El uso de la caballería es ridículo, sobre todo cuando unos coraceros se meten de lleno en un bosque a perseguir a unos pocos escaramuzadores o Napoleón ordena una carga frontal de caballería  justo detrás de su propia infantería, que ya estaba cargando. 
Tampoco existen las baterías de artillería, sino que todas las piezas estan concentradas en el mismo sitio.
   La maniobra de flanqueo que ganó Austerlitz queda ridícula, y se da una importancia exageradísima al hielo. En algunas batallas aparecen trincheras donde no debería haberlas, pero sin embargo los bastiones en la titánica batalla de Borodinó no aparecen, y la campaña en Rusia se reduce a un montaje de varias escenas de acción confusas. Las emboscada cosaca parece sacada del imaginario popular sobre Teutoburgo o Vietnam.

Personajes

Se deja de lado a demasiados personajes clave. Para empezar, los fundamentales mariscales de Napoleón no salen: Ney, Grouchy, Soult, Murat y compañía parece que no existieron. Tampoco aparecen enemigos fundamentales, como Kutuzov o Nelson. Al faltar tanto contexto (sobre todo la Guerra de Independencia en España) no se explica la enconada rivalidad entre Napoleón y Wellington. Tampoco se da ninguna importancia a las tropas de la Vieja Guardia, ni a su trágico final.


Recomendación final

En fin, es un desastre de película. Si queréis un buen filme sobre Napoleón que refleje la psicología del personaje o la escala de las batallas de la época ved Waterloo (1970). Es cierto que tiene fallitos y se toma licencias, pero es un clásico tan elegante que ni se nota. La carga emocional de escenas como Napoleón poniendo de su parte a los soldados enviados a apresarlo no tienen ni punto de comparación con el bodrio de 2023. Además, Waterloo está centrada en el período de los Cien Días y proporciona al espectador todo el contexto que necesita para entender lo que está sucediendo en pantalla. 

-la comparación hasta ofende-

martes, 14 de noviembre de 2023

What is happening in Spain?

Perhaps some of you have heard that in Spain there are protests by citizens, professional associations and public organizations against a law that the current provisional government intends to approve to gain the support of other parliamentary groups. Many say that this law would de facto abolish the division of powers in the Kingdom of Spain and would put us at the level of a banana republic where politicians from certain parties can commit whatever crimes they want and trample on the rights of citizens with impunity. Fasten your seatbelts, because this is completely true and I'm going to explain you why...

    The story of Pedro Sánchez and Catalan separatism is so long and winding that it would require several articles to explain it in detail, but I will do my best to summarize all the most relevant points here, although feel free to ask me for more details. In simple terms, the following is happening: the current acting Spanish president lost the general elections, but since he came in second place he can repeat his term if he obtains enough support from other political parties present in the Congress of Deputies. To achieve this, he intends to approve an anti-constitutional law that not only grants amnesty to politicians convicted or fleeing from justice abroad, but also completely abolishes judicial independence and grants criminals all available resources so that they can commit crimes again, intention they have already expressed on repeated occasions. In fact, not only will they be given those resources, but they will be forgiven for the titanic debt they incurred due to their abysmal management by taking that money from the rest of the Spanish regions.

    The beneficiaries of the amnesty will be the Catalan politicians who called an illegal independence referendum in 2017. The Catalan independence movement (“Procés”) has a decades-long history of media gaslighting and propaganda; But for the sake of space, here I am only going to focus on the events that led to the conviction of its later instigators.

Before beginning I must make it clear that although I am strongly opposed to Catalan nationalism, I consider the existence of independence parties is perfectly legitimate. What is not legitimate is that in order to achieve their objectives, these parties or those of any other ideology commit crimes, especially when there are legal channels to pursue their ultimate objectives. It is also important to say that not all of the Catalan population (not even half) is in favor of independence or even has a nationalist ideology. In fact, many people are disgusted that their political representatives and neighbors march with torches like the Nazis did, or that they make perverted use of the law to try to prevent Spanish from being spoken in schools. That is why a large part of the secessionist media apparatus has also made an effort to exploit the disenchantment and indifference of the population with Spanish politics in general, something undoubtedly shared in other regions that have to suffer the same as them. The success of these disinformation media has been to make the population believe that local politicians are the lesser evil, when in reality they are at the center of their problems... and those of the rest of the nation.


THE SECESSIONIST PROBLEM

After being warned many times that a regional government organizing a binding vote to unilaterally separate from Spain was illegal, Catalan secessionists turned a deaf ear and on October 1, 2017 organized a illegitimate referendum. Illegal voting was carried out in schools, using children and the elderly in meatshields and coordinating with various foreign disinformation media. Unlike most of the innocent people who voted (if we are to believe the irregular census provided, only two million of the five million local population voted), the politicians who organized it knew that they had no serious chance of achieving anything, but they went ahead anyway to force the hand of the State, which could not sit idly by in the face of such a challenge. They avidly sought one thing: photos of martyrs and repression for the international press. The Catalan population, even those who were not in favor of independence or were indifferent to it, were deceived by the local media into believing that a legitimate vote was taking place, after months and years of ideological bombardment.

