Well Ghost in the Shell has flopped at the box office.
There's loads of stuff on social media blaming the flop on the 'whitewashing' controversy, which I'm finding quite interesting. I almost posted on here a couple of weeks ago to comment on the film's poster which seems to be all around town at the moment.
It's this one:
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/jimmyalpha2008/image_3.jpeg)
To me this poster completely fails at its job. It tells you absolutely nothing about the film other than that it exists. It doesn't even clearly define the genre. Surely the only people who are going to be interested after seeing this are those already familiar with the source material or those who'll go and see anything starring Scarlett Johansen.
More on this later - I need to go to work...
...as I was saying - I find it interesting that this film's poor performance is being blamed on the whitewashing controversy when, to me, it seems that the marketing of the film has been completely bungled.
I feel like I'm part of the target demographic for the film. A fan of sci-fi and action films and a casual cinema-goer. My main impressions of this film are the above poster and an image of Scarlett running towards the camera in what looks like a chameleon-esque body suit. That's it.
I have a vague recollection of seeing the anime sometime in the 90s and thinking it was a bit boring. Nonetheless I'm sure with a bit of effort I could have been persuaded to see a slick modern sci-fi action flick starring Scarlett Johansen.
The whitewashing thing is neither here nor there to me. I've been shown nothing to make me want to see the film.
Yeah, that posters says nothing - but I know broadly what it's about and I still can't be arsed.
Maybe it's a bit of a saturation of fantasy genre thing. I don't think the whitewashing thing had much to do with it either.
I think there's also an element of fans (or the people making the film) severely over-estimating the mainstream appeal (see also Dredd)
I'm pretty sure Akira would go the same way.
Valerian will be an interesting one - I'm sensing a flop in that, apart from maybe France - unless it can do the business in China.
Problem with that it so similar to her other film poster few years ago!
(http://www.impawards.com/intl/france/2014/posters/lucy_ver2.jpg)
Well, that's not the poster I've seen. Not that this one is significantly more exciting.
To me, this is a bit like Trainspotting 2 or Silence. I'd be quite happy to watch it but it's definitely not top of the list and I'm not going to cry if I miss it.
(http://cdn2-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/ghost-in-the-shell/ghostinshellposter.jpg)
Quote from: Goaty on 06 April, 2017, 09:23:17 AM
Problem with that it so similar to her other film few years ago!
Is it? Now I'm a lot more interested. Lucy was great!
Sorry I means Lucy poster.
That second GITS poster at least says 'sci-fi'.
The Lucy poster, while being a bit mundane at least gives you loads of information about the film. It's an action thriller, it explains part of the premise and it lets you know the pedigree of the director.
This could be best poster for people to understand Ghost in the Shell but sadly not;
(https://nikkinootaku.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/260934.jpg)
Not sure it's fair to say it's a flop yet.....as I thought it was yet to have its Japan or China release. Good chance it will make a lot of money there much like resident evil.
Could still be a big earner.
Quote from: I, Cosh on 06 April, 2017, 09:26:47 AM
Quote from: Goaty on 06 April, 2017, 09:23:17 AM
Problem with that it so similar to her other film few years ago!
Is it? Now I'm a lot more interested. Lucy was great!
I would probably have liked Lucy - unfortunately they prominently featured the 10 % fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth) which immediately makes you think the film's going to be poorly thought through rubbish.
I was really disappointed with this. The visuals were impressive at first but I got fed up with them towards the end, the script was pretty dire and the normally great Takeshi Kitano didn't have much to do.
Lucy - now there was a great Scarlett Johansson sci-fi thriller.
I doubt the whitewashing thing has made much of an impression beyond the existing GitS fanbase. What worries me is Hollywood will assume it's flopped because audiences don't want to see female-led SF/action films. I suspect it's more to do with a failure to advertise the film to a mainstream audience. The existing fanbase isn't big enough to make it a guaranteed hit, and a lot of us have avoided it anyway, assuming it would be a disappointment.
For my part, I saw the trailer with the sound turned off and thought, wow, that looks a lot more faithful than I was expecting. So I rewound, turned the sound on and realised, oh, it really isn't.
I don't get this 'lack of publicity' thing - I'm not a big fan of the original and the trailer didn't grab me, but I certainly feel saturated with promos - seems like it's been everywhere recently, trailers at the cinema, posters, buses, even TV ads.
I think the poor showing is due to it being a generic crass Hollywood remake that everyone expects to be pants compared to the source material.
I saw the original anime on a cinema re-release a couple of months ago and the live action remake on Tuesday. I liked the remake a lot - lots of resonances with Blade Runner and Mega City 1, I felt - and found it a lot easier to understand and follow than I had either the anime or the manga. Which, yes, means it's been 'dumbed down' for the multiplex audience and that might offend the purists but if you want a mainstream hit then sometimes you have to sweeten the pill.
