|
I don't remember RoboCop hacking anything in the original...
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
I don't have anything against the "origin story" aspect of it, but they didn't commit to it. Not counting the Geisha begging for her life, there are 3 main plot hooks going on in this movie, and it barely explores any of them because it's so busy shoving visual references to the original in... I just I'll just chuck a spoiler block here: The main bullet points of the "origin" plot, how (the?) Major became who she is, are really generic. This is the plot that is most explored in the film. They don't do a bad job, and it works out okay. But it's still pretty generic and not very interesting on its own. The not-puppeteer plot/highlights from 1995 story: Well, there it is. Except in the 1995 movie, the Puppeteer was a big focus in the movie. It worked really well having established badass Major Kusanagi facing off against something that literally transcended her human enemies and showed her the next step in finding meaning in her existence. This film replaces that with... finding the character that she is at the beginning of ever other version of GitS. Which I guess is technically a good way to tie these two plots together, but the lack of development of the Puppeteer character (Yes, I know he's 'Kuze' in this movie, more on that below) really robs the climax of any weight. Hideo Kuze. My favorite GitS antagonist and subject of an entire season of the series... Putting that aside to judge this film as its own merits... What is his motivation? And what are his methods? They don't make any sense. The characterization that relates to the plot is, again, the most generic "revenge on his creators" villain poo poo ever. He want's to kill everyone who worked on his project because ??? They were mean to him? Okay. Fine. They were. He's pretty much justified. That's fine. Generic and done a hundred times this decade, but fine. So what's the purpose of building "his own network"? Like, they say it's what's giving him super powers and some kind of immortality. But... like, wasn't "his network" all those guys plugged into those cables that they found? Probably they took that down. Like, the "liberated" that facility. At the very least they probably killed or unplugged all those dudes. It's one thing to establish "Kuze is the villain. He want's revenge. He built [a thing] that gives him super powers". But they find the [thing] almost immediately and it's never mentioned or relevant again. So... why is it in the movie? Well, back to the source material... that's what Hideo Kuze does... he's a pseudo-religious messiah that unites people in cyberspace. That only reason you would invoke his name is if you were gonna make a reference to that. So they do. And then because that's not really part of their plot, they drop it. It's completely baffling to me why they bothered to use Hideo Kuze as a character and then just have him be the Puppeteer. If they weren't so fixated on including so many aspects of the 1995 plot, they could have made a perfectly decent movie with the pieces they had. Kuze and Motoko being friends before they were both abducted into the 25XX project is fine. I don't care that it's different from the source material. Right before he dies, Kuze says "I will always be with you. In your ghost". This is really similar to what happens in the series. Because of Kuze's network being this transhuman digital spiritually unifying deal. It's kind of a big thing. But is no scene in the movie where the Major joins his network and experiences this communion. They aren't even linked at the end! There's almost a really good movie here, but it's lacking a lot that actually makes the Kuze storyline work. Mom Kusanagi is much more emotionally climactic than anything that happens with Kuze. I feel like they took two major GitS stories and burned both of them at once without doing either justice. Also the garbage truck guy makes no sense in this. In the original, he is ghost hacked (a phrase they never use in the movie because they don't know how to use the term ghost and it just comes out super awkward), to have this false identity. The reason that The Puppeteer does this is because it's using him to hack poo poo as a proxy. The garbage man believes that he is using payphones to hack his unfaithful wife, but actually his wife does not exist and he's hacking the government. In this movie, he gets hacked to just become an assassin (which also happens in the original) but... why was he given fake memories before that? The payphone hacking plot point doesn't exist in this movie. So... what? Why does he have false memories? It's because they wanted to do that iconic scene from the original, even though they didn't bother to make it fit in this story. tl;dr: I don't really have any problem with differences from the source material, but I feel like they didn't commit to any aspect of the story and the movie suffered for it. also while I may have reacted with loud glee when Saito was revealed out of nowhere as a deus ex machina, I can only imagine how dumb that seemed to someone not familiar with GitS. A character that has literally not been in the movie or mentioned at all shows up for literally 8 seconds and saves the day and is never seen or mentioned again. Like, if you aren't a fan of GitS and don't know that that character exists and expect them to show up in the movie, I don't see how that scene plays as anything but lovely. Also, Kuze is Henry from Dawson's Creek. Snak fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Also, yeah, the usage of the term "ghost" was totally botched in this movie. Like, they tried to use it just as a standin for "soul" in the eay that the average viewer might understand it, which just made it seem awkward as gently caress. Like every time the used it, they were just trying to justify the title of the movie somehow. In the GitS universe, a "ghost" is your essence, but also in codified digital way. They don't just use it in weird like "ur still ur ghost, major!" They constantly reference ghosts in technical conversation. "This guy has been ghost hacked" "There is a ghost still present in this cyberbrain" "Project 2501 seems to have a ghost even though it's an AI" And this script seemed tk be afraid of using it that way, but the alternative was much hokier. They shouldn't have used the term at all. What a bunch of weirdos. In a universe where ghost doesn't mean what it normally does in GitS, who talks like that? If they had never said poo poo like "It's still ur ghost inside this... shell", people still would have got what the title meant. Especially considering that in this version she's practically the actual ghost of a dead girl.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
The doctor using it kind if makes sense, sure, but Aramaki? Kuze? Their usages seem awkward because they are more in line with what "ghost" usually refers to in GitS.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
I just feel like it felt out of place and awkward, trying to put myself in the shoes of someone not familiar with GitS. I really liked this movie, despite all of its issues. But a big part of that is because I'm a die hard GitS fan and I'm used to seeing different versions of GitS and the visual references. When I try to out myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't see the movie as a "greatest hits" of material I'm already familiar with, it falls apart even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think the issue you can run into doing that is that it can be hard to distinguish between a movie poorly communicating something from the source material and the movie clearly communicating something different from the source material, since you can get wrapped up in how everything is in the original. As someone with no familiarity with the property other than osmosis just from being on the Internet, I never found the movie confusing. It's not a confusing movie, there just isn't much to it. And every scene where someone mentions a ghost feels like Will Smith saying "so... you're some kind of Ghost in the Shell?" But as someone not familiar with the members of Section 9, how did you feel about Saito shooting down the airplane at the end?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Makes sense, I guess. Ugh, half they time they referred to her as "Major" was really cringey and awkward. About halfway through the movie, some characters started referring to her as "The Major", which was instantly better. Major is a rank. it's her rank. So it is correct to address her as "Major", as many characters do. But there are many instances where characters refer to her as "Major" as if it's her name and not her rank. Like when cutter says "Major is our best weapon". Yes, I am aware that they are doing some things with identity thematically... but it just sounds so terrible "Where is Major?" Substitute any other rank there if you aren't convinced how dumb that sounds. And it's one of those things, where maybe it would have been better if they had just fully committed to it and never started calling her The Major. But once they start calling her The Major, it stops hurting my ears when they say it. and The Major is still an identity, just like they were trying to set up with Major. In other versions of GitS, there are many people with the rank of major. Everyone knows who The Major is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
There are plenty of situations where the article can be dropped. The movie is full of ones where dropping it is awkward. I have never, ever heard any officer refer to themselves by only their rank when identifying themselves, like "I am Major". "I am lieutenant". Edit: Cyberization is not the same full body prosthesis. Everyone who has those plugs in the back of their neck has been cyberized. In order to be ghost hacked, the garbage man had to have been cyberized. It's completely wrong to say that only 2 people have been cyberized. I do agree that, given the story they were telling in this movie, that they shouldn't have used the term ghost at all, outside of maybe the one time Oulet used it. Which was still really awkward. Snak fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I screwed up the terminology, but I did just mean that augmentation/cyberization hadn't advanced in a wide spread form enough for the source material definition of "ghost" to make sense. I think the film's use of the word is fine. I mean, I figured that was probably what you meant, sorry for jumping on you like that. But I do disagree. The "Ghost" terminology is a thing related to digital signatures of people. The fact that people can learn stuff through their data ports and hack each other is all directly related to ghosts. There's no reason that these technologies would exist without that cyberbrain industry terminology. Bugblatter posted:The use of just Major as a chosen term of self identification winds up being the thematic point of the whole movie. Yes, but it sounds dumb