Amph Ghost in the Shell

Spoiler

In the case of casting Scarlett Johansson you have the combination of the source material(especially Oshii's film which is clearly the main influence and most well known version of it) implying at the very least an ethnicity neutral character and at most a Caucasian one plus of course on the economic side allowing for the casting of a popular star. When you've made that decision I think adding the switch in ethnicity plot within the film was an effective choice exactly because it did not need a massive amount of leg work from the script to have an impact and avoid any negative view of her original race. The additional disassociating effect is I think very obviously plus you could argue your naturally drawing on exactly the issue the film was accursed off. Within the film this allows for a ramping up of the drama around the major discovering the details of her background, its reveal coming before the final reveal of the kidnapping and forced mechanisation.

I did mention the potential for a switch in gender but your I'd say dealing with politics that would have been a lot of time to address sat factually and a massive shift from the source material if you have the major cyborg as male. Doing the latter would obviously have gotten a massive negative reaction before release and doing either would I think need time to address the potential for "strong woman is actually a man" or "woman needs to become a man to be strong" which would have needed a great deal of time devoted to it to counter. I think there is potential within such plots but really they would be best left to an original film rather than altering this adaptation plus a film having to bend less to the demands of a modern large blockbuster which generally preclude more complex drama/politics.

Within the existing framework of the series and a modern action blockbuster I think a female lead is much more successful anyway. I'd say a lot of the reason why directors like Cameron went with female leads in the past with more ambitious films within the genre is because blockbuster audieces(and studios) will accept a wider emotionally range from woman than men, indeed I felt TFA was a big missed opportunity there having Rey as a pretty swallow character mostly being a vessel for the audiences nostalgia. More specifically to this story I would also say that the "nude" camouflage would not have gotten across the same sense of vulnerability/body disassociation with a male lead(look at say Vision within the Marvel films who's in pretty much the same getup to less notice) and neither would the body ripping with the tank at the end

 

Wocky, have you seen the original anime?

 

Someone will have to explain what an "ethnicity neutral" person is. I'll have to reiterate that I saw nothing especially non-Asian about a Japanese woman with a Japanese name who was living in Japan.

This is exactly my point. Why is it acceptable to use "a minority can't headline a big film" as an excuse, when it's so clearly wrong to say the same thing about gender? Why aren't both wrong? This is really the heart of this entire discussion.

Ender, of course I have. I've seen almost every other part of this franchise, across all the various media.

 

I really don't think "whitewashing" hurt Ghost In the Shell at the box office that much for several reasons. First of all, the original anime is such a niche film, so I don't think it could be said that the general movie audience is boycotting the film because of the "whitewashing." Secondly, pretty much every fan of the original anime went to go see this live version adaption. And, for what I can tell, folks in Japan and other Asian markets don't appear to be bothered by this "whitewashing."

 

I don't know whether this controversy played a role in this film's relative under-performance or not. While I sincerely hope it did, I will have had many greater surprises and disappointments if this was not the case.

Put that aside. Look at how objectionable you found the idea of warping a story to change the lead character's gender for what were supposedly box office considerations? Why is it that for so many people, making a similar change to character's ethnicity registers no such reaction at all, let alone one of equal vehemence? What does that say about American society (because that is where this film was made) and its commitment to diversity? Especially given that there, ethnicity can have a greater impact on the course of one's life than gender. Why not give it equal regard, then?

 

Ok, wasn't sure if this was an esoteric crusade or not.

I haven't seen the film, but I'm basically avoiding the cinema a bit of late (unintentionally). TV is so much stronger.

I didn't view the casting as particularly objectionable but I view the whole Asian-American thing as a series of weirdly mis-timed outrages.

i.e. "Iron Fist should be Asian-American!" - well, ok, but I'm not sure its shortcomings are due to the character being ethnically indistinct from his comic book origins.

"GitS' lead should be Asian!" - when you see adaptations of Western stories in Asia, there's no attempt to say "well we're doing Romeo + Juliet in modern day HK or Taipei or whatever, let's get Italians". It's standing to reason that we'd Westernise the property. What seems to be the problem with this really is that the characters and story are inherently rooted in Japanese cultural norms and that's what the anime was built on. If the film carried that sensibility over, it would be esoteric to mainstream audiences. So, they dilute it and Westernise it, removing a core element of what made it, well, it.

On top of this, Asian-Americans are horribly under-represented in media.

 

I don't know that I really disagree with anything you posted, except that your analysis of this live action film itself is weird.

Yes, they layered over an interesting story with a generic blockbuster mishmash. But the setting is not "Westernized." It's still supposed to be set Asia. They just slapped a white woman into the middle of it. This is odd in precisely the same way the Biblical epics of yester-year would try for faithful recreations of ancient Judea, peopled extensively with Middle Eastern cast members, explicitly excepting the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, decidedly Anglo-Saxon Jesus. In either case, going out of your way to change the ethnicity of one character for reasons that really aren't necessitated by the plot or explored in the narrative really does say something about the filmmakers.

