9 ms·

The effects were cool, but I wish they hadn't randomly remixed elements from the franchise with a story that directly goes against the themes of the original. T

by YCAU 10y ago

The effects were cool, but I wish they hadn't randomly remixed elements from the franchise with a story that directly goes against the themes of the original. Then ending was diametrically opposed to the ending of the original. While I think the effects were great, the intellectual treatment reminds me of the knife throwing scene in the Starship Troopers adaptation...

andreyk 10y ago
Interesting. As a big fan of the original and to a lesser extent the show, I actually liked and was impressed by how deftly they combined and remixed elements from different incarnations of Ghost In The Shell. Many seem to criticize this adaptation for not exploring the same themes or reaching the same conclusions as the original, but I was pleasantly surprised they did something new and did not just try to replicate the original. It's different, but to me also seems to be very much 'in the spirit' of the source material.
- mgarfias 10y ago
  I loved it. Also, my wife who was never able to grasp the original movie "got" this immediately.
  - lazzlazzlazz 10y ago
    That's because the new one was essentially simplified to the level of a Robocop cliché. It was really embarrassing to see how limited movie producers believe our imaginations are. The original Ghost in the Shell is still difficult for many to grasp because the core theme around the essential features of identity are not yet culturally available to everyone.
    - mgarfias 10y ago
      I didn't get that at all. Both still ask what it means to be human. This just asked it in a slightly different way that made it more accessible. Mostly her beefs with the original was be lack of things that explain what's going on. This movie made those things more accssible.
      - YCAU 10y ago
        But that's the thing. They mixed up so many elements from the original movie and series it doesn't ask the same questions at all. Here we have two people whose brains were put into bodies and reprogrammed. This is not the case with the original, where you have a different mind of sorts that doesn't actually need a body and isn't bound to a brain. And at the climax, the answer to "join me" was "yes", but this movie had a "no".
        mgarfias 10y ago
        Eh, I didn’t find it that big of a deal. That is, it didn’t ruin the movie for me.
        mathewsanders 10y ago
        The 'no' surprised me so much I laughed
        notgood 10y ago
        She probably said "no" in order to be able to make further sequels movies with the same top-selling actress (whatever her name is), not due some deep philosophical decision.
        Whitestrake 10y ago
        That appears to be an objectionable decision in and of itself, if I understand the argument of the person you've replied to.
        lolive 10y ago
        She had already transcended in Lucy. Once is enough...
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - notgood 10y ago
    Bah; I wasn't able to grasp Serial Experiments Lain but I wouldn't change it one single thing; I prefer something that tries to challenge my intellect that a plot simpler than a rom-comedy; there is already too much of the latter anyway.
- glup 10y ago
  As someone who liked the shows (esp. 2nd Gig) and thought the original was meh, I thought the new movie was US cultural appropriation and bleaching at its worst. I'd be very sad if I had sold the rights and seen a science fiction ecosystem obliterated in that way. It's worth noting that there are multiple subtitle tracks and dubs out there for the show; the good ones are pretty steeped in literary and sociological theory and have strong post-colonial / anti-capitalist / transhumanist themes. Characters deliver awesome rambling monologues on topics that would no way make it onto US network television.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    > I'd be very sad if I had sold the rights and seen a science fiction ecosystem obliterated in that way Dragonball Evolution was such a massive turd that it got the original creator of the series to return to it after 20ish years and make "real" movies.
- YCAU 10y ago
  That's what's confusing to me. Why recreate so many scenes if they're trying to tell a new story? Why use Kuze's name and some details of his backstory, but put him in the place of the Puppetmaster with a wholly new theme to explore? Why is it important that Batou not have his fancy eyes until halfway in, rather than many years before, or if you're changing it anyway, why have them at all? If they made an original story with the same setting and characters, I might have liked it more. But it seemed like they just included some iconic scenes from the original to draw in the fanbase and gave a bait and switch with something new, and conclusions I found much less profound and interesting. I found it... lazy. Like the writers didn't respect the original, and just said "what do we have to make up to get from set piece remake 1 to set piece remake 2?" "oh hey let's use this name I heard from way later on in the story because IDK." Again I must compare it to the slipshod work of the Starship Troopers adaptation. Certainly nowhere near as bad (I do think this movie was good in some respects), but they made many of the same mistakes in terms of reusing and deviating from source material (Why did you make X change? Ignorance, rule of cool, deliberate tone shift? It's unclear.). Oh, and she blinked. ;)
