A theatre in New York was showing the 1995 film, so I watched it for first time on big screen on Wednesday, then saw the live action on Friday (first time I can remember going to a film on opening day in New York and having an almost empty audience).
I was prepared for a new interpretation of the material, and that never bothered me because between the films and TV series it's always been a bit confusing to me if there ever has been a cannon story, but have always really loved the match of philosophical ideas of mind and the visual atmosphere (and the spider tanks are just great fun).
Opening sequence of this film I was really excited because it was visually stunning, but 5 mins later I was questioning if I should stay or leave because the dialog was really really bad.
I stayed because I really wanted to like this adaption but I felt like it was 2 hours of my life wasted, I wouldn't recommend any of my friends to watch this, even later when it's released digitally.
The key to GitS was always moving the imagination ball forward. GitS 2 was a big mindfk, but then the TV series, the TV movie, and then the OVA - each step forward was a powerful reinterpretation of the core concept - the thinning of spirit within technology and how it might be leveraged by brilliant minds.
From what I saw with the previews, they only wanted to copy the legend. There was nothing about adding value and building on what came before.
But as a positive note, I love that science fiction has become mainstream. When I was a teenager I used to be embarrassed to say I read/watched science fiction and it felt like any given year you'd be lucky to have more than 1-2 science fiction films, but look at the line up for releases this year: http://screenrant.com/our-most-anticipated-sci-fi-movies-of-...
> I want those space opera and space ship and hard stuff.
I've been watching The Expanse on SyFy lately and it's quite good! I enjoyed it so much I'm now reading the book series it's based on, and really enjoying that as well. They're slightly different, but both good in their own way.
I feel there are a lot of things wrong with The Expanse which make it really hard to enjoy. Personally I find the dialog often very weak and the acting very forced and obvious, but that's just my personal opinion. I seem to only be reading endless praise on reddit/HN.
As for the world, there seems to be a lot of nonsense tech such as see-through cell-phones? No way to even hide what you are doing, even crucial characters and VIPs have see-through communication devices, whilst they steal/look at top secret information? Why is AR (using HUGE eyeglass-like devices) reserved only for very special engineers/scientists? Haven't the shows creators heard of Hololens? It's like they took VR/AR and took it back to the 80s. Why do they need to do so many things manually, yet not completely manually e.g. control an antenna, but they can do it remotely they just have to be within 20 meters? How can they open solid metal doors without electricity in zero-g? It feels a bit like Star Trek back in the 60s, before they had any clue about what was to come, except it's 50 years later and they are still using similar ideas without adding anything new. I understand compromises need to be made to adapt to the screen so that viewers can understand the world, but it seems like there are tons of areas where a bit more creativity should be order.
> As for the world, there seems to be a lot of nonsense tech such as see-through cell-phones? No way to even hide what you are doing, even crucial characters and VIPs have see-through communication devices, whilst they steal/look at top secret information?
I'm sure that's just for TV viewers to be able to see their screens. It is better than projecting the screen over the face or reflecting it on the glasses of the actors like other TV shows do.
If you don't like it, that is OK, no one is forced to like anything. I don't like The Walking Dead, and it doesn't mean a lot of people is wrong, just that we have different tastes.
But to be fair the show is ages ahead of Star Trek TOS in terms of plausibility.
In fact, the lack of the fantastic technologies indistinguishable from magic that are present in Star Trek is very much part of the appeal. Is what makes the show more real. There's no faster than light space travel for a start. They have to use orbital mechanics to move around. They have to accelerate half of the way and deccelerate the other half. They have to dock very carefully instead of saying 'beam me down'. It is a very welcome change.
Once you're done with that try the "Remembrance of Earth's Past" trilogy (really hardcore sci-fi, eventually goes into weaponizing the laws of physics etc.), or the "Zones of Thought" trilogy (for something comparable to "The Expanse" in terms of sci-fi level).
I read the expanse to book 4 until it took a serious dive in quality, the dialogue and story just went awful and I got tired of the main guy constantly being on the spot, it felt contrived.
I really enjoyed the first 3 so was disappointed. Does it get better? Was it a temporary drop?
Luckly it's a temporary drop - book 4 (the one on the colony right?) is by far the worst part of the series and the next pair of books return back to the politicking and Holden being naive and kicked in the head due to it :) Also the story really starts tying up and gets better pacing.
I read them all and I'll probably read the next one, question for a fellow reader: am I the only one who absolutely hates Holden? He doesn't really seem to have developerd or grown up al all, he routinely puys whiney personal issues over the lives of billions and etc.
Things get rather interesting in 5&6 though. Scale gets quite good!
> I want those space opera and space ship and hard stuff.
Yeah. The "mainstreaming" of sci-fi has been kind of a mixed blessing. We got all the PEW PEW PEW lasers and blinking computer lights but none of the thought-provoking stuff.
God, I want some space opera. Doesn't even have to be "hard" sci-fi that aspires to realism (though it's a bonus)
I liked the first Star Trek reboot movie, but I saw STAR TREK EXTREME or STAR TREK BEYOND or whatever it's called a few weeks ago and it was just atrocious. Just mind-numbing, generic action. Reminded me of the Transformers movies. I love me some giant robot fights, but the Transformers movies are just a big visual mess to me.
Highly recommend The Expanse, it's a fantastic space opera based on a great series of books. They also have overviews of the science involved in the show after each episode online.
> Yeah. The "mainstreaming" of sci-fi has been kind of a mixed blessing. We got all the PEW PEW PEW lasers and blinking computer lights but none of the thought-provoking stuff.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but then I also saw a couple of big Hollywood sci-fi movies this winter that were actually thought-provoking.
1. Arrival - adaptation of a really challenging short story. Drops most of the physics stuff, but keeps the linguistics, and the human element. Only adds a little action.
2. Passengers - lots of action, but centers around an ethical conundrum that will give you plenty to talk about afterwards.
Agree on the new Star Trek reboot. It really offers me nothing of what I like about Star Trek.
To be honest, Arrival gives you little to think or talk about, other than the physics and metaphysics hollywood fucked up entirely by changing entire concepts the original story is based on. It creates a lot of structures with internal inconsistency that promote conversation only because some people will perceive them one way, some another, while in fact neither are understanding that it's just not consistent and both of them are wrong.
I think that Passengers could have been much more interesting if, especially in terms of sequence of events, it had followed Jennifer Lawrence's character.
I want to see an action movie where Picard just negotiates for half-off lobster deals. Need some memorable characters like Q appearing and maybe Tasha gets reincarnated for a hot second.
You could argue that Star Trek is an 'space soap opera' haha ;)
But I agree, there are some pretty bad films being made under the science fiction genre. I want movies referencing hard science fiction (was wondering the other day what an adaption of 'The Three-Body Problem' might be like) and space operas too (Culture series is dying for a film adaption).
But in terms of science fiction, I think it's great seeing non-space material being made too. Stuff like 'Dark Mirror', 'The Man from Earth', and 'Safety Not Guaranteed' are pretty good indicators to me that good science fiction has gone mainstream.
> ...(Culture series is dying for a film adaption).
