Ghost in the Shell (live action film)

[psCargile]

I've tried to do some realistic sketches of her with distinct Japanese features, but they didn't capture the essence of the character.

 

[Set Harth]

Major had transferred into the body looking like a young girl and was now looking for her real past.

I don't recall any indication that she was 'looking for her real past'.

But more importantly, she wasn't just Motoko anymore. She had merged with the Puppet Master.

In this movie, Major literally ends were she started. All hail the Status quo.

I give you: SAC!

The series does the exact same thing, as it intends to preserve the character's basic nature, avoiding cyber-apotheosis. Even when inevitably aping the ending of the 1995 film. The Kuze story in 2nd Gig is a good example of this. And that's what you're getting in this movie: despite the fact that you have the spider-tank and the snipers, it ends with Kuze dying ( after preaching his vision ) and Motoko living and ultimately going on pretty much the same as before. From that perspective it's really the 2nd Gig ending rather than the 1995 film's ending.

and ... continues to hunt terrorists for the government.

And that's "troubling"?

So finding out that her parents weren't really killed by terrorists means that she should be OK with terrorism or something?

If hunting terrorists is something that one is good at, why not hunt terrorists?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I don't recall any indication that she was 'looking for her real past'.

But more importantly, she wasn't just Motoko anymore. She had merged with the Puppet Master.

Right, forgot about that. It has been some time since I last saw the movie.

I give you: SAC!

The series does the exact same thing, as it intends to preserve the character's basic nature, avoiding cyber-apotheosis. Even when inevitably aping the ending of the 1995 film. The Kuze story in 2nd Gig is a good example of this. And that's what you're getting in this movie: despite the fact that you have the spider-tank and the snipers, it ends with Kuze dying ( after preaching his vision ) and Motoko living and ultimately going on pretty much the same as before. From that perspective it's really the 2nd Gig ending rather than the 1995 film's ending.

Like I said, I'm only familiar with the '95 movie, I never saw Stand Alone Complex, and said that my problem might be with the source material rather than this adaptation.

And that's "troubling"?

So finding out that her parents weren't really killed by terrorists means that she should be OK with terrorism or something?

If hunting terrorists is something that one is good at, why not hunt terrorists?

Depending on the context, as well as in consideration of the philosophical themes of GitS. As I mentioned, in the movie I was familiar with, all authority was put into question, so Major/Puppet Master has to find the truth for herself. This goes back to Immanuel Kant and his idea of enlightenment being man's (or, in this case, cyborg) emergence from self-imposed immaturity. The live action movie's ending with Major going back into serving the government in a capacity where following orders is inherent, after finding out that all she's been told up to that point has been a lie, as well as her bottom line that "our memories don't define us", shows a disregard of critical individual thinking.

 

[Set Harth]

Depending on the context, as well as in consideration of the philosophical themes of GitS.

Fighting terrorism is only a worthwhile goal depending on the context?

As I mentioned, in the movie I was familiar with, all authority was put into question

But you also said she was looking for her real past, so...

The live action movie's ending with Major going back into serving the government in a capacity where following orders is inherent, after finding out that all she's been told up to that point has been a lie, as well as her bottom line that "our memories don't define us", shows a disregard of critical individual thinking.

You know what sounds like a lack of critical thinking?

"I'm not going to help Section 9 fight terrorism because Hanka lied to me."

And the corollary to "our memories don't define us" was "our actions define us".

So you're looking at a character who chose to be defined by fighting the good fight.

I sense a disregard of critical thinking here, just not on her part.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Fighting terrorism is only a worthwhile goal depending on the context?

Yes, of course. For instance, there's the question of defining who a terrorist is. In this very movie, Major and her team were hunting a terrorist, Kuze, who turns out to be a victim within the narrative of the movie. Later on, Major herself is framed and subsequently hunted. So even within the context of this movie, Major ending her arc at the exact same point where she started, is very troubling to me. And that last point is even brought home by Major letting herself fall from a building actually mirrors the beginning.

But you also said she was looking for her real past, so...