    The situation was so serious that there were even fears of subversion in the regional police (yes, the “oppressed” Catalan Generalitat has its own police force), which went so far as to destroy incriminating documents and confront other police forces. In fact, the central government had vetoed the shipment of new ammunition for months, since said force had tried to buy weapons more suitable for war than for police functions. It was later discovered that the Generalitat even had considered the possibility of obtaining support from Putin by creating a military base in the port of Barcelona. Apart from that, there were serious riots in the region by the most radical elements of the independence movement and all types of sabotage were also carried out. Fortunately, many terrorist acts were stopped before they could take place, but their planning has been amply proven judicially.

    At this point it is important to explain several contextual elements that totally refute the secessionist argument that Spain refuses to dialogue peacefully with them:

    Before the illegal referendum was consummated, the then-regional president Carles Puigdemont (successor of Artur Mas, who initiated the secessionist process) was invited twice to the house of Spanish sovereignty - the Congress - and on both occasions he abruptly refused, claiming that he did not want to participate in an open debate: he just wanted to make a speech, without a response or question round. Precisely one of the reasons why all this is happening is that many territorial issues in Spain are discussed behind the scenes: the politicians of the large national parties have a long history of granting privileges and concessions to nationalist local governments in exchange for their support in Congress. All this would change if the Senate fulfilled its function as a chamber of territorial representation, that is, a place where the representatives of the various Autonomous Communities of Spain could openly say what they think about themselves and their neighbors... Perhaps this is how the the international press would see once and for all the hatred, classism and nineteenth-century supremacism of the ideologues of the independence movement when they talk about the ideological basis of their projects.

    The Spanish Autonomic (territorial) system is imperfect, but it is also much more decentralized than that of many federal states. Our Constitution does not have perpetual articles, and in fact it contemplates legal means to alter it or convene a new constituent process. Following the appropriate channels and with a valid majority, the Spanish monarchy could become a republic and the debate on territorial secession could even be opened. However, the leaders of the independence parties and their staunchest followers opted for unilateralism, fake victimhood, and when all that failed, violence; because as their president has already demonstrated, the mask of the peaceful victim quickly slips when they are offered the possibility of having a public conversation about their ideas and they reject it. All of these crimes were financed with public money, that is, with corruption not only towards their own citizens (which would be serious enough) but also towards the rest of the Spaniards whom they claim to hate so much. In fact the unfortunate slogan “Spain steals from us” could not be more false: Catalonia has long been one of the richest regions in Spain, home to many multinationals, with a vast industrial infrastructure, and the seat of many important cultural events; and despite this, it is proven that it is one of the territories where public funds have been managed the worst and money is wasted the most. Despite this, the ex-president of the Catalan Generalitat Artur Mas (convicted of corruption) invented a story of economic grievance with respect to the rest of Spain to try to counteract the massive mobilizations against him during the economic crisis that began in 2008, and in the process attract to the independence movement to non-nationalist citizens, in many cases “charnegos” (i.e. descendants of emigrants from other regions, especially Andalusians) that Catalan nationalist elites have always treated as subhuman.

    But returning to the events that occurred after the illegal vote, the central government chose to apply Article 155 of the Constitution in the most lax and brief way possible, that is, without actually suspending Catalan autonomy when it was legal and appropriate to do so. In my opinion that was a serious mistake. Some "Procés" leaders alleged that they would stay in their positions to resist until the end, deceiving their allies and followers while they fled out of the country, with the intention of internationalizing the conflict and creating problems within the European Union. Precisely this escape precipitated the immediate arrest of those who had stayed behind, so that they would not decide to flee as well after risking the integrity of the people they had deceived.

    The trial of those responsible for the "Procés" was long and complex, but so that there were no doubts about the court's proceedings, there was total transparency, it was followed minute by minute by all the media and live by the citizens. According to proven facts, if we examine the penal code clearly the worst crime committed by the Catalan leaders was rebellion. In fact, the conviction for rebellion was what the state attorney's office and the prosecutor's office requested, and according to judicial sources it was also what the Supreme Court judges saw. Except for the flight of Puigdemont, who lost much of his power, the Catalan issue seemed, if not completely resolved, at least contained and on the right track. A conviction for rebellion could later have been used to outlaw pro-independence parties for crimes in a fair way: for their crimes, not for their ideas or desires.


