|
7c Nickel posted:It's about asian people in America. Well thank god I don't have to care about just some American thing.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That twitter guy's argument is especially hilarious because the opinion of the Japanese left, people like Miyazaki, etc, has always been that technology and industry are terrible because of their intimate connection to the WW2 era Japanese military-industrial complex. The entire point of Akira is that cyberpunk Japan is evil and that the technology is a monster that is sacrificing the Japanese people on an altar of authoritarian military-industry I don't think he's endorsing technology as being great and the essence of Japanese-ness. He says that the story is built upon Japan's "unique" nature as (circa late 20th century) a country that is intensely pacifist and antimilitary, but also a world leader in technology. I'm not sure if that "unique" perspective point is entirely true, but I think it's a valid read (although I think he's talking more about the manga/anime, because I've only seen the film and the film is mostly about existentialism and cyborgs rather than geopolitics). To be honest, America already made a very culturally specific American film in the late 20th century about a future of existentialism and cyborgs, so I think that another one is pretty unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Donnerberg posted:I'm not even upset about the white washing. I'm baffled by the thought process that ended up with them exploring CGI Asians because Asians were unsafe. This is a film about human-looking robots. There could well have been a scene where different varieties of the same robot body were shown with different ethnicities. So they would need CGI to show an asian face that was still recognisably ScarJo. Do you really find this concept offensive? Because I practically guarantee that something like that was what the CGI test was for. Because the alternative is that Hollywood has a secret desire to cast white people in films as asians and then CGI them so that they look asian for the whole film despite how expensive and prohibitive that would be, and the huge outrage it would cause, and the pointlessness of casting a famous face and then making them look unrecognisable. It was never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Yeah, anybody who thinks Paramount were considering CGI-ing epicanthic folds on Johannson for the entire running time of the movie is a loving lunatic. I'm really curious about what they were actually doing though now. e: VVV case in point
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Some people decided that the film isn't whitewash and were locked into that position even after that whole CGI yellowface thing came out. Because to acknowledge that Paramount considered airbrushing white actors so they look asian would mean the people who argued that it's whitewash all along had a point. That's why they buy the revised official story that was only a background actor that got the treatment. That's why we're getting "my animes!" and "singled out". Because by necessity, We Never Had This Conversation Before about whitewashing. We have every reason to believe this will be a forgettable "gently caress you; it's March" sci-fi action movie, not unlike ScarJo's last sci-fi action movie. ScarJo, when she's not in Marvel, pretty much has a Ryan Reynolds/Chris Pine "let's just throw this person in the movie" role. It's not a passion project. But even so, it seems like people have a stake in defending it. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:
Well...for most of Hollywood's history this was true. And it wasn't secret. And it's pretty much still the case. Also the Sony leaks prove that Movie execs are really racist in how they deal with movies and their stars. So it's really not that much of a stretch to think that they'd just want the star power of an A list celeb, but also have her be "asian".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:14
|
|
They already put out a promotional pic of Johansson looking white before this CGI thing even came out for God's sake 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:They already put out a promotional pic of Johansson looking white before this CGI thing even came out for God's sake There's no timeline of when the CGI yellowface was being done/ordered for consideration. Plus the amazing thing about CGI is: You can do well after principal photography has completed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:32
|
|
Crain posted:There's no timeline of when the CGI yellowface was being done/ordered for consideration. Plus the amazing thing about CGI is: You can do well after principal photography has completed. If you think that there was ever a plan, at any time, to put slanty eyes on ScarJo for the whole movie then you are crazy. That said, I don't find Paramount convincing either when they say it was just for a 'background character', like there was one extra in a crowd scene they needed to make Asian because  . I doubt we'll ever know the truth but I think Comrade Fakename's idea is probably close to what they had in mind. Which would be pretty cool, because having fluid visible racial markers for the Major would be a new and timely way to approach the themes of 'self' and 'identity' and whatnot that GITS (the '95 movie anyway) is all about, and would at least stand a chance of making this something other than a disposable March action movie.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
