|
Snak posted:The Puppet Master's body in the 95 movie was stolen from a local factory. Puppetmaster comes from 'the net' and chooses to incarnate as a blonde, blue-eyed, and pale-skinned Anime.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Weird I feel like I've heard this line of thought somewhere... Right: Ghost In The Shell 2017 presents harsh criticism of white supremacist ideology, where white is the 'natural' default. The character tears her skin off at the end. Ghost in the Shell 1995 did the same basic thing, by making the Satanic embodiment of the entire internet blonde, blue-eyed and extremely pale. The advance of computerization is gradually wiping out nations and ethnic groups. This is a bad thing. The internet is white supremacist. The same point was made in the Transformers films. The aliens scanned the entire internet to form their identities, and emerged as American car commercials.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:It's funny how GITS doesn't even hides its cynicism, and the execs openly blame the whitewashing issue, yet people are coming up with ways to defend it and nonetheless muddy the waters. You are confusing depiction with endorsement, and confusing the artwork with the corporation that produced it. Nobody is defending the corporation. The 1995 and 2017 films both depict the character as a product of white supremacy. Neither film endorses white supremacy. (Except, perhaps, unwittingly in the case of the 1995 film.)  Ghost In the Shell 1995 predicted this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Penpal posted:I'm not a weeb so I don't usually have my finger to the pulse of japanese culture but it seems like the opinion on Ghost in the Shell 2017 in glorious Nippon is that "this is another incarnation, and it's better than a lot of the other incarnations", and "we liked it" Well yeah; it's those that unexamined notions of ethno-national purity. To an American weeb, Ghost In The Shell 2017 is "supposed to be Japanese". Note how many people ITT assume that the 1995 film took place in Japan, and assert that Kusanagi must be a pure-blooded Japanese woman (i.e. she cannot be bi- or multi-racial (despite living in Hong Kong and having blue eyes)). According to this standard, the filmmakers failed to make the Japanese movie; they were supposed to honour the Japanese people and their nation, beautiful Japanese culture and so-on. To people actually living in Japan, you do not have these weird notions - because they actually live there. Ghost In The Shell 2017 is simply understood as an American/Chinese coproduction, because that's what it is. There's nothing unusual about it being made in Hong Kong and starring a white actress; it's no different from any other American film. (If anything, it's more 'progressive' because we've got a female comic book superhero - while nerds are still pushing for a Black Widow movie and writing thinkpieces about Wonder Woman.) Note the bizarre double standard we discovered - that there would be less (or no) complaints about the casting if the film's setting were simply changed to 'America'. Like, just throw in some onscreen text that says "Los Angeles, 2039" and you have an exceptionally diverse Blade Runner film. (Remember how Blade Runner starred Harrison Ford, Sean Young, and Rutger Hauer? To my knowledge, no-one has ever complained that those actors weren't Japanese.) It's unavoidable: to the American weeb, Japan is perceived as monolithic, uniform and homogeneous, while America is just a normal place with normal people living together.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I bet Boss Baby is more rewatchable than this pile of CGI-arbage. Put your money where your mouth is & watch Boss Baby twice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I thought whitewashing was getting white actors to play characters of other ethnicities when they should have cast actors of those ethnicities instead. This is false, because canon is a fake idea. If Superman is played by a black actor in a film, then Superman is black. In that film. Nerds have difficulty with this, and will insist that Superman is (canonically) white. They will then reject the black Superman film as corrupted by political correctness and/or make contortions to say that the film takes place in an 'alternate universe.' All this is done to campaign for the corporations to preserve the character's white essence. (Note: Superman is an alien passing as white.) The same procedure is at work with Ghost Shell 2017, with the only difference being that pseudoprogressive nerds are campaigning for the corporations to preserve the character's Japanese essence. (Note: 1995 Major is an alien robot passing as 'Asian', not unlike Spock in that time-travel episode). A third variation is when nerds will campaign for the corporations to change the canon and make Spiderman canonically black or whatever. All these three approaches are an escape from the responsibility of actually reading a given film, in its socioeconomic context. Your point about 'total