There was a recent discussion in /r/TheCulture about who Culture fans would like to see direct a movie adaptation of one of the books [1]. I'm dubious a live action film could be successful and at the same time live up to one of the books; it would take some mighty fine screenwriting to not slip into excessive expository minutiae about The Culture, and so much of the attraction of the books to many fans was the reader wasn't repeatedly hit over the head with explanations of the setting.
I suspect all of the books are too weird for mainstream audiences at this time, though I would love to be proven wrong. Glanded designer drugs, gender changes by thought, AGI at millions to billions multiple of a human intellect, Grid energy,... As the list goes on, it would be too easy to veer into fantasy-like depictions, because to date there have been no major successful science fiction movies set in a post-scarcity environment. And Banks' Culture is unabashedly, raucously, bawdily post-scarcity.
Any movie treatment of The Culture runs the constant risk of only getting the glossing highlights reel version that Dune received, and I'd be concerned that the mechanics of the story setting, neat as they are, in a movie would get in the way of telling the real story of Banks' more interesting themes via his incisive commentary delivered by holding up The Culture mirror-like, comparing to our own civilization.
> it would be too easy to veer into fantasy-like depictions, because to date there have been no major successful science fiction movies set in a post-scarcity environment.
The earliest science fiction I recall set in a post-scarcity environment is "Star Trek: TNG". Granted, the socio-economic impact of replicators is not a focus of the series or the movies, replicators are more of background/world-building device ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot")
Sorry, I should have phrased it as a positive-outcome post-Singularity environment. Mainstream audiences might not grasp the nuance between post-scarcity and post-Singularity, but when I read the series for the first time, the Mind-level AGI figured prominently in setting The Culture apart from Star Trek. Around that axle, Banks wound into his setting near-unlimited, near-free energy (the Grid), galaxy-spanning capable FTL (1-200,000+ X speed of light), carefully-orchestrated anarchy as a practical and efficient "government", and all the other accoutrements. It is amazing Banks didn't readily yield to the temptation to use the Minds as a deus ex machina, and instead showed how they would also grapple with their own limitations, frustrations, doubts, etc.
Even more important than the sheer existence of the Minds was their egalitarian disposition and relationship to their pan-human co-citizens, and interesting tangentials like the Minds' polite yet firm declination to Sublime. I will sorely miss Banks' weaving of the tales of the proto-Culture, and how the early Minds came about to that position.
> Sorry, I should have phrased it as a positive-outcome post-Singularity environment. Mainstream audiences might not grasp the nuance between post-scarcity and post-Singularity
Post-scarcity and post-singularity are orthogonal - The Culture is both, Star Trek TNG is post-scarcity only, Rapture of the Nerds[1] (Stross & Doctorow) is post-singularity only.
Consider Phlebas is what comes to mind right away. As I recall, Banks said that the book came about when he saw Star Wars and thought "I can do better," and it's already a movie-ish story.
Use of Weapons might work too. I can't see Player of Games translating to the big screen well, though. So much of it is about the game itself and the protagonist's thinking around it. And I do think the rest would be hopeless.
Nice! I've never seen that subreddit before, will dive into that thread.
After posting that comment I spent a while wondering which novel would be best to jump start that sort of franchise and agree it's tricky to condense a novel into a movie. A lot of science fiction probably works better as a mini series or full TV series (could be interesting to have Culture take an approach like American Horror Story where each season is a self-contained story)
> A lot of science fiction probably works better as a mini series or full TV series...
If only animation automation got sufficiently good and economical enough that long-form (40+ hours) video storytelling was practical for more stories. I sometimes wonder if there is a Sapir-Whorf-style equivalent hypothesis for how we exchange our stories, where the storytelling modality (starting with just the time length our formats allow, but going much further afield with complexity management/expectations, formulation of models, etc.) shapes how our aggregate civilization thinks.
The Sci-Fi Dune miniseries was actually pretty good, I think, but you have to understand it as a filmed theatrical production rather than a "television show". I think this is in the abstract a decent choice since theater language is probably more appropriate to a Dune adaptation on the given budget than a "television show" adaptation, but it does mean you have to go into it with a substantially different mindset than you may have expected. And I don't expect everyone to like it even if they do go in that way because that may not be what they are looking for.
It's how they deal with not having the budget to actually put people in a desert so it's rather visibly a desert backdrop at some points, it's why the lighting is often so strong and monochromatic like a theater's lighting, it's why the acting is with all the characters projecting as if they are speaking to an audience rather than in a TV production. At one point they even use a very theatrical special effect based on backlighting through a thin cloth representing a tent to show Paul's hallucinations/thoughts, rather than even a simple bluescreen or conventional image compositing effect.
The effort is interesting, but I'd have to call it ultimately a failure (even if I personally ultimately enjoyed it) as it almost completely failed to speak to its audience. I also think you can't really follow it if you didn't read the books, which I consider a major flaw of an adaptation.
Really? It's a decent enough book--and I like Clarke in general--but it's one of those novels that is a travelogue as much as anything else. I expect you'd have to add to it considerably to create more conflict or whatever for it to be a good film.
That, and that the industry has decided that the genre is "science fiction and fantasy" - probably because they think there isn't enough science fiction for its own genre. Mixing "science fiction" and "fantasy" sucks in my opinion.
To clarify: The poster is probably talking about the recent TV show, not the original movies, which were less philosophical and more action-driven (that I remember).
Sci-fi has always been mainstream in Hollywood. It's the foundation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's career...Terminator, Predator, Running Man, Total Recall. I wont mention the 6th Day and Eraser
Hollywood has a real problem with science fiction. It almost always waters it down into a creature-feature, with the usual generic sex and weapon play.
Deeper questions about culture, mystery, and identity tend to be removed at the screen writing stage.
There are exceptions - Contact and Arrival - but the trend at the moment seems to be towards shallow empty spectacle with a lot of running, jumping, shouting, shooting, and CGI. Add a few wisecracks and skin-tight costumes and you're done.
For a different take I'd recommend anything by Tarkovsky. Stalker and Solaris are brilliantly imaginative masterpieces with no modern CGI at all.
I agree with most of this post but Solaris is truly painful to watch. A five minute long shot of a freeway is really pushing the line between "slow, subtle artistry" and "banal, cheaply produced filler" (and yes, I'm aware Tarkovsky said it was to get rid of impatient viewers). Also I found the unexplained usage of dwarfs for no reason other than to add "weirdness" questionable.
Solaris is one of those rare stories that has been reinterpreted multiple times in very different ways, and they are all interesting. Both films and the book are good, but with different tones and focuses.
Unfortunately between the pervasiveness of CGI and the economics of today's film industry (a lot of the money comes from non-US and action works a lot better than dialog there), a lot of films get overwhelmed by action sequences these days. SFish (and superhero) films are certainly among the worst offenders but I find a lot of movies these days seem to have a decent core that's overwhelmed by 10 minute fight scenes or whatever with loads of effects.
I love it and hate it. It's nice that it gets attention, but so much of that attention is crap. Looking at your list, there's four generic comic book movies, and almost everything else is a sequel or reboot.
I've enjoyed the new Star Wars movies so far and I'll go see the next one, but I can't shake the feeling that they're sucking up the oxygen that might go to something better. Out of the whole list, the only one that really interests me is Valerian.