I already conceded that I haven't seen the '95 movie in a while and might have misremembered some parts. But that movie decidedly questioned all authority Major had experienced, as everything she's been told is revealed to be lies, and, as you yourself said, she actually decides to merge with the Puppet Master (something the '17 Major decided against when Kuze offered something very similar) in defiance of that authority.

You know what sounds like a lack of critical thinking?

"I'm not going to help Section 9 fight terrorism because Hanka lied to me."

And the corollary to "our memories don't define us" was "our actions define us".

So you're looking at a character who chose to be defined by fighting the good fight.

I sense a disregard of critical thinking here, just not on her part.

But that's the thing: As I laid out above, based on what actually happens in this very movie (not even comparing it to the other version), Major has to question whether she and Section 9 actually have been fighting the good fight.

And I've explained my problem with "Our memories don't define us, our actions define us" in my original post, but I'll do it again: While that statement might be superficially true, a person who has emerged from self-imposed immaturity should let their memories, or experience, inform their actions. Actions should not be independent of memories, but that is what that line suggests.

I would also remind you that we are talking about a fictional character serving a role in a narrative. If there was a real Major, and she had decided to return to Section 9 and its mission, I'd concede that she probably had good reasons for it that I simply do not know about. But as a narrative, this movie should have told me as part of the audience those reasons. It didn't, it only showed me reasons why she shouldn't continue with Section 9.

 

[FPAlpha]

Just returned from the cinema and it wasn't a trainwreck.. it's nit perfect but i liked it.

First of all.. i still think that Johanssen was not right for the role but maybe it's also due to the role itself that called for an emotionless performance. However i liked how they storyiwse explained her visual appearance and backstory, especially once we meet her mother.

I also liked the story and believe they did a good coverage of the overall theme of what GitS is about.. at what point do you become machine instead of a person and that fine line the Major walked came out pretty well.

Visually it was very cool and hit the spot perfectly.. could have used a bit of better CGI with Batou's cybereyes (it looked like they just glued two caps onto his eyelides, they should have used CGI to "remove" the eyeballs and place the new sensors deeper into the eyesockets) but overall the effects were top notch.

One thing that bothered me though immensely was Aramaki.. i suspect he was talking Japanese in the English version too (saw the german dubbed version)? Why? Everybody is speaking English so why have Aramaki speak Japanese?
If you deny whitewashing by casting a western actress for a japanese character why pay lip service and have a japanese character speak japanese and include subtitles? I don't get it.

So no trainwreck thankfully and a good addition to the cyberpunk genre.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Just returned from the cinema and it wasn't a trainwreck.. it's nit perfect but i liked it.

First of all.. i still think that Johanssen was not right for the role but maybe it's also due to the role itself that called for an emotionless performance. However i liked how they storyiwse explained her visual appearance and backstory, especially once we meet her mother.

I also liked the story and believe they did a good coverage of the overall theme of what GitS is about.. at what point do you become machine instead of a person and that fine line the Major walked came out pretty well.

Visually it was very cool and hit the spot perfectly.. could have used a bit of better CGI with Batou's cybereyes (it looked like they just glued two caps onto his eyelides, they should have used CGI to "remove" the eyeballs and place the new sensors deeper into the eyesockets) but overall the effects were top notch.

One thing that bothered me though immensely was Aramaki.. i suspect he was talking Japanese in the English version too (saw the german dubbed version)? Why? Everybody is speaking English so why have Aramaki speak Japanese?
If you deny whitewashing by casting a western actress for a japanese character why pay lip service and have a japanese character speak japanese and include subtitles? I don't get it.

So no trainwreck thankfully and a good addition to the cyberpunk genre.

Yes, he's talking Japanese in the English version as well. It also struck me as a bit weird, but I can't fault them for going with Takeshi Kitano.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, of course. For instance, there's the question of defining who a terrorist is. In this very movie, Major and her team were hunting a terrorist, Kuze, who turns out to be a victim within the narrative of the movie. Later on, Major herself is framed and subsequently hunted. So even within the context of this movie, Major ending her arc at the exact same point where she started, is very troubling to me. And that last point is even brought home by Major letting herself fall from a building actually mirrors the beginning.



