Ghost in the Shell

[JamesC]

You can't play Morten Harket's part - you're not Norwegian.

[Link Prime]

You can't play Morten Harket's part - you're not Norwegian.

We have a weiner.

[JOE SOAP]

Regarding the quote from Mamoru Oshii, well you have to view these things in a larger context, which is not to imply that he's not sincere in his remarks. It's simply the case that if a Sylvester Stallone Judge Dredd movie is in the works or in current release, you won't be reading interviews with John Wagner or Alan Grant being quoted for public consumption with comments like "I read the script and it was complete bollocks.", or taking issue with the casting of Stallone as Dredd, as long as they are working writers in an industry where they are dependent on the goodwill of publishers for freelance employment -- Alan Moore's atypical stance relative to the comics publishing industry notwithstanding.

I would generally support the notion of acting diplomatic in that circumstance for a freelance comic wrtier/artist but veteran director/writer Mamoru Oshii gave a fairly succinct and cogent rationale for that opinion rather than the usual nondescript 'Hollywood' response of support. I can't see why a successful anime director with a 40 year career behind him and who's won both Palme d'Or and Golden Lion would feel too pressurised to support an adaptation made by a foreign film studio if he didn't feel somewhat OK with it.

[Arkwright99]

Don't give her a Japanese name then, if you're not going to cast someone that can pass as Japanese. The concept is the same.

At the risk of going into spoiler territory the Scarlett Johanssan character [spoiler]doesn't have a Japanese name in the film. She's 'Major Mira Killian'. Her brain ('ghost') was taken from a Japanese anti-augmentation radical called Motoko Kusanagi who was abducted by Hanka for use as test subject in their full-body prosthesis augmentation experiments.[/spoiler]

You may disagree with the decision to cast a non-Japanese actor in the role of 'Major' but the story the film wishes to tell  - and we can argue whether this is the same story as the manga the fiilm is based on was telling - wouldn't work as well if [spoiler]the contrast between who the character believes herself to be at the start of the film ('Major') and who she learns she was originally ('Motoko Kusangi')[/spoiler] wasn't so extreme.

Kusanagi isn't defined by her memories? So we can just delete, rewrite, selectively edit those and she remains the same character? Who she was, what she experienced in her life up to the point where she decides to DO anything has no bearing whatsoever? I'd argue the opposite, that it's our history that defines our future, or at least informs it in a way that is crucial to what we decide to do next.

Again spoilers: [spoiler]Kusangi's memories are altered so she believes she was a refugee (from an unspecified country) whose boat was sunk by terrorists who killed her parents and Hanka use these false memories to motivate 'Major' in her Section 9 work against cyber-terrorism. It's only when Dr Outlet gives Major the address where her real birth mother lives that Major learns the truth of who she was, and while she returns to her mother at the end of the film she also returns to working for Section 9 with the words "We cling to memories as if they define us, but they don't. What we do is what defines us.".[/spoiler]

In other words, if your memories are unreliable - and for most people memories are unreliable even without the assistance of sinister supra-national tech companies hacking their brains - then they seem a poor foundation to base your sense of self-identity on. It's a philosophical argument that's raged for millennia: Do our thoughts (memories) define us or our actions? If I say one thing but practice the opposite ('do as I say, not as I do') which would you say were my true beliefs?

[positronic]

In other words, if your memories are unreliable - and for most people memories are unreliable even without the assistance of sinister supra-national tech companies hacking their brains - then they seem a poor foundation to base your sense of self-identity on. It's a philosophical argument that's raged for millennia: Do our thoughts (memories) define us or our actions? If I say one thing but practice the opposite ('do as I say, not as I do') which would you say were my true beliefs?

Our thoughts determine our actions. What we believe, and what we remember. Memories aren't 100% reliable, so we just have to make the best determinations we can based on what we know (or think we know). There's no free-floating 'ghost' component that determines our actions independent of the memories stored in our craniums.

Sure you can say you believe one thing, but then act in a opposite fashion. Memory is complex, and made up of both the conscious and subconscious.