Hardcore sci-fi fans like to draw a distinction between the fantasy and science fiction genres. They would probably decompose your list like so -- Fantasy: "Star Wars", "Buck Rogers", "Back to the Future"; Science Fiction: "ET", "Close Encounters", "Battlestar Galactica". I've never seen/read "Space: 1999" so I wouldn't know where it belongs.
Starwars and close encounteres might have been mainstream for adults, but until a bit more recently it was not considered a normal genre for mainstream audiences.
> But as a positive note, I love that science fiction has become mainstream.
Only to the extent that any actual science fiction of substance has been watered out to the point that its just gloss, a layer of paint on top of something utterly conventional.
There's rarely any mainstream movies which are science fiction at core.
It's such a major and pervasive genre that many people now consume sci-fi media without even realizing and/or knowing it.
It's a pity that establishment literary circles still mostly ignore it outside of a few token examples. This drives educational circles and now most literary curricula (even K-12) leave any kind of serious analysis or discussion off the list.
Science Fiction requires some very different analysis tools than many other literary genres and as a result, readers (consumers) are so ill prepared that they often can't even recognize it when they're consuming a genre piece, or consuming something with science fiction elements, if it doesn't explicitly involve Star Wars like space opera cliches. But literary criticism, by largely ignoring the genre, is failing to develop those analysis tools.
There's plenty of people who'll say "I hate sci-fi" and then go on to binge watch several seasons across several shows that are all members of some sub-genre of sci-fi.
Note: IMHO I have a very expansive view of what Science Fiction is. I consider the genre to be basically any story where some non-existent "technology" (or science, or engineering or medicine, etc.) exists, and the story is set in motion around that technology. The technology can be as inconsequential as a grain of sand in the story, or a major plot driver. It can be so important to the story that the entire setting of the story becomes incomparable to anything that we can currently experience, or so mundane that the world of the story is exactly our world, but with this one twist. And I assume technology can be anything from physical stuff to cognitive concepts.
As an example of how expansive my view on this is, I would consider a show like NCIS to be sci-fi because many of the plots can only exist or move forward based on some impossible or non-existent forensic or cyber technology.
"Walking Dead", sure I consider that sci-fi because it relies on the assumption of some nonexistent disease to drive the entire show.
The "James Bond" series (and many spy movies and series) are basically sci-fi because the stories can only function in the presence of non-existing or impossible technology.
An amazing number of Horror, Spy, Police, Thriller and Action stories all fall into the same category.
If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. But I'll put this another way, "The Man from Earth" is a movie that essentially takes place in one room of a small house. There's no technology, gizmos, spaceships, aliens, or other things that can't exist in this world. It relies on a single premise, an improbably genetic condition, that without which the entire story can't exist. Every other single thing in the story is entirely plausible as a small-set drama and if you conclude that the main character is lying or crazy, then the story is still science fiction because it still causes the viewer to consider an improbable science. In fact, I think the genetic condition is only mentioned once in the entire movie.
So if NCIS can get away with 15-20 minutes of impossible forensics and hacking per episode and not be sci-fi, then "The Man from Earth", which dwells on the genetic twist for a few moments can't be either.
Science Fiction is the only genre that consistently comments explicitly on politics and the nature of social/personal reality.
Lit Fic people don't often understand this.
When you find politics in Lit Fic it's usually historical and/or located in a distant country, and provides a backdrop for the personal lives and emotions of the characters.
In Science Fiction the politics is often the main point, and the characters are there to dramatise the political and social reality they live in.
Most sci-fi writing—even the greats—doesn't reach the minimal level of writing quality to get much attention from Lit Fic people. Flat, cliche-filled, inefficient, lacking the insight and turn of phrase needed to make simple stuff like scene-setting truly good. All of the above, often enough. One level up from bare quality of craft, you have obvious themes and motifs handled poorly being a common problem. At worst they blend into bad allegory or morality tales.
The set that manages to overcome those hurdles and achieve the sublime—feelings of awe, of sudden revelation, of such beauty in the use of language that you have to stop reading and just absorb it for a minute—with fair frequency is much smaller still.
But hey, it manages to produce good (in a literary sense) stuff at a better rate than some genres (ahem, fantasy) at least. In fact I can't think of any other "genre" fic that beats it.
I don't mean, of course, that deliberately "literary" work, especially of the last few decades, doesn't have its own problems. Lit journals often read like self-parody, certainly.
It is true that if your fiction has more to do with sociology or political philosophy than individual psychology you're already fighting an uphill battle if you want recognition from academics. It's been decided, rightly or wrongly, that the proper place for those topics is in works of history—plenty of which end up as honorary entries in the canon of "literature", even! The strongest reason I can think of for this (in the whopping few minutes I've been thinking about it, just now) is that the personal perspective on which fiction thrives isn't nearly as useful for revealing insights about objects of that perspective—especially the more distant and abstract they become—as it is the subject in relation to those objects.
> When you find politics in Lit Fic it's usually historical and/or located in a distant country, and provides a backdrop for the personal lives and emotions of the characters.
> It's a pity that establishment literary circles still mostly ignore it outside of a few token examples. This drives educational circles and now most literary curricula (even K-12) leave any kind of serious analysis or discussion off the list.
The problem is anytime you pick up one of these sci-fi works that's supposed to be a deep philosophical masterpiece it is really not that and could only be thought of as that by someone who only reads genre fiction.
Don't get me wrong. I have read the entirety of (and enjoyed most of) the Sherlock Holmes books. But I'm not convincing myself that they were deep and challenging works.
The cyberpunk tropes still had some freshness back in 1995, but today they're just done to death. While the live action film touched upon all the big ideas, I'm glad they didn't try unpack too much of it, I'd be bored to tears, I've already been there with dozens of previous books and films.
Even in 1995 the ideas in ghost in the shell had already been explored thoroughly, Dick and Gibson were all about that sort of thing. What made Ghost In The Shell exceptional was the story and the visual style.
The new film brought that style to life beautifully, I got exactly what I paid for. And even under the best of circumstances, a two hour film isn't enough time to do more than a superficial examination of some philosophical concept or another.
>a two hour film isn't enough time to do more than a superficial examination of some philosophical concept or another.
You only need a superficial touch on a subject to intrigue someone who is interested to fall further down the rabbit hole.
Personally I can say that the 95 movie introduced a child-me to philosophical ideas about self; and that snow-balled into hours in the books exploring the ideas deeper.
Two hours isn't a long time to teach a broad concept in any in-depth manner, but it initiated an exploration of philosophy that spanned many thousands of hours for me, and I credit the Oshii film for having whatever it took to hook a very young kid into some very heavy ideas.
If anything, I see a resurrection of cyberpunk coming - because we now live in it.
Take Mr. Robot, for example. It's has a LOT of classic cyber punk tropes, with one big difference - it's not "science fiction" anymore. It's just a present day, present technology fiction.
> Take Mr. Robot, for example. It's has a LOT of classic cyber punk tropes, with one big difference - it's not "science fiction" anymore. It's just a present day, present technology fiction.
