'Ghost in the Shell' Live Action(?) Hollywood Edition

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Oh the visuals are very, very nice. It's just that I place more weight on characters and story. It's just my view of the film, my criteria is very different and you might absolutely love it.

I doubt I would love it, but I'm sure I would probably like it. But I'm staging a what I would call minimum impact protest against the whitewashing of Kusanagi. The impact is minimal on me, since I predict that I am not missing out on a significant movie event. And the impact is minimal on the film, since I'm sure they don't care that I choose not to spend 10$ to see their movie for this reason. Though I'm sure if enough people engaged in this low level "protest" they would start to care a bit more. And maybe, just maybe, the next time a non-white character gets to have a big budget movie they will cast a non-white actor for the part.

[AndrewJ]

I have to say that I'm somewhat forgiving of the whitewashing in this instance. Because it's ScarJo.

There's not too many (English Speaking) Asian actresses of her caliber - in terms of both acting ability and as a drawcard for the movie. They've simply cast the best possible actress they could, regardless of race. Can anyone suggest an Asian actress in Hollywood who's as talented and popular as ScarJo?

 

[Red Tiger]

5 hours ago, AndrewJ said:

I have to say that I'm somewhat forgiving of the whitewashing in this instance. Because it's ScarJo.

I have no issues with a white lead, cause it was never established what ethnicity the cyborg body was. Sure we know Kusagani is Japanese, but the artificial body is not her original.

[The Anti-Targ]

So when are English speaking Asian ethnicity actors going to get a shot at becoming popular if they are not cast in roles like this?  Really, I can only think of Lucy Liu as an Asian actor who is close to the popularity of ScarJo.

Admittedly, is almost equally bad to cast a Chinese or Korean person as a Japanese character as it is a white person, since it brings up the "Oh, so we all look the same do we?" issue. So so the pool of Actors is not especially large. But still, with this being a remake of a cult classic I think they could have afforded to take the chance at casting a talented Japanse actor who is not so well known.

This is possibly the best list anyone could come up with.

https://www.yahoo.com/style/six-japanese-actress-could-replace-161006119/photo-kimiko-glenn-1461189737877.html

Personally out of that list I would probably go with Rinko Kikuchi or Karen Fukuhara. The question is, did they even try to test out some Japanese actors?

[Red Tiger]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So when are English speaking Asian ethnicity actors going to get a shot at becoming popular if they are not cast in roles like this?

Dunno, but Hollywood is not in the business of taking a lot of chances in recent times. Sure Pacific Rim had a Japanese co-star, but she was still basically a second banana.

What im saying is that im all for a Japanese lead, but I don't expect to see anything like that in a blockbuster anytime soon.

[Jaxom 1974]

Nerdist seemed to like it well enough...

"...like a cult classic in the making..."  Which of course we'll see.

The review also implores people to write more articles and contribute them to Nerdist to continue to address the controversary and possibly help combat it.

I'm still inclined to hold myself from seeing it in theatres...

[red snow]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So when are English speaking Asian ethnicity actors going to get a shot at becoming popular if they are not cast in roles like this?  Really, I can only think of Lucy Liu as an Asian actor who is close to the popularity of ScarJo.

Admittedly, is almost equally bad to cast a Chinese or Korean person as a Japanese character as it is a white person, since it brings up the "Oh, so we all look the same do we?" issue. So so the pool of Actors is not especially large. But still, with this being a remake of a cult classic I think they could have afforded to take the chance at casting a talented Japanse actor who is not so well known.

This is possibly the best list anyone could come up with.

https://www.yahoo.com/style/six-japanese-actress-could-replace-161006119/photo-kimiko-glenn-1461189737877.html

Personally out of that list I would probably go with Rinko Kikuchi or Karen Fukuhara. The question is, did they even try to test out some Japanese actors?