as gently caress at least 50% of the time. It's literally the stupidest problem that this adaption faces, which is found in no other adaption. quote:The members of Section 9 just refer to her as "Major" in GitS95 as well. To clarify, are you talking about the English dub? Because maybe what you're saying is true in the subtitles. I usually watch the dub because I think it's pretty good. Snak fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The "murderbot" is kind of funny to, because Section 9 does not give a gently caress. They are like a Tom Clancy wet-dream. Something I appreciated carrying over into this adaption. The straight execute people like, all the time. In the opening sequence of this movie, after Major dumps the Geisha, one of the dying dudes is trying to arm a grenade, and we just see Batou's boot on his arm and then Batou cracks a joke and shoots him in the head. I was kinda hoping we'd get to see Batou do some more hand to hand fighting. There's a little tiny bit at the beginning of the bar fight. Batou is probably my favorite part of this movie. Which isn't surprising, because Batou is probably my second favorite character in every adaption of Ghost in the Shell. Heck, he's my favorite character in Arise 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:You're thinking in terms of the actual world within the movie, where-as I'm thinking of narrative use in this film, I think. Yes the digital signature would still exist, but how would it fit into this narrative and how would it be explained. quote:I only ever listened to the dubbed version of GitS95 once and it was years ago, the translations are really clunky and Motoko's English voice is played with an entirely different personality. edit: frank.club posted:This movie would've been way better, I think, if it condensed the Laughing Man arc from Standalone or even did something original with like an intersection conflict between 7 and 9. They are essentially paramilitary groups with 9 being the most 'loyal' to the government in any iteration. Like just totally ditch the twist and piss white washing to the wind. All your setpieces still work, all the robocop stuff is still fine, you just give more meat to Kuze. As it is, it feels like his entire character is just cautionary to Major and what she would be like if she was angrier. Which isn't very interesting. Snak fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
I don't really care about them being conflated for the purpose of a new story, but I felt that time spent on explaining the revenge plot directly took away from time that could have been used to develop his character into something more interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
That poo poo never gets old.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
I 100% understand that it was a deliberate choice. I'm saying that it makes a lot of the dialogue sound dumb, and thus, was a bad choice. edit: early concept art several years ago They are pretty great. This one in particular  is totally not reminiscent of RoboCop at all. Snak fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Eh, not really feeling those. Mongkok run through a grunge filter? I mean, they're just concept art.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Yeah, and I'm objecting to the concept. They're nicely executed. Fair. I liked the bridge with the sheet metal awnings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
That's hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
On thing that I did like about casting in this movie was that they did make Section 9 pretty diverse. I'm not saying this excuses or negates the whitewashing issue. I'm just saying I liked that the cast was a variety of ethnicities. Somewhat related, while it was filmed in Hong Kong, and looked like Hong Kong, they never name the city, or nation, that the movie takes place in. I listened real close on my second viewing. Which reminds me of the 95 film.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:The movie decides what is and isn't canon. It's not always the best way to go if you want to decide whether something is and isn't whitewashed. By this movie's own logic, Scarlett Johansson is playing a character who is lead to believe she's an American refugee(???) and put in a body that looks like one. I straight-up agree that an American adaption of Ghost in the Shell with a white lead is whitewashing. Because when your lead character is Motoko Kusanagi and you cast a white person to play that role, it's whitewashing. Open and shut. I don't think we're actually disagreeing at all, I just don't understand what you mean by saying "the movie decides what is and isn't canon". If this wasn't an adaption of a property with a non-white lead, it wouldn't be whitewashing. Right? So the fact that Major is canonically Japanese is what makes Johansson's casting, and the writing changes that were made, whitewashing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Body, or voice? Unless there's some kind of loving concrete proof somewhere that it's canon that Motoko Kusanagi, for some reason, has a white-person body, it doesn't matter. Since it's never come up in all the hours of tedious exposition in the GitS franchise that "oh by the way, Kusanagi doesn't look Japanese", there's literally no reason she wouldn't be. So when you take a character that has every reasonable expectation of being Japanese and make an adaption where they aren't, that seems like whitewashing. edit: ^ The way you are placing the burden of proof is literally a form of whitewashing "but no one said she can't be white!" edit: v cool 