The thing is I feel that GitS, like Dredd, has a hardcore but pretty niche audience that on its own isn't big enough to support a multi-million dollar franchise so you need something else rather than brand recognition to bring in the aforementioned multiplex audience. If Scarlett Johanssan running around, to all extents and purposes, essentially naked for two hours isn't enough of a USP then you've got bigger problems than what you put on your posters.
I'm going to suggest that making GitS a 12A rather than a 15 (like the anime) or an R/18 probably won't end up being seen as an asset. Although making Dredd an 18 didn't work for it either so perhaps the problem is more that niche products only appeal to niche audiences. :-\
"Who's in it?"
Scarlett Johannson.
"Who else?"
No-one.
"Pass."
I haven't seen it yet, but am intending to next week. My brother saw it on Monday, he's a big ghost in the shell fan and he really enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to it.
My question is why does it even need to be live action in the first place, before some people will acknowledge it as legitimate science fiction? What is this insane prejudice that people have that just makes them slough off animation as if it's never going to be worthy of respect unless they make it into a live action film starring a popular and expensive actor/actress? Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is one of the most incredible, intelligently-written (and beautifully-animated) television series I've ever seen.
I don't even really know anything about the film. Is she still called Major Motoko Kusanagi in the film, even though it's obvious she's not Japanese? I don't know... I'm just trying to come up with some reason to care about this (and I'm already a HUGE GitS fan).
...but it's not her real body. It's her mind state basically in a robot body. Why does she need to look Japanese to be called Motoko Kusanagi?
And yes, she is Kusanagi in the live action movie.
The original Shirow comic strip (still what i consider to be the definitive ghost in the shell) considerably pre dates the animation, so couldn't we use the same argument about why wasn't a superb comic enough, why do we need to make it into a cartoon for people to give it a chance?
I'm happy to see these things evolve on to as many different platforms as possible. I like reading dredd, I like watching the Dredd film, I enjoyed the Dredd audio dramas and I like the games.........s'all good 😊
Hearing that this movie hasn't done too well at the box office hasn't come as too big a shock to me. But it's kind of disappointing as well, just on a personal level. As a fan of the franchise, I thought it was about as good a stab as we'll ever see Hollywood take at it.
I've seen articles today where Paramount reps have expressed disappointment in the film's performance, and of course, some statements are being pounced on by media outlets to paint it as though they've agreed wholeheartedly with the idea that Scarlett Johannsson's casting is what sunk it. That just seem to further what I consider a trend of DEEPLY irresponsible reporting on the movie. The vast majority of negative reviews I read online seemed to cite 'whitewashing' as a flaw in the movie, when it's really not a huge problem in the context of the movie's plot or concepts found in the material it's based on.
And that's why this whole 'whitewashing' debate makes me see red. I dont see how anyone can have a shred of familiarity with the source material and claim the casting is a huge problem. Sure, that whole discussion is worthwhile. But it doesn't really apply in this case. For God's sake - it's a movie where characters originally established as Asain ARE PLAYED BY ACTORS OF APPROPRIATE ETHNICITY. The exceptions to the rule make good sense, even in keeping with the source material. Not to mention commentary by both Mamoru Oshii and Masamune Shirow on the subject, then and now.
But no. Some ignorant idiots HAVE to wave all that away when they feel their cause is just.
I'd be much more understanding of criticism if it was levelled at the parts of this film that really warrant it. The script creaks, it approaches characters from the angle of debatably re-writing them, ADDS a character that was never a part of the franchise to begin with, and sees fit to get bogged down in stuff I sincerely don't think established fans will be all that concerned with.
But all that said, it was a pretty watchable movie. And it's a shame to think it'll go down as a commercial flop because of a controversy that was misplaced, and picked up by folks with a social axe to grind.
Quote from: HdE on 06 April, 2017, 06:16:44 PM
And it's a shame to think it'll go down as a commercial flop because of a controversy that was misplaced, and picked up by folks with a social axe to grind.
The white-washing controversy doesn't really explain how the film has tanked. It never harmed Doctor Strange. More likely it's a flop because outside of genre fans the general audience were simply disinterested in seeing it and the advertising struggled to create a buzz or make it appealing even for someone like me. Paramount knew they had a flop on their hands; releasing the first 5 minutes of the film online was a last desperate move, and they only lifted the review embargo 2 days before release. Always a bad sign of a less than great film.
Quote from: SIP on 06 April, 2017, 05:13:14 PM
...but it's not her real body. It's her mind state basically in a robot body. Why does she need to look Japanese to be called Motoko Kusanagi?
And yes, she is Kusanagi in the live action movie.
I don't know, maybe "suspension of disbelief". Or maybe the same reason I wouldn't want to see a movie based on Luke Cage or the Black Panther in which the title character was played by a white actor.
Quote from: SIP on 06 April, 2017, 05:13:14 PMThe original Shirow comic strip (still what i consider to be the definitive ghost in the shell) considerably pre dates the animation, so couldn't we use the same argument about why wasn't a superb comic enough, why do we need to make it into a cartoon for people to give it a chance?
