|
Snowman_McK posted:If you want to dismiss my criticism towards it, you should have dismissed it as 'compare/contrast' not a 'banal checklist' Looking for something fun? I recommend a blockbuster. Looking for something scary? I recommend a horror movie. (Horror movies are scary. Blockbusters are fun.) A remake is similar to an original, but also different. A person was kicked.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I still think paramount started the whitewashing rumors to get people not to see it themselves. They did a great job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Looking for something fun? I recommend a blockbuster. Yes, films set out to accomplish things in terms of audience reaction. Some would argue that this is the basic purpose of art. Sometimes those things are mutually exclusive, but not necessarily. Ghost's issue is that it didn't know what it wanted to accomplish, or did, but didn't know how to, or, trying to accomplish multiple things, those objectives cancelled each other out. The end result is a film that accomplishes nothing in terms of audience reaction. It is not exciting, or fun, or scary, or thought provoking, or even especially nice to look at. It could very well have been one or all of those things, but it was none.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
So it's a bad movie because it has a low score on Rotten Tomatoes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:So it's a bad movie because it has a low score on Rotten Tomatoes? Is there an invisible post where somebody brought up Rotten Tomatoes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I love the original stuff, but otherwise went in with no conceptions and I had a total blast. The only thing that annoyed me were some of the on the nose tropes, such as her yelling about consent. It's a solid cyberpunk thriller, even if some parts were dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Is there an invisible post where somebody brought up Rotten Tomatoes? What I got from your post was that, regardless of if you or I found the film to be "exciting, or fun, or scary, or thought provoking," the film still failed because it failed to accomplish that reactions from some separate audience. It's the same argument as when people appeal to Rotten Tomato scores, or Metacritic or whatever. The film is bad because some nebulous other people don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:What I got from your post was that, regardless of if you or I found the film to be "exciting, or fun, or scary, or thought provoking," the film still failed because it failed to accomplish that reactions from some separate audience. No, the audience I'm referring to is myself. I am an audience, as are the people I watched it with. I was describing my/our reaction/s. True, in this case, my criticisms seem to broadly align with the consensus (even in this thread, the nicest thing almost anyone said was 'it looks nice and it runs okay), but that's not the foundation of my argument. The foundation of my argument is that I watched it and didn't like it, nor did I hate it. It provoked absolutely no strong reaction or strong feelings. I suspect it's a 'design by committee' issue, though that is, of course, speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
I was reading this thread every day leading up to watching it and knew it would be visually interesting but disappointing. It was, and was, and then it completely evaporated from my brain. I watched an episode of SAC recently and it didn't even register that there was a live action movie. Everyone saying it should have been bolder is right, they wasted millions of dollars making something mediocre and forgettable. Maybe it was stupid executives, maybe a lack of creative vision, but the end result was non-art.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Watched it yesterday. Not really sure what to think of it. It grew on me towards the end and I really enjoyed all the scenes that were directly or partially taken from the 1995 movie (the Spider Tank scene being my favorite), but beginning and middle were kind of...meh. It's really difficult to collect my thoughts on this movie, so I will go with the ole' list format: - the visuals in the city were a bit too much at times, and that's coming from a fan of the cyberpunk aesthetic + Takeshi Kitano still owns so hard - really trite and lame villain + Pilou Asbęk made a good Batou - minor quibble: have people talked about why the two garbage truck drivers had machine guns in their truck? Could have been planted, I guess, but it kinda stuck out for me - every scene with Juliette Binoche made me go "just gently caress off already and move on to the next scene" As I type this up I realize how much I already forgot about what happened in the movie...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:So it's a bad movie because it has a low score on Rotten Tomatoes? I thought it was a bad movie the moment Motoko woke up and was served the worst expository lines ever. Still haven't been able to watch past that point. I usually give movies a fair chance - I tried three times by now - but my eyes rolled too far back at that point. It makes me feel stupid the way it has to explain everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
JazzmasterCurious posted:I thought it was a bad movie the moment Motoko woke up and was served the worst expository lines ever. Still haven't been able to watch past that point. I usually give movies a fair chance - I tried three times by now - but my eyes rolled too far back at that point. It makes me feel stupid the way it has to explain everything. What is it about anime that does this to people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What is it about anime that does this to people. I'm not really sure since anime typically has tremendous amounts of clunky expository dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:I'm not really sure since anime typically has tremendous amounts of clunky expository dialogue. Oh, it does. It's just annoying because Ghost is one of the few that doesn't. Sure, there are long, philosophical monologues, but there's very few instances where you wonder "why are they saying this to each other? surely they both already know that."