Snak fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:See, the thing is, there's tenuous evidence that she does not look japanese. Shirow said she has a mass-produced outerior that is intended to not draw intention, and in 1995 she is shown next to a caucasian body and looks identical aside from color details. (I saw your edit) If you mean the Pupper Master (who is the only female body in the movie I would say is definitely Caucasian), I think it's really funny that you say "identical aside from color details". Since those color details are that the puppet master is super pale and blonde. quote:I'm not saying these are proof that she's intended to be caucasian, but rather it looks more like Shirow doesn't give a drat and lore-wise either choice is valid. I actually agree that lore-wise, either choice is valid. But whitewashing isn't about lore. It's about artists. Asian-Americans are significantly under-represented in the hollywood A list. And, that's not one person's fault. Many lead roles don't specify race (sure, plenty do if ethnic issues are part of the plot, but that's not what we're talking about), but there are assumptions. Default expectations. So when you take a role that heavily implies an ethnicity, and then you cast a white person instead and adapt the script to rationalize it, that's still whitewashing. It doesn't matter if there's "reasonable doubt" as to the character's canonical appearance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
frank.club posted:In Arise she's clearly more defined as a Japanese person than other iterations. However, to see this you'd have to watch Arise. DON'T DO IT!!!!! edit: Just to wrap up everything I have to say about this: It's not like a boycotted the movie. I think Johansson did a good job, and I really liked Pilou Asbęk's Batou. At the same time, I think it's a shame that this perfect opportunity for Asian-American actors and actresses wasn't. Beat Takeshi was awesome as always. Chin Han was great for his whole 30 seconds of screen time. edit2: ^ As pointed out in the reddit thread, Arise Motoko is about a foot too tall in that. She should literally be the height of the child body from Innocence. Snak fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
frank.club posted:This movie would've been a lot less awful had it not tried to anticipate being called out for white washing or whatever. It really hinders the plot once you realize the crux of it is built around that. They could have also actually just... done anything with that plot. Made it the main plot, a story about identity. The main plot beats of this story are straight from RoboCop, except that both versions of RoboCop actually devote asstons of screentime to exploring what identity means and how or whether it can be taken from you. This movie just kinda... says "it's so sad ur a victim of identity theft" "Oh yes, it is sad" *Shoots a bunch of people* "My name is Major and I'm over it".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
I could have gotten over how the Major looks in Arise, but not how she acts. She's a petulant child. After the first episode, I thought "wow, it's gonna be a ride seeing how this childish brat grows up into the hardcore professional Major we know and love" and then SURPRISE: She doesn't. She's just immature for the entire series.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
The manga is honestly not very good. The 1995 movie is great, the show is great. The show's version of Kusanagi, as a character, is my favorite of all of them. She has a combination of confidence and curiousity that makes her encounters with adversaries such as the Laughing Man and The Individual Eleven/Hideo Kuze into these really cool journeys of personal enrichment. Which is part of her character in the 95 film as well, obviously, from how it ends, but SAC is necessarily different from the film.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I don't think I've made any claims that "hollywood" is going to learn poo poo. I'm almost certain they won't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
It's not about having "a bunch of scenes". RoboCop is about Murphy becoming RoboCop becoming You can even compare parallel scenes between RoboCop and GitS2017, but in RoboCop they are forming part of the films core narrative and emotional arc, and in GitS2017, they mostly feel like plot exposition. I don't think they mesh as well with the "hunting the bad guy" plot. (spoilers for both movies, I guess?) In both movies, encounters with the guy they are supposed to be hunting Clarence Boddicker and Kuze, lead to memory glitches, which cause them to start remembering their past lives. Technitions attempt to address these glitches. Then they visit their previous homes. While catching the Boddicker/Kuze, they learn that their creator is also a bad guy, and the take care of that poo poo in the end, claiming their new hybrid identity as their own. So what makes it effective in RoboCop and ineffective in Project 2017? There's a big obvious difference: In RoboCop, we see Murphy and get some insight into his character as a human before he's turned into a weapon. This is hugely important. When Kuze is yelling "What did they take from me?!" the audience answer is "I don't know". We never see the characters that Kuze and Major were before, so it's impossible for us to really connect with that loss. it doesn't matter that it puts us