THE ARRIVAL OF SÁNCHEZ

But this is where the man called Pedro Sánchez comes into play. Sánchez is a politician from the PSOE -Spanish Socialist Workers' Party- who had been expelled from the leadership of his party for his dubious democratic conduct, among other things. However, what the old guard of the PSOE did not count on was that part of the party's bases (those responsible for choosing the candidate) had gradually become more and more populist. Sánchez took advantage of this to, in an unexpected (almost Trumpian) turn of events, be re-elected as a socialist candidate against all odds. Once settled in that position, he called a successful motion of no confidence against the government of Spain at the time (marred by cases of corruption in the conservative party) and called a general election.

    At that time there was a lot of fear that Sánchez needed the independentists, other nationalists and the communists of Podemos to govern. But Sánchez said that there was nothing to fear because he would not agree to anything with them in any case...

    The first thing Sánchez did was change overnight the representative of the State Attorney's Office in the trial of the secessionists. The said body immediately went from requesting a sentence for rebellion to one for sedition, and both it and the Government (in a totally illegal and undemocratic manner) exerted great pressure on the court so that this was finally the sentence, with the most lax punishments possible. It should be said that one of the main differences between rebellion and sedition is the use of violence, and this had been widely proven during the trial. At this moment many people downplayed the issue, despite its seriousness. They believed that it would be a momentary measure to ensure the investiture and calm Catalan politics. But Sánchez obviously did not stop there, because although politicians are generally ambitious liars, Sánchez is willing to transcend all the limits of what is acceptable in broad daylight.

    After this attack on the rule of law, the leader of the PSOE and his psychophants said many times that they would NEVER pardon the secessionist leaders... only to be proud of doing just that a few months later, when they needed their votes to stay in power. Not satisfied with this, and seeing that with the 2020 pandemic (during which the government stood out for its incompetence and illegalities) their position was weakened, they decided to give another gift to criminals: they eliminated the crime of Sedition from the Penal Code, and reduced the penalties for embezzlement of public funds; crimes for which the secessionist leaders had been convicted. And they did all this while the secessionists repeated the same thing over and over again: that they did not regret the damage caused and that they would do it again. Not content with this, Sánchez ignored the pressure from the European institutions, which demanded that the various bodies of the judiciary should be chosen entirely by the judges and placed a majority of his supporters on the constitutional court, foreseeing that at some point he would need them.

    After all these terrible decisions and many others on issues unrelated to this is when we arrive at the current moment. Sánchez and his supporters, before this year's general elections, repeatedly insisted that they would NEVER grant amnesty to pardoned independence leaders (to erase their crimes) or to those who carried out or planned violent acts in Catalonia, much less to the politicians who had fled abroad to avoid being judged. And now, months later, not only are they going to amnesty them all... but they are going to force the judges to close all related cases, they are going to allow those convicted not to return a single cent of the five million euros they stole (only for the illegal referendum, without counting other things) and they are going to forgive all the debt of that regional administration (the result of decades of bad management) with money from the rest of Spain. In fact, Sánchez has already showered the criminal parties with tons of subsidies, and plans to give them control over strategic infrastructure and the total money collected through taxes in the region... so that they can repeat their coup d'état again, but with a greater chance of success and harm for innocent people. But the worst thing, by far, is that the PSOE has included in the pact document the seccesionist claim that in Spain there was lawfare against the independentists, and that for this reason POLITICAL COMMISSIONS WILL BE CREATED TO CONTROL THE JUDGES; just destroying the Separation of Powers, one of the foundations of democracy.... in fact, the key element to preventing tyranny.

    Needless to say, all of this is anti-constitutional in a way so obvious that it hurts the eyes... but do you remember what I said before about the Constitutional Court?

    Faced with this, not only have the constitutionalist political parties and more than a million people demonstrated in the streets of the entire nation last Sunday, but also countless civil servant bodies, associations, professional associations, bodies of the judiciary, employers' associations and many more. But Sánchez is not going to give in because the only thing that matters to him is staying in power at whatever price is necessary. He is not going to call elections now because the veil of falsehood has fallen and he would have to admit his intentions during campaign. If nothing changes, he will call elections in four or five years. His plan: seeing the economic storms on the horizon, let the economy collapse and subsidize large percentages of the population with public money to create a captive vote. The ultimate goal: for Spain to become something similar to certain Latin American republics that Sánchez has as a model, “democracies” where everyone with half a brain knows the corruption of the ruling party but fears losing subsidies. And if he is still voted out of power, then his radical allies (not just the Catalan secessionists) will seriously and perhaps fatally destabilize a new government trying to fix what the PSOE has destroyed.

