Dreamworks/Paramount's Ghost In The Shell - Part 2

[lostzilla]

They spent millions of dollars to contract ScarJo to replace her perfect body with a new grotty CGI body #WTF

Is like to contract a Victoria Secret model to wear a burqa xD

 

[DorkyFresh]

I've been pondering the situation and I like the tactic Death Note took. The film is set in America which is majority white (for now) and thus has a white lead. I don't object to that tactic, I don't see it as white washing because I just see it as an American version of that story. Same with The Departed.

Yup! I'd rather see the same ghost but with a different shell, rather than the same shell but with a different ghost.

I just don't like the idea of talking everything from Asian culture and setting it in Asia but have it star a white person thing. I just think that's super uncool. So yeah if they had to make a Ghost in the Shell movie and wanted it to star a white lady then I would have preferred it be set in America.

It's funny because I hear a lot of arguments that say a White woman is fine because she's just playing a robot that could be any race. But then I look at the world they've created in this movie, which seems very Asian-centric, and I think..."if the Major lives within an upgraded version of a mass produced robot, wouldn't Hanka want to appeal towards the market?" That's my counter argument.

I can understand that sentiment, but this move would've also guaranteed no asian or Japanese representation at all. Not just with the cast, but with the Japanese cyberpunk culture that's absolutely essential to the spiritual and visual identity of GiTS. I'm not certain that's a tradeoff that would've been any less harshly criticized.

Very valid points and I actually agree with you to an extent. There are other ways to pay tribute to it's Japanese origins other than enveloping the characters in an Asian-centric world. They could've had a chase scene in a Chinatown portion of a Western megalopolis to pay homage to the chase scene in the market from the original anime. They could have made one supporting character Japanese but instead of giving him throw-away lines actually write him as a well rounded and compelling character. Those are just a couple off-the-cuff examples but regardless, I definitely agree that a GitS movie with Western aesthetics would've still be controversial.

But if they would have had a good script and filmmakers who truly understand and are able to convey similar themes, subtext, and ideologies of the source material then it could have at least stood a chance of having it's own audience....instead of no audience, like this film.

They spent millions of dollars to contract ScarJo to replace her perfect body with a new grotty CGI body #WTF

They replaced her shell!! WITH CG!! OMG, so meta!

J/m...they didn't really replace her body with CGI. They just layered special effects over her naked suit to give it a futuristic effect. That's why it looks CG.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I can understand that sentiment, but this move would've also guaranteed no asian or Japanese representation at all. Not just with the cast, but with the Japanese cyberpunk culture that's absolutely essential to the spiritual and visual identity of GiTS. I'm not certain that's a tradeoff that would've been any less harshly criticized. This movie's aesthetic owes a large part to that alone, and that's one of the few things universally praised.

Blade Runner is set in Los Angeles. With a diverse cast. Setting a film in US isn't an issue at all. You still can have your mandatory "chinatown".

It's funny because I hear a lot of arguments that say a White woman is fine because she's just playing a robot that could be any race. But then I look at the world they've created in this movie, which seems very Asian-centric, and I think..."if the Major lives within an upgraded version of a mass produced robot, wouldn't Hanka want to appeal towards the market?" That's my counter argument.

Doctor Omelette said ScarJo body is the future. Apparently everyone will become white in Asia.

 

[Jekecy]

Blade Runner is set in Los Angeles. With a diverse cast. Setting a film in US isn't an issue at all. You still can have your mandatory "chinatown".

And I'm assuming you'd be completely fine with American names as well? Because none of the cast should have the names they do if they're stateside and of American nationality.

What a riot that'd be, trying to honor the original names with American counterparts. Good luck with Togusa, Arimaki, and Batou.

Honestly at that point it shouldn't be called GiTS anymore. I'd rather the producers risk being called an absolute ripoff than just strip that many parts. It's arguably more intrusive than the whole of Sanders' adaptation, which actually tried to retain the cultural DNA.