Well, I didn't. But I felt the anime was faithful while adding something. Both the manga and the anime are very Japanese to my way of thinking, the setting as well as the characters. To me that "Japanese"-ness is an integral part of its identity as a work, both in manga and anime form. Maybe if the Japanese had made the movie, I wouldn't have a big a problem with it. Then again, they don't have a good track record over there of adapting most things to live action. There's a few exceptions, but what comes to mind more easily are a lot of epic fails in the last couple of decades.
Then again, I had no interest in the DREDD movie either, so there you go!
Quote from: positronic on 06 April, 2017, 07:05:20 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 April, 2017, 05:13:14 PM
Or maybe the same reason I wouldn't want to see a movie based on Luke Cage or the Black Panther in which the title character was played by a white actor
I think that might be pushing it. Luke cage and black panther are both specifically black characters.
Kusanagi ion the other hand is an artificial person of no specified ethnicity in either the comic or in the animations.
I'm arguing here as a ghost in the shell fan since year 1. I've got all the comics, graphic novel reprints, all the animations on several formats, I've even bought the figures and I really just can't see the issue. The whitewashing thing ( in this instance ) is just the usual media bs.
My tuppence: as an longtime admirer of Johansson and whatever the manga/anime equivalent of a nonscrot is, nothing about the movie as presented by the marketing interests me. The animated GitS bits I've seen look more interesting and come highly recommended, but Scarlett's permanent scowl bobbing about on top of a CGI bodysuit leaping about in neon environments... Not even a flicker of a chance I'm going to expend a precious cinema trip. Saving that for Raw.
Aside from it (imo) not looking like a very good movie (I thought the trailer looked pretty cheesy rather than cool), I also think its because it looks like nothing the audience hasn't seen a hundred times before. Ghost in the Shell was influential in its day, but has been borrowed from so heavily that the source material itself now looks derivative and generic.
I'd also argue that the Cyberpunky/Blade Runnery/neon skyscrapers aesthetic is simply a very old-fashioned and passe conception of a sci fi setting that stems from a very different time (the 80s and 90s). It feels very dated and doesn't ring as relevant to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's very much been supplanted in recent times by a much grungier, grounded sci fi aesthetic as seen in the likes of Minority Report, District 9 and (yes) Dredd.
Quote from: SIP on 06 April, 2017, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: positronic on 06 April, 2017, 07:05:20 PM
Quote from: SIP on 06 April, 2017, 05:13:14 PM
Or maybe the same reason I wouldn't want to see a movie based on Luke Cage or the Black Panther in which the title character was played by a white actor
I think that might be pushing it. Luke cage and black panther are both specifically black characters.
Kusanagi ion the other hand is an artificial person of no specified ethnicity in either the comic or in the animations.
See, I've never bought this argument. If being black is important to who the character of Luke Cage is, then why isn't being Japanese important to who the character of Motoko Kusanagi is? It doesn't matter that she has a machine body. I'm talking about her identity. She was born and lived part of her life as an organic being, but her mind is still part of that person. You're kind of leaning into a sort of reverse-racism or saying something like skin color is the major difference here, not nationality or cultural components or the totality of factors that make a person. It doesn't determine what they're capable of or not, but it's part of who they are, a pretty significant part, whether the individual will even admit to it or not.
Is Kusanagi a traditionally oppressed and marginalised Other from a racially ghettoised and largely impoverished urban environment who can be seen to represent the changing pop-cultural depictions of her community as empowered actors? Or is she just a Japanese person living in Japan?
I ask because i genuinely don't know, but if not the former, the comparison with the importance of Luke Cage's race isn't really apt.
Saw the trailer but underwhelmed and no interest in going. Promised a lot of Scarlett in the nip but you need look no further than the excellent 'Under the Skin' for that.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 April, 2017, 11:03:46 PM
Is Kusanagi a traditionally oppressed and marginalised Other from a racially ghettoised and largely impoverished urban environment who can be seen to represent the changing pop-cultural depictions of her community as empowered actors? Or is she just a Japanese person living in Japan?
Well, if you think being part of a marginalized culture is really the only important thing about Luke Cage being black that defines him differently from some other character. My argument is that the cultural aspect still applies whatever the race in question. There is no "neutral" or "default" human being outside of the cultural context that gives rise to that person. None of us exists in a vaccuum, we are part of the history and life experiences that made us who we are up to this point in time -- including the stuff we never even think about, or may be effectively blind to, because we can't see ourselves from outside, from another perspective. Although the foregoing is obviously changing in the time in which Kusanagi lives, the world is still far away from being all Ghosts with interchangeable Shells. Maybe in a further future extension of the same sf timeline, there IS no local culture, no nationality, no ethnicity of any kind - only global/cyber culture, a great leveling homogenization where the only distinct subcultures or groups are the ones people choose for themselves.
They're already building some human-looking robots in Japan. Interestingly, Japan seems to be the only culture where there exists a great desire to prove this can be done. Since they're not real biological creatures, they could choose to build one in any image they wish. How many humanoid robots do you think they're building in Japan that have human features that look like some other ethnicity than Japanese? In the few convincing instances of this I've seen, the robots do look like Japanese people. No great surprise there.
