|
Milky Moor posted:Hah, it's sure a lot of words to say 'I like the anime and it did everything Good but this one did everything Bad'. Seriously. 7 minutes of "this subjective thing=good, this one=bad" . Which is how I feel about a lot of critiques of this movie. The anime does have a way better look to it though imo. Still, what a lame breakdown.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A long rebuttal. I really like the movie personally, enough to get the blu ray. It has a lot of good parts to it and you can tell there was some heart behind it, but it's deeply flawed and not very good overall. My top criteria for liking movies are generally aesthetics and characters, which this movie did very well I think which is why I still like it despite the flaws. This is all my own opinion of course and you're entitled to your own. I'm not saying remakes are categorically bad, and I don't believe they made this movie different from the original on accident. I certainly didn't mean for it to come across that way and I apologize if it did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm just saying that it didn't work as a faithful remake Who says an adaptation has to be faithful? Maybe this remake likes to bang loads of other movies that you don't even know about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
And More posted:Who says an adaptation has to be faithful? Maybe this remake likes to bang loads of other movies that you don't even know about. Actually it's the other way around, it was the '95 film that got banged by loads of other movies
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm just saying that it didn't work as a faithful remake that captured the spirit of the original, or as an interesting new interpretation of it. They had all the classic scenes that everyone loved in there, but they weren't really as good as they were in the original, with the exception of the characters of batou and the chief, who are probably some of my favorite interpretations of the characters. They had a lot of potentially interesting new ideas, but they were clumsily handled and wound up not being very compelling. Whatever your feelings, the issue is that none of what you've written actually makes sense. Stock phrases like "capturing the spirit" are 'deep' and meaningless, conveying only a sense of dissatisfaction. "Faithful to the original classic!" is marketing-speak - a phrase you'll find in ad copy, or a Travers quote on the back of a DVD case. So when someone asks you what on Earth you're talking about, you... well, you can't can you? This issue is endemic to discussion of this particular film, and is not neutral or apolitical. We've already seen people deploying the term 'whitewashing' and then struggling badly to explain what 'whitewashing' is, and so-on. Even the praise is hampered: 'it looks pretty'. Complaint supplants criticism when posters have no frame of reference to allow for the formation of an opinion, and no vocabulary with which to express it. Instead of discussing the cyborg film in terms of like Donna Harraway or Marshal McLuhan, it's memes derived from clickbait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Dumb question, but does it even take place in Japan? I couldn't really tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Dumb question, but does it even take place in Japan? I couldn't really tell. It's Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
It's filmed in Hong Kong but it is never mentioned where they are. In all the original material it is implied it is Japan or a Japanese territory. Section 9 is a covert arm of the Japanese government, although I can't remember if that is even implied in the new film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Yeah I just meant the new film. I always just assumed the 1995 movie was in Japan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Yeah I just meant the new film. I always just assumed the 1995 movie was in Japan. 1995 is heavily inspired by Hong Kong, but I'm not sure if it is ever brought up and what language all the signs use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
The '95 film takes place after a 'second post-war miracle,' which is to say, a return to pre-war imperialism. At some point, there has either been a massive military-economic push into the asian continent, or a massive migration of Chinese into Japan, such that an entire city could basically become a ethnically heterodox, predominately Chinese-speaking population lorded over by mostly light-skinned military aristocracy. The set-up for the movie is that this nation-state is at war with 'cyber-terrorists,' but the twist is that the cyber-terrorist was actually created by the military aristocracy, and that its original function was to wage clandestine warfare and subterfuge against other nation-states/rival imperial powers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Whatever your feelings, the issue is that none of what you've written actually makes sense. When I say capturing the spirit of the original I mean going for a straight remake of the original, capturing the same general themes, scenes, and plot beats without just having it be a shot for shot copy which I think capturing the spirit of conveys pretty well in fewer words. When I say an interesting new take, I mean drop all the cobbled together classic storylines and plot beats that they retrofitted to match up with the new themes and plot and work from the ground up. I think the movie would have been better if they had taken either of these paths. I don't think anyone was really struggling to explain what whitewashing was, and it's an asian property that got a white lead, so it's a pretty valid complaint. Personally it didn't bother me as much because I think it was worked into the plot rather well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
GoldenGun posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2soHxEN79c I thought the point raised in this thread was that gits16 had pretty visuals that were completely wasted thematically and the story was a lovely mashup of two other stories. He doesn't press on that the casting of the Major was inappropriate as much as this thread does, but I don't see this thread's opinion of the movie being that much different. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
LashLightning posted:I thought the point raised in this thread was that gits16 had pretty visuals that were completely wasted thematically and the story was a lovely mashup of two other stories. He doesn't press on that the casting of the Major was inappropriate as much as this thread does, but I don't see this thread's opinion of the movie being that much different. The thread doesn't have an opinion and lots of people have disagreed with those people who did make similar arguments. Clearly goldengun does too
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