 

[OutOfBoose]

And I'm assuming you'd be completely fine with American names as well? Because none of the cast should have the names they do if they're stateside and of American nationality.

Of course. And I talked about it on the previous page extensively. By the way, spoiler alert from page 5 of the manga, "Motoko Kusanagi" is a pseudonym.

What a riot that'd be, trying to honor the original names with American counterparts. Good luck with Togusa, Arimaki, and Batou.

What's the point of honoring original names if it's not set in Japan? There's only two ways to do it justice. American adaptation, that keeps the spirit and the essence. And homages certain visual aspects, but otherwise adapted to US reality. Or 100% faithful to the source - means set in Japan, played by all Japanese cast. Subtitles are necessary too.

Honestly at that point it shouldn't be called GiTS anymore. I'd rather the producers risk being called an absolute ripoff than just strip that many parts. It's arguably more intrusive than the whole of Sanders' adaptation, which actually tried to retain the cultural DNA.

Why is that? Is it called "Motoko Kusanagi" like Harry Potter or something?

 

[Jekecy]

What's the point of honoring original names if it's not set in Japan? There's only two ways to do it justice. American adaptation, that keeps the spirit and the essence. And homages certain visual aspects, but otherwise adapted to US reality. Or 100% faithful to the source - means set in Japan, played by all Japanese cast. Subtitles are necessary too.Why is that? Is it called "Motoko Kusanagi" like Harry Potter or something?

I don't think it's as binary as you make it seem. The backstory of GiTS already lends itself to diversity of nationalities and ethnicities. If they have to move it to America then I'd prefer they integrate Japan in there somehow. GiTS has had two more world wars than reality, so they're not exactly bound by our current makeup. Making Japan the leading world power influencing cultures and populations would be a nice meld. Would explain the Japanese "cities", language, and individuals with little effort.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I don't think it's as binary as you make it seem. The backstory of GiTS already lends itself to diversity of nationalities and ethnicities. If they have to move it to America then I'd prefer they integrate Japan in there somehow. GiTS has had two more world wars than reality, so they're not exactly bound by our current makeup. Making Japan the leading world power influencing cultures and populations would be a nice meld. Would explain the Japanese "cities", language, and individuals with little effort.

It's binary in a sense that any compromises will be half-measures. And will piss people off. Just like in this particular case. If you want to honor Japanese culture and pop-culture - go for it. Aramaki, Ishikawa, Batou, Kusanagi, fuchikomas... Without any lame excuses how Japan is a leading power and bla-bla. Just set it in Asia, either new location or outright Japan. Japanese actors, interiors, exteriors, sake and so on.

 

[DorkyFresh]

*sigh* These are great ideas from both sides of the coin......and they're all better than what they're giving us.

 

[OutOfBoose]

What's much worse, instead of talking about the story of this new film, we're endlessly talking about ethnic representation. It's an insanely boring subject, but we have nothing else to discuss because the film is dull and empty.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Hmm...certainly agree that the film seems dull and empty. Definitely disagree with ethnic representation being insanely boring. It's an important topic, especially in American entertainment and it reaches farther than only Asian ethnicity.

But we kind of are talking about the story of this movie, only in a negative sense. What's really sad is that we're sitting here dreaming about what could have been, instead of being able to enjoy the product that Rupert Sanders and co. have created.

 

[Jekecy]

It's binary in a sense that any compromises will be half-measures. And will piss people off. Just like in this particular case. If you want to honor Japanese culture and pop-culture - go for it. Aramaki, Ishikawa, Batou, Kusanagi, fuchikomas... Without any lame excuses how Japan is a leading power and bla-bla. Just set it in Asia, either new location or outright Japan. Japanese actors, interiors, exteriors, sake and so on.

There's no excuses being made. Japan is the leading world power in GiTS canon, thanks to WWIII and IV. America has shown to have lost its dominance. I'm merely using that backdrop to narratively explain the transposing of physical locale to a US-based city.