I could almost accept this if it were something established in the manga and anime as part of the cultural background of that future -- if cyber-bodies were like suits of clothes, where fashions come and go, and when swapping out bodies, one might commonly choose to "wear the clothes" of another culture/ethnicity than one's own, to graft that image onto oneself as part of one's outward avatar that interacts with others in the physical world - no differently than someone might get a tattoo or decide to dye their hair blue. "The Scarlett Johannson look is in this season." It would seem incongruous to Kusanagi's character and occupation as established in the stories, though. It's the future, but there's nothing here indicating that people in this future Japan don't still think and act Japanese. It's simply a cultural baseline for them.
The movie was being made for international audiences most of whose consumers aren't Japanese, and they wanted a star with drawing power, so the role goes to a Caucasian female, rather than an actress of similar popularity (not sure if there is one) who is Asian and might therefore convincingly play the part of someone who was born and grew up in Japan (or who has a cyber-body made in Japan to be an avatar for a Japanese person, interacting with other Japanese people in the physical world, the locale of which is still a future Japan). All right then, if you're "localizing" the original work for a different culture, then just keep the core sf ideas and chuck out anything specific to the country of origin, changing "Go Mifune" into "Speed Racer". But that lessens
Ghost in the Shell for me and makes it into a much more generic cyberpunk story, and changes the character of Kusanagi into a "generic sexy female action hero" cyborg role that can be doled out to whoever fits that description in the current vogue of movieland.
^Yeah but that's just like...your opinion man.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 05:44:18 AM
Well, if you think being part of a marginalized culture is really the only important thing about Luke Cage being black that defines him differently from some other character. My argument is that the cultural aspect still applies whatever the race in question. There is no "neutral" or "default" human being outside of the cultural context that gives rise to that person.
I wasn't really constructing a theory of contextual identity, more reflectng that I have a large cardboard box of yellowing Hero for Hire, Power Man and Power Man & Iron Fist comics from the 70s and 80s and I'm pretty sure that being black and specifically African American is
very important to the concept and history of the character, moreso than anything else really.. If we're talking about the Netflix show I've no idea, I haven't seen it, but I can't imagine the point of (re)using the Luke Cage character if he's not portrayed as black American.
Your points about the stripping out the cultural specifics of a property are spot on.
In all seriousness, we know perfectly well why ScarJo was cast. The producers wanted a bankable star in the lead role. There simply aren't any female Japanese actors with Star-power equal to Scarlett's in the west.
That's the bottom line, rightly or wrongly. The justification that the main character is in a robot body and therefore that race is less important seems like a reasonable compromise and in-universe explanation to me. At least they've cast Asian actors in other roles and have kept Japan as the setting.
A quote from Mamoru Oshii, the director of the animated movie that the live action film borrows heavily from:
"The Major is a cyborg and her physical form is an entirely assumed one. The name 'Motoko Kusanagi' and her current body are not her original name and body, so there is no basis for saying that an Asian actress must portray her. Even if her original body (presuming such a thing existed) were a Japanese one, that would still apply ... I can only sense a political motive from the people opposing it, and I believe artistic expression must be free from politics."
It's just that when I think about some of the things that Ghost in the Shell is about, and what the characters are like, there are some bits that are more or less universal to the human condition, and some bits that are strikingly, to me, very much part of a Japanese state of mind. A good example here would be the "relationship" (such as it is) that exists between Kusanagi and Batou. Observing it in the stories, it's not so divorced from a universal empathy with human conditions, but when I look at it, I find it hard to conceive that an American would have written those characters the same way. The barriers that exist that hold them at arms length from each other, and the tether of duty and loyalty that binds them to each other, just feels distinct to a Japanese frame of mind.
Quote from: SIP on 07 April, 2017, 06:45:55 AM
A quote from Mamoru Oshii, the director of the animated movie that the live action film borrows heavily from:
"The Major is a cyborg and her physical form is an entirely assumed one. The name 'Motoko Kusanagi' and her current body are not her original name and body, so there is no basis for saying that an Asian actress must portray her. Even if her original body (presuming such a thing existed) were a Japanese one, that would still apply ... I can only sense a political motive from the people opposing it, and I believe artistic expression must be free from politics."
But of course the people involved in the creative end of the Japanese work have no interest in whether the movie is made or not? It doesn't affect them in any way, monetarily (whether directly, or INdirectly) or in expanding the popularity of a franchise which might afford them future work?
If you're going to change Kusanagi's nationality/ethnicity in a film adaptation, at least grant me relief from looking at a Caucasian actress whose character is saddled with a distinctly Japanese name, because the mental schism it invokes breaks down my suspension of disbelief.
I guess to summarize my POV about GitS, I'd say that what that story is really about, apart from the sf/cyberpunk tropes that drive the story, is about identity, about what it means to be human. What is it that separates a human being from just a collection of data, 1s and 0s residing on a hard drive somewhere in cyberspace?