Your right about ScarJo and the lack of comparable options. It's hard to argue they didn't pick the most recognised female actor for the role (Charlize Theron possibly and Milla Jovovich is A-list as long as it's a res evil movie) I guess most lead actors still have to earn their stripes before they get to lead films with a high budget. ScarJo didn't get to lead her own action films until she'd been in Iron Man 2 and (possibly?) Avengers. So I still fully agree it's an issue that needs to be tackled but I think it needs to be a bottom up or a pinnacle-down (will get to that later) approach.

Bottom up means they still need to have more diverse supporting actors or they need to be in lower budget films that get noticed eg not action films.  roles like "Katana" in suicide squad where I think more was said about her than by the character herself isn't going to get anyone noticed any time soon.

Netflix and big cable shows are another good testing ground in which actors can develop a fan following and show their skills.

Simply putting untested actors (and I know there are lots of great actors across the diversity spectrum but the list becomes lower when it comes to naming A-listers who can sell tickets by their name alone) in a bug budget film is a risk and if it fails can have even worse effects.

As for pinnacle-down approach - If it's an A list director (Cameron, Stone, Nolan) then they can cast none A-list actors and the film won't suffer because of it. I'd also argue that Marvel could cast anyone as a lead in one of their films and the risk of a less recognised actor would be negated. These are studios and directors that should be making this effort because they can provide a platform to catapult a career. Marvel and the big directors could do more for diversity in film in a couple of years than the rest of the industry in 10. Unless a film by a relatively unknown director featuring relatively unknown actors is lucky enough to be a hit - it's not impossible but much more difficult these days.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, red snow said:

Bottom up means they still need to have more diverse supporting actors or they need to be in lower budget films.

As for pinnacle-down approach - If it's an A list director (Cameron, Stone, Nolan) then they can cast none A-list actors and the film won't suffer because of it. I'd also argue that Marvel could cast anyone as a lead in one of their films and the risk of a less recognised actor would be negated. These are studios and directors that should be making this effort because they can provide a platform to catapult a career. Marvel and the big directors could do more for diversity in film in a couple of years than the rest of the industry in 10. Unless a film by a relatively unknown director featuring relatively unknown actors is lucky enough to be a hit - it's not impossible but much more difficult these days.

@ the bolded, When you have the combination of directors and popular franchises you have the ability to do small scale side projects. For relative pocket change (like $10 million) a movie, or even some short movies, can be made telling small scale, risky stories with unknown (cheap) but talented actors, but benefiting from brand recognition.

According to latest stats, 4.4% of the US population is ethnically Asian and 12.9% of the population is African-American. It would be interesting to see what % of leading roles in wide release Hollywood movies includes each of those ethnicities (noting that "Asian" covers a wide range of ethnicities, just as "white" does). I get the feeling that among the acting community more than 13% of actors are African American, but it feels to me like fewer than 13% of leading roles are played by African Americans. It also feels like fewer than 4.4% of the acting community is Asian. But those are just impressions from what movies and TV shows I see, which is only a tiny fraction of the movies and TV shows that are produced in a given year. Are there any actual stats on this? The stats would certainly help to frame the whitewashing discussion with some facts.

I see Ghost in the shell has, at least for now, fallen into the rotten range on Rotten Tomatoes at 59%. But there are still no doubt a lot of reviews yet to roll in (only 63 reviews counted so far), so it could go up or down from there. But still, even a marginally rotten rating does not bode well for its financial fortunes. Fans of the anime will not turn up in significant numbers, because the movie seems to be a shell  of the original. People like me who are not happy about the casting choice but who otherwise might have gone to see the movie, are going to stay away. ScarJo fans might see it, but actual die-hards who will go see their fave actor in anything and everything is a pretty small number. Perhaps general sci-fi fans who don't particularly know the anime might well turn out for the movie, especially if their small pool of trusted reviewers generally like it but will that be enough? The movie has a pretty modest budget at $110 million. That gives it a pretty good chance of turning a profit, but I think it will depend on the international audience to get there, and possibly ironically the main Asian markets might be the most help getting it over the line, as those markets seem not to be too fussed about Hollywood whitewashing, since they get plenty of exposure to movies with Asian leads from their own domestic movie and TV productions, ref The Great Wall which was a legit flop in the USA (and most of the "white" world), but made big money in Asia, and especially China. I'll actually be very interested to see how this move plays in Japan.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

@ the bolded, When you have the combination of directors and popular franchises you have the ability to do small scale side projects. For relative pocket change (like $10 million) a movie, or even some short movies, can be made telling small scale, risky stories with unknown (cheap) but talented actors, but benefiting from brand recognition.