Logically I don't think it works to feature Japanese characters and settings, but have them speaking perfect English with natural American accents. Anime dubs are given leeway because they're understood to be Japanese productions tweaked for American enjoyment. In a live-action Hollywood adaptation, it is a bit of a cop out without proper context.

I'm a little perplexed how you'd be completely for an entirely US-centric version of this IP, but be opposed to a slight tweak of the already established canon history so both American and Japanese audiences can enjoy this hypothetical film.

*sigh* These are great ideas from both sides of the coin......and they're all better than what they're giving us.

Have you seen the film already? You don't think there's a foundation there to be improved upon, even with a new director and/or writer?

 

[DorkyFresh]

Have you seen the film already? You don't think there's a foundation there to be improved upon, even with a new director and/or writer?

Haven't seen it yet but I've seen enough reviews and most of the spoilers so I know most of the plot. I guess, creatively, they could salvage the best parts of this world, in a sequel with better filmmakers...


...unfortunately with a 41% score on RT and the inevitable bad word of mouth (not just from the racial controversary but ALSO creative criticisms, a couple of which actually exacerbate the race issue) I seriously doubt it'll make enough at the B.O. to earn a sequel. But then again sequels that no one asked for seems to be the trend in Hollywood as of late so you never know.

 

[OutOfBoose]

There's no excuses being made. Japan is the leading world power in GiTS canon, thanks to WWIII and IV. America has shown to have lost its dominance. I'm merely using that backdrop to narratively explain the transposing of physical locale to a US-based city.

It will look like a lame excuse to use all-Japanese cast of key characters (Section 9) and set them working in Los Angeles, for example. If it's not Los Angeles, but Asia, then I'm not sure what you're arguing with. That's exactly what I suggest.

I'm a little perplexed how you'd be completely for an entirely US-centric version of this IP, but be opposed to a slight tweak of the already established canon history so both American and Japanese audiences can enjoy this hypothetical film.

Because you need to spend a lot of time on world building and explaining how the world ended up like that. US-centric and Japan-centric adaptations are what they are. You don't need to waste your time on unnecessary stuff. It's hard to pull-off convincingly and it's not integral for the story.

 

[TWayneP]

What's much worse, instead of talking about the story of this new film, we're endlessly talking about ethnic representation. It's an insanely boring subject, but we have nothing else to discuss because the film is dull and empty.

There's nothing to discuss because you people HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I don't discuss films with people who have not seen it.

I would like to. There is deep subject matter to be discussed with this film, there's just no one here to discuss it with. It baffles me.

 

[OutOfBoose]

There's a bunch of people who watched it already. I'm not seeing much discussion from them.

 

[DorkyFresh]

There's nothing to discuss because you people HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I don't discuss films with people who have not seen it.

I would like to. There is deep subject matter to be discussed with this film, there's just no one here to discuss it with. It baffles me.

There are plenty of people who have posted their reviews here after having seen it. So if you really want to discuss the deep subject matter of this movie with them, please don't let us prevent you from expressing your heart's desire.

 

[Jekecy]

Haven't seen it yet but I've seen enough reviews and most of the spoilers so I know most of the plot. I guess, creatively, they could salvage the best parts of this world, in a sequel with better filmmakers...


...unfortunately with a 41% score on RT and the inevitable bad word of mouth (not just from the racial controversary but ALSO creative criticisms, a couple of which actually exacerbate the race issue) I seriously doubt it'll make enough at the B.O. to earn a sequel. But then again sequels that no one asked for seems to be the trend in Hollywood as of late so you never know.

I'll wait until the full numbers come in, but I'm still shocked at the astronomically low opening predictions. I wasn't counting on Scarlett alone to gather crowds en masse, but the coming weeks isn't all that stacked and the trailers looked cool enough to pique curiosity I would think.

Because you need to spend a lot of time on world building and explaining how the world ended up like that.