 

It also says a lot about the audience.

Asians in Asia would not see this as problematic (also, isn't Batou anglicised?) but we do. I can say that with confidence based on a) being quite close to Asian culture myself and b) based on the reaction of the Japanese to the casting.

 

I'll grant you that readily.

But I don't think that's the ultimate arbiter of the action's appropriateness. After all, many people are ready to shrug off the relative paucity of female leads, too (Or would have shrugged off a gender-swapped main character). We should not foster a culture that posits whiteness as somehow more universal or heroic than non-whites. Full stop.

 

Eh for my point of view I'm not a huge fan of shifting fundamentals of most characters, be it gender, race, etc. More often than not the reasons behind it are cheap or nasty - i.e. shock, capturing a public trend, or because underlying racism.

i.e.

Bad/stupid: Making Peter Parker black
Good: Filming a Miles Morales Spiderman

But to the latter (racism), remember when Angelina Jolie LITERALLY blackfaced for a film?

I just don't see, and I admit probable bias influencing it (proximity to Asians), ScarJo as the reason for the film being ****.

 

As has been said MANY times in this thread though in other versions of this franchise your dealing with a woman who might originally have been Japanese but has been given an entirely new body that to me does not look very Japanese in Oshii's film at least(a bit moreso in the original manga maybe). Some would say this is a product of the style of manga/anime character design but I would disagree, I think in Oshii's films you can clearly see differences in ethnicity between western and asian.

The issue you were being critical of was the change from having a Japanese name to just being called "major" in this film with the implication that her ethnic background had been wiped for purely commercial reasons. As I said it might though actually we can see that change was so her background could actually become a more significant part of the story.

Yes I'd agree the most significant issue in the US(although less so places like France) is that the anime/manga is simply not known very well. That said I do think the whitewashing talk has had a negative impact as well although perhaps more of an indirect one though the reviews. I think you end up with pretty much a perfect storm for bad reviews here...

1.A chance for reviewers to do some political grandstanding that gets more attension and needs less work/talent.
2.A film that doesn't follow the beloved modern action/meta humour formula.
3,An adaptation of a property that's valued highly.

Not that I think this was classic cinema but it was IMHO considerably better cinema than a lot of dross reviewers give the rubber stamp to these days.

 

I think this live action version of Ghost In the Shell was watered down for mass appeal, and therefore lost the more intriguing aspects of the anime. It devolved from a fascinating and richly deep world into something that was pretty simplistic. Really, strip away the special effect and stunning visuals, the remaining characters and story are left wanting.

I wish this 2017 version of the film would have stuck with the Puppet Master as the villain as it would have force the film to delve into A.I. and the blurred line between A.I. and the human conscientious. Additionally, it would have added depth to the story and be thought provoking.

To save the Puppet Master for a potential sequel is such a Hollywood move too, in that, studios nowadays want to create a franchise instead of making quality films. Meaning, films will intentionally cut in self short or the quality will suffer in order to set sequel films. This Ghost In Shell does neither. It's not a great quality film and it doesn't really set itself up for a sequel, much less have the audience clamoring for one.

Again, I don't believe "whitewashing" is a real detriment at the box office, especially in the Asian markets. I mean, the film opened at $18 million in North America, where as in China, the film opened with $21 million. And, I don't remember reading or hearing any critics state that this feel would have been much better if an Asian actress was cast in the lead role. Moreover, if this film was really good, word of mouth would have helped it at the box office as it helped films like "Get Out" and "Split."

 

How are you coming to this conclusion? According to you, it literally never comes up in the story. They just focus on the kidnapping aspect that would have been just as traumatic if she was Japanese and stolen from her parents. You can't say that changed "was so" we could see something the film never actually addresses.

 

Which is why making the Major Asian would have amounted to essentially nothing. This has happened in many other properties, whether they were developed in the West or otherwise.

 

Yeah I'd agree it was watered down to some degree although I had this down a pretty much a foregone conclusion as soon as it was announced. That said I don't think this was nearly as extreme as it could have been, we didn't get a film with the credibility of Oshii's but neither did we get a paper thin actioner/humour rollercoaster dressed up in the clothes of the original as happens all to often(especially when the words "directed by JJ Abrams" come before it).

Given the basic style of the film I'm not really sure the Puppet Master story would have been that effective, that really needs to sell the idea of the major losing touch with her humanity which I think needs the kind of subtle hand Oshii showed it its character study. As it is I think we got a fairly smart mainstream Hollywood film that wouldn't have been able to deliver that, indeed the sections along those lines were I felt rather less effective where as the origin material worked very well adding rather more dramatic depth that we generally see from modern blockbusters. Again what comes to mind for me is the Matrix sequels that attempted a high concept plot(rather than the simpler hero/romance one of the original) but in a style that simply couldn't support it, this film did benefit from a significant better cast but I just don't think lengthy scenes of the Major/Batou showing subtler drama/existential angst were ever really on the table.

