Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


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.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


How are they not comparable?

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


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

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


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.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


You are completely missing the point.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


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

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


You are ridiculous. I doubt anyone here even disagrees with you, but here you are trying argue semantics with walls of texts over a really basic and sensible statement.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


No one said it was a 1:1 comparison. Both films were met with internet drama and judged by people before they even hit theaters. That is all that was said. No more, no less. You and one other person have tried to spin it into something else.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Snowman_McK posted:

This is also true of every film released since the beginning of the internet. Half of it is true of every film released since the beginning of film as a commercial enterprise.

Like I said, broadly true, but also greatly misleading.

This actually started because someone asked if any other films had been the subject of so much hate. And the answer is, emphatically 'yes' and 'much more'


Yup! that's why the Ghostbusters comparison came up in the first place! Now you are getting it. Now, who are you arguing with again?

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Snowman_McK posted:

Because they share a broad similarity that indicates nothing?

The idea that this film was some kind of particular lightning rod for hate, rather than indifference, is hilarious when we've had the films I mentioned as recently as last year.

But it was a lightning rod for hate, for a bunch of reasons that have already been mentioned. That's why they got compared. yes one was more extreme than the other. You yelling at the clouds about the intricacies of the Ghostbusters debacle in tyool 2017 is on you though. We all suffered through it together and are aware of what happened. You yourself just acknowledged the only reason a comparison was made is that it was an even more extreme example of a movie being really controversial, and attracting a lot of hate. You seem to agree with that sentiment. So, I agree with you. What are you trying to accomplish here?

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Allright man, I give up. You seem dead loving set on making this about something it's not about and there is no changing your mind. You aren't wrong. You are just absolutely tone deaf to what the discussion was actually about and that clearly isn't going to change.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Snowman_McK posted:

What is it about? I'm talking about audience interest and reaction, and what I've seen is a film that people couldn't even find the energy to hate.

You are forgetting how much people were freaking out over the casting then. It was all over the place for a short while. True, it never hit close to the level of GB, but it was pretty dominant in the news cycle for a bit. It wasn't indifference. GITS got almost nothing but terrible press before it was released. Then to top it off fans were super negative about it as well, but that was pretty secondary.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Id' honestly like to know what your argument is, because I have no loving clue. Like, you just didn't want the comparison made in the first place or what? Please tell me why you just made me relive every obnoxious moment of the GB bullshit, because I'm coming up short on why this is the hill you decided to die on.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Milky Moor posted:

Hah, it's sure a lot of words to say 'I like the anime and it did everything Good but this one did everything Bad'.

Seriously. 7 minutes of "this subjective thing=good, this one=bad" . Which is how I feel about a lot of critiques of this movie.

The anime does have a way better look to it though imo. Still, what a lame breakdown.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Dumb question, but does it even take place in Japan? I couldn't really tell.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Yeah I just meant the new film. I always just assumed the 1995 movie was in Japan.

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


I think calling the Majors casting inappropriate is extreme.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

veni veni veni
Jun 5, 2005


Olympic Mathlete posted:

IMO the action scenes in the anime were better done, particularly the chase with the guy on foot and the fight with him in the water amongst ratty old buildings. It was far more stylish in the animation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkvRVkaE6y4

vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90OX7x7KeVE

Yeah that scene didn't have the same kick at all in the live action version. Same with the spider tank scene.

  • Locked thread