I think calling the Majors casting inappropriate is extreme.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Yeah I just meant the new film. I always just assumed the 1995 movie was in Japan. All of the manga take place in "New Port City" or Niihama in the Japanese versions, which is an actual city in Japan. It's a quiet, small old mining town in the real world but they figured after massive wars, huge geopolitical shifts, etc. its location would basically make it the new biggest city in Japan. The 1995 movie is intentionally murky about this, it is also in New Port City but they explicitly used Hong Kong as a reference guide for all of the movie, even maintaining the same kanji on signs and stuff because they wanted it was a place that (due to back story stuff) was filled with basically a diaspora of immigrants from Hong Kong for years. It technically is still in the same place but the borders/everything in Ghost in the Shell's world is significantly different from how it is today, like the US no longer exists and there are three different countries within what were the US' borders, etc. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:When I say capturing the spirit of the original I mean going for a straight remake of the original, capturing the same general themes, scenes, and plot beats without just having it be a shot for shot copy which I think capturing the spirit of conveys pretty well in fewer words. When I say an interesting new take, I mean drop all the cobbled together classic storylines and plot beats that they retrofitted to match up with the new themes and plot and work from the ground up. I think the movie would have been better if they had taken either of these paths. Again, though: none of this makes sense. Your clarification just confuses things further. What is 'capturing the plot'? Why are 'plot' and 'themes' presented as interchangeable? Which 'general themes' are you referring to? Your writing is incredibly vague, despite multiple attempts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
You're a lot more engaged with correcting other people's lack of engagement with this film than you are with this film. Come on, dude, be the change you want to see in the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
I'm really trying to make this as simple as I can. It felt like a straight up remake of the original movie and a brand new story from the same universe cobbled together in a haphazard way, how much simpler do you want me to make it? Would "movie bad, me no like" work for you? I feel like you're being willfully obtuse and keep just trying to split hairs on vocabulary.
tweet my meat fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm really trying to make this as simple as I can. It felt like a straight up remake of the original movie and a brand new story from the same universe cobbled together in a haphazard way, how much simpler do you want me to make it? Would "movie bad, me no like" work for you? I feel like you're being willfully obtuse and keep just trying to split hairs on vocabulary. I think he was hoping for more detail, not less. Like, what themes did you feel were being underserved or confused because there were two stories competing? What was confusing about the plot because of this intermingling you're perceiving? I know what you're saying but what are you saying it about, what you've said so far leaves anyone reading to guess which elements of the movie are which in your serving two masters schema. And heck, if you don't wanna write about the movie in detail far be it for me to give a turd but SMG is gonna give you the Socrates with a hangover treatment until you do
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
I'm mostly avoiding going into detail because it's been months since I've seen it. He's trying to get specifics, but all I have right now is my general opinion of the movie, and I don't really care enough to watch it again and pick out specific scenes just for an internet post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
I do remember Takeshi Kitano shooting a bunch of dudes while using a briefcase as a shield, that was pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
I watched the other Ghost in the shell things after this and I agree it seems like they've just jammed a bunch of scenes, feelings and plotlines together then gone tada!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm mostly avoiding going into detail because it's been months since I've seen it. He's trying to get specifics, but all I have right now is my general opinion of the movie, and I don't really care enough to watch it again and pick out specific scenes just for an internet post. If you don't remember anything, that's no different from the weirds who turned it off after five minutes. You weren't paying attention - and have even repeated that you didn't care to pay attention. Yet you are writing anyways. What we're left with is vague complaint interspersed with error - for example, you conflate 'remaking' with direct translation to a different medium, when the term for the latter is 'adaptation'. So you complain that the film was a bad remake because it was a remake, instead of the adaptation (of animation to live-action) that you expected. And again, this is not an isolated case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I don't really grasp the appeal of GiTS 95 to be honest. I do like Major's design. I guess I'm into icy androgynous muscle girls?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I don't think anyone was really struggling to explain what whitewashing was, and it's an asian property that got a white lead, so it's a pretty valid complaint. Personally it didn't bother me as much because I think it was worked into the plot rather well. More white people got pissed than Asians did about a white lead in this. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:More white people got pissed than Asians did about a white lead in this. Well, there are way more white people than Asian people in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:More white people got pissed than Asians did about a white lead in this. Do I exist? Do Asian American actors on Twitter complaining about Hollywood exist? From my experience it's white liberals who keep shutting down every conversation about discrimination in Hollywood if it remotely challenges Thing That They Want To Like. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Japanese audiences (being extremely general here) didn't really care about the casting choice because it's not like there's a shortage of roles for Japanese people in Japanese movies, and ever since that became "news" via some entertainment site articles we've seen people use that as a cudgel against Asian American actors getting big roles in Hollywood and to act like only white "SJWs snowflakes" had a problem with it. It's so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