You can create an analog of that basic idea, and make the central character white, black, male, gay or whatever. But it won't be precisely the same character of Kusanagi as she appears in the original, Japanese-created work.
The new movie version does not share the same back story (though I don't want to reveal spoilers) as the animated versions. But to be fair Kusanagi from Arise has a different back story to the Kusanagi in SAC, who again differs from the original comic version.
It would be fair to say that there is no specifically definitive version of Kusanagi. This is just another iteration.
Quote from: SIP on 07 April, 2017, 07:35:44 AM
The new movie version does not share the same back story (though I don't want to reveal spoilers) as the animated versions. But to be fair Kusanagi from Arise has a different back story to the Kusanagi in SAC, who again differs from the original comic version.
It would be fair to say that there is no specifically definitive version of Kusanagi. This is just another iteration.
True. This is why I don't like all of the iterations of GitS equally. Some versions develop the idea better than others, and of course we tend to be prejudiced by the earlier versions that we liked over later versions that change something about another version that we liked. It's simply the way things are, and you can't blame people for having preferences about specific aspects. It's hard to reduce the work to a framework of pure concepts in which specific bits become interchangeable.
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. The only time you're going to see any negativity expressed on the record is when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster are living in low-rent apartments on a monthly social security stipend while Warner Brothers and DC Comics are making millions and ballyhoo'ing a new Superman movie, or there's a Marvel Ghost Rider movie and the original writer of the comic, Gary Friedrich, can't pay his medical bills. So if Masumune Shirow was approached for comment and he didn't like some aspect of a film adapted from his original story, you won't be seeing a lot of articles built around "the original creator declined to comment".
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 07:26:09 AM
I guess to summarize my POV about GitS, I'd say that what that story is really about, apart from the sf/cyberpunk tropes that drive the story, is about identity, about what it means to be human. What is it that separates a human being from just a collection of data, 1s and 0s residing on a hard drive somewhere in cyberspace?
The Scarlett Johanssan
GitS is entirely about
identity of course. Throughout the film she's wondering who she is, where she came from, what are her true memories, what are false memories that have been implanted by Hanka. Hanka sees Major as a weapon, Dr Ouelet sees Mira as a person, Kusanagi doesn't know what (or who) she is but as she pursues Kuse she learns her real history and at the end of the film embraces it (literally). The future presented in
GitS is a multicultural, multi-racial, transhuman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) - even posthuman - society. To get hung up on the whole 'Major must look Japanese' argument is to arguably miss the point the film is trying to make. We are not defined by our memories (or our ethnicity); we are defined by what we
do.
Quote from: Arkwright99 on 07 April, 2017, 09:10:47 AM
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 07:26:09 AM
I guess to summarize my POV about GitS, I'd say that what that story is really about, apart from the sf/cyberpunk tropes that drive the story, is about identity, about what it means to be human. What is it that separates a human being from just a collection of data, 1s and 0s residing on a hard drive somewhere in cyberspace?
The Scarlett Johanssan GitS is entirely about identity of course. Throughout the film she's wondering who she is, where she came from, what are her true memories, what are false memories that have been implanted by Hanka. Hanka sees Major as a weapon, Dr Ouelet sees Mira as a person, Kusanagi doesn't know what (or who) she is but as she pursues Kuse she learns her real history and at the end of the film embraces it (literally). The future presented in GitS is a multicultural, multi-racial, transhuman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) - even posthuman - society. To get hung up on the whole 'Major must look Japanese' argument is to arguably miss the point the film is trying to make. We are not defined by our memories (or our ethnicity); we are defined by what we do.
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.
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.
And there was me thinking that it looked like a decent excuse for a trip to the cinema, despite being utterly bemused by the praise for the anime when I watched it back in the day.
I must be in a minority.
Apparently it's visually beautiful and is a decent, entertaining film. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Quote from: CalHab on 07 April, 2017, 09:40:31 AM
And there was me thinking that it looked like a decent excuse for a trip to the cinema, despite being utterly bemused by the praise for the anime when I watched it back in the day.
I must be in a minority.
Course not CalHab.
Close your eyes, take my hand and pretend I'm Morten Harket- we'll escape this madness together.
Quote from: Link Prime on 07 April, 2017, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: CalHab on 07 April, 2017, 09:40:31 AM
And there was me thinking that it looked like a decent excuse for a trip to the cinema, despite being utterly bemused by the praise for the anime when I watched it back in the day.
I must be in a minority.
Course not CalHab.
Close your eyes, take my hand and pretend I'm Morten Harket- we'll escape this madness together.
Take on me!
You can't play Morten Harket's part - you're not Norwegian.
Quote from: JamesC on 07 April, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
You can't play Morten Harket's part - you're not Norwegian.
We have a weiner.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:01:57 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palme_d%27Or) and Golden Lion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:34:47 AMDon'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.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:34:47 AMKusanagi 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?