  - mathewsanders 10y ago
    I've just been googling to remind myself of themes in the other movies and films and realised that with the dogs that Batou feeds they also pulled the Basset Hound from the GITS: Innocence movie
  - Corrado 10y ago
    I really liken it to the script writers playing the telephone game[0] about GiTS and it's history. The things you point out, as well as not explaining/introducing anyone really bugged me. I guess Pazu and Borma were there somewhere, and Togusa had some screen time but you didn't really know who he was. Saito finally made an appearance near the end of the film as was on-screen for 10s of seconds. And why did everyone speak english except for Aramaki? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  > Many seem to criticize this adaptation for not exploring the same themes or reaching the same conclusions as the original It didn't need do that. It could've told a totally different story and been set in Rio and it would've been fine if the script wasn't in Hollywood formula 101. I saw this movie before and it was called Robocop. And the dialogue was beyond awful. Arrival took a chance and assumed that the audience wasn't intellectually sterile. Pacific Rim (which I love btw) and its intentionally bad plot was better. The whitewashing bothers me not so much that the Major needed to be Asian per se. It's that Hollywood just doesn't think an asian person can be a lead in a movie that doesn't have kung fu in it.
crdb 10y ago
> the knife throwing scene in the Starship Troopers adaptation That was on purpose. Verhoeven allegedly didn't read the book (which I doubt) and set out to create a parody of it. The movie is ridiculous because it is supposed to be ridiculous, mocking the US military as dumb hicks (enlisted AND leadership), its culture and its purpose as "fascist" and pointless, in 1997, at the tail end of a relatively peaceful period with no major conflicts for the US. I suspect the scene [2] is a reference to the book chapter where a soldier is executed for mutiny, which Heinlein uses to demonstrate why a wartime military has strict discipline and which Verhoeven openly mocks (indeed Zim's speech about why infantry is needed in the nuclear age [1] in the book answers the same question as the movie scene). I have not watched the new Ghost in the Shell but I doubt the director set out to ridicule the original, so the spirit of your remark still stands. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Chapter_5 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Chapter_5 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Verhoeven allegedly didn't read the book (which I doubt) and set out to create a parody of it. He didn't set out to create a parody of the book, he set out to create a parody of the message he interpreted the book to have without reading it (and accepting that he didn't read the book is the only interpretation of the facts that does not amount to calling Verhoeven an idiot -- well, in his interpretation of the book of the book, at least.) > The movie is ridiculous because it is supposed to be ridiculous The movie is ridiculous on many levels, only the most trivial of them apparently intentional. (It is probably not, for instance, intended to be ridiculous as a parody of, or even response to, the written work.)
  - ghaff 10y ago
    As both an overall fan of Heinlein and of his Starship Troopers book, perhaps I'm in the minority in that I also liked the movie. That said, I don't take it too seriously which arguably misses any intended satirical point. As you say, to the degree that I found the movie more amusing than serious satirical commentary on Heinlein it may well have failed in its purpose.
equalunique 10y ago
Correct. The ending WAS diametrically opposed to the original.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I thought Starship Troopers was a great movie. It was a satire in the same style as the original Robocop. Verhoven did not share in Heinlein's militaristic vision of the future where only citizens are granted the right to vote. The movie so blatantly portrayed humans as fascist that Neil Patrick Harris was wearing an SS uniform.
douche 10y ago
Now there's a book that deserves a half-way decent reboot movie. Or maybe go with Armor instead.
casion 10y ago
Could you explain your reference to the "knife throwing scene in the Starship Troopers adaptation..." I am familiar with the scene, but I don't understand why you are bringing it up.