in the same boat as them thematically. The fact that our ignorance of the previous characters mirrors there's doesn't make it interesting. When RoboCop reaches the end of his journey and embraces being RoboCop informed by Murphy, we the audience can recognize that. When Major asserts her identity at the end of the film, it's a moment for the character, but not for the audience. She's essentially saying "yep, I'm the character that I was established to be in the film". It's a perfectly fine character arc, but it has no impact for us, because we don't see her past and we don't see much of who she is now. Most of the time that should be used to develop who she is now was spend watching her investigate her past, which we didn't know anything about and she ultimately (sorta) dismisses. It's easy to see what they were going for, but I feel like they failed to find a way to get us emotionally involved. And there were lots of opportunities. Build real emotional involvement with Mom Kusanagi or Dr. Oulet or both. They're just kind there. Build hatred for something and explore it for insight into Major's character. Show us her behavior in straightforward situations to give us insight into what she's like. Look at the differences between the action scenes in RoboCop and GitS2017. RoboCop's early action scenes establish him as a problem solver. He grabs people through walls or shoots their dicks off. He's a creative being. This demonstraits that he's not robot following mindless protocols. He's exactly what they wanted in both movies: A killing machine with the ability to innovate like a person. The action scenes in GitS are all over the place. They're not bad, but they don't tell us a whole lot about the character except that she's a risk taker? In the first scene she jumps off a building and hovers outside a window (???) and the burst through and does some Matrix-type poo poo from Kickass. Then in the next scene she pretends to be a victim so she can trick people for some reason? really it's to trick the audience into thinking she might be in trouble. So that they can reveal that of course she's not in trouble, she's a badass. Which we already knew. It's not like this charade was to get information or buy time or anything, really. She could have started kicking rear end right away. There's no good plot reason for it, it's just to "gotcha" us with "oh no, maybe Major is weak". Then she beats the poo poo out of a garbage man for fun. because it was in the original movie. Then she gets captured by Hanka without a fight because??? Then she fights a spider tank, because it was in the original movie. These action scenes did not help build a coherent sense of her character for me. That's like, action movies 101. It's rote. 101, man. The Terminator is characterized by his action scenes. Marion Cobretti is characterized by his action scenes. And in the original Ghost in the Shell, the Major is characterized by her action scenes. Because she's a different character and lifting the scenes that they lifted into this new narrative with this new character doesn't work as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Actually I was responding entirely to Zodiac5000, SMG posted while I was writing that. edit: Aww, you edited in a quote for top of the page  tl;dr: Ghost in the Shell wasn't as good because Major didn't shoot anyone's dicks off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:And yeah, a good bit of it resonated, it was a nice post to quote. quote:And yep, that's also something i said before, gits'17 could've been a great action movie if they went balls-out on the action. Just non-stop. edit: Tuxedo Catfish posted:I wouldn't change a single thing about this movie's ratio of action to non-action. I have my misgivings about the film but I'm exhausted by the number of recents movies that begin with a balance of action to drama only to completely fill out their third act with one long chunk of violent spectacle that feels completely disconnected from everything that came before. I think the ratio of action to non action is actually really tight and solid. And I like all of the action sequences individually. The stripper pole fight is meh, but it's punctuated by Batou being awesome so it kind of evens out. Snak fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're having trouble thinking, so let's look at a specific scene. [Or, rather, two scenes.] Ah yes, where you switch to personal attacks and then pick scenes that I specifically wasn't critical of and imply that I said they were meaningless. I have absolutely no incentive to argue that those scenes are meaningless. Doing so would be going against my personal opinion and it wouldn't support the argument I put forth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Do you think ethnicity has no markers beyond skin, eye and hair colors? In anime?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