I already conceded that I haven't seen the '95 movie in a while and might have misremembered some parts. But that movie decidedly questioned all authority Major had experienced, as everything she's been told is revealed to be lies, and, as you yourself said, she actually decides to merge with the Puppet Master (something the '17 Major decided against when Kuze offered something very similar) in defiance of that authority.



But that's the thing: As I laid out above, based on what actually happens in this very movie (not even comparing it to the other version), Major has to question whether she and Section 9 actually have been fighting the good fight.

And I've explained my problem with "Our memories don't define us, our actions define us" in my original post, but I'll do it again: While that statement might be superficially true, a person who has emerged from self-imposed immaturity should let their memories, or experience, inform their actions. Actions should not be independent of memories, but that is what that line suggests.

I would also remind you that we are talking about a fictional character serving a role in a narrative. If there was a real Major, and she had decided to return to Section 9 and its mission, I'd concede that she probably had good reasons for it that I simply do not know about. But as a narrative, this movie should have told me as part of the audience those reasons. It didn't, it only showed me reasons why she shouldn't continue with Section 9.

Reminds me of the video game "Deus Ex" (the original!) and how the main character discovers similar lies regarding the organization that they fight for. Even if the main character tries to persuade them, he states that the organization has good people who are still fighting a good fight.

Obviously, in a film narrative, that presentation can vary on the production. But, I'm struck by the similarities.

 

[Saul]

One thing that bothered me though immensely was Aramaki.. i suspect he was talking Japanese in the English version too (saw the german dubbed version)? Why? Everybody is speaking English so why have Aramaki speak Japanese?
If you deny whitewashing by casting a western actress for a japanese character why pay lip service and have a japanese character speak japanese and include subtitles? I don't get it.

Johnny Mnemonic.

 

[Booji]

Just got back from the movie and I liked it. Nothing mind blowing, but I got what I wanted from it. The story was better than I expected. They did a decent job of combining the 1st & 2nd movies with a dab of SAC 2nd Gig. My biggest complaint would be the little screen time Togusa got. Same for Saito. I'd really like to see a sequel to this with a bit more emphasis on the other members of Section 9. It doesn't look good for a second film, but at least they got this one, for the most part, right. I'd give it a B.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Johnny Mnemonic.

Also RoboCop 3. Great movies all of them.

 

[Teelie]

I saw it opening weekend and I liked it okay. It was moderately disappointing although it was at points very on target in certain places. The problem was so few of those targets were anything of merit. Mostly it was just live-action sequences of some of the best animated scenes.

The movie failed to capture the essence of the previous incarnations. They trapped it in an unoriginal and uninteresting story about all the typical cliches of someone who was brainwashed/mind-wiped/amensia/etc.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

While I liked this movie, I don't feel it added anything of substance to the GitS mythos. At best, it might encourage a few people to sample the anime and even the manga. I wonder how well it will have to gross worldwide compared to its $110M budget to enable a sequel to be green-lit.

 

[Venardhi]

A sequel is pretty much out of the question for the time being. It looks like they'll make their money back eventually with a decent foreign market take and DVD/streaming, but it has been such a PR nightmare that no one will want to sign up for a second go any time soon.

 

[Set Harth]

something the '17 Major decided against when Kuze offered something very similar

Though superficially aping the original film's ending just like its source material ( 2nd Gig ), it's not actually that similar. It's not at all clear that what Kuze intends is even possible ( which the anime essentially admits ), much less something that is being actually 'offered' to Motoko in any sense other than the philosophical. As such, deciding against it isn't really a thing.

In the end, I blame Mona Lisa Overdrive.

While that statement might be superficially true, a person who has emerged from self-imposed immaturity should let their memories, or experience, inform their actions. Actions should not be independent of memories, but that is what that line suggests.

What if those memories were proven to be false? Of what relevance is a line about 'self-imposed immaturity' to a situation imposed by others?

