Ghost in Δ the Shell

[Admiral X]

I think they took too much influence from the 1995 movie from what I've been hearing. I won't know for myself until I get a chance to watch it, but from what I remember in the 1995 movie, the Major was kind of flat and boring in that one, too.

[Rasp]

I think they took too much influence from the 1995 movie from what I've been hearing. I won't know for myself until I get a chance to watch it, but from what I remember in the 1995 movie, the Major was kind of flat and boring in that one, too.

yeah.... they really should have gone for the ensemble cast

[Rocketboy1313]

For some reason I expected this thread to get a lot more attention. This board has been getting rather political lately, and "GitS" was provoking think pieces before it started production. I even wrote one and the movie barely even touched on all of that stuff.

Freaking "Get Out" was more biting identity commentary than the science fiction movie based entirely around the Ship of Theseus philosophical question.

[Admiral X]

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, so maybe others haven't either.

[TexasRed]

I've got an opinion on this but I also have work so I'll make a post regarding this later.

[BunBun299]

I liked the movie. Not the best movie I've seen in the past year, but that's a high standard.

I've heard a lot of bashing of it. Largely from people who went in already making up their minds to hate it. If you go in with an open mind, you'll probably have a good time.

[Admiral X]

I just watched it today. It'll take me a bit to fully organize my thoughts, but my first impressions are thus (do not read if you don't want spoilers):

- They completely wasted the characters, and failed to establish any kind of connection/comradery between them. So it rang false when there was supposed to be character drama. Like, why does that one doctor feel the way toward the Major that she does?

- The referral to the main character as simply "Major" rather than "the Major" was somewhat jarring to me.

- They went through great lengths to copy iconic imagery from the first two movies, yet completely changed the circumstances of them, and with the garbage men the change made no sense.

- It came off as them snatching names and iconography from the previous adaptations with their own made up shit as the actual substance of it, which came off as rather ham-fisted the majority of the time, especially how they kept explaining the concept of the fully-prosthetic body and name-dropping the show.

-A lot of the establishing shots of the city looked fake as hell, partly or maybe even mostly because of the giant ad holograms. It's funny how much more convincing similar shots in 1982's Bladerunner were in comparison.

- I was rather disappointed that the Major didn't get an opportunity to show what an awesome hacker she was supposed to be.

- The plot really rubbed me the wrong way, because while I'll be the first to say that adaptations don't have to be exactly like the source material, they deviated so much from it that it might as well not be GitS. Instead we got a recycled amnesia/revenge story with elements of "The Evil Corporation" not unlike what was in the Total Recall remake (and RoboCop from what I've heard). It felt like I was essentially watching the same movie with different window-dressing.

- Other than the cityscapes, the movie was rather good-looking, though I had a laugh at the elimination of the Major's nipples from all the shots they were ripping off from the 1995 movie.

- I also liked that Aramaki was able to speak Japanese and everyone was able to understand him, as given the level of technology this only makes sense to me. I also liked that it was not explained to death or even at all, really. It's probably the only thing in the movie that wasn't explained to death like the audience was a bunch of idiots or something. I do kind of think Kusinagi's mother should have been able to do the same thing, though. Although part of me doesn't like that she has a living mother like this (her background being mysterious was honestly some of her appeal).

- The soundtrack was barely noticeable, and did nothing to stand out on its own. The first two movies and Stand Alone Complex all had outstanding soundtracks that stand out on their own and complimented the movie/series very well. The only use of the iconic wedding theme from the first film was relegated to the end credits (rather like Abrams Trek if you think about it), and made no sense in the context of the actual story beyond the fact that it was something from the original movie. Of course, this seems to be the movie in a nutshell. I am so disappointed, even though I was expecting to be disappointed.

[PerrySimm]

It's probably the only thing in the movie that wasn't explained to death like the audience was a bunch of idiots or something.

It was painfully obvious that the film was made for teenagers, and playing for a low common denominator. I did find it terrifically patronizing that the movie feels the need to explain its title.

If they had spent half the money they did, or doubled the writing team, it could have been a success. Maybe it'll be a hit with repeat viewers in China, but I won't hold my breath. Even though I do find a few things to appreciate about the film, I never really expected more than a theme park ride.

[Crowley]

From what I've seen in the trailers and heard from people who have seen the movie, it seems to have the problem across multiple characters that lack of emotions is interpreted as meaning they speak and act dull and lifeless. Since this site is largely about Star Trek, you have good examples right there with Spock and Data about how you can play a character that doesn't display emotions and still be engaging.

Several people have praised one particular scene where Aramaki fights a bunch of guys with the help of his briefcase. I imagine someone will put that up on YouTube shortly after it comes out on DVD.

- Other than the cityscapes, the movie was rather good-looking, though I had a laugh at the elimination of the Major's nipples from all the shots they were ripping off from the 1995 movie.

I feel like people read too much into her body not showing genitalia in the anime movie. I always figured that was just done to comply with Japanese censorship laws.

It was painfully obvious that the film was made for teenagers, and playing for a low common denominator. I did find it terrifically patronizing that the movie feels the need to explain its title.

Do they literally use the phrase "ghost in the shell" and explain what it means? I probably last saw the first Ghost in the Shell anime movie in the previous millennium, but I still remember the part where the Major says she feels "a whisper in my ghost", and that's all I needed to understand the title.

[Admiral X]

They repeatedly refer to the Major's ghost still being "in there" and refer to her new body as a shell, so why the phrase "ghost in the shell" wasn't ever uttered, it wasn't far off, and it kept being brought up in the first part of the movie.

And my problem wasn't an apparent lack of emotion exactly, as it was a failure to establish anything between the characters, or to even get a good feel for the characters themselves. And while the Major might have an excuse to be aloof since in the movie she literally doesn't feel anything, all of the other characters were still mostly human, including Batou surprisingly. He doesn't even get his eyes until something like halfway into the movie.

But the kind of stuff I'm talking about is like, why does everyone like and care about the Major so much. The movie made it look like she was a moody asshole who wasn't much of a team player, yet they all care about her enough to stick their necks out for her after she's declared rogue and has a "kill on sight" order placed on her.