IMHO Mr.Robot doesn't really work and just uses the classic "hackers == Juvenal idealistic freaks" trope which is getting old. Black mirror is a better show. But none of them deal with the loss of humanity through cybernetic enhancements which is more what GitS is about. We don't really live in that era yet.
> just uses the classic "hackers == Juvenal idealistic freaks" trope which is getting old
I would argue that it indeed uses this trope - among many others. If you're looking at the show from the political perspective (and not from the mental disorder perspective, for example), it plays the tropes beautifully. First you see a sympathetic group of young rebels ready to defeat evil empire, and when they finally achieve it you see all intended and unintended consequences of it, and the stupidity of these naive "good" and "bad" labels in general.
> We don't really live in that era yet.
There are bionic arms and legs, but they don't make anyone loose their humanity. Also, I remember GiTS mainly from the manga, and I would say that it's more about the general concept of soul and conscience.
The thing with current bionics is that they are not... mindful in the way they are in GitS. Today's bionic limbs are pale imitations of our natural ones, though they are leaps and bounds over the stationary or slightly mechanical limbs of just a few years ago. There is little reason for someone to desire an artificial limb if they have a healthy functional limb.
In GitS they were, for most intents and purposes, better than the real thing. You could have a cybernetic eye with built in night vision and multispectral imaging. You could have a better/faster brain. You could have ultra-precision hands, fantastic for certain tasks.
But it puts into perspective, at what cost do these improvements come. If at a certain point, you replace your body wholesale for improvements, can you be sure you are who you think you are? If you cybernetic eyes lie to you, how do you know? If you have brain improvements, can they influence your thoughts or implant biases? There is also the whole "Ship of Theseus" thing going on. If you upgrade/replace your brain and body slowly, are you still you?
There definitely is a lot of soul/conscience stuff thrown around as well, but the above is what stuck with me all these years.
Definitely. Arguably it didn't die, but certainly waned. Even though GITS didn't perform particularly well, I thought it was phenomenally executed, so at least aesthetically things are progressing.
The protagonists are not "punk" but to me the setting contains many elements that I would consider punk. The vast wealth gap, the abandonment of vulnerable populations and the areas they inhabit, and the seedy underbelly of the cities all lurk underneath the gleaming chrome and neon surface. To me this is the epitome of the genre, the incongruity between the powerful corps and their government puppets and the misery of the general population. GitS feeds the dream of super wizard class hackers and street samurai but also pays homage to the downtrodden masses left behind by progress. With a nice dash of philosophy.
Ghost in the shell from Oshii was very much a philosophical movie. I had zero expectations that Hollywood could really do anything that matched it. Just as expected.
Yeah I heard it sucked. I did like Cloud Atlas. But The Matrix was inspired by Ghost in the Shell so I have huge hope that they couldn't kill Ghost in the Shell like this current director did.
The film was a masterful rendition of Shirow's vision. I have never seen anime brought to live action with such fullness. Batou and the Major look feel and act like the anime characters. The tech is precisely on point. Brilliant work.
That they did not wallow in obsolete philosophical tropes saved the film from bathetic anachronism.
Same issues examined, but it is very different in tone. It's very ADHD, almost, with tons of hyperactive detail, motion, and dialogue crammed into every panel. It makes me really nostalgic for those early cyberpunk days.
The 1995 movie, by contrast, was very somber and serious and dreary. I love much of the animation, but otherwise I think it's kind of a snoozefest.
I watched a cinema rip, to decide whether it's worth to see it in 3D in cinema, for the effects at least (I also didn't expect anything great). In the end I decided not to, because it would just make me angry.
There were so many homages to GitS movie, but done so badly! My favorite scene in the original is the museum tank fight scene, where you can feel so clearly how desperate the situation is (from many small details). The same scene in the new movie just doesn't give you any feelings at all about the situation.
Perhaps it's a decent action movie if you don't know or like the original.
Did you (and all the critics going this way that I guess will become the mainstream) even see the '95 movie recently?
The highly praised philosophical content is ridiculously short. Barely a few sentences. There is not much talk at all in the movie. Google up the script. It's short. Really short. Most of the movie is action and slow shots where nothing happens and this is the best part of it.
Actually when I saw the anime for the first time on VHS, there were those hardcore manga fans complaining in the same way about it. Now today I see the whole /r/scifi going up in fire on how shallow that was. Just to praise the next super hero reboot a few weeks later.
I've been in the cinema to watch GitS and I rarely go there. I expected crap. What I got was a beautiful designed cyperpunk action movie that delivered more of a story to one of my favorite characters then the original movie. It couldn't end up being better with all those messed up reboots currently so popular out there.
You say the dialogue was bad? So I guess you speak Japanese because all translated versions of the anime I've seen were...let's say: basic stuff blown up.
Hope none of your friends who would listen to you were GitS fans because this is a must see for those.
>The highly praised philosophical content is ridiculously short.
>Did you (and all the critics going this way that I guess will become the mainstream) even see the '95 movie recently?
The most sad thing is that the authors of the movie didn't.
I mean the movie is just a stupid fan service, just an ill-conceived mishmash of images taken from original movie.
Original movie had a well-built composition of images. Each image was appropriate, each scene was a logical and necessary part of the whole picture.
And those scenes and images were brought to the new movie in such a silly and thoughtless manner (typical for Hollywood in general), that they lost all meaning.
For example the last image, the image of the Adam and Eve under the tree of knowledge was dictated by the plot. In original movie the antagonist was the computer program recognized itself alive that risen against its creators. The Christian images of the fall, the archetypal image of the tree, all that religious parallels emphasized the central motive of the film, the motive of recognition of being alive and having a free will. And in the new movie the plot is different, there is no Puppet Master and no attempt to reproduction, so the image thoughtlessly taken from 1995's is void.
And so the full movie is void, each image is void and so the composition itself. Tbh there is no composition at all.
> I mean the movie is just a stupid fan service, just an ill-conceived mishmash of images taken from original movie.
Without that "mishmash" and scenes from the different animes, it wouldn't be GitS and people would complain about that. Hell, I wasn't ready to leave the room until I've heard THAT song. It came at the end and I nearly lost a tear. Same for the moment we saw the plane between the buildings of this superb designed city (did you look close? There is stuff happening behind the windows!). I'm sorry for you not being able to enjoy this. I'm not sure how I could believe you to like it in the '95 anime.
> For example the last image....And in the new movie the plot is different, there is no Puppet Master
Really now? You do realize that there are more then the '95 movie and the manga do you? In most of them there is also no Puppet Master and the main character has a different character. The main plot is different and they deliver different messages. They all are an interpretation of the manga. This one was too. Or did I miss the part where someone told us is was supposed to be the exact real life copy of the '95 anime interpretation?
This is all or the best you could come up with to support your harsh and rough criticism? A sign of missing knowledge? Man, your comment is void.
I'm not against allusions and references if they do their job i.e. being a method of art. References are good and appropriate in the Ulysses or Eco's books, but in this movie all the references are maid for one single purpose: to refer. It's the main difference between fan service and postmodernism. In a postmodern art references are used to create the new, independent piece of art. In a fan service references are used just to play on nostalgic feelings and earn some money.
>You do realize that there are more then the '95 movie and the manga do you?