Really in the US I think it was always going to have to make its own way rather than depending on a large built in fanbase and in this respect I think reviews/hype were important and I do think the temptation to go with the whitewashing narrative negatively effected it. In Japan it does obviously have a larger fanbase(and to a lesser degree in some mainland European nations where classic anime/manga is somewhat more popular) where as in China films do seem to be rather more "critic proof".

According to me where? I,v mentioned several times that it clearly does and I do think its an effective way of ramping up the drama introducing it before the final reveal.

 

The Wachowski siblings have long and often stated that The Matrix was heavily influenced by Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell and used the anime film to pitch The Matrix to producer Joel Silver. So, it's easy to have The Matrix come to mind when trying to describe or make a comparative film for Ghost In the Shell. The Matrix is a perfect example of style and substance, as it is thought provoking with the Hollywood tropes.

I cannot say that Ghost in the Shell is a smart mainstream Hollywood film. At best, I think, it's a mediocre Hollywood flick. I mean, aside from The Matrix, I think of films like the original Terminator, the recent Planet of the Apes films and Edge of Tomorrow (also based off of a manga), are a nice blend of smart and Hollywood blockbuster as they create intriguing premises and compelling and challenging story arcs. With Terminator, there's the food for thought of time traveling, the rise of artificial intelligence and is there such a thing as destiny? Planet of the Apes is essentially the Frankenstein's monster story and builds upon it, in ways that are similar to Animal Farm; which are played through Caesar and Koba. Edge of Tomorrow, also explores the idea of changing the future as well as thinking outside the box for story. Terminator, Planet of the Apes and Edge of Tomorrow are fine examples of smart mainstream Hollywood movies whereas Ghost In The Shell is on the level of the 2014 version of RoboCop (the original RoboCop was a wonderful satire, btw).

That's why I think the Puppet Master would have served the 2017 version of Ghost In the Shell quite nicely, as it would force "the Major" and the audience to think about artificial intelligence being sentient and contemplate how much different is that from having human conscious place in a machine; a ghost in a shell? The Puppet Master as a character onto itself invokes the age of story of Frankenstein's monster and the consequences thereof, which is the basis of many scifi stories regarding the rise of A.I. Moreover, as the lead villain, The Puppet Master would also serve as the foundation for plot and theme of film, is A.I. a detriment to humanity or a new form of life, where humanity created life in its own image. That's how smart and thought provoking Ghost In The Shell could have been with The Puppet Master, instead of kitty approving a stranger to come inside. That's why I think the absence of The Puppet Master waters down this film.

 

Honestly I think the original Matrix as a film of great depth is something that's never been true and led to a lot of the failings of the sequels. The concept of a virtual world is interesting certainly but really when you get down to it what is the plot? its your classic heroes journey/romance, I'd characterise it as a "fairly smart mainstream Hollywood film" as well but not a work of massive ambition. Nothing wrong with that at all for me as I think the style of the film is best suited to this, its a slick fast paced bit of action sci fi not a work of great subtly in terms of drama or concept. The sequels would IMHO have been better off sticking to similar ground but instead I think they tried to live up the idea of the Matrix as a modern 2001/Bladerunner and ended up with a bad mismatch of high concept plot but a style that simply could not support it.

I don't think this film is as well made as the original Matrix, the plot doesn't hold together as well feeling a bit clunky in places trying to juggle too many elements. It does for me though share that films understanding of the kind of level its operating at, its main plot focuses on drama it can actually back up in the origin story not higher concept stuff that it likely would not have been able to.

I would say it does benefit from a somewhat better cast than the Matrix, Johansson most obviously has superior acting chops to Reeves(although to be fair he's improved since) but if you look at her career I think you see the difference as well. Something like Under the Skin could go high concept because it was a small budget art project that could sell it dramatically, all those lengthy scenes getting across the idea of her for her human disguise and trying unsuccessfully to live with it. A more standard blockbuster action film would not have been able to sell that plot in the same fashion IMHO and along the same line I'm not sure the Pupper Master plot could have been sold in this style either.