rewriting' is akin to those 'alternate universe' solutions. An 'alternate nation' solution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Literally any action taken at any time for any reason that is not the action of making an ideological reading a movie that concludes that its socioeconomic goal is an endorsement of Marxism is a crime. Weird thoughts. Steve Yun posted:Well, part of the problem is that there isn't any canonical definition of whitewashing, and people seem to be using the same word differently. Not "differently". Incorrectly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I can't wait for the future of the superman movie with a black actor as superman. It already came out, years ago. The only reason it's not called 'Superman' is because of intellectual property rights and presumable nerd outcry. Hancock is narratively identical to half of Batman V Superman. What's unfortunately obvious in this thread is that people are aware that something is wrong in the world, but have little idea of what this something is. So people are beginning with the label of 'whitewashed' and then working backwards to figure out what this label means. Some say it's when Asian actors aren't hired, but Ghost In The Shell 2017 features standout performances by Kaori Mamoi and Takeshi Kitano. Also, everybody seems to be glossing over the fact that actress Rila Fukushima actually was hired and paid to play Motoko. So then, the complaint becomes that these Asian actors aren't getting the best roles. But this is true of, essentially, every blockbuster - most of which cast way fewer Asian actors. Rogue One, for example, was celebrated as progressive because it had two(!) Chinese characters in addition to its white female lead. So this goes on, as we try to figure out what people mean. We pass through 'cultural appropriation' (of a Japanese film about globalization set in China and based on the American film Blade Runner?), and on and on, as people struggle to articulate what the bad thing is. And, gradually, we're working towards what K.Waste and I have already been talking about : actual reading. Actual ideological critique of individual texts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Indicting Hollywood is easier when you use less words, not more. Unfortunately, we live in a climate where calling something racist racist shuts down the brains of people you're trying to get into. Unfortunately, getting all tvtropes.txt also shuts down people. That's why I downplay calling white savior stuff white savior stuff. This is a very, very bad approach. Deploying antiracist terminology as an insult is an abuse of that terminology. The same way people abuse 'fascist'. In your view, the film is 'just racist' because it was the product of some racist person's racist intentions. You then deem it unnecessary to actually read the film, because both its form and its content are mere 'justifications' for the racist person's racist intentions. You emphasize the unimportance of the actual film with your insistence on its status as 'low art'. So with the same breath that you decry cynicism, you insist that the artwork is meaningless because, like, they're just trying to make money, man. In truth, purely ideology is impossible. There are always traces of authenticity in the texture of a given film. If your goal is to 'get into white racist brains', you need to actually engage in critique. You're not 'indicting' anything, otherwise. You need to be truthful and accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:The question is not what a thing is doing, but the harm it causes. [...] it's a clear case of appropriation when the creators go out of their way to make sure ethnic actors don't get starring roles in those vehiceles. These sentences are contradictory. And, on top of that, the bulk of your post concerns neither actions nor their end results, but intentionality: "the creators go out of their way to make sure... That's the producers/money men going out of their way to... its especially blatant when they try to..." If you are actually concerned about end results and not actions, then your post is reduced to one line: "Ethnic actors don't get starring roles." The error in your thought is that you have begun with the phrase "ethnic actors don't get starring roles" and then presumed that the thing that is causing this harm is 'money men with bad intentions'. So we must simply eliminate 'money men with bad intentions' so that jobs will flow. "That's downright exploitation." Your post has nothing to do with fighting exploitation. You are fighting to make exploitation more palatable. To put authentic Asians in authentic Asian narratives and then exploit the everloving poo poo out of them. You are pushing for the exploitation to be conducted by money-men with good intentions. To be clear: if you purchase a blu-ray copy of the 1995 Ghost In The Shell that you watch unsubbed because you speak fluent Japanese, because you live in Japan, because you are Japanese, that is still not ethical consumption. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:I don't know why they made it so that she had a human brain in a robot body, not a human mind in a robot brain. Completely misses the point of the original. Too complex for audiences or something? You missed the point of the original, because it was too complex for you. 1995's character has a cyborg brain: a minimum of organic human tissue is retained, because both clients and manufacturers operate under the near-mystical belief that this tissue stores a mysterious and unfathomable 'human essence'. The entire film is about the protagonist's (mostly symbolic) decision to discard this tissue. In 2017, the characters are under no such illusions. While the brain is made of meat, it has been fully objectivized and reduced to a mere mechanism to be precisely hacked with novel forms of sensory input and specialized neurochemical cocktails. You actually got it completely backwards.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:This is a film with nothing for everyone. It's not nearly clever or bizarre enough to gain any sort of cult sci fi audience, but it's not nearly streamlined or fun enough to be a genuine blockbuster. It's full of shots and scenes from the anime, but it also tries to do its own thing plotwise, while working around those scenes and shots from the original. There's a ton of great design, but the film still relies on expositional dialogue to explain what and who everything is, while forgetting to explain why anyone is going anywhere. So we have a film where a bunch of characters without a single distinguishing characteristic between them go from one yakuza hangout to another for compelling reasons like 'that's where the signal is coming from' For someone indifferent towards banal checklist-criticism, this is film of the year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The film is basically an overunity device producing garbage HOT TAKES at a stultifying rate. Note how many people chime with how they didn't pay attention or shut it off after three minutes, but when an actual review is attempted.... 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. ...you have stock nerd memes about the The Phantom Menace (a film that's nearly 20 years old, like how are you even pretending to still be cross at it) and 'origin stories' (a made-up term that refers exclusively to movies with Batman). This despite the fact that Ghost in the Shell 2017 is neither a prequel nor an origin story. And even then, he couldn't stay focussed on the screen for half an hour. What's unavoidable is that the film is a science fiction film but is being judged entirely in terms of its fidelity to a source material, & whether it nebulously retains 'the magic.' In other words, it is not being judged in terms of science-fiction - it's ideas. It is being judged as a franchise. You see "my friend Batou looks like he's supposed to!" You do not see anything about the cybernetic eye concept, and how the film approaches it differently from any other adaptation. Nerds have, in a way, killed sci-fi in exchange for gratification.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:There's really not been a lot of "not faithful to the original" type criticism that hasn't been pretty well justified (eg pointing out how certain scenes they directly remade miss what made the original scenes so good). The trouble is that what you've put in parentheses is pretentious nonsense. Your premise is that there is set target that "they" intended to hit: "they" intended to 'remake the goodness' by copying images - effectively endeavouring to steal the essence of the 'original' Ghost In The Shell. [Note: the 1995 film is not the original Ghost In The Shell.] In your view, the fact that this film is very different from the other (over two decades ago) is an accident - and that's easily disproven when you speak concretely. The brutal beating of the suspect, in 1995, is presented with a cool zen indifference that foreshadows Motoko's transcendence (the image of Corgi's spontaneously-mangled hand is repeated when the Puppetmaster gains control of Batou's arm at the end of the film. Motoko clearly aspires to shed her body and become like the puppetmaster so that she can harm 'scum' more effectively). In 2017, the same plot is presented as horrific - Mira is furious (this attack is personal for her), the violence is gratuitous, and the Zack Snyder speed-ramping signifies a false sense of clarity. The difference is clearly deliberate; Batou in 2017 has to run in and stop Mira from 'going too far'. The 2017 film is against police brutality, where the 1995 film is not. It's in the script. But then, at the same time that you complain about difference, you complain that each similarity denies you access to a desired novelty: quote:[I] want something that captures the same feelings and themes of the original, or something that takes it in an interesting and new direction. A film with the same content that adds new plot points is called a sequel (in your case, a very conservative sequel about the continuing adventures