Of course. All I mean is that in original movie these images are appropriate while in the new movie they are taken out of context so they lost their meaning. The original scene with the Puppet Muster did carried an ideological and aesthetic sense, while in the new movie it's just meaningless.
Yeah thanks for your excursion on postmodernism but you still failed to deliver anything concrete on that besides your missing knowledge and your opinion.
Kuze is not meaningless. There is a story for that. Did you miss it? To make it clear to you and your focus on a single character: "it's like the puppet master with a background". Almost like Motoko with a background. Actually just like it. This is the plot of the movie. The meaning of the iconography which is not christian in this interpretation but doesn't have to be. Did you have your eyes closed in this dark part where they finally find Kuze? Those people sitting in the circle being "hooked up to the light"? This is classic glorious cyberpunk.
I could say the comments you've made here, with your just for this occasion created account are meaningless. They don't catch the diversity that GitS has become since (and including) the manga. They bluntly ignore the context of the movie as if you haven't even seen it and your colorful language is probably aimed at a larger audience while simultaneously jumping on the hate train. Guess it's some kind of postmodern trolling or maybe a simulacrum of a review. I don't know and it doesn't matter since I don't know you and you probably haven't seen the movie but it looks so intelligent...
You totally missed the point of the '95 movie if you think it was all in the dialogue. 90% of the content was told through visual storytelling and the soundtrack.
The new movie totally missed the point too. If they wanted to make a full up action movie they could've done that.. but instead it was a bad attempt at reimagining the original for a wider audience - which I think is contradictory because the original movie HAS a wide audience while still retaining depth.
Not to mention the editing was horrible.. it felt like Batman Vs Superman all over again.
I don't think it was all in the dialogue. Not at all. That's why I was pointing to the script to show how irrelevant it actually was. While it remains the most criticized part of the movie. Besides Motoko. A character that throughout the history from manga to those several other movies and TV-Shows made several changes being somebody else every time. Just compare Motoko from the Manga to the one in the Anime. Or the one from S.A.C.
They did not want to make a full up action movie. They made another GitS visual interpretation and since every of those is strongly focused on action, this one was too. This interpretation of her was the first one that really showed a decent human part of her. Something that was actually missing for most other interpretations or was (seen from a western perspective) pretty ridiculous.
I haven't seen Batman vs. Superman. What was it exactly that you despised so much about it?
It was a movie which should've been good, in my opinion, but instead bombed because of a lack of pacing and therefore world creation.
I think that's something the '95 movie did really well, the long drawn out shots of the cityscape with random people walking. It paces the movie really well, and helps create the illusion that the movie is in a real world.
I think it's even more of a shame, because they really nailed the special effects in the 2017 movie. I thought the SFX were awe-inspiring. The movie had way to much packed into it, and would've benefited from slowing down every now and then to introduce better pacing.
Yes it's true, those slow moments were too short but it had more story. I bet if it had those moments longer and less of the story, people would complain about that. There is no way to win here if people want to hate it, they'll find ways.
Thanks for this, it echoes my sentiments exactly. I first saw the 1995 film a couple years ago and loved it, but the existential pieces really need some contemplation, or at least further reading, to sink in. And it's precisely because the dialogue is sparse and even vague at times. Anyone complaining that the new one is notably watered down is speaking through their Otaku filter, or otherwise not recalling just how much the original movie left up to interpretation.
Regardless, I loved both the original and the new movie. I have no idea why people are giving it such flak, other than being bum hurt that obviously a Hollywood adaptation is going to make the story more accessible. They did so, while still being mostly faithful to the mood and atmosphere of the original.
I didn't see the 1995 version until last Saturday. I thought it had dated quite badly, and that the "philosophy" it dealt with was trite. That's probably largely an artifact of its being viewed out of its age; it's also clear to me why the new movie had to have a different plot. The fanservice device of requiring nudity to activate cloak in the anime (& manga) was also a bit eye-rolling.
I found the new movie to be fairly formulaic, and the ending ridiculous and offensive - summary execution is not justice - and leaving out the merging of the consciousnesses seemed like it was just creating an opening for a potential sequel. The visuals were the best thing about it.
Years after watching the english dub of the 1995 film I watched the Japanese original and found either the subtitle translation was way off or the English dub just seemed to capture more complex philosophical ideas. Perhaps I'm biased because my perception is limited to mostly Western culture and ways of thinking, but the Japanese version seemed terse and lacking the same descriptive language that made the concepts easy to grok.
The "official" subtitles that come with the 1995 version of the movie are absolutely terrible, riddled with mistakes, and literal translations that don't work in the english language. Case in point: At the end of the chase scene, after the thug fired his remaining 8 bullets, the subtitles make the major say "All Finished?" instead of "Out of bullets?" - which would've certainly worked better in English.
Another thing is the concept of "Ghost", which western viewers often misinterpret as some spiritual soul but should be understood as "self-aware (part of the) mind/consciousness". From what I heard this is obvious to jap. viewers. But this is hard to translate regardless of how you approach it.
Anyways I recommend watching it with any fansub you can find online - any of them will be of much higher quality than the bundled subtitles.
I don't know if I can watch the new live action movie. I saw GitS in 1996 in the only theater in the Bay Area that actually had the original 35mm release (before Manga Entertainment's first VHS release). A friend of mine and maybe three other people were in the audience in the small theater in downtown San Jose.
Seeing GitS that afternoon had a huge[1] influence on my life. How big was GitS's influence? During the ~decade I spent trying to make several anime conventions more efficient and sane, I learned (out of necessity) SQL, Ruby, Postscript, and the art of improvising[1].
With the comments about how they watered down the story in the new live action version, I suspect I should probably ignore it, even if it looks great. Regarding visual quality, however, I suspect most people that saw the original animated film saw it in standard definition (VHS, DVD, etc). Those releases ruined a lot of the detail. The city backgrounds had an incredible amount of detail in the full 35mm version or modern HD re-release. I highly recommend watching (in 1080p) nerdwriter1's brief discussion[2] of Mamoru Oshii's use of detail to define the space of the city as a cyberpunk heterotopia.
[1] "What do you mean you forgot to buy the right labels for our badge printers?! There are over 4000 people in line and we're about to open! ... Fine, send anybody available to the two nearest Fry's and buy out their stock. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can rewrite the Postscript template to work on last year's printers with different size labels in the next ~15min."
It's a particularly touchy subject because the source material is very conceptual, therefore there will be proportionally more people looking for that in the movie than any generic sci-fi.
I watched both, and I definitely noticed that the main concept has been dumbed down... but then, so what? Aesthetics is a core part of the medium, so it's perfectly justified to enjoy a movie in large part for that.
So ultimately it's about what one is looking for; it definitely won't please people seeing GitS through a cerebral lens, but it will certainly please the other end of the spectrum - people looking for a good looking, high-concept sci-fi.
You're not the only one who will not be seeing this new film. I learned this after Star Wars: The Force Awakens. As someone who has absorbed much of the Extended Universe eratta, it physically hurt to watch that movie. The story overrode much of what Disney relegated to "Star Wars Legends" - this is an experience not worth re-living with GITS.
I had fun at a matinee showing of it. It's fine. I didn't feel angry about spending a few dollars on it. The movie has a few shot for shot remakes of a couple scenes from the anime that are pretty cool.
