4 ms·
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 ou
by 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 agoI 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 agoBut 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 agoEh, I didn’t find it that big of a deal. That is, it didn’t ruin the movie for me.
- mathewsanders 10y agoThe 'no' surprised me so much I laughed
- notgood 10y agoShe 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 agoThat appears to be an objectionable decision in and of itself, if I understand the argument of the person you've replied to.
- lolive 10y agoShe had already transcended in Lucy. Once is enough...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]