Quote from: Arkwright99 on 07 April, 2017, 11:13:23 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 07 April, 2017, 10:45:00 AM
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:01:57 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palme_d%27Or) and Golden Lion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 02:31:03 PMI'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 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/04/05/whitewashing_controversy_hurt_ghost_in_the_shell_s_box_office_performance.html).
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 07 April, 2017, 02:44:15 PM
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 02:31:03 PMI'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 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/04/05/whitewashing_controversy_hurt_ghost_in_the_shell_s_box_office_performance.html).
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.
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
Quote from: All-Comic.com on 08 April, 2017, 05:49:38 PM
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.
so familiar poster...
Quote from: positronic on 08 April, 2017, 06:50:15 PM
Quote from: All-Comic.com on 08 April, 2017, 05:49:38 PM
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...
Quote from: sheridan on 09 April, 2017, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: positronic on 08 April, 2017, 06:50:15 PM
Quote from: All-Comic.com on 08 April, 2017, 05:49:38 PM
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.
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.
In fact it was the week after Jurassic Park I, so an even worse start. But yeah, Pops is right, it's a really fun film. Ian McKellan as Death, you can't go far wrong.
Saw GitS tonight on IMAX 3D. Very much didn't hate it. Owned the anime on VHS many years ago, and found it somewhat glacially paced. This version zipped along, looked amazingand didn't outstay its welcome. Worth an hour forty-five of your time IMO.
Quote from: TordelBack on 09 April, 2017, 11:01:26 PM
In fact it was the week after Jurassic Park I, so an even worse start. But yeah, Pops is right, it's a really fun film. Ian McKellan as Death, you can't go far wrong.
Ah, you're right. I should have checked it. Hard to keep those JP films straight.
But it's smart in its knowing nudge-and-a-wink homages to action movie genre tropes, and also good in the context of a fantasy movie with a wider appeal and friendly to a younger demographic.
That isn't the demographic targeted by the trailer, though. Anyone who went into the theater expecting to see a Schwarzennegger flick along the lines of Commando or Red Heat was in for a rude awakening, so word of mouth from that audience probably killed whatever chance it may have had. The audience it would have appealed to probably just watched the trailer and shrugged.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 09 April, 2017, 09:24:42 PM
Last Action Hero is hugely under-rated.
I second that emotion.It Arnolds only truly funny movie.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 09 April, 2017, 09:24:42 PM
Last Action Hero is hugely under-rated. It's the perfect Sunday afternoon film.
Last Action Hero is a great film. On the other hand, I've never liked Jurassic Park for some weird reason.
I really liked GiTS, and I went in as a huge fan of the original (and with Standalone Complex being one of my favourite sci fi series ever). The story is a bit more Hollywood, but I felt like they got the spirit of it (I got really geeked out seeing Batou being a total badass in live action) and between SAC and Arise we've had a bunch of new differing takes on it that have been great in their own way, so the fact that we now have an American live action one doesn't bother me at all. I'll definitely be buying it on Blu-ray as me and the missus have both been talking about how much we'd like to see it again.
As far as the white washing hurting the box office, I really can't see that being the case. The wider audience who the film would need to pull in to make it a proper blockbuster will have barely any knowledge of the original if they've even heard of it at all, so I doubt any of that controversy even registered outside of the internet forums. I thought Johanssen was absolutely spot-on, from the look to the presence I really felt like that was the Major up on screen. The rest of the casting was great too.
The marketing awareness is a weird one, I thought it was clear it was an action sci-fi movie from the advertising, but that might have been my familiarity with the original influencing the way I saw that stuff. One friend who had no prior knowledge of GiTS avoided it because she thought it was a horror film (must have been the word ghost?) so they obviously could have done a better job with the ads.
Watched Under The Skin for the first time last night too, that won't be leaving me for a while.
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 05:27:54 PMIf 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.
This is the crux though, 'the media' is no longer just a few controlling interests like William Randolph Hearst - it's a much more complex and porous system than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. Other opinions do come though and are disseminated and read far easier by those who have a different agenda in their promotion, and no longer need rely solely on those who control the organs of publication to reach a sizeable audience. It creates a chaotic imbalance for us to judge the 'truth' of any situation. The problem is there are no filters for objectivity anymore to sort through all the noise.
Whatever the morals or proportion of the situation - which are frequently lost/get out of control -
Ghost in the Shell is an example of a studio not being able to effectively counteract preliminary bad buzz by whatever means of promotion it had with either fans or those who decided to take offence in regards to claims of whitewashing.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 10 April, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 05:27:54 PMIf 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.
This is the crux though, 'the media' is no longer just a few controlling interests like William Randolph Hearst - it's a much more complex and porous system than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. Other opinions do come though and are disseminated and read far easier by those who have a different agenda in their promotion, and no longer need rely solely on those who control the organs of publication to reach a sizeable audience. It creates a chaotic imbalance for us to judge the 'truth' of any situation. The problem is there are no filters for objectivity anymore to sort through all the noise.
Whatever the morals or proportion of the situation - which are frequently lost/get out of control - Ghost in the Shell is an example of a studio not being able to effectively counteract preliminary bad buzz by whatever means of promotion it had with either fans or those who decided to take offence in regards to claims of whitewashing.