I took to the movie someone not familiar with the anime, she asked me "why doesn't Major just take the elevator?"
I think the problem the movie crew faced, was that GitS basically needs something like the Marvel Universe stretching to retell the story. Most of the episodes of GitS2 would have made for a Stand Alone movie.
So what to do?
The original is in particular running against the usual hollywood conventions. There is no visible villain, until late, then the villian turns out to be a grey area guy, hunted by other grey area guys.
>the culture series is longing for a movie
Honestly, i hate it when book SciFi gets put into movie shape. Its rarely looks like i imagined it.
I found that book to be dreadful and couldn't make it through. The initial worldbuilding was interesting but then it seemed to turn into an endless loop of "HEY DO YOU REMEMBER THIS THING FROM THE 80'S WASN'T IT AWESOME?".
Likewise. It started off SO well, but then the 80s (and a couple of misplaced early 90s) references became too frequent and it felt like the author was just off on his own nostalgia trip and the actual story was secondplace.
About halfway through, I also felt it took a direct shift into 'teen romance' as if the publisher had read the draft thus far and said 'y'know, with xyz added this would make a great film for the 12-15 yr old audience!'
Going in, I was hoping it was to be a homage to things I loved growing up, but what I ended up with was a pile of teen-fict no better than Twilight.
I am a little bit bitter about RP1, can you tell?
Right now I'm reading Kim Stanley Robinsion's '2312'. It's very similar to some of the Culture novels - indeed I picked it up after feeling the loss of no more Iain M Banks books coming... If you like Culturesque stuff, I can totally recommend it.
I think you really need to appreciate and get into the 80s nostalgia. If that doesn't work for you--or you just don't have the cultural background--the [EDIT: book] probably isn't for you.
If it was about a topic or era where 90% of the references meant nothing to me, I don't think I'd have liked it either.
Personally I loved it even though I was never a hardcore gamer in that vein and I know others in the same boat. But I certainly get your criticism.
I generally enjoy that stuff, and I think that it made the book worse for me. Example: Referencing Tomb of Horrors as some kind of forgotten lore? Preposterous! That module is iconic. Whatever module he used should have been something I'd never heard of.
Oh my god same reaction. I thought it was just awful. I was so excited to read it, got that same initial impression, and then was slowly ground into utter boredom as the plot devolved to just one 80s culture reference after another with little no real character development or story intricacy.
Maybe it's not the right audience here. Ready player One is a total YAF, so not many adults will find it fun. I did enjoy reading it, but at the same time thought it wasn't great quality. A bit like finding a really fun article in a trashy magazine.
The biggest strength of Ender's Game is how many of us as a child could identify with it. Before the Internet a bookish nerd kid very often had a very hard time finding anyone even remotely similar. Ender called to us and gave us hope that if there's a book then perhaps there are others out there. Translating this into a movie is near impossible but also the time for it has passed.
The essence of YAF really. A kid just like you who can change the world! I did read some Card books again around 30, and can't find much interesting in them anymore :-(
It was a nostalgia-gasm for Gen X/Y people like me who grew up in the 80's. That feeling was so strong, that it allowed me to power through the sub-par writing and plot. I just skimmed through and only paid attention to the references. Without these, I don't think I could've gotten through the first chapter.
I'd fully expect the movie to be superior to the book. Then again, that's not saying much.
I haven't seen Inherent Vice, but I totally agree about No Country for Old Men. One of the differences there might be that both of those movies were made by very accomplished directors, Paul Thomas Anderson and the Coen brothers respectively. They might have the confidence to put their own interpretation of the story into their movie that lesser known directors dont feel comfortable doing.
Gotta respectfully disagree with you here. I sincerely regret watching the LoTR movies, as reading the books now is impossible without imagining the specific actors in the movie (Wood's whiny interpretation of Frodo is especially bad). Before I watched the movies, I had my own image of these characters and they were so much more nebulous, vivid, alive, mysterious, majestic, etc.. I mean, surfing on an oliphant? Geez. Also the way they butchered the relationship between Frodo and Sam I thought was atrocious. Not saying there were no good things about it, but again, would have elected to not see it if I had the choice again.
Yeah, they tried to change GitS around by picking the aesthetics, but putting a traditional hollywood action flick plot on top. Even disregarding, the autismal ire from the weaboo crowd, it's still a bit flat. I hope the lesson people pick from this disaster (movie made barely 60% of its expenditures during opening week), is not that anime fans are impossible to please, but that people like good engaging movies and just aping the facade of something successful doesn't mean you've captured its spirit.
> but that people like good engaging movies and just aping the facade of something successful doesn't mean you've captured its spirit
I feel amateurs of cinematography have been saying that for years, but evidently some market analysis must have proven that "wrong" for studio executives. In a very big machine, like those studios, the level of craftsmanship -on all levels- will be very high while the artistry of it will fade behind the marketing goal.
> but evidently some market analysis must have proven that "wrong" for studio executives
I think that might have been the Transformers movie series and similar successful reboots that appeal to a very broad audience. Those are basically effects movies with additional hype generated by a pre-existing fandom.
I sometimes think that some execs just desperately try to get control, metrics and reliability on every creative process, and in that process destroy their franchises. No evil intent i guess, just a attempt to sleep better at night, have a more solid illusion of control over once life.
Its visible in games too- the hunt for the golden formula, which then leaves the market open for good old disruptive "art". Risk management by reducing risk management, that's a little paradox right in the backyard.
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...
> 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.
See, I have never agreed with this interpretation. I think Verhoeven is mocking society at large and how we celebrate appearances and shallowness rather than appreciate independence and quality of thought. There's plenty of vitriol for everyone and everything, of course, but to me the movie is driven by the idea that society is happy to be sheeped around by lies and propaganda. In contrast, the military is a place where stupidity (yours or someone else's) has consequences.
I remember listening to the movie commentary track on the DVD release. It really was quite hilarious, the interplay between Verhoeven -- making thunderingly clear his assertion "war makes fascists of us all" and making it very evident the film is an ironic political statement and a parody of WW2 propaganda, vs the film's soft-spoken screenplay writer (also co-writer of "Robocop") Edward Neumeier, who is sometimes desperately trying to walk back the director's vitriolic attacks on anyone dumb enough to like the film at face value. Most enjoyable, and Neumeier loses that battle.
Darn, I bought the DVD when it came out as a two-sided disc (!) with no commentary. And now I... er... how does one get DVD movie commentaries / featurettes in this day and age?
> 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.)
Verhoeven had the idea for the story wanting to make a satire of the fascist side of American society. Later someone pointed out the plot similarities to Starship Troopers and so they optioned that and made some tweaks to the script to match. It's why there's no powered armour for example. Verhoeven only read the first two chapters of the book before condemning it as boring and right wing.
ST does go deeper than that. More broadly, the rest of Heinlein ranges so widely across the mainstream political spectrum that it would be easy to pick 20% of it to paint a picture of Heinlein as far-right, far-left, libertarian, or apolitical. It used to be widely held that this was a chronological shift in his attitudes from the 1930s to 1980s, but that seems not to be the case, now: he just chose which of his non-mainstream views to showcase in any given work.