If the people who want Major Kusanagi working for Section 9 determined, for example, that there was something in her past history (memories) that was affecting her personality in a negative way, so that it limited her optimal job performance, and they decided to delete those memories, it would affect the actions she decides to take afterwards. Let's say a performance analysis determines that she's slightly off, not up what the bosses think her true potential capabilities might be. They decide to her eliminate memories of a (hypothetical) abusive childhood which they think might prevent her from achieving her true potential. Having made this decision, the process takes place the next time her shell is swapped out for repair of significant damages. The altered total personality of Major Kusanagi is downloaded into a new shell, and she remains unaware of any tampering. At first the changes made in her memories seem to have a beneficial effect on her performance. She's taking well-calculated risks that she was hesitant to before, and those hard choices seem to be panning out well. Mission successes are increasing, she feels more confident in her choices. Then later she begins to hesitate ever-so fractionally before taking what should be some normal 'no-brainer' reactions, and it starts affecting her performance. The continue to monitor her missions, but later she begins to doubt and question things about why she even works for Section 9, or what she's really even accomplishing. A psych eval reveals her personality has been affected as a side-effect of the removal of those memories that should have increased her performance. Some tangential psychological factor tied to those memories, which they failed to identify and account for, is altering her behavior. In some way they didn't comprehend, those negative memories of childhood abuse were a necessary part of her overall motivation in performing the job she's been assigned. Uh-oh. Good thing they retained a total memory backup of Kusanagi's pre-altered memories in case of any unexpected consequences of the previous memory wipe. As before, she's swapped out of her shell and the old backup copy is re-downloaded. She returns to consciousness having lost two months of her life that she now can't account for.

[Professor Bear]

I assumed the problem wasn't weeaboo entitlement about the source material but people of Asian descent complaining that they've been written-out of onscreen representation yet again.
This property might have built-in context for white actors playing certain roles, but in recent years there does seem to have been a bit of a spike in this particular kind of whitewashing, with Cloud Atlas, Aloha, and The Martian being three examples I can think of off the top of my head.

[positronic]

Regarding the quote from Mamoru Oshii, well you have to view these things in a larger context, which is not to imply that he's not sincere in his remarks. It's simply the case that if a Sylvester Stallone Judge Dredd movie is in the works or in current release, you won't be reading interviews with John Wagner or Alan Grant being quoted for public consumption with comments like "I read the script and it was complete bollocks.", or taking issue with the casting of Stallone as Dredd, as long as they are working writers in an industry where they are dependent on the goodwill of publishers for freelance employment -- Alan Moore's atypical stance relative to the comics publishing industry notwithstanding.

I would generally support the notion of acting diplomatic in that circumstance for a freelance comic wrtier/artist but veteran director/writer Mamoru Oshii gave a fairly succinct and cogent rationale for that opinion rather than the usual nondescript 'Hollywood' response of support. I can't see why a successful anime director with a 40 year career behind him and who's won both Palme d'Or and Golden Lion would feel too pressurised to support an adaptation made by a foreign film studio if he didn't feel somewhat OK with it.

I'm not devaluing Oshii's comments, nor saying he's actively engaging in hucksterism. Simply pointing out that the media is filtering the opinions that you will be able to read about, by allowing the ones which have positive impact, while disallowing (or not promoting or encouraging) the opinions which have negative impact. The full spectrum of opinion will not be disseminated by the media for someone to judge and make up their own mind. I respect Oshii-san, but he isn't the sole arbiter of right or wrong.

[JOE SOAP]

I'm not devaluing Oshii's comments, nor saying he's actively engaging in hucksterism. Simply pointing out that the media is filtering the opinions that you will be able to read about, by allowing the ones which have positive impact, while disallowing (or not promoting or encouraging) the opinions which have negative impact. The full spectrum of opinion will not be disseminated by the media for someone to judge and make up their own mind. I respect Oshii-san, but he isn't the sole arbiter of right or wrong.

I can't say there's been much censorship of negative opinion in this case when the studio has openly chosen to blame, in part, the film's failure on those well reported opinions.

[positronic]

I'm not devaluing Oshii's comments, nor saying he's actively engaging in hucksterism. Simply pointing out that the media is filtering the opinions that you will be able to read about, by allowing the ones which have positive impact, while disallowing (or not promoting or encouraging) the opinions which have negative impact. The full spectrum of opinion will not be disseminated by the media for someone to judge and make up their own mind. I respect Oshii-san, but he isn't the sole arbiter of right or wrong.

I can't say there's been much censorship of negative opinion in this case when the studio has openly chosen to blame, in part, the film's failure on those well reported opinions.

If failure is already established, then there's no longer any need for filtering, and nothing to be gained by it. Of course, opinion of the type you see on Rotten Tomatoes will always exist, and no one can stop word of mouth from spreading, either. What I was really talking about though, was the opinions expressed by people in positions closer to the film (or the source material on which the film is based), before that failure is a established fact. Censorship as such isn't necessary before a determination of failure, because that would imply that all diversity of opinions have, in theory, equal access to dissemination to the public. That simply isn't true, because the media chooses whom to cast its spotlight on, and can choose which things to support or demonize. William Randolph Hearst was infamous for his use of news media to champion a cause (regardless of its true validity) or alternatively, condemn it, and things haven't changed all that much. News media empires are frequently tied up with entertainment media empires. After failure is an established fact, negativity is allowed in the media because pointing the finger of blame casts the spotlight away from others -- but that doesn't mean the finger couldn't be at pointing in the right direction, either.