1. Studio casts Scarlett Johansson despite some people wishing they cast a Japanese or Asian actress. 2. Tone-deaf film studio sees a small backlash, misunderstands the criticism, and considers digitally airbrushing her to look Asian. 3. People found out about it, gets a slightly bigger backlash, and the studio pretends it didn't happen. This is the most plausible story. It's not a background actor and it wasn't ScarJo in just "one scene". They wanted to have it both ways (white star/asian character).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:If you think that there was ever a plan, at any time, to put slanty eyes on ScarJo for the whole movie then you are crazy. Counter-point: Ben Barnes, white as the driven snow and English as all gently caress, was picked up to play the role of a full blooded Colombian in "The Big Wedding". A fairly large production with DeNiro and Robin Williams. They basically put him in Brown face by giving him a spray tan and a Dark Dye job to make him look "Colombian". That was only 3-ish years ago. Hollywood is still not past the point where idiot producers/directors know better than to try and fudge a preferred actor's racial identity instead of just hiring someone of that identity. I don't see it as much of a stretch that they'd just try and fudge it "a little" in GitS's case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:53
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:This is the most plausible story "most outrage-worthy" =/= "most plausible" e: Crain posted:Counter-point: Ben Barnes "casting a no-name white actor as a probably-mostly-ethnically-Spanish supporting character in a Katherine Heigl movie" =/= "yellowing up the second-highest-paid actress in the world for a leading role" Clipperton fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
The actual plausible story its that they were using CGI to make various characters look like weirdo robots, as in Star Trek 2009: But even if there were a full-fledged secret plot to eliminate the Asian race from media, they didn't act on those thoughtcrimes. So why are people upset?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:This is a film about human-looking robots. There could well have been a scene where different varieties of the same robot body were shown with different ethnicities. So they would need CGI to show an asian face that was still recognisably ScarJo. Do you really find this concept offensive? Because I practically guarantee that something like that was what the CGI test was for. I'm not offended. I thought it was silly beyond reason if it was meant to be for the duration of the movie, which you make a solid point that it can't have been. Unless the idea they were throwing around was to make it like A Scanner Darkly but anime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:
See I wanna call trolling on this because Ben Barnes is far from some no-name actor. He's was one of the leads, and in one movie the lead of the leads, in the Narnia Series. He played Prince/King Caspian. And in The Big Wedding played one of the leading roles as well. He's half of the drat focus of the story for christ's sake. SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Because part of it is "Once again, business as usual. Hollywood just wants to hire white actors/actresses regardless of role" level exasperation. The other part is that people don't believe for a second that their reasoning for cancelling it was "This is the wrong thing to do" but rather "Oh god this is so bad that no only will we not get away with it but it makes A. Wyatt Mann cartoons look nuanced and ethical by comparison". Crain fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
Crain posted:See I wanna call trolling on this because Ben Barnes is far from some no-name actor. He's was one of the leads, and in one movie the lead of the leads, in the Narnia Series. He played Prince/King Caspian. And in The Big Wedding played one of the leading roles as well. He's half of the drat focus of the story for christ's sake. I didn't see The Big Wedding and I'm pretty sure no one else did either so I'll take your word for it Regarding the no name thing, I just did a straw poll of my office (one of whom actually saw Prince Caspian) and no one had a clue who Ben Barnes was
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:I didn't see The Big Wedding and I'm pretty sure no one else did either so I'll take your word for it A truly representative poll. You're doing terrific.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:21
|
|
Crain posted:A truly representative poll. You're doing terrific. n=5 if we're being scientific
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:n=5 if we're being scientific Lmao. Anyway I will say this: I want to be surprised. I was surprised by Edge of Tomorrow. Which, sans potential yellowface, kind of started out similar to how GitS is with people complaining that they're totally missing the point of the Manga and just going to make a bad movie. But they did a good job adapting it in the end. So who knows. It's just really not looking like anyone is trying though, and to me we've already seen a few mine canaries fall dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Speaking of people making the movie, I'm sure it was asked already but how the gently caress are the Wachowskis not directing this? They already did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:"most outrage-worthy" =/= "most plausible" Also, you have a fixation on the word "outrage".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:44