I'm not sure you can really call the views espoused by any of Heinlein's viewpoint characters Heinlein's own views; there are a few common themes, but there are so many conflicts between them (or even within the same character) that, except where they directly line up with his nonfiction advocacy, it's probably better to take the view that Heinlein's work is often exploring alternate political approaches rather than acting as polemic for them.
It's also perhaps worth noting, in the context of ST, that the "service is optional, but required for citizenship" model was presented prior to the all-volunteer military at a time when each of the last several generations had been subject to at least one large-scale draft, and the US (and most of the rest of the world) had a system where service was tied to citizenship but (well, for men at least) mandatory on demand, universal in practice, and quite often deadly.
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.
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.
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.).
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?
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
I really liked this movie.. I truly don't understand all the flack it's getting.. Probably because I expected very little (because of the review scores) and it was really not close to as bad as I expected..
I just returned from watching it. I on purpose haven't read any reviews (had to pretty much ignore facebook for couple of weeks) and first 15 minutes I was ready to be upset. Dialogues were not very promising, visually movie didn't felt deep and dark (nice pretty boy Batou, overdone holograms in city-scapes, no distinct music). But then it became so much better. References to GITS and GITS:Innocence are plenty but nicely done. Visually it became feast for my eyes, I really enjoyed it after all. THough still: holograms are not needed and there is no OST at all.
little clarification: I'm not talking about street signs in general or tastefully done holograms. It's about those building-sized holograms, mostly in daylight scenes, that looks so unnecessary. (article's "solograms" part has shots very carefully selected and they look fine)
I had the same reaction; the first 2/3 of the movie I was upset and angry, then everything changed, for the better. I still don't like the major change(s) in the major's character and background but I think I can almost accept it as a differing history. I really was expecting more from this movie and while I'm happy it was made, I am slightly disappointed.
Same here. The original is one of my favorite films, so I went in expecting to be disappointed, but it wasn't that bad. The story is different, but they made an effort to preserve some of the themes and kept the "Hollywood dumbing down" to a minimum. And it was cool to see some of the iconic scenes from the original brought to life.
It seems like expectations for watching movies tends to produce the opposite result. I have been trying to trick my friends into having false expectations before we watch a movie to test this hypothesis, but I'm a horrible liar and they always manage to see right through my shenanigans.
I really liked it too. I wasn't comparing it to the original, I saw it as its own thing and I really enjoyed it. It's artsy, techy and there's a good amount of fashion and attention to detail involved.
The "solograms" were an amazing addition to the movie. My friend and I both commented on them walking out of the theater.
The visuals in the film we're really well done, in my opinion. In fact, I really enjoyed the movie as a great throwback to coming of age on cyberpunk material such as Snowcrash, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell, et al., whitewashing politics be damned.
The whitewashing didn't bother me, but the stupidwashing was offensive. Hollywood took one of the deepest, most brilliant cyberpunk classics and dumbed it down to the point of being insulting.
I've been recommending to my friends that they stay away from this film to prevent them having a bad impression of GitS. Instead, I am recommending they watch every episode and movie in the original GitS. Watch many of them multiple times to appreciate just how innovative this series is even today.
Well it was only 106 minutes long. Actually felt more like 90 minutes. I think it was great, I didn't expect a cinema blockbuster to perfectly sum up more than a decade of GitS canon.
They didn't need to sum up the full canon, they needed to like... have any part of it? The original animation accomplished more with the story in less time.
Adam Savage did a few Tested videos on some of the costumes and props which you may be interested in watching. (Either before or after you've seen the film if you care about that kind of thing.)
All 42 hours of the Ghost In The Shell animations from 1995 to 2006 can be strung together into cannon. It's all compatible. Both the 2015 stuff and this 2017 movie unfortunately conflict which what came before. Disappointing to me as a fan that what was achieved over 11 years has been undone and forsaken in recent adaptations of the franchise. Frankly, I'm angry Holywood is making millions from this.
Everything to the right on that diagram came after 2006.
I don't believe the story line to GITS 2: Innocence excludes Stand Alone Complex. If the person who made that diagram believed there was a reason, they omitted it in the diagram.
If you look at the books, there are a few alternative worlds, backstories, and incompatible canons. Just like the Alternative Architecture. I think a lot of people know only the GitS series/ original movies and expect the rest to be as consistent. It isn't.
Every time you are making a movie you need to answer the question: why am I making this? Especially when doing a remake, what I have found missing from the original material that I think requires filling. Perhaps there's a prequel story to be told (Planet of Apes), perhaps I want to depict a version closer to how it could've happened in real life (True Grit) and so forth. If your answer is "well I want to make money" then don't do it.
Tell me true, what is the answer for this one?
Ps. If your answer is, well the original movie was funny but didn't have enough crotch jokes then especially don't do it.
The irony is that GitS has done massively well with updating the premise and finding new plots that leverage the society and technology of the era.
Some folks didn't like the Arise OVA - I loved them, especially the 5.1 opening credits music. I found it to be a fresh and unpredictable prequel - which is rare this late in the game.
The Hollywood movie - nobody was talking about what made GitS click. It just seemed to be lots of tribute for the original. So much more has happened since 1995....
Pretty much no way I can enjoy the hollywood version... The 1996 movie is a watershed moment in anime to me. Its up there with Akira and the like. Same thing goes for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, watched the swedish version first and cannot get through 10 minutes of the hollywood one.
I haven't seen the new Live Action remake of movie, but I have (like most others in here) seen and love the original.
When I saw the ads for the remake, the only thing featured is a semi-nude Scarlett Johansen, crashing through windows, doing things which exposes her as a semi-nudi Scarlett Johansen. No tech. No "ghosts".
That tells me everything I need to know about what the movie studio thinks is important about this film. My wife already has it categorised as a "new Tomb raider". She's not interested.
While the original movie had its fair share of semi-nudity, it was really down deep a cyberpunk-story and didn't compromise on that. Looking at the ads for this remake, I have no such expectations this time around.
> When I saw the ads for the remake, the only thing featured is a semi-nude Scarlett Johansen, crashing through windows, doing things which exposes her as a semi-nudi Scarlett Johansen. No tech. No "ghosts".
I wish I had more than one upvote. As someone who knows nothing about the source material, this is the only thing I've been able to glean from the trailers. For all I can tell, this is semi-robot Charlie's Angels in skin-tight bodysuits.
I've seen the new film (but not the original) and the nude suit is distracting (not in a good way) in a live action film. But to allay your fears, the film does feature a ton of tech including nigh-invisibility.
This looks a lot like the screen savers that are currently running in Apple stores. I tried to extract it at some point because it looked great but couldn't find the file on the machines there.
adaptation after adaptation after adaptation. it seems as if hollywood has lost new stories to tell. i thoroughly enjoyed the first one and, based on the trailer alone, refuse to see the remake especially considering who was cast for the lead. I love scarlett but she is not the major.
Yes the effects were great. Especially the city, but come on how could the story in the movie be sooo weak! Instead of an kickass army verteran we got Scarlett Johannson playing a little girl.
> Instead of an kickass army verteran we got Scarlett Johannson playing a little girl.