 

I find, and many other as well, find the original Matrix a rich and deep film with it's religious overtones, symbolism and allegories. I mean, there's so much going on in the original film it's been a subject of many essays and film analysis. To make a long analysis short, one of allegories of The Matrix is that it's very reflective of the modern world with government monitoring which are embodied in the "Agents" as they try to control the people and information; not to mention promoting propaganda that Morpheus (in mythology is the God of Dreams) is a terrorist. Morpheus and Neo want to expose the truth about their world, which is stated in the last scene of the film when Neo is in the phone booth. There's more, but I don't have the time or want to expend the effort in covering it all. But, I high recommend the videos breaking down the depth of The Matrix; the second video points out that even the seemingly mundane scene of the Nebuchadnezzar (a reference to the Old Testament) crew having a meal is very symbolic as one of the character goes on how everything tastes like chicken and how would a machine know what chicken taste like (very thought provoking) :





And the plot of the film is simple, which is, find "The One" that can destroy the Matrix and free humanity.

And I totally agree that Ghost in the Shell is not as well made as the original Matrix film. There's a lot of style but no real substance to the film; either as a provocative scifi flick or a blockbuster action film. It tries to find middle ground between the two and lands on mediocrity.

And yes, Under the Skin is well suited for it's budget as it's a very abstract and artist film told with symbolism and absent of any exposition or narrative. I'd say ScarJo's character in Under the Skin was more captivating than the Major in Ghost in the Shell as the story does question where underneath the skin and journeys with her to discovery what it means to be human. Whereas, the Major not necessarily does that in the film but rather trying to uncover the truth of her past. Meaning, she's not really trying to find out what it means to be human or connect with humanity, but why her memory is incomplete.

I think a major blockbuster could sell The Puppet Master, especially in light of The Matrix and the news today filled with cyber hacking, driver less cars, intuitive devices/software program (i.e. Apple's Siri and Google's Alexa) that reflect the early stages of A.I. and of course government spying. The Puppet Master is so symbolic of all these things, it would only made since to include the character in the live action Ghost In The Shell.

 

The setting of the Matrix obviously hints at a lot of interesting concepts worth discussing but as you say really the central drama of the narrative is not focused on them, its a heroes story and a romance told in pretty standard fashion within that setting. I think the reason it steered so much debate and analysis is exactly because it took several interesting concepts and used them as the backing for a very accessible action blockbuster, the dramatic plot itself though does not really explore these concepts with much depth for me.

This version of Ghost is I think pretty similar, it has depth to its setting(albeit mostly inherited from previous versions of the story rather than original) and but focuses on a more straight forward plot. Actually I would say Ghost is slightly less formulaic in its central plot, the drama of someone uncovering a lost past vs someone becoming a superhero, beating the villain and getting the girl. Again I think it does benefit as well from Johansson having more acting ability than Reeves(at least at that stage of his career) allowing for a somewhat less conventional character story but on first viewing(again I reverse some right to change my mind here although it will probably need to wait for home viewing) I think it also suffers from simply not being as well written/directed as the Matrix. All the different elements its working with don't fit together as smoothly IMHO leaving it feeling a bit cluttered.

Again I think the Puppetmaster is a fundamentally different kind of story, as with Under the Skin to sell that story successfully needs a subtler less conventional character story, the simpler drama of the amazing discoverings/powers of the Matrix of an unknown past of this version of Ghost is I think a much more obvious fit to a faster paced action focused film.

 

On a side note in regards to the analysis video, Dark City is a hell of a lot better than The Matrix.

 

Saw this movie about a week ago and thought it was a 10/10 and a very faithful adaption of the 1995 animated movie.

Loved it.

 

Again I'd really need to see it again before making a final judgement, especially the way it chops and changes the original material makes it tough to accept it on its own terms with one viewing.

I think your talking about a rather different kind of film there, the central plot of Dark City explores its setting more obviously where as The Matrix is more a standard heroic action plot in an interesting setting.

 

I really liked the live adaption of the 1995 classic of the same name, not quite as good but it does improve on little things. Check out my review below. Contains mild spoilers.

 

The central plot of The Matrix is the focused on the religious overtones, which is finding "The One." Many religions have it in their scriptures of "The One" that will be their savior and be the salvation. Therefore, you can say that the concepts are essential and play out in the plot of The Matrix. Moreover, the premise of the plot is that man is enslaved by the life it created in it's own image. The Matrix is a story of a messiah type of story, as well as allegory of humanity's imprisonment by a cyber reality, both elements essential to plot and character development.

This iteration of Ghost in the Shell is not on the same level as The Matrix.

Agreed, the inclusion of "The Puppet Master" is a fundamentally different kind of story. Thus, the reason why the live action version of Ghost In the Shell lacks true depth and why the anime is a superior film. However, I disagree the concepts of the "The Puppet Master" couldn't be told or included in the live action film for reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Moreover, Under the Skin and "The Puppet Master" is not an apples to apples comparison. Under the Skin is more comparable to "Invasion of Body Snatchers" where aliens try to mimic humans in efforts to abduct them for their use, whereas "The Puppet Master" is more of a Frankenstein's monster story. Both concepts have been adapted for the Hollywood blockbuster machine.