I concede your point about the dissemination of information through alternate avenues like social media, but that sort of proceeds from an assumption of some real cause that is a motivating source for someone trying to get a message out.
This is more of a passive... not
suppression, per se... but more a thing where the media is seeking its own sources for interviews (for promotional purposes), and deciding whose opinions would be 'newsworthy'. You know, like the studio's PR machine is working its magic here, trying to drum up interest in entertainment news sources and the like. It's not to say someone like Oshii gets paid to be interviewed or is coached (or even edited) in some way on saying nice things, but the studios are helping facilitate access to "friendly sources" for interviews, and there's no real benefit to be gained from some known creative type associated with the franchise being motivated as a maverick to express an alternative viewpoint like "I think it stinks". It's not so sinister as some conspiracy or censorship of some kind, it's more like there's a vested interest in the PR for the movie to create a good vibe (via entertainment news), whether the movie's actually good or not -- they can't always control how it's received by the public, but they're actively working to spin it as positive as possible. What vested interests (who stands to gain?) might be motivating the creation of a negative vibe would not be clear, if indeed they exist at all.
Bad buzz is more like the opposite, a grass-roots gut response to the marketing/promotion, or how it's being perceived versus how it's being
aimed to be perceived.
Mayor...?
Quote from: Keef Monkey on 10 April, 2017, 09:54:49 AM
I really liked GiTS, and I went in as a huge fan of the original (and with Standalone Complex being one of my favourite sci fi series ever). The story is a bit more Hollywood, but I felt like they got the spirit of it (I got really geeked out seeing Batou being a total badass in live action) and between SAC and Arise we've had a bunch of new differing takes on it that have been great in their own way, so the fact that we now have an American live action one doesn't bother me at all. I'll definitely be buying it on Blu-ray as me and the missus have both been talking about how much we'd like to see it again.
I guess first off I should admit that I've mainly fallen out of love with the movie industry, and am rarely motivated to go to theaters any more, so maybe that would put my perspective in DVDs already, so it's not like I'm going to be in position of having nothing to watch).
That said, being a huge fan of SAC (I always felt like the original GitS film doesn't quite gel as well as it could and is a little murky), I can respect this. I haven't been paying as much attention to GitS since SAC, but I was aware of Arise, and after reading many reviews on it, still feel in some way like it's too much of a reboot. The other point is I'd still want to wait until the complete thing was available in a single DVD set if I did decide to buy it, so I'm not ruling it out completely, I guess. From what I've read the character is much younger in that iteration, and without getting too much into why, that has some bearing about how I feel about it too.
But there were a "bunch of new differing takes" between SAC and Arise? Maybe I'm just forgetting some DTV releases here, or don't really consider them that new and/or differing. Or were you thinking about something like the Kodansha manga GitS spinoff series?
Ah no, I've worded things badly there - what I meant was that there have been differend GiTS 'brands' or soft reboots with different approaches and was using SAC and Arise as the examples. Not aware of any other iterations, but I've never really considered those two series as taking place in the same continuity as the two anime movies, they feel much more like distinctly different self contained series to me. So from that point of view I never had a problem with the idea of a US version, particularly as it distinguishes itself by using a new storyline (even if it does work in the iconic set-pieces and scenes from the original).
Arise is good, although I personally don't think it's SAC-good. Damn that series was great.
Skim reading the thread, while drinking coffee, and waiting on edits to come in for a comic. As I'm washing up. So my apologies if somebody has already adressed this. I've got to comment on it, though, because it's one of my buttons:
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
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.
Look up 'Kusanagi' on Wikipedia. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you'd find many people in Japan who wre born with that name.
In the source material, it's an assumed / appropriated name given to the character, just like her body is given to her. Seeing folks all over social media saying 'she should be played by a Japanese actress if she has a Japanese name' has been a MASSIVE source of irritation to me.
As always, though, not saying this to get on anyone's case. Just trying to put accurate info out there.
Quote from: HdE on 10 April, 2017, 07:25:18 PM
Skim reading the thread, while drinking coffee, and waiting on edits to come in for a comic. As I'm washing up. So my apologies if somebody has already adressed this. I've got to comment on it, though, because it's one of my buttons:
Quote from: positronic on 07 April, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
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.
Look up 'Kusanagi' on Wikipedia. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you'd find many people in Japan who wre born with that name.
In the source material, it's an assumed / appropriated name given to the character, just like her body is given to her. Seeing folks all over social media saying 'she should be played by a Japanese actress if she has a Japanese name' has been a MASSIVE source of irritation to me.
As always, though, not saying this to get on anyone's case. Just trying to put accurate info out there.
Yup, that's kinda where I was coming from too.
Interestingly, the film has been recieved really well in Japan, where people don't seem at all bothered by the casting - http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/10/15245488/ghost-in-the-shell-live-action-box-office-japan-review (http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/10/15245488/ghost-in-the-shell-live-action-box-office-japan-review)
The best thing I read about Hollywood GITS - it's bad GITS movie but kinda well crafted Robocop reboot.