It's 100% a valid complaint, I'm just saying that it didn't really detract from my enjoyment of the movie. SuperMechagodzilla posted:If you don't remember anything, that's no different from the weirds who turned it off after five minutes. You weren't paying attention - and have even repeated that you didn't care to pay attention. Yet you are writing anyways. I remember my opinion of the movie from when I watched it, not the specifics of the movie. The fact that I eventually forgot those specifics does not retroactively make my opinion invalid. Again, that's not what I said at all as I have told you a few times. I said pick a direction and stick with it, direct adaptation or entirely new direction. My complaint is that the movie can't choose between the two and winds up being an odd mishmash of new ideas and classic fanservice scenes that wasn't integrated very well. Maybe a different director could have handled the mix a bit better, but it wasn't handled very well by Sanders. If you want to twist and oversimplify this criticism into "The film was a bad remake because it was a remake, I turned this off after 5 minutes" so that it better supports your point, I wont stop you, but you're pretty clearly not interested in the point I'm actually trying to make and I'm not really interested in arguing semantics with a brick wall. tweet my meat fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:The fact that I eventually forgot those specifics does not retroactively make my opinion invalid. It doesn't make your opinion invalid, but it does make your posts uncompelling. Your time might be better spent posting about movies you do remember the details of, whether good or bad, than defending your right to post over and over that you vaguely didn't like this movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I remember my opinion of the movie from when I watched it, not the specifics of the movie. The fact that I eventually forgot those specifics does not retroactively make my opinion invalid. It does somewhat hinder your ability to defend your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
The most telling thing is that, while you can criticise 'tweet my meat' for forgetting parts of the film, no one has actually put together a compelling reading. On CineD. A forum which had a multi page discussion on the racial politics implied by the Barbershop movies. At this point, we are spending more time on the critical reaction to the film than the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Fair enough. I was just dropping my two cents and wound up getting dragged into a much deeper discussion about my criticism when all I really wanted to say that the movie deserved a lot of the criticism it received even if a lot that criticism was flawed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Japanese audiences (being extremely general here) didn't really care about the casting choice because it's not like there's a shortage of roles for Japanese people in Japanese movies, and ever since that became "news" via some entertainment site articles we've seen people use that as a cudgel against Asian American actors getting big roles in Hollywood and to act like only white "SJWs snowflakes" had a problem with it. It's so loving stupid. The issue is that you have this pseudo-opposition between liberal centrism and the "alt-" right wing. Progressive politics are foreclosed. A leftist response is 'unimaginable'. But Ghost in the Shell 2017, very straightforwardly, an intersectional feminist film that simply happens to not be conducive to liberal appropriation. Liberals will celebrate an 'rear end-kicking Asian femme' in even the most reactionary films - e.g. the short-lived "Mako Mori test", a campaign to make the fascist Japanese woman from Pacific Rim into a poster child for Hollywood multiculturalism. (A good example of how centrists and the right-wing are not actually opposed, but are merely sides of the same coin). This film, instead, does an unquestionably effective job of separating the politics of race and gender (and so-on) from those identity politics. That's what makes it so traumatic: Mira doesn't have an identity. She's a monster. Her complicity in the oppression of the Chinese population on behalf of white (and Japanese) supremacist institutions has literally turned her white. While a victim of sexism and racism, she is also a participant - she beats up Japanese pimps but then takes advantage of a black prostitute and, so-on. Things are nuanced. Boundaries are blurred. But the whitewashing meme is an escape from the simple fact that K.Waste had stressed - that Section 9 are the bad guys; in the popular Marvel films, they are called HYDRA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Her complicity in the oppression of the Chinese population on behalf of white (and Japanese) supremacist institutions has literally turned her white. While a victim of sexism and racism, she is also a participant - she beats up Japanese pimps but then takes advantage of a black prostitute and, so-on. Things are nuanced. Boundaries are blurred. gently caress man I am going to say this to people and blow their dicks off over dinner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
The funny thing is that they cast Scarlett to make more money, but if they had cast an Asian American actress (they do exist! Despite what Hollywood tells you!) they probably would have made more money. They wouldn't have made less. It wouldn't be possible to make less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
And this isn't a subversion. This is loyalty to the source material. In the film and the anime series, Section 9 is is explicitly and extra-legal fascist organization. Their job is explicitly to kill people who are inconvenient for the state. That's literally why The Major turns invisible in the iconic scene. She's assassinating someone with diplomatic immunity, because "it's the right thing to do".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
I don't understand the objection to critiquing this as an adaption when so much of the material is directly adapting previous works. If this was a wholly new story told with familiar characters perhaps it would have been better and could have been reviewed without so much baggage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
JBP posted:I watched the other Ghost in the shell things after this and I agree it seems like they've just jammed a bunch of scenes, feelings and plotlines together then gone tada! My favorite part is how it took all the source material, that's like a Twinkie. And they sucked out all the white filling goodness and then used it all to make a single movie. When there is only the yummy filling with nothing to contrast it then nothing is special. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 07:36
|
|