Isn't that canon? IIRC, in Stand Alone Complex they talk about how the Major is most at home in her cybernetic body and has been there the longest because she was forced to as a small child.
Then again, I haven't seen the movie yet, so perhaps I'm not quite getting the extent of the difference.
In the second season of the series (2nd Gig), the Major's cyberization since childhood becomes a plot point because she slips from her insouciant, super class-A wizard hacker/super soldier default. The Major exudes, at least in the animated versions, first and foremost an attitude of liquid nitrogen cool.
In the backstory of Stand Alone Complex, they showed she struggled with her body but through practice eventually mastered it. She came to lead the Section 9 team due to the skills she honed.
In the live action movie, she's the best solely because of the unique technology that she's given. She doesn't see herself even as having the ability for self-improvement.
I found the changes to her character to be very depressing.
> In the live action movie, she's the best solely because of the unique technology that she's given. She doesn't see herself even as having the ability for self-improvement.
Is that not how it's supposed to be?
I haven't seen any of the other works or the new live action movie, so perhaps this was retconned. But I did watch the 1995 original just last week.
In the original film, she talks and acts just as you describe -- that she's "the best" because of "this body", which she doesn't really consider hers. She seems totally aloof about much of the rote mastery she performs, and talks about her physical form as though it was just issued out like procedure, similar to the way a police unit might hand out badges and guns.
It's been a few months since I saw the original, and I've been watching SAC in the meantime. The Major is a little different between the two, but they're similar enough it's hard for me to remember the differences. I could be mixing things around, but I believe in both she regarded her cybernetic body as just a tool that she was very skilled at using.
The live-action movie goes beyond that. She feels that not only is her body a product of the people who created it, but that her mind is too. When she's chastised for a poor decision she made, she literally responds "Well, maybe next time you can design me better."
I don't recall the animated movie mentioning it but Stand Alone Complex series she was part of a UN task force, and it's heavily implied she had much more experience before that.
The original character was not an army veteran. She had a terrible accident as a child and suffered from severe trauma, which ultimately required her to use a full-body prosthesis to house her cyberbrain.
Edit: oops just realised you were referencing the music in the post video, which I don't know the origin. But that live performance is still really good :)
Having read the manga more than 20 years ago, I barely remember it beyond a few bits, so I've decided that I won't watch this movie until I've re-read the source material. To be honest I wasn't a big fan of further stuff like Stand Alone Complex and found the second film unintelligible (but it might have been bad subtitles), so I'm not exactly a zealot.
It is not a retelling, so the plot doesn't help to refresh. It is an attempt to capture the vision and feel of the action scenarios and art work. In that it was brilliant. I will see it again.
Great concept art. Blurry final output. The director, for some reason, wanted the backgrounds blurred. The parent article shows the detail was there, but it's not in the final film. I saw it in 3D and XD (midway between regular and IMAX), and it was kind of painful. Avoid the 3D version.
Before I was born, many directors tried to keep as much of the shot in focus as possible. Deep focus is both a technical challenge, because it requires brighter lighting, and an artistic challenge because it makes composition of the shots more difficult. You need to pay attention to the background so there's no distracting things behind the actor's heads, for example. You can't get away with shoddy sets. And it's more difficult for the actors. They can't improvise movement and let the photographer track them, they have to exactly follow their planned movements so they line up with the background correctly. I don't have any statistics for it, but it seems shallow focus is more popular now. But I think shallow focus is lazy and insulting to the audience. If your foreground action isn't compelling enough for me to watch then the solution is to make it better, not blur the background so I have nothing else to watch. Deep focus looks more realistic. In real life I can choose to look at the background details, and I want that option in film.
I want to see more use of deep focus. With the availability of high CRI LED lighting the technical challenge is much reduced now.
Shallow focus is (I believe) one of the main things that stops 3D working properly, and causes eye strain. The 3D part means that your eyes are expecting the focus distance to be a certain distance, but then it isn't, and when you try and look at the background and focus on it, it still stays blurred.
So yes, please no more shallow focus. And no more shaky-cam.
I haven't seen the movie, but somebody really needs to turn down the artificial film grain in the linked video here.
That's always been a completely unnecessary, distracting, and detail-killing option that I've never seen value in. Unless there's some stylization required for artificial aging or something, visuals should be as clear as the union of all sources can muster. Modern digital cinematic cameras have almost no film grain effect compared to old actual film, especially since we're usually talking about 24fps and studio lighting.
What? It wasn't blurry for me. In fact, I'd say it was probably the best 3D variant of a film I've seen.
Well, except for the scenes that were intentionally blurry due to it being seen through the eyes of Major and shifting depending on what she focused on.
I have not seen the original film, but I quite enjoyed Ghost in the Shell (2017) for what it was - a big spectacle action film. The visuals were by far the best part and it is neat to see some of the work that went into them - if only the same attention had been paid on the script.
I haven't seen it yet, but have been hearing about the story changes. My take is that the original story is fairly complicated for many audiences to grasp. I had to watch the movie a handful of times to really start to get the philosophical ideas in it. It's likely they wanted to simplify and clean up the ideas to make it more palatable to a wider audience.
Probably a mistake IMHO, the Matrix after all showed that huge audiences will turn out for awesome action scenes and setting and philosophical jibber jabber without complaint.
Shocked Ash Thorp had anything to do with the remake, thought he understood the original film better than this. Taking his self initiated GITS project into consideration.
Most if not all GIS fans have seen the original. There's no use to compare it to lower standards. A reference point already exists, and makes it difficult.
"Oshii based the setting for Ghost in the Shell on Hong Kong. Oshii commented that his first thought to find an image of the future setting was an Asian city, but finding a suitable cityscape of the future would be impossible. Oshii chose to use the real streets of Hong Kong as his model.[9] He also said that Hong Kong was the perfect subject and theme for the film with its countless signs and the cacophony of sounds.[6] The film's mecha designer Takeuchi Atsushi noted that while the film does not have a chosen setting, it is obviously based on Hong Kong because the city represented the theme of the film, the old and the new which exist in a strange relationship in an age of an information deluge. Before shooting the film, the artists drew sketches that emphasized Hong Kong's chaotic, confusing and overwhelming aspects."
Oh, wow! Silly me. I had assumed the original was set in Tokyo, and I looked around to see if I can find anything about setting before posting this, but couldn't find anything.
I saw the 4:00PM 3D showing at the IMAX theater near Time Square. It was a truly amazing experience seeing that city and then stepping out into a city that was different but not quite that different.
The scenes in the movie depicting the "real" Hong-Kong (i.e no CGI) were a shock for me. As a citizen of medium-size european city, I cannot imagine such inhuman cities exist for real.
I was prepared for a new interpretation of the material, and that never bothered me because between the films and TV series it's always been a bit confusing to me if there ever has been a cannon story, but have always really loved the match of philosophical ideas of mind and the visual atmosphere (and the spider tanks are just great fun).
Opening sequence of this film I was really excited because it was visually stunning, but 5 mins later I was questioning if I should stay or leave because the dialog was really really bad.
I stayed because I really wanted to like this adaption but I felt like it was 2 hours of my life wasted, I wouldn't recommend any of my friends to watch this, even later when it's released digitally.