of Motoko and Batou (even though there already is a sequel to the 1995 film, and several TV series)). The point of a remake (on the other hand) is to retain the basic plot while changing the themes so much that the film no longer resembles its predecessor(s). As I've noted earlier, Ghost In The Shell 2017 successfully changes the narrative so that Motoko no longer becomes an antichrist figure, when that was THE narrative of the 1995 film. Instead we have an entirely opposite narrative about Kuze as a terrifying sort of proto-Christ figure. So, when we break it down, your claim is that remakes are categorically bad - so bad that the filmmakers could only have made one by accident. They must have been trying to make a sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm just saying that it didn't work as a faithful remake that captured the spirit of the original, or as an interesting new interpretation of it. They had all the classic scenes that everyone loved in there, but they weren't really as good as they were in the original, with the exception of the characters of batou and the chief, who are probably some of my favorite interpretations of the characters. They had a lot of potentially interesting new ideas, but they were clumsily handled and wound up not being very compelling. Whatever your feelings, the issue is that none of what you've written actually makes sense. Stock phrases like "capturing the spirit" are 'deep' and meaningless, conveying only a sense of dissatisfaction. "Faithful to the original classic!" is marketing-speak - a phrase you'll find in ad copy, or a Travers quote on the back of a DVD case. So when someone asks you what on Earth you're talking about, you... well, you can't can you? This issue is endemic to discussion of this particular film, and is not neutral or apolitical. We've already seen people deploying the term 'whitewashing' and then struggling badly to explain what 'whitewashing' is, and so-on. Even the praise is hampered: 'it looks pretty'. Complaint supplants criticism when posters have no frame of reference to allow for the formation of an opinion, and no vocabulary with which to express it. Instead of discussing the cyborg film in terms of like Donna Harraway or Marshal McLuhan, it's memes derived from clickbait.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Dumb question, but does it even take place in Japan? I couldn't really tell. It's Hong Kong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:When I say capturing the spirit of the original I mean going for a straight remake of the original, capturing the same general themes, scenes, and plot beats without just having it be a shot for shot copy which I think capturing the spirit of conveys pretty well in fewer words. When I say an interesting new take, I mean drop all the cobbled together classic storylines and plot beats that they retrofitted to match up with the new themes and plot and work from the ground up. I think the movie would have been better if they had taken either of these paths. Again, though: none of this makes sense. Your clarification just confuses things further. What is 'capturing the plot'? Why are 'plot' and 'themes' presented as interchangeable? Which 'general themes' are you referring to? Your writing is incredibly vague, despite multiple attempts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:I'm mostly avoiding going into detail because it's been months since I've seen it. He's trying to get specifics, but all I have right now is my general opinion of the movie, and I don't really care enough to watch it again and pick out specific scenes just for an internet post. If you don't remember anything, that's no different from the weirds who turned it off after five minutes. You weren't paying attention - and have even repeated that you didn't care to pay attention. Yet you are writing anyways. What we're left with is vague complaint interspersed with error - for example, you conflate 'remaking' with direct translation to a different medium, when the term for the latter is 'adaptation'. So you complain that the film was a bad remake because it was a remake, instead of the adaptation (of animation to live-action) that you expected. And again, this is not an isolated case.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Japanese audiences (being extremely general here) didn't really care about the casting choice because it's not like there's a shortage of roles for Japanese people in Japanese movies, and ever since that became "news" via some entertainment site articles we've seen people use that as a cudgel against Asian American actors getting big roles in Hollywood and to act like only white "SJWs snowflakes" had a problem with it. It's so loving stupid. The issue is that you have this pseudo-opposition between liberal centrism and the "alt-" right wing. Progressive politics are foreclosed. A leftist response is 'unimaginable'. But Ghost in the Shell 2017, very straightforwardly, an intersectional feminist film that simply happens to not be conducive to liberal