According to latest stats, 4.4% of the US population is ethnically Asian and 12.9% of the population is African-American. It would be interesting to see what % of leading roles in wide release Hollywood movies includes each of those ethnicities (noting that "Asian" covers a wide range of ethnicities, just as "white" does). I get the feeling that among the acting community more than 13% of actors are African American, but it feels to me like fewer than 13% of leading roles are played by African Americans. It also feels like fewer than 4.4% of the acting community is Asian. But those are just impressions from what movies and TV shows I see, which is only a tiny fraction of the movies and TV shows that are produced in a given year. Are there any actual stats on this? The stats would certainly help to frame the whitewashing discussion with some facts.

 

There should be stats somewhere although i guess there's a lot of movies in a given year. Even a top 100 highest grossing movies of the year should give a rough idea.

Most of the reviews I've read are middling but in general the look of the film is praised while the substance/heart is knocked. Harshest/cleverst review was "bland runner"

[The Anti-Targ]

It's getting up to nearly 100 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes now, and the score is heading in the wrong direction, it's now on 51%.

While it's pretty harsh it does sound like "bland runner" might be a reasonable description. The trouble is, I wonder if that description is perhaps going to be a little wasted on this move when critics really should be holding it in reserve for the Blade Runner remake. We all know what Hollywood tends to do with remakes of its own genre classics (Total Recall, Robocop anyone? Though admittedly Hollywood ruined Robocop with its direct sequels as well), so I have firmly low expectations for Blade Runner. People might be regretting tagging Ghost in the Shell as "bland runner" soon. Hope I'm wrong.

[red snow]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's getting up to nearly 100 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes now, and the score is heading in the wrong direction, it's now on 51%.

While it's pretty harsh it does sound like "bland runner" might be a reasonable description. The trouble is, I wonder if that description is perhaps going to be a little wasted on this move when critics really should be holding it in reserve for the Blade Runner remake. We all know what Hollywood tends to do with remakes of its own genre classics (Total Recall, Robocop anyone? Though admittedly Hollywood ruined Robocop with its direct sequels as well), so I have firmly low expectations for Blade Runner. People might be regretting tagging Ghost in the Shell as "bland runner" soon. Hope I'm wrong.

I think the reviewer in question was probably smart to jump the gun. I'm sure there's a lot of reviewers saving "bland runner" for the sequel but now it's too late. Hopefully it won't need to be used either!

[Red Tiger]

So far the scores of 50% on rottentomatoes and 53% on metacritic absolutely line up with my experience of the film.

[Theda Baratheon]

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's getting up to nearly 100 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes now, and the score is heading in the wrong direction, it's now on 51%.

While it's pretty harsh it does sound like "bland runner" might be a reasonable description. The trouble is, I wonder if that description is perhaps going to be a little wasted on this move when critics really should be holding it in reserve for the Blade Runner remake. We all know what Hollywood tends to do with remakes of its own genre classics (Total Recall, Robocop anyone? Though admittedly Hollywood ruined Robocop with its direct sequels as well), so I have firmly low expectations for Blade Runner. People might be regretting tagging Ghost in the Shell as "bland runner" soon. Hope I'm wrong.