frank.club posted:I have to say that I strongly disagree with this. And the counter argument that I'm seeing in this thread is that it doesn't count in 95 because it's 'too boring". Overloading your movie with "thoughtful" moments doesn't automatically make the movie thoughtful. For reference I'd like to point out the scene with Batou and the Major and Batou the boat. In 95 and in this movie the Major is diving as an experience of 'escape' from the real world. That it's scary as a cyborg to be submerged in water and that's what's freeing about it. Tuxedo Catfish posted:Most of the stuff the Major talks about during the boat scene is implicit in, like, everything that happens in the movie. You don't need to tell me that humanity has an impulsive drive to do things just because they can and that this might be unnerving to someone who got stuck in a cybernetic body and has just realized her memories may not be real. There's an important thing about what the Major says on the boat in the 1995 movie, and it's not because we need it explained to us. It tells us about the Major. The Major's profession is a weapon of the government, but in her free time she goes diving and waxes intellectual. We can argue about whether anything the Major has ever said in any version of GitS is anything more than freshman level pseudo intellectual jargon, but in-universe, the conversations she has establish her as an intellectual thinker in the context of the story. She approaches even her own uncertainty about the validity of her identity and lack of ownership of her own body with academic detachment. At the end of the 95 movie, it is her intellectual curiosity that makes her want to merge with 2501 and abandon her previous life. This aspect of the character is important in both the 95 version of the character and the SAC version of the character. It seems almost entirely absent in the 2017 movie. Which isn't necessarily a flaw in the movie, but it's something I'm disappointed in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
They should have used the end credits theme from the show. Not only does it fuckin rule, no one would have been offended by putting at the end.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Midjack posted:All the GitS media are in Japan though you can make a pretty decent argument that it's really Hong Kong in the first two movies. The primary city is never named by a character in either of the first two movies but is called Niihama or New Port City/Newport City in writing that appears in background and on computer displays. It's blatantly Hong Kong with the serial numbers filed off though they didn't even bother to replace some of the Chinese writing with Japanese characters. SAC and Arise explicitly name it and make it much less distinctively Hong Kong. SAC is explicitly Japan and it looks quite different. The only parts of SAC that look similar to the movie are when they go to refugee areas. And when I say explicitly Japan, I mean that Section 9 is explicitly a section of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Government of Japan. There's no vague "this government" type statements. edit: SuperMechagodzilla posted:... the important point is thay Hansa Robotics is German(!) - a reference to the Hanseatic League: Snak fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Item Getter posted:Is this movie actually "good"? I like it. It's not great. If you guys are fans, I say check it out. It's got some great scenes and really nice visuals. If you want to see some iconic visuals reimagined in live action, definitly check it out. If you want a really amazing GitS story... uh, don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Huh. I like my version better, but we're still talking about the film's context in reality. Hanka is a Norwegian word. Yeah, and it's not a terrible reason for everyone who works there to be white. I don't think the nationality of the company if mentioned. It could easily be a European-based international corporation. edit: v Yeah, it's in a poo poo ton of languages. I was just saying if it was Finnish or something then it actually might not be as crazy that basically every Hanka employee we see is a white European. Like, Cutter is British, Oulet is French, and Dahlin is Romanian. So if they were some kind of European megacorp... 
Snak fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
If anyone is interested, here is a post by someone called Larry Sandwiches who saw an early edit pre-FX. He talks about some of the changes to the story that were made between that version and the release version. It's kinda vague but there are a few neat details. http://disq.us/p/1hjqbkf
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, although I thought it was part of National Public Safety Commission and not Public Security. I looked this up, and wikipedia says some translations have it as Public Safety. In whatever the regular American English dub of SAC is, it's Public Security Section 9. So Safety's not incorrect at all, it's just a different translation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Check his rap sheet, guys. I have another, very minor aesthetic gripe with the movie... Batou's eyes and the Major's tactical visor. I really like that in most versions, they look like a flat metal or plastic casing. Like they're so high tech they don't have external lenses. Light isn't passing through them. The Major's tactical visor looks more like an Oculus Rift than some kind of night vision. The 2017 movie put visible lenses in both of these things. I don't actually think they looked bad, or anything, but I missed the aesthetic I was used to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:Some of the renditions have multiple indentions in the visor where it's believed those are small micro cameras. They could also be mistaken as rivets as well. Yeah, you're not wrong, those could be micro-cameras. But it still doesn't look like or parse as a camera or googles when you see it. In the 2017, the visor looks like a camera and the Batou's eyes have mechanical lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 05:25
|
|