appropriation. Liberals will celebrate an 'rear end-kicking Asian femme' in even the most reactionary films - e.g. the short-lived "Mako Mori test", a campaign to make the fascist Japanese woman from Pacific Rim into a poster child for Hollywood multiculturalism. (A good example of how centrists and the right-wing are not actually opposed, but are merely sides of the same coin). This film, instead, does an unquestionably effective job of separating the politics of race and gender (and so-on) from those identity politics. That's what makes it so traumatic: Mira doesn't have an identity. She's a monster. Her complicity in the oppression of the Chinese population on behalf of white (and Japanese) supremacist institutions has literally turned her white. While a victim of sexism and racism, she is also a participant - she beats up Japanese pimps but then takes advantage of a black prostitute and, so-on. Things are nuanced. Boundaries are blurred. But the whitewashing meme is an escape from the simple fact that K.Waste had stressed - that Section 9 are the bad guys; in the popular Marvel films, they are called HYDRA.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Snak posted:And this isn't a subversion. This is loyalty to the source material. In the film and the anime series, Section 9 is is explicitly and extra-legal fascist organization. Their job is explicitly to kill people who are inconvenient for the state. That's literally why The Major turns invisible in the iconic scene. She's assassinating someone with diplomatic immunity, because "it's the right thing to do". Exactly; people are somehow confused as to why the fascist character who is literally programmed to defend the white race, is white. starkebn posted:I don't understand the objection to critiquing this as an adaption when so much of the material is directly adapting previous works. The film does not directly adapt anything. Again, adaptation is simply translation into another medium. For example, the ellipsis at the end of this sentence might be translated as a fade-to-black if my post were adapted into a short film.... But if I write an entirely different sentence that also has an ellipsis... we would not call this a 'direct adaptation' of the previous ellipsis. These are entirely different sentences that simply refer back to the previous sentence, and complement it. This Ghost In The Shell makes references to the 1995 film, but the modification and recontextualization of the imagery changes its meaning entirely. Remember, it goes from being the story of the birth of an antichrist to the story of the death of a proto-Christ. A translation of the New Testament that omits the Jesus character is obviously not a translation at all. And what is Ghost In The Shell 1995 without its 'puppetmaster' villain?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
tweet my meat posted:You're only looking at the deeper meaning of the film and neglecting to consider the surface level, which is just as important. It doesn't just make references to 95, it copies most of the major set pieces and characters, only changing the context they are presented in while leaving the actual scenes more or less unchanged. It's more complicated than just using an ellipsis in two sentences. I think calling it an adaptation is more than fair, even if it pulls from multiple sources and recontextualizes it. In dismissing/ignoring the formal qualities of the work and asserting that the characters remain unchanged whatever the nuances of their presentation, you are insisting on the notion of a 'deep' essence that dwells perhaps even literally beneath the surface of the screen. Instead of performing the act of reading, you deliberately prevent comprehension by retreating into insistence on (your) 'complexity'. That is pretension. Counter to that pretension, I am dealing in such basic things as whether the boat scene takes place at daytime or at night. 1995's Motoko dives not because she enjoys being underwater, but specifically because she enjoys the act of resurfacing into sunlight. 2017's Mira is the polar opposite; she dives at night. There is no essence. Simply changing the time of day in one scene has altered the character entirely. Of course the movie is about this fact.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