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Also, you have a fixation on the word "outrage". I have used it exactly once itt And for actual GITS chat: whoever does the music for this has their work cut out for them, the score for the '95 film was loving gorgeous and did 95% of the emotional heavy lifting for that movie Clipperton fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:I want to watch the 1995 movie again now, should I look for the original version or go with the "2.0" version where they made it look more like Innocence? The CGI in 2.0 looks terrible. I'd go for the original.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:This is a film about human-looking robots. Robocop is human that looks like a human, he does the god drat cowboy gun twirl. Don't forget about the Japanese samurai robots in RoboCop 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Hollywood Reporter posted:"Looking at her career so far, I think Scarlett Johansson is well cast," Sam Yoshiba, director of the international business division at Kodansha's Tokyo headquarters, tells The Hollywood Reporter. "She has the cyberpunk feel. And we never imagined it would be a Japanese actress in the first place." Hollywood Reporter posted:Meanwhile, some Japanese commentators on Twitter suggested that not too much attention should be paid to the physical appearance of the actress, because the dominant themes in Ghost in the Shell are the nature of identity and cyborgs used to host cyber-brains. Oh just look at these these poor Japanese people suffering from internalized racism And if you want to know what Japanese nerds think, they're more annoyed that it's live action in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
Renoistic posted:The CGI in 2.0 looks terrible. I'd go for the original. Thanks! That's a shame. I wish they'd left the real-world stuff alone, if they'd just updated the hacking scenes it could have worked out nicely. Original it is!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:I have used it exactly once itt Like I said, at most I'm jaded and amused at the studio's foolish last ditch attempt to fix the whitewash after they internally realized it was whitewashing. I'm also not too surprised at people (who have little to gain from seeing Paramount profit from this) here who somehow need to defend it and concoct some scenario where it couldn't have been as bad. I hope those screen tests leak onto the internet before he film's release. I really want to see them now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:48
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Like I said, at most I'm jaded and amused at the studio's foolish last ditch attempt to fix the whitewash after they internally realized it was whitewashing. I'm also not too surprised at people (who have little to gain from seeing Paramount profit from this) here who somehow need to defend it and concoct some scenario where it couldn't have been as bad. i'm not defending anything, it's just that your own concocted scenario is looneytunes. but if you have any real information on what was going on with the screentest feel free to share it, i mean you seem very sure Clipperton fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
ScarJo's character will be renamed Major Major Major.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:If you think that there was ever a plan, at any time, to put slanty eyes on ScarJo for the whole movie then you are crazy. Totally, there's no way they wouldn't realize it's always much more realistic to accomplish the impossible with practical effects. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
 much cheaper
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Oh just look at these these poor Japanese people suffering from internalized racism She’s going to be an erotic lieutenant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:38
|
|
am0kgonzo posted:She’s going to be an erotic lieutenant. I was puzzled by that one too Also I don't agree that she can't do "cold", she can be blank as gently caress when she wants to be.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Was there ever a good release for 2.0 Innocence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:i'm not defending anything, it's just that your own concocted scenario is looneytunes. but if you have any real information on what was going on with the screentest feel free to share it, i mean you seem very sure "They couldn't have done that because that would be a dumb move" is a foolproof counter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 01:37
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:"They couldn't have done that because that would be a dumb move" is a foolproof counter. Clipperton posted:if you have any real information on what was going on with the screentest feel free to share it
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Screen Crush posted:After the backlash surrounding Johansson’s role in the film, producers reportedly attempted to quell the controversy with an old standby Hollywood uses to fix a lot of problems: CGI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
I can't believe Masamune Shirow actually allowed Hollywood to make an adaption of this. He's not quite at the levels of Orson Scott Card and Dan Simmons of batshit insanity, but he has gotten alarmingly close a number of times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Either Paramount is lying or the film press if lying. I find it highly unlikely that Screen Crush would make up a story out of thin air. None of that is inconsistent with Comrade Fakebot's theory, in fact it fits the facts better, since if the tests were for an alternate cyborg body of the Major's, it'd be true that they were both for Johansson's face (like Screencrush says) AND for a 'background character' (like Paramount claims)...
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Clipperton posted:None of that is inconsistent with Comrade Fakebot's theory, in fact it fits the facts better, since if the tests were for an alternate cyborg body of the Major's, it'd be true that they were both for Johansson's face (like Screencrush says) AND for a 'background character' (like Paramount claims)... Or alternatively, the same industry that thought Gemma Arterton was a good choice for a movie called "Prince of Persia" and a Swedish guy was a good choice for "Gods of Egypt" and honestly cannot see the problem with casting hispanics as middle easterners actually is kind of dumb when it comes to race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 03:46
|
|