by YCAU 10y ago

andreyk 10y ago

Interesting. As a big fan of the original and to a lesser extent the show, I actually liked and was impressed by how deftly they combined and remixed elements from different incarnations of Ghost In The Shell. Many seem to criticize this adaptation for not exploring the same themes or reaching the same conclusions as the original, but I was pleasantly surprised they did something new and did not just try to replicate the original. It's different, but to me also seems to be very much 'in the spirit' of the source material.

mgarfias 10y ago
I loved it. Also, my wife who was never able to grasp the original movie "got" this immediately.
- lazzlazzlazz 10y ago
  That's because the new one was essentially simplified to the level of a Robocop cliché. It was really embarrassing to see how limited movie producers believe our imaginations are. The original Ghost in the Shell is still difficult for many to grasp because the core theme around the essential features of identity are not yet culturally available to everyone.
  - mgarfias 10y ago
    I didn't get that at all. Both still ask what it means to be human. This just asked it in a slightly different way that made it more accessible. Mostly her beefs with the original was be lack of things that explain what's going on. This movie made those things more accssible.
    - YCAU 10y ago
      But that's the thing. They mixed up so many elements from the original movie and series it doesn't ask the same questions at all. Here we have two people whose brains were put into bodies and reprogrammed. This is not the case with the original, where you have a different mind of sorts that doesn't actually need a body and isn't bound to a brain. And at the climax, the answer to "join me" was "yes", but this movie had a "no".
      - mgarfias 10y ago
        Eh, I didn’t find it that big of a deal. That is, it didn’t ruin the movie for me.
      - mathewsanders 10y ago
        The 'no' surprised me so much I laughed
      - notgood 10y ago
        She probably said "no" in order to be able to make further sequels movies with the same top-selling actress (whatever her name is), not due some deep philosophical decision.
        Whitestrake 10y ago
        That appears to be an objectionable decision in and of itself, if I understand the argument of the person you've replied to.
        lolive 10y ago
        She had already transcended in Lucy. Once is enough...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- notgood 10y ago
  Bah; I wasn't able to grasp Serial Experiments Lain but I wouldn't change it one single thing; I prefer something that tries to challenge my intellect that a plot simpler than a rom-comedy; there is already too much of the latter anyway.
glup 10y ago
As someone who liked the shows (esp. 2nd Gig) and thought the original was meh, I thought the new movie was US cultural appropriation and bleaching at its worst. I'd be very sad if I had sold the rights and seen a science fiction ecosystem obliterated in that way. It's worth noting that there are multiple subtitle tracks and dubs out there for the show; the good ones are pretty steeped in literary and sociological theory and have strong post-colonial / anti-capitalist / transhumanist themes. Characters deliver awesome rambling monologues on topics that would no way make it onto US network television.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  > I'd be very sad if I had sold the rights and seen a science fiction ecosystem obliterated in that way Dragonball Evolution was such a massive turd that it got the original creator of the series to return to it after 20ish years and make "real" movies.
YCAU 10y ago
That's what's confusing to me. Why recreate so many scenes if they're trying to tell a new story? Why use Kuze's name and some details of his backstory, but put him in the place of the Puppetmaster with a wholly new theme to explore? Why is it important that Batou not have his fancy eyes until halfway in, rather than many years before, or if you're changing it anyway, why have them at all? If they made an original story with the same setting and characters, I might have liked it more. But it seemed like they just included some iconic scenes from the original to draw in the fanbase and gave a bait and switch with something new, and conclusions I found much less profound and interesting. I found it... lazy. Like the writers didn't respect the original, and just said "what do we have to make up to get from set piece remake 1 to set piece remake 2?" "oh hey let's use this name I heard from way later on in the story because IDK." Again I must compare it to the slipshod work of the Starship Troopers adaptation. Certainly nowhere near as bad (I do think this movie was good in some respects), but they made many of the same mistakes in terms of reusing and deviating from source material (Why did you make X change? Ignorance, rule of cool, deliberate tone shift? It's unclear.). Oh, and she blinked. ;)
- mathewsanders 10y ago
  I've just been googling to remind myself of themes in the other movies and films and realised that with the dogs that Batou feeds they also pulled the Basset Hound from the GITS: Innocence movie
- Corrado 10y ago
  I really liken it to the script writers playing the telephone game[0] about GiTS and it's history. The things you point out, as well as not explaining/introducing anyone really bugged me. I guess Pazu and Borma were there somewhere, and Togusa had some screen time but you didn't really know who he was. Saito finally made an appearance near the end of the film as was on-screen for 10s of seconds. And why did everyone speak english except for Aramaki? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> Many seem to criticize this adaptation for not exploring the same themes or reaching the same conclusions as the original It didn't need do that. It could've told a totally different story and been set in Rio and it would've been fine if the script wasn't in Hollywood formula 101. I saw this movie before and it was called Robocop. And the dialogue was beyond awful. Arrival took a chance and assumed that the audience wasn't intellectually sterile. Pacific Rim (which I love btw) and its intentionally bad plot was better. The whitewashing bothers me not so much that the Major needed to be Asian per se. It's that Hollywood just doesn't think an asian person can be a lead in a movie that doesn't have kung fu in it.