I know it's joke but there's some truth in it.
My problem with this movie is simple, this movie's better when it's trying to tell their own story. All viusual throwbacks to anime looks nice (with one exception but I'll leave it for now) but feels kinda empty and shallow. But last part of the movie
(between termination order to seconds before spider tank arrival)
feels like decent action movie, with aspects more in the vein of GITS SAC and Arise, where whole team stands up for themselves. Damn, I think that this movie should abandon all sentimental bullshit from 1995 anime version and go full SAC/Arise. That kind of story is more natural for big budget movie.
One last thing...
Spider tank scene was horrible, I hoped they abandon this cuz I knew for sure this is the moment from anime where you can't translate it good for movie and what I saw was... even worst.
Hey, local arthouse was showing the original Aime on the big screen and it was glorious!!
Ten minutes of animated rain should have been the most boring thing in the world as it was, it was stunning.
I 've seen fight scenes between giant robots that were boring compared to that.
If you get the chance see the original on a big screen, haven't yet seen the live0-action so can't comment.
Quote from: HdE on 10 April, 2017, 07:25:18 PM
Look up 'Kusanagi' on Wikipedia. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you'd find many people in Japan who wre born with that name.
In the source material, it's an assumed / appropriated name given to the character, just like her body is given to her. Seeing folks all over social media saying 'she should be played by a Japanese actress if she has a Japanese name' has been a MASSIVE source of irritation to me.
As always, though, not saying this to get on anyone's case. Just trying to put accurate info out there.
'Kusanagi'
is a Japanese
word, though. It's also part of Japanese lore, so we can add
cultural appropriation to the movie's transgressions ;)
Given that manga/anime characters are often
mukokuseki (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mukokuseki), a
biracial actor in the lead role have been more appropriate than someone Japanese. In the late '90s/early Naughties, THE MATRIX was a mid-budget film (albeit high-end). Keanu's name by itself hadn't carried a commercial success since SPEED but unlike, say, Maggie Q he was at least a known quantity (bolstered by various ensemble pieces), despite a series of flops prior to THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.
And that's the problem. Factoring in the additional expense of prints and advertising, there isn't a biracial female actor who's considered bankable enough to justify GHOST IN THE SHELL
not being allocated a blockbuster's budget.
Scarbo is an objective gamble as a lead, despite her high profile from successful ensemble movies like the MCU flicks. A studio with faith in their movie wouldn't be put off by casting someone with a shorter CV, as evidenced by a long list of comic book/action movies with stars who weren't exactly A-list at the time those films were made.
Although speaking as a white guy on a comics forum, I don't think whitewashing is that big a deal. Aloha was an okay film, and some of the Charlie Chans were quite good.
Quote from: Eric Plumrose on 11 April, 2017, 03:43:36 PM
'Kusanagi' is a Japanese word, though. It's also part of Japanese lore, so we can add cultural appropriation to the movie's transgressions ;)
The bigger problem is how the movie actually treats that name, ironically. That, for me, WAS a problem.
Also: Nobody likes a smartarse. :P
Quote from: Keef Monkey on 10 April, 2017, 02:25:05 PM
Ah no, I've worded things badly there - what I meant was that there have been differend GiTS 'brands' or soft reboots with different approaches and was using SAC and Arise as the examples. Not aware of any other iterations, but I've never really considered those two series as taking place in the same continuity as the two anime movies, they feel much more like distinctly different self contained series to me. So from that point of view I never had a problem with the idea of a US version, particularly as it distinguishes itself by using a new storyline (even if it does work in the iconic set-pieces and scenes from the original).
Ah, understood. Perhaps just some confusion of context.
Quote from: Keef Monkey on 10 April, 2017, 02:25:05 PMArise is good, although I personally don't think it's SAC-good. Damn that series was great.
I want to second that with gusto! I guess if I were a more cautious man I'd stop and think really really carefully before saying something like this, but what the heck, I guess I must have spent enough time in the past thinking about it. SAC may be the
best anime I've ever seen, in terms of consistency, respecting the viewers' intelligence, and including thought-provoking philosophical subtext regarding questions with no easy answers.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 11 April, 2017, 04:23:32 PM
Scarbo is an objective gamble as a lead, despite her high profile
To be fair, who else was there? J-Law was on a $20 million promise with Chris Pratt and she had all that blue face paint to scrub off once she'd fulfilled her X-MEN contract.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 11 April, 2017, 04:23:32 PM
from successful ensemble movies like the MCU flicks. A studio with faith in their movie wouldn't be put off by casting someone with a shorter CV, as evidenced by a long list of comic book/action movies with stars who weren't exactly A-list at the time those films were made.
I'm not sure it's a lack of faith, more a desire to maximize return. "Look! ScarJo! Kicking arse! In! the! nud! (oh, okay, it's a nude suit) But! SCARJO! KICKING ARSE! IN! THE!" etc..