I think you're wrong I HOPE you're wrong I desperately want the blade runner sequel to be good !! I'm dissapointed to here this was such a bore tho the trailer looked pretty neat 

[red snow]

51 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I think you're wrong I HOPE you're wrong I desperately want the blade runner sequel to be good !! I'm dissapointed to here this was such a bore tho the trailer looked pretty neat 

they probably got the suicide trailer 2 squad on the GITS trailer. They can polish turds into diamonds

[Rippounet]

I stumbled upon this summary of the various GitS works. It's in French, but it's still useful:
http://i2.wp.com/www.animeland.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all2.jpg

[Liver and Onions]

I'm not planning on seeing the movie either way, but the trailers don't exactly compel me to do so. The original movie and the TV show seem so much creative and, for lack of a better term, sophisticated than the "the *&%$ Company USED me!" vibe that I'm getting from this version. Yeah, it's Hollywood. Yeah, they like cliches without much new stuff added on top. Yeah, they want popular actors in the their pricey movies. Yeah, I don't care. 

This does remind me that I need to watch the Arise movies, though.  

 

[The BlackBear]

I'll probably give this one a miss. I'm sure I'll love it visually, and Mark Kermode gave it a fair hearing, but I have limited cinema viewing opportunity and Free Fire is in the #1 spot right now.

[Lord Varys]

Pretty good looks but a stupid plot. The original(s) are light years better.

[The Anti-Targ]

So while a movie remains at or above 50% on the tomatometer it means as many or more reviewers liked a movie as disliked it. And you can argue that a movie can still have reasonably good audience appeal.

But GitS is now at 42%. A significant majority of reviewers didn't like it. I would like to see a meta analysis of review scores from 3 types of reviewers:

1. reviewers who have seen the original movie and liked it
2. reviewers who have seen the original movie and didn't like it
3. reviewers who haven't seen the original movie

Which group of reviewers liked GitS whitewash edition most and which group of reviewers like it least?

Just a further thought on whitewashing. Why is it that when a non-white ethnicity is substituted that it is almost universally a white actor who is cast? It seems like the only time a non-white actor is cast in a race switch is to change a formerly white character. It's been mentioned that the number of high quality Japanese actors who can speak English can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers missing. But if hitting a brick wall for a Japanese actor, why couldn't Motoko then have been played by a Latino or African American? There are a large number of actors of these ethnicity who could have done the job. Fans might not have been any happier, but at least the "W" word could have been avoided.

In the end it doesn't seem like the race of the actor playing Major would have saved the movie because it seems like there are more fundamental flaws that have dragged it down t mediocrity, or worse. And maybe ScarJo is the reason why the movie will only bomb rather than bomb hard in many markets.

It's made a pretty poor start in the USA with only $19 million estimated for the first weekend. Interesting commentary from Boxoffice mojo for the disappointing opening:

Quote

Opening day audiences gave the film a "B" CinemaScore and of that audience 61% were male versus 39% female. While speculation as to why Ghost in the Shell under performed is sure to be a topic du jour, the opening weekend demographics provide a quick and easy indicator when compared to Scarlett Johansson's previous solo actioner Lucy, which debuted with $43.8 million and featured an opening weekend audience that was 50% female.

The women didn't turn out, and probably half of the boys just turned up to see ScarJo "naked", and possibly left feeling a little frustrated.

And actually a B Cinema score isn't too bad. But not terribly good for word of mouth leading to a decent tail.

[williamjm]

I saw the film today. Overall, while I wouldn't say it was a great movie I did like it. I think the movie's strongest point is that it does look visually spectacular throughout, there is some great design work both in the designs of the various cyborgs and the more general cityscapes (which I found quite reminiscent of Blade Runner). There has obviously been a lot of discussion about the casting of Major, I thought Scarlett Johansson did do a good job in the lead role and judged purely in terms of acting performance she is well cast, but I'm also unconvinced it would have been impossible to find a Japanese actress capable of taking on the role. I thought Pilou Asbaek was good as Batou and "Beat" Takeshi managed to steal several scenes by reacting to threats or danger with disdain. The film does lack a good villain, with none of the villains being all that memorable. I think the script is an area where there was room for improvement, it does have a problem in that it's adapting something that was groundbreaking 20 years ago but the concepts have been used so many times (including other films inspired by the original anime) that it feels like there's not much new here, I suspect that's true even for people who haven't watched the previous adaptations.