[All-Comic.com]

The anime was good, and even the Japanese fans apparently said they don't care who was cast. I think too much of big deal was made of it and that keeps people away so other people can't point their finger and say they support whitewashing or whatever. Also the marketing was certainly all wrong for it. I don't get any of the feeling that I think should be there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[positronic]

Also the marketing was certainly all wrong for it. I don't get any of the feeling that I think should be there

I wasn't sure what feeling you thought should be there, or were you talking about the concept being represented well in marketing? Or more of a production design/worldbuilding kind of representation? You bring up a good point about the marketing. Trailers and posters are crucial in getting people interested and piquing interest to see a film. I've never understood how they can muck up something like that so badly. You've got a 2 hour film, and you can't find 2 or 3 minutes of exciting footage to convey the idea? Is it just an idea slightly too complex for most people to grasp that quickly, if they had zero familiarity beforehand? I know I've seen some trailers where afterwards I really didn't have much of an idea about it, beyond some people just running around or something (not usually a sf movie though). Posters as well -- other people mentioned this earlier -- the posters that don't give you the slightest idea what a movie's about, like the one that only tells you it's a Scarlett Johansson film, and that's all.

Sometimes timing can be critical too, if the film opens on a weekend opposite some other bigger film that a lot more people are excited about. I don't know if that might have applied in this case.

[Goaty]

so familiar poster...

[sheridan]

Also the marketing was certainly all wrong for it. I don't get any of the feeling that I think should be there

You bring up a good point about the marketing. Trailers and posters are crucial in getting people interested and piquing interest to see a film. I've never understood how they can muck up something like that so badly. You've got a 2 hour film, and you can't find 2 or 3 minutes of exciting footage to convey the idea? Is it just an idea slightly too complex for most people to grasp that quickly, if they had zero familiarity beforehand? I know I've seen some trailers where afterwards I really didn't have much of an idea about it, beyond some people just running around or something (not usually a sf movie though). Posters as well -- other people mentioned this earlier -- the posters that don't give you the slightest idea what a movie's about, like the one that only tells you it's a Scarlett Johansson film, and that's all.

For me, Fight Club is the best example of this.  I only ever saw it at the cinema because a friend convinced me to go along (long time ago, but I think they'd already seen it and wanted to go back for a second viewing).  I'd seen the trailer and it made it look like a film about some sort of underground wrestling / boxing scene - so far from the truth you wonder what was going through the trailer makers heads...

[positronic]

Also the marketing was certainly all wrong for it. I don't get any of the feeling that I think should be there

You bring up a good point about the marketing. Trailers and posters are crucial in getting people interested and piquing interest to see a film. I've never understood how they can muck up something like that so badly. You've got a 2 hour film, and you can't find 2 or 3 minutes of exciting footage to convey the idea? Is it just an idea slightly too complex for most people to grasp that quickly, if they had zero familiarity beforehand? I know I've seen some trailers where afterwards I really didn't have much of an idea about it, beyond some people just running around or something (not usually a sf movie though). Posters as well -- other people mentioned this earlier -- the posters that don't give you the slightest idea what a movie's about, like the one that only tells you it's a Scarlett Johansson film, and that's all.

For me, Fight Club is the best example of this.  I only ever saw it at the cinema because a friend convinced me to go along (long time ago, but I think they'd already seen it and wanted to go back for a second viewing).  I'd seen the trailer and it made it look like a film about some sort of underground wrestling / boxing scene - so far from the truth you wonder what was going through the trailer makers heads...

The one that always sticks in my head is the trailer for The Last Action Hero. It had a tough row to hoe to begin with, opening the same weekend as Jurassic Park III, but the trailer did it no favors. The movie itself is a satirical send-up of Schwarzenegger's typical action movie oeuvre, where he's not afraid to mock his own image, and it's a fantasy movie with a hero-worshipping kid. The trailer, however, tries to sell it as a more-or-less standard Schwarzenegger action movie (because presumably they had no faith in the movie they actually made), and a pretty generic-looking one at that. People who did go based on seeing the trailer must have been honked-off beyond belief when they found out what they'd been tricked into. The satire though, is actually smarter than I would have given it credit for.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I don't like using the term under-rated, it makes it sound like I'm right and everyone else is wrong (although this is usually the case).

BUT

Last Action Hero is hugely under-rated. It's the perfect Sunday afternoon film.