    This is the most serious challenge that Spanish democracy has suffered, even more so than the attempted coup d'état of 23-F, at the end of the last century. The situation is so serious that only the perseverance of constitutionalists, international support or a miracle can save us. They say that “the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance”, and it is so true that in Spain it was enough for us to fall asleep for a few moments for democracy to crumble. Perhaps we are already lost, but I hope that my story of what is happening here will help open eyes abroad, to prevent the rise of other maniacs blinded by ambition.







viernes, 10 de noviembre de 2023

Es ahora

Las manifestaciones, por masivas que sean, no van a hacer que el actual gobierno decida convocar elecciones. Pero son necesarias para que quienes pueden echarlo o al menos ejercer presión real vean que tienen una oportunidad para cumplir su deber con la constitución y la ciudadanía. Por eso hay que ir, aunque uno no esté acostumbrado, y cuando más seamos más verán quienes aún no se atreven a alzar la voz que no están solos. Y si eso no funciona al menos podrás decir que cuando la casa se desmoronaba te mantuviste de pie y no con la cabeza gacha del esclavo.

    Desde mis días de universitario he despreciado las manifestaciones y el mundo asambleario, y llevo como una medalla el no haber ido a ninguna en todos esos años ni los años siguientes, ni haber permitido que ningún colectivo nebuloso se aprovechara de mi presencia. Pero hemos llegado al punto límite: es ahora que hay que dejar caer el manto de apatía que hemos cargado los constitucionalistas todos estos años, de dejarse ver y hablar claro. Si de verdad te preocupa lo que está pasando haz como yo, anula tus citas del domingo y plántate en tu capital de provincia. Y si puedes convencer a alguien de que se sume a un momento tan importante, mejor.

    Los nubarrones que se nos echan encima son tan negros que no podemos permitirnos los habituales "es que..." remilgados: da igual que haya gente y partidos políticos que busquen capitalizar las movilizaciones, se están desmantelando los últimos resquicios del estado de derecho y la ciudadanía española. Estamos hablando de tiranía, y frente a eso no hay excusa posible: el deber del hombre libre es alzarse y ser un ejemplo para las generaciones venideras 

martes, 12 de septiembre de 2023

Ron en el cartón de leche

Todo el revuelo que está habiendo en torno al live action de One Piece ilustra perfectamente el punto de por qué no me gusta hablar de franquicias sino de obras concretas. Es exactamente lo mismo que valorar la calidad o belleza de una prenda de vestir porque lleva el logo de una marca prestigiosa, o un mojón plantado en un lienzo porque lleva la firma de un artista conocido.
    Hay adaptaciones cinematográficas que, independientemente de su fidelidad al original, son perfectamente válidas como entidades separadas. El Señor de los Anillos, Charlie y la Fábrica de Chocolate o incluso la infame Starship Troopers  (que ni se toma en serio a sí misma) funcionan como productos autónomos: puedes disfrutarlos y juzgarlos ignorando el producto original. Incluso puede que te entren ganas de leer el libro si no lo habías hecho.
    Con One Piece no pasa esto, sino lo mismo que con los fans de la trilogía de secuelas de Star Wars: no os gusta por lo que es, sino por lo que representa o la categoría a la que pertenece. En todas las reseñas favorables que he leído o escuchado se va en la misma dirección: es buena o aceptable por las referencias a otra cosa, provoca sentimientos de nostalgia o es decente si la ponemos al lado de otros live actions que requerirían abrir un ala nueva en el Abismo para contenerlos. Pero si ponemos la serie entre paréntesis y la analizamos por lo que realmente es no se sostiene ni la interpretación, ni la forma de contar la historia, ni los decorados, ni el vestuario. Es decir: si le quitamos la referencialidad es un producto vacío destinado a un público con un sentido de la pertenencia más alla de toda duda, pero una sensibilidad estética cuestionable.
    Además, al ser un derivado de manga y anime, los problemas que vemos en los live actions o las versiones CGI de los clásicos de Disney se multiplican por cien. Esto es así porque la historieta y animación japonesa dependen de un conjunto de recursos expresivos mucho más complejo (y menos naturalista) que el de sus homólogos occidentales. Además las reglas de la "suspensión de la incredulidad" cambian con el medio en que se presenta una historia, y en caso de ciertos tipos de manga son extremadamente maleables.
    Dicho en otras palabras: hay muchas cosas que en anime son aceptables (incluso icónicas) pero con actores reales u otro tipo animación quedan completamente ridículas. Ante esto uno tiene que escoger: diluyes esos elementos hasta que el producto no lo reconoce ni su madre, buscas un incómodo punto intermedio (fracaso asegurado) o te pones las gafas de buceo y das el triple salto mortal, tratando de recrear al milímetro el lenguaje del original... lo que es prácticamente imposible, extremadamente caro y probablemente se acabe viendo absurdo de todas formas. 
    No es casualidad que ciertas historias nazcan en un medio concreto: en cualquier otro hacerlas funcionar es imposible o requiere un trabajo tan costoso que no vale la pena. Por eso aunque podemos poner muchos calificativos feos al live action de One Piece, la palabra que mejor lo define es "innecesario".