It doesn't though. It took SAC all of 5 minutes to set up the basic premise, and further details related to the plot came along later when it was appropriate. There is nothing complicated about a world power taking over the populace and culture of another country. That's basic history. We're literally in the country who's notorious for it.

US-centric and Japan-centric adaptations are what they are. You don't need to waste your time on unnecessary stuff. It's hard to pull-off convincingly and it's not integral for the story.

You're making this seem more complex than it actually is. I think you should give audiences more credit for grasping quick world-building. This is a component of most sci-fi and people have for the most part acclimated just fine. Your very own reference film from a couple posts back was more aggressive in force-feeding viewers a completely new world context from the jump.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I'll wait until the full numbers come in, but I'm still shocked at the astronomically low opening predictions. I wasn't counting on Scarlett alone to gather crowds en masse, but the coming weeks isn't all that stacked and the trailers looked cool enough to pique curiosity I would think.

Well if the word of mouth hasn't killed it off by next weekend then it may be able to make a bit of money, but on it's 3rd weekend The Fate of the Furious opens.

 

[OutOfBoose]

It doesn't though. It took SAC all of 5 minutes to set up the basic premise, and further details related to the plot came along later when it was appropriate. There is nothing complicated about a world power taking over the populace and culture of another country. That's basic history. We're literally in the country who's notorious for it.

SAC is set in Japan (for vast majority of time). So all Japanese names and other cultural elements are natural to the environment. So no, if you're going to flip the world on it's head, you better have a good reason for that and good explanation.

You're making this seem more complex than it actually is. I think you should give audiences more credit for grasping quick world-building. This is a component of most sci-fi and people have for the most part acclimated just fine. Your very own reference film from a couple posts back was more aggressive in force-feeding viewers a completely new world context from the jump.

No, I don't. Blade Runner intro is a bad example again. Because nothing in that intro has anything to do with ethnicity, countries or political structure.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Well if the word of mouth hasn't killed it off by next weekend then it may be able to make a bit of money, but on it's 3rd weekend The Fate of the Furious opens.

I think GITS is one of those properties, that aren't critic-proof. Good word of mouth, positive buzz and critical reception would allow it to make some money, but there's none of that.

 

[Greens]

I should have been the lead.

 

[dude stannis]

I should have been the lead.

You where too busy playing the Kankerman in Before I Wake at the time.

 

[MadVillainy]

I've been pondering the situation and I like the tactic Death Note took. The film is set in America which is majority white (for now) and thus has a white lead. I don't object to that tactic, I don't see it as white washing because I just see it as an American version of that story. Same with The Departed.

I just don't like the idea of talking everything from Asian culture and setting it in Asia but have it star a white person thing. I just think that's super uncool. So yeah if they had to make a Ghost in the Shell movie and wanted it to star a white lady then I would have preferred it be set in America.

That's what I've been saying, especially the first paragraph

I didn't know they kept it set in Japan until I saw a review. That is a bit weird

I actually do wonder if The Departed was made today would it get the whitewashing backlash

 

[jed]

The only problem with Scarlett Johanson in this movie is that now...it doesn't seems necessary for a Black Widow solo movie anymore.

The Major is too similar to Natasha. Storyline is also way too similar. Woman with no memory of her past, programmed to be a weapon, trying to find her past and identity.


Honestly, we don't need a Black Widow movie anymore.

 

[mikeboydus]

The only problem with Scarlett Johanson in this movie is that now...it doesn't seems necessary for a Black Widow solo movie anymore.

The Major is too similar to Natasha. Storyline is also way too similar. Woman with no memory of her past, programmed to be a weapon, trying to find her past and identity.


Honestly, we don't need a Black Widow movie anymore.

Disney would do a better job though at least terms of being a fun and cool film with a strong supporting cast.

This film lacks that fun factor and the only decent supporting characters, Batou and Aramaki, don't get enough screen time or development.

Disney has the spectacle film concept down to a science. I would love to see Sam Jackson and Jeremy Renner in strong supporting roles in a Black Widow film filled with memorable moments of action and humor.