It'll soak up a few more million here, and the overseas take is decently strong compared to how well it went over here. It may take longer than planned, even a few years, but when all is said and done the investors will at least be breaking even.
Ghost in the Shell (live action film)
- Thread starter eyeresist
- Start date
It doesn't matter. It's a valid observation in either narrative, whether characters give voice to it or not. SAC merely had the characters give voice to it.
I don't see the movie actually giving you that, I see you writing it into the movie. I don't see her being placed in a position to "decide" anything.
That does not follow. A free mind made that decision, for reasons that make perfect sense. It's just not a decision you agree with. A free mind isn't free to disagree, apparently.
You don't say.
I assume there's some purpose behind all this strawmanning.
There it is...
Not too different from Nakamura. While "had the betrayal be far more systemic" isn't actually a thing that happened in the 1995 film. So the dichotomy you're trying to set up here is pure illusion.
This is a fictional world with a fictional technology, how are we supposed to "observe" that this might not be possible? I still maintain, you are taking what you've learned from a different version of GitS and applying it to this version. This version does not establish your interpretation, it doesn't even hint at it.
Of course it does. Kuze makes the offer, Major declines. You're treating this situation like she has no choice, when she obviously does. How am I writing this into the movie?
And this is not even about her choice to go back to Section 9. Not joining Kuze and going back to Section 9 are two distinct decisions, she could have chosen neither of these options. So even by allowing for the live action movie implying that Kuze's plan may not be possible, that does not mean that she has to go back to Section 9.
Again, I'm not criticizing an actual person's decision, I'm criticizing a narrative that's presented to me. Major may have had legitimate reasons to go back to Section 9, but they are not presented to me. It just doesn't feel like a decision a character based on the previous narrative would come to naturally, and therefore doesn't appear like the choice of a free will.
You say that her reasons made perfect sense. I'm still unclear what these reasons were, so please, share them with me.
Sorry, but you are still arguing as if Major's decision were actually one of free will, which is impossible for a fictional character. I tried spelling it out to you, which you apparently don't like, either, but you're still treating her choice like one a real person made (see quote above).
Again, it's been a while, I might be wrong about whether the actual betrayal of Major in the '95 was systemic or not, but I do remember her distrusting everyone but Batou in the end, and the ending definitely wasn't as simple as "kill that one bad guy, then everything is alright again".
Both SAC and the film depict a "fictional world with a fictional technology".
Reality itself hints at 'my interpretation'. SAC doesn't establish anything, it just has characters doubting the possibility of things which would have no particular reason to happen or be possible outside of a fantasy-novel narrative involving literal magic. That doubt is just something that would happen in any universe, fictional or otherwise, in which the inhabitants displayed things like critical thinking and skepticism. If no character in this film openly expresses such doubt, it does not mean that the logical basis for such doubt simply disappears merely because no one says the magic words.
I never said it did. You might want to go back and read my reasoning for her going back to Section 9. It wasn't "because she can't act out Kuze's fantasies".
Maybe they're not spoonfed to you, but does that mean they can't be inferred?
That's utter nonsense as always.
Where do you get the idea that that applies to either film? If "everything is all right" at the end of the 2017 film, why join Section 9 at all? Why would they even have anything to do, if everything is utopia beyond that point?
Yes, and one establishes the doubt you're going on about, and one does not.
Sorry, but what you're talking about only applies to hard SF. This movie is not hard SF. This movie has lots of technology where we don't know exactly how it works and what the rules are.
We, the audience, aren't presented with anything inside the narrative that what that character proposes is anything but a legitimate choice.
If you're referring to the "fighting the good fight" argument, I've already explained why that doesn't work. But again, based on her actual experiences in this movie, where the "terrorist" she was hunting turned out to be a victim, and where she herself was framed and hunted as a murderer, why on Earth would she go back to hunting people she's told are terrorists?!
Care to explain how a person that does not exist being unable to make a free decision is utter nonsense?!
Seriously?! Turning "everything is alright again" into "everything is utopia beyond that point"?! Been willing to debate a movie that disappointed me for two weeks, and this is what I get? If that's your level of argument, I'm out.
I wondered if Major was suffering from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome after spending so long in Section 9 and immersing herself in the role of anti-terrorist cyborg. The fact that the team backed her up after she was framed probably enhanced her attachment to them as her new "familiy". She could not snap back to being the Motoko Kusanagi who used to exist and whose grave she visited.
Last edited:
Ghost in the Shell was a real disappointment. Without getting into it too deeply, they turned it into another conspiracy theory, corporate corruption tedium without any of the open-ended questioning of the Major's place in the world as an evolved, technical being and the AI that was created. The original anime didn't judge whether it was good or bad, it was something that needed exploration. In this movie, scientists operate with no controls or morals, they're the bad guys. So ok, maybe that panders to the Trump anti-knowledge brigade but it's not what the original was about. Go watch the 1995 anime or 2.0 version instead.
The anime isn't the original, the manga is.
Similar threads