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
JazzmasterCurious posted:I thought it was a bad movie the moment Motoko woke up and was served the worst expository lines ever. Still haven't been able to watch past that point. I usually give movies a fair chance - I tried three times by now - but my eyes rolled too far back at that point. It makes me feel stupid the way it has to explain everything. Every time I hear a few lines of bad dialogue I am overcome with an overwhelming sense of disgust and start retching and puking all over my carpet. I'm trying to give the movie a fair shot, I really am, but I can't overcome the herculean task of bearing with a few lines of clunky exposition to actually watch the movie. It's not that great of a movie, but it's definitely not "shut the movie off in disgust before I even started it" bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
I rewatched the movie today just to get a hold on how I felt about it after a while, and I'm still kinda torn. It's a mediocre movie through and through and I'd love to be able to just not like it, but there's just so much potential that started to shine through in the movie but never quite made it all the way. Pilou Asbęk is still fantastic and one of my favorite parts of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I rewatched the movie today just to get a hold on how I felt about it after a while, and I'm still kinda torn. It's a mediocre movie through and through and I'd love to be able to just not like it, but there's just so much potential that started to shine through in the movie but never quite made it all the way. Pilou Asbęk is still fantastic and one of my favorite parts of the movie. I know, right? Dude is usually the most milquetoast wannabe bad dude in Danish films, but here he really shines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Tried to watch this yesterday and couldn't get all the way through. The only scene I thought was any good was when the Major found Kuze the first time. Every other scene aped something from previous media but had no idea what made those scenes any good. Why do so many scripts feel the need to explain everything through origin stories and explanations of everything? The original film starts basically "in media res" and apart from the non-dialogue body construction sequence during the titles there is no other exposition about the characters or the setting until we learn a little about the non cybered member of the team. We see the characters, immediately identify them through tropes and cliches and understand what's happening intrinsically. Case in point Batou's eyes. This makes me think of Patton Oswalt's diatribe about the Star Wars prequels. A lot of people don't give a poo poo about Darth Vader as a kid, they care about Darth Vader as shown in the original films. It's not always interesting to show how characters we like came to be how they are, we just like them how they are. The 95 film asked plenty of interesting questions without trying to shoehorn some pity-story about evil villain CEOs loving over the little people. I thought the casting was really good, Batou and the Chief were especially dead on, I thought Scarlett Johansson visually matched the Major well but she has such an uncharismatic vocal delivery I couldn't handle it even though she was supposed to be synthetic. When she visited her mother in her apartment I started skipping forward and once I hit the scene with the evil villain controlling the spider tank I was skipping whole chunks looking for something even visually compelling but it just didn't arise. The visuals were fantastic whenever they were on a set and had props but any time they showed a shot of the city I just thought "holy lacklustre CGI batman" and was not impressed at all. There is also no way to match the 95 musical score unless they were to copy it, so that was also a massive letdown for me - the original music is a large part of the appeal. As a fan of the 95 movie this was an almost complete fail, and I have no idea what people who don't know the property thought of it and don't really care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty good. Far from perfect but I just watched it and liked it. I'm not sure why it's been such a hate receptacle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I thought it was pretty good. Far from perfect but I just watched it and liked it. I'm not sure why it's been such a hate receptacle. It hasn't. It's just a really loving dull film. If people hated it, that would mean it had provoked something in them. It didn't, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It hasn't. It's just a really loving dull film. If people hated it, that would mean it had provoked something in them. It didn't, though. Exactly. I watched it less than 48 hrs ago, and I feel like the only reason I remember any of it, is beause they lifted scenes from the animated films. Indeed, what I most remember about watching it, is wishing I'd been watching the original films instead. An utter yawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It hasn't. It's just a really loving dull film. If people hated it, that would mean it had provoked something in them. It didn't, though. You don't think this, of all movies, has been a hate receptacle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:You don't think this, of all movies, has been a hate receptacle? I probably wouldn't have said what I did if I thought it was. Hate is a strong word. It requires enthusiasm. This film discourages enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
This is kind of weird but I saw Atomic Blonde and I kept thinking that this is so desperately what Ghost In The Shell should have been. Just a really good spy movie featuring a kickass female lead with a mysterious background that isn't the focus of the story. Also there was tons of 80s synth music and I might have trouble distinguishing cold war berlin with the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:You don't think this, of all movies, has been a hate receptacle? Yeah. To me at least it's seemed like a punching bag since before it was released, between the source material being so beloved and people flipping out over the casting. I think calling it unremarkable is fair though. It doesn't really excel at anything. I thought the visual design was actually pretty rad but the lack of restraint dragged it down. How many shots do we really need to see of the big rear end holograms all over the city etc? Everything else about it was fine but nothing really struck me as outstanding either. I thought it was a pretty competent remake if nothing else. Like, it could have been 10 times worse than it was and I liked that it mostly stuck pretty close to the original movie. The film's worst crime is that it doesn't really need to exist in the first place, and that just looms over it while you are watching. I don't think it was nearly as bad as some people make it out to be though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I probably wouldn't have said what I did if I thought it was. I mean, no. People hated this movie from the moment the narrative about ScarJo and whitewashing began. Whether that is or isn't warranted is another debate, but I can think of few other movies from the past 5 years that compete with it in terms of pure hate. Is it possible that some people saw it without those notions and thought it unremarkable too? Yeah, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