I would also remind you that we are talking about a fictional character serving a role in a narrative.

It shouldn't make a difference.

It didn't, it only showed me reasons why she shouldn't continue with Section 9.

Section 9 isn't Hanka/Cutter. I'm not buying "trust no one, work for nobody ever again".

 

[Hound of UIster]

The movie failed to capture the essence of the previous incarnations. They trapped it in an unoriginal and uninteresting story about all the typical cliches of someone who was brainwashed/mind-wiped/amensia/etc.

I agree. Japan made the same mistake with the recent GIT Arise movies.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Though superficially aping the original film's ending just like its source material ( 2nd Gig ), it's not actually that similar. It's not at all clear that what Kuze intends is even possible ( which the anime essentially admits ), much less something that is being actually 'offered' to Motoko in any sense other than the philosophical. As such, deciding against it isn't really a thing.

In the end, I blame Mona Lisa Overdrive.

The narrative of the anime may have admitted that what Kuze intends may not be possible, but that narrative is not the same as this one. In fact, as different interpretation of the same premise and characters, they stand in creative competition (for lack of a better word) to one another. You can't take what was in the anime and say that applies to the narrative of the movie.

Kuze's idea of Motoko joining him as desimbodied consciousness was introduced in this movie as a distinct alternative choice, without the question of whether it is possible or not, and therefore has to be considered possible.

So, yeah, live action Major decided against it.

What if those memories were proven to be false? Of what relevance is a line about 'self-imposed immaturity' to a situation imposed by others?

You mean her new-found memories of her life as Motoko being revealed as false?! That's speculative and something the movie did not even hint at, let alone exploring the idea.

But we're talking about her choice to go back to Section 9, and her working for Section 9 in the first place was based on memories that were proven to be false. So, even if she'd questioned whether or not she actually was Motoko, or whether these memories were also implanted, going back to Section 9 is not the decision of a free mind in that scenario.

It shouldn't make a difference.

It makes all the difference. See, Major is fictional, and as such, she can't actually make decisions. These decisions have to made for her by the creative people behind the movie, and they have different priorities. While a real person might think in terms of "how do I actually want to live my life", the creative people have to consider subtext, "what would this or that decision say to the audience, and would that be in context with the rest of the movie".

See, I'm not criticizing Major. Major doesn't exist. I'm criticizing the makers of this movie because their narrative and the resolution of it don't match.

Section 9 isn't Hanka/Cutter. I'm not buying "trust no one, work for nobody ever again".

And this is another thing I've been criticizing in my original post. Wherein the '95 movie had the betrayal be far more systemic, this movie presented us with one absolute bad guy, and once he's beaten, everything is fine again and we can return to status quo.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

And this is another thing I've been criticizing in my original post. Wherein the '95 movie had the betrayal be far more systemic, this movie presented us with one absolute bad guy, and once he's beaten, everything is fine again and we can return to status quo.

Isn't it pretty much exactly what Star Trek has been doing all these years with all those "evil" Starfleet admirals and captains?

 

[Gaith]

A sequel is pretty much out of the question for the time being. It looks like they'll make their money back eventually with a decent foreign market take and DVD/streaming

I doubt that. The marketing costs must have been at least 60m, likely more, meaning the movie had 170m to make up when it opened. If the theaters take a third of the overall box office, it's only made back 85m so far, meaning the rest of the theatrical run and home video revenue will have to total 84m just to break even.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Isn't it pretty much exactly what Star Trek has been doing all these years with all those "evil" Starfleet admirals and captains?

There is a difference, though. Star Trek is a universe that was consciously optimistic about the future of mankind, and therefore presents a very idealized version of human society. It also is an unlimited universe, with many different stories to tell, with only a small minority of them dealing with "evil" Starfleet personell. It is therefore not only justified from a narrative viewpoint to make these single characters playing a role in very specific stories individuals out of the norm instead of a systemic problem, but considering the sheer number of stories in the franchise it is actually relatively realistic to call those "evil" Starfleet people misguided individuals compared to the number of "good" Starfleet staff.