crdb 10y ago

> the knife throwing scene in the Starship Troopers adaptation That was on purpose. Verhoeven allegedly didn't read the book (which I doubt) and set out to create a parody of it. The movie is ridiculous because it is supposed to be ridiculous, mocking the US military as dumb hicks (enlisted AND leadership), its culture and its purpose as "fascist" and pointless, in 1997, at the tail end of a relatively peaceful period with no major conflicts for the US. I suspect the scene [2] is a reference to the book chapter where a soldier is executed for mutiny, which Heinlein uses to demonstrate why a wartime military has strict discipline and which Verhoeven openly mocks (indeed Zim's speech about why infantry is needed in the nuclear age [1] in the book answers the same question as the movie scene). I have not watched the new Ghost in the Shell but I doubt the director set out to ridicule the original, so the spirit of your remark still stands. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Chapter_5 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Chapter_5 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Verhoeven allegedly didn't read the book (which I doubt) and set out to create a parody of it. He didn't set out to create a parody of the book, he set out to create a parody of the message he interpreted the book to have without reading it (and accepting that he didn't read the book is the only interpretation of the facts that does not amount to calling Verhoeven an idiot -- well, in his interpretation of the book of the book, at least.) > The movie is ridiculous because it is supposed to be ridiculous The movie is ridiculous on many levels, only the most trivial of them apparently intentional. (It is probably not, for instance, intended to be ridiculous as a parody of, or even response to, the written work.)
- ghaff 10y ago
  As both an overall fan of Heinlein and of his Starship Troopers book, perhaps I'm in the minority in that I also liked the movie. That said, I don't take it too seriously which arguably misses any intended satirical point. As you say, to the degree that I found the movie more amusing than serious satirical commentary on Heinlein it may well have failed in its purpose.

equalunique 10y ago

Correct. The ending WAS diametrically opposed to the original.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I thought Starship Troopers was a great movie. It was a satire in the same style as the original Robocop. Verhoven did not share in Heinlein's militaristic vision of the future where only citizens are granted the right to vote. The movie so blatantly portrayed humans as fascist that Neil Patrick Harris was wearing an SS uniform.

douche 10y ago

Now there's a book that deserves a half-way decent reboot movie. Or maybe go with Armor instead.

casion 10y ago

Could you explain your reference to the "knife throwing scene in the Starship Troopers adaptation..." I am familiar with the scene, but I don't understand why you are bringing it up.