You only need to look at this very thread to see how people were angrily accusing anyone who said anything positive about the film in the lead up to release as justifying horrible racist whitewashing. Just like the new Ghostbusters film, this film was a battleground in the stupid online culture war and people just tuned out. It was not a great film but it was not a terrible one either. It is also not a film that is as happy-go-lucky as, say, Marvel's films which is what people want and get upset when they don't get it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Tried to watch this yesterday and couldn't get all the way through. The only scene I thought was any good was when the Major found Kuze the first time. Every other scene aped something from previous media but had no idea what made those scenes any good. Why do so many scripts feel the need to explain everything through origin stories and explanations of everything? The original film starts basically "in media res" and apart from the non-dialogue body construction sequence during the titles there is no other exposition about the characters or the setting until we learn a little about the non cybered member of the team. We see the characters, immediately identify them through tropes and cliches and understand what's happening intrinsically. Case in point Batou's eyes. This makes me think of Patton Oswalt's diatribe about the Star Wars prequels. A lot of people don't give a poo poo about Darth Vader as a kid, they care about Darth Vader as shown in the original films. It's not always interesting to show how characters we like came to be how they are, we just like them how they are. The 95 film asked plenty of interesting questions without trying to shoehorn some pity-story about evil villain CEOs loving over the little people. Yeah this film felt more like a prequel to the '95 film since the characters are way less experienced and sure of themselves at the start of the film but by the end of the film they're pretty close to the '95 characters, but then they also incorporated and re-imagined a whole bunch of scenes from the original film. The futuristic aspects of the setting were also ratcheted back a few steps in comparison to the original where full body cybernetics were commonplace but here the Major is the first person known to go through the process. It leans really hard on the scifi imagery and concepts of the original but they were clearly leery about chucking the audience in the deep end and assuming they'll catch up (even though the original dived right into those scifi concepts more than 2 decades ago before this version and most of them are pretty commonplace in speculative fiction these days) so they decided to show the Major's 'birth' and walk the audience through everything. The film as disappointingly timid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:I mean, no. People hated this movie from the moment the narrative about ScarJo and whitewashing began. Whether that is or isn't warranted is another debate, but I can think of few other movies from the past 5 years that compete with it in terms of pure hate. Is it possible that some people saw it without those notions and thought it unremarkable too? Yeah, sure. Considering very few people saw it, it seems like there were probably other films that garnered far more dislike, and definitely more by intensity. BvS, Man of Steel, Ghostbusters and American Sniper off the top of my head. Transformers 5 had multiple online critics vocally refuse to watch it or review it. No one cared about GitS enough to boycott. Because why would you? Milky Moor posted:You only need to look at this very thread to see how people were angrily accusing anyone who said anything positive about the film in the lead up to release as justifying horrible racist whitewashing. I've been looking at this thread, and I've seen disinterest, dislike, and the occasional 'it wasn't that bad' alongside several very long, detailed discussions on the racial issues raised by the movie. I must have missed the ones you're referring to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
People are now comparing misogynist backlash against the Ghostbusters movie to the backlash against the whitewashing in Ghost in the Shell. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
How are they not comparable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
They tried to cram the movie and elements from two seasons of the anime into a 90 minute film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:How are they not comparable? The whitewashing was a legitimate complaint, the Ghostbusters being women now isn't? That's my guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
The point was that both movies got a lot of negative press before they were even released, regardless of anyone's feelings about casting or the legitimacy of complaints. The major difference is that ghostbusters probably actually benefitted from its debacle whereas GITS almost certainly didn't. veni veni veni fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:The point was that both movies got a lot of negative press before they were even released, regardless of anyone's feelings about casting or the legitimacy of complaints. Ghostbusters didn't get negative press, it got an organised hate campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Lol, I would not call that organized. Anyways, the original point was just that a bunch of people decided they hated both movies before they even came out. Doesn't really matter what the reasoning was or how valid it was in either case. That is what makes them comparable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Lol, I would not call that organized. It absolutely does matter. A bunch of racists and misogynists coordinated their efforts and ended up driving one of the cast off of the internet by leaking her nudes and constantly harrassing her, because women were in the movie and one of them had the temerity to be black while doing so. That is so much worse that it's weird that I'm having to tell you this. The Alt-Right/rebranded neo-nazis made the film and its cast their targets for more than a year. Ghost in the Shell got a few think pieces and then no one watched it. That's why it's weird that you're comparing them. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
You are completely missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:You are completely missing the point. One of us definitely is. People decided this movie wasn't worth their time from when it was announced, and nothing from the film makers or the film convinced them otherwise. People decided that Ghostbusters was a threat to their masculinity, the natural racial order and the very fabric of our culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Go back and read the context of the conversation. Because you are trying to turn a very simple statement into a wrong/right thing. Someone said "it's like ghostbusters in that there was an internet talking head shitshow surrounding it" which is totally true. No one is defending anything, it's just a simple fact and you are arguing with yourself. I don't even totally disagree with you, but it's not relevant in the context of what was said.
veni veni veni fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 02:20
|
|