Akira? A caricature, more like

Akira is about a terrible, unstoppable, cataclysmic force; half-baked plans for an ill-conceived remake are not dissimilar
Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira
Some unlikely names have been linked with the planned remake of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira, the seminal 1988 Japanese anime. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive

Has there ever been such a preposterous proposition as Hollywood's forthcoming live action remake of Akira, the seminal 1988 Japanese anime by writer-director Katsuhiro Otomo, which was greenlit earlier this week? It's the kind of ridiculously unlikely project one might expect to see in the late, lamented HBO comedy Entourage, perhaps featuring blue-eyed Hollywood A-lister Vincent Chase in the lead. Except nobody's laughing about the real-life remake, because most of the proposed casting choices have been just as outlandish.

Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson as Kaneda, the teenage biker who tries to save his best friend from a medical experiment that threatens to unleash destructive powers, anyone? Or perhaps Keanu Reeves, playing a 15-year-old at the ripe old age of 47? Michael Fassbender and Joaquin Phoenix, at 34 and 36 respectively, have also been tipped to play Tetsuo, Kaneda's best friend and another main role. He's also a teenage boy in the original film and manga series (again, by Otomo).

All that pales into insignificance compared to the remake's biggest change from the original: the shifting of action from Japan to the US. Yup, it's goodbye Neo-Tokyo and hello New Manhattan.

Directors have come and gone, with Blade's Stephen Norrington at one point tipped to take charge, and From Hell's Albert Hughes stepping away as recently as May. No wonder actors such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Mila Kunis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and James Franco are rumoured to have decided this one isn't for them. The new Akira looks like a headless chicken of a movie, a project brought to fruition entirely because Warner Bros bought the rights a few years back and decided it was about time to make some wonga on its investment. There are even suggestions the studio wants a PG rating.

According to Variety, Jaume Collet-Serra – the Spanish director who brought us the odious horror remake House of Wax, the trashy chiller Orphan, and the generic Liam Neeson thriller Unknown – will take the helm. Furthermore, Tron Legacy's ultra-bland Garrett Hedlund is the new frontrunner to play one of the leads. Maybe because seemingly every other male actor between the ages of 18 and 50 has turned it down?

There are so many reasons why the notion of a Hollywood remake of Akira is a bad idea that Warner's decision to employ such an unpromising creative team seems almost incidental. The original Anime is idiosyncratically Japanese in its vision of a nation constantly at risk of destruction by man-made or environmental forces; removing it to the States makes little or no sense. Moreover, the shift from cyberpunk teenagers to grown men dilutes the sense of lost potential that imbues the original with such rich melancholy. And live action is a wildly inappropriate form for such a fantastic storyline. How does one film a human being morphing into an enormous The Thing-like blob of blood, guts and brain tissue, other than through some very silly CGI?

These things might not matter had Warner Bros appointed a director with genuine vision. Darren Aronofsky, perhaps, though he tends to work best in constrained cirumstances. Vincenzo Natali has an interest in cyberpunk and might need a gig while he waits to get his long-gestating big-screen attempt at Neuromancer off the ground. Duncan Jones, Alfonso Cuarón or Danny Boyle would be names to have most science fiction acolytes jumping for joy, and both Jones and Cuaron have proved adept at drawing gold from projects they did not originate.

You can probably suggest a hundred other directors with more compelling claims than Collet-Serra. Akira is ultimately about a terrible, unstoppable, cataclysmic force: somebody needs to subject this whole idea to something equally destructive.