starkebn posted:In the original she dives because if her flotation device fails she would sink and be hosed, so it is risk taking behaviour that makes her feel vulnerability. In the new film she dives because she did it in the original. The risk-taking aspect of the dive is just the warm up for Motoko's surrepetitious reenactment of her (re)birth. She literally dreams of being born again, so the destruction of her body at the end is very clearly something she has been building towards. In 2017, on the other hand, we are given multiple scenes of Mira being repaired - her gunmetal innards being re-coated in artificial flesh. So the point is again entirely different: Mira does not long to escape her body, but instead goes through an arc where she embraces her identity as a robot - instead of hiding from it, underwater. The exposure of her innards is actually best read as a celebration of her new embodiment. This is the point of the jellyfish imagery that was not present in the 1995 film. Mira's desire to 'disconnect' is a return to nature, and an artifact of her previous existence as an ineffectual Luddite. She cannot float freely among the weeds; the 'jellyfish' needs a body. So we return to the imagery from the credits, of the jellyfish-brain wrapping its tentacles around a spinal cord in a tight embrace. Of course, the idea that 'the mind cannot exist without a body' is very basic stuff, but film has thoroughly established a unique and troubling definition of 'body' - one where the evil CEO is defined as a part of Major's body, and she can therefore consent to his removal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
You cannot begin with the assumption that the scenes are fundamentally the same and conclude from that that the differences are 'merely cosmetic'. The differences are the characterization. Again, the 1995 fight scene exists purely to foreshadow the end of the film, when Puppetmaster gains control of Batou's arm.  Batou takes out the spider-tank the way Corgi destroys the police van, then their arms both get restrained by invisible forces. They even wear similar gloves, to underline the association. The point of the film is that even Batou is treated as expendable garbage, clinically and dispassionately stripped of his agency - yet he still enables Motoko's transformation into an antichrist out of his unrequited love for her. In the 2017 film, Batou does not show up at the end. The fight scene, instead, foreshadows Kitano's execution of the CEO character (who, you might recall, is knocked backwards into a pool of water, generating a symmetrical wake).  The point here is that the garbageman was never the real enemy. Motoko's flurry of violence is hurricane imagery (note that the character never removes his raincoat, and there is far more water splashing about), and is replaced at the end with her simply consenting to a quick execution performed by someone else. She's no longer motivated by simple anger. This is a character arc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Snak posted:In the original, it's one piece of military hardware against another ... a completely soulless weapon, [not] a villain remote controlling a giant robot.   You need to be careful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Also in the '95 film the Puppetmaster's stooge in the garbage truck does his bidding because his memories have been ghosthacked and he thinks his actions are going to help him be reunited with a daughter who never actually existed. His brain has been swiss-cheesed but he's still acting independently, happy to go along with the plan. When the truth of the matter is revealed and we discover that the Puppetmaster mindraped a random innocent citizen just so he'd perform a menial task it's horrific. Corgi (the guy the Major fights in the canal) had also been ghosthacked but he turns out to have been a minor thug who was prone to violence already. As with the spider-tank, that is not actually what happens in the films. The spider-tank has a human pilot, and his white helmet is made to resemble the design of Motoko's cyborg brain (which are literally a chunk of human brain tissue encased in a metallic shell). The Puppetmaster theorizes that the tank lost the fight because it had a human pilot. That's why we have a very deliberate close-up on his face when the Puppetmaster says "your desire to remain what you are is what ultimately limits you." The tank is killed specifically because it has a human soul - because it's "too human". Of course, both ignore that it was Batou who saved them. As a contrast, the spider-drone in 2017 is 'just a soulless puppet' - literally has a big gap where the human pilot should be. But the point is that, like the Geisha-bot, Mira feels a sort of kinship with it. She attempts to free it from the control of the villain. This is the exact opposite of what Snak claims happened. When the suspect is interrogated in the 1995 film, the repeated "sorry" from the interrogator is explicitly cold comfort. It's not gentle questioning. It's a harsh but routine interrogation, because they are very familiar with this ghost-hacking thing and they want to just cut to the chase. 'Sorry about your family, but we have important work here.' In the 2017 film, mind control is a new phenomenon, and they think they can brute-force their way through the false memories. Then it's revealed that Kuze has used the lie-detector as a gateway to sneak into the interrogation room. The garbage-man was not being remote-controlled. He was acting according to false memories, just like in the 1995 film. The 2017 film simply adds a third layer to the character's mind: beneath both the false memories and the real memories, you have this boiling abstract collective rage. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 01:04
|
|