Support NeoGAF

Aztechnology · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
Death Note transplants the entire story to the US. Pacific Northwest to be clear. It has more in common with Edge of Tomorrow or the Departed, than the half-step this film ends up going with.

Chicken-egg problem. You struggle to think because Asian or Asian-American actresses are not given the chance to prove that they can anchor a film. Your argument is Scarlett Johansson is a far more amazing actress than a potential Japanese choice, I disagree. If your argument is ScarJo has star power, that's in part to the current Hollywood studio system. This is why folks in the US have issues with whitewashing in the first place.

With GITS in particular, native Japanese won't have an issue because their studio system already adapts their own stories with Japanese talent. The losers here at Asian-American actors, who don't get leading roles or rarely get supporting roles because they are Asian and automatically "other". And it's certainly not an issue with starring roles needing big stars, because studios will take chances on white actors all the time. It's so common that we have a list of actors studios will not stop cramming down our throats, despite it being proven that they either can act, or can't anchor a film. Jai Courtney, Sam Worthington, Taylor Kitsch, Armie Hammer, Jack Huston. You can do this all day because it's so true.

In no way was my argument that Scarjo Jo was/is "a more amazing actress than a potential Japanese one". Not even close. I don't even think ScarJo is more than a middling actress usually. Her lines fall flat on me in delivery. I normally don't find her believable. It was entirely based on star power and she has a ton of Star Power. I agree that it's a catch 22. Asian American actresses don't get a chance often to have career makers so you rarely if ever see them get the spotlight. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I completely understand why in this particular film, given it's extremely niche status by Hollywood standards went the direction they did.

hirokazu · Apr 1, 2017

Calabi said:
Well I havent seen the film but why do the locations look so asian then.

It's an unspecified city. Just with the 1995 film, it's stylistically based on Hong Kong but this time they layered a lot more changes on top and they also added a lot more Japanese influence to it that makes the setting even more vague and uncertain.

The '95 does state its set in New Port City, which I believe in the manga, is in Japan, but we can't assume that for this adaptation.

hirokazu · Apr 1, 2017

smileyforall220 said:
Character assadination is a really poor form of debate I must say. You have yet to refute my main arguments, rather just just using insults. No reason to be so hostile, it's just a simple discussion. What do you find factually incorrect about my statements?

Haha, what? The first post you replied to refuted your statements. You said it was set in Japan. It isn't. You said everyone in the film had Japanese names. They don't.

Skinpop · Apr 1, 2017

Mesoian said:
Get ready though, Death Note is coming, and if you're mad about white washing here, you will be LIVID on that one.

If GitS was reinterpreted and put in an american setting I think people would have been more forgiving, also we already have two live action DN movies and a drama series so I don't see any issue with doing a western version of it. I'd love for it to use asian actors, but you can't really compare it with GitS.

BronsonLee said:
Btw this movie is fine, real good visuals but plot is meh

it's interesting how people find a movie to be fine when only the visuals are good(which I actually disagree with, I think they completely missed the mark).

MHWilliams · Apr 1, 2017

Aztechnology said:
In no way was my argument that Scarjo Jo was an a more amazing actress than a potential Japanese one. Not even close. I don't even think ScarJo is more than a middling actress usually. Her lines fall flat on me in delivery usually. I normally don't find her believable. It was entirely based on star power. I agree that it's a catch 22. Asian American actresses don't get a chance often to have career makers so you rarely if ever see them get the spotlight. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I completely understand why in this particular film, given it's extremely niche status by Hollywood standards went the direction they did.

Problem with that argument.

Star power doesn't work. A poorly written, badly shot film, will die regardless of who stars in it.

Star power hasn't worked for a long time. Brands themselves are more important that whoever is in them. See: Chris Hemsworth as Thor making money, Chris Hemsworth as anything else? Box office bomb. Because it's bunk. It's been bunk. That's why GITS is losing to Boss Baby and trending near Power Rangers' second week. They put the star above the brand and hurt the brand by doing so.

And feeding into the incorrect perception doesn't help anything.

Here. Someone else writes about it.

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...bank-pulling-power-famous-actors-fading-stars

”DEADPOOL", which so far has taken more than $500m in cinemas worldwide, is an atypical blockbuster, a foul-mouthed anti-hero film with a mature ”R" audience rating. But in one important respect it is typical of many of Hollywood's most successful movies: it does not rely on a world-famous star to sell it.

In contrast, two recent ”star vehicle" films struggled to attract audiences despite heavy promotion and high-profile openings on Christmas Day in America. ”Joy", with Jennifer Lawrence, and ”Concussion", with Will Smith, both failed to earn back their production budgets at the domestic box office and also fared poorly overseas. What happened? Ms Lawrence is by the reckoning of some the biggest star in Hollywood's firmament; Mr Smith held that unofficial title for years. Have film stars lost some of their lustre?

Such productions are more likely to make stars than to be made by them. ”You really don't want to have a movie star" in certain big franchises, says a senior studio executive: the films will be hits either way, so why pay more? Jennifer Lawrence was not ”Jennifer Lawrence, biggest female movie star in the world" until she made the first ”Hunger Games" film.

. But the trajectories of star careers leave a lot of room for guesswork. Bruce Willis was paid $5m to make ”Die Hard" in 1988; some in Hollywood were aghast, but the movie was a huge hit. Then Mr Willis made more flops than hits (excepting the ”Die Hard" sequels) before hitting it big again with ”The Sixth Sense". But this time, was it the star or the story?

The real point?

Hollywood executives still want to believe in stars' power to get bums on seats, so they will bet again on a headliner even after a few flops. There is some risk-aversion in this: if they make a flop with a big name in it, they are less likely to have to defend their decision to green-light the film.

This conservatism tends to favour the white male actors that have already attained superstar status over the selection of new and diverse talent (as does the fact that the decision-makers are predominantly white males too). The controversy over the lack of any black actor (among other omissions) in the nominees for this year's Oscars ceremony, on February 28th, is in part the fruit of that mindset.

Comedy is one of the few places this does not hold true.

SuperStiltzkin · Apr 1, 2017

Aztechnology said:
In no way was my argument that Scarjo Jo was/is "a more amazing actress than a potential Japanese one". Not even close. I don't even think ScarJo is more than a middling actress usually. Her lines fall flat on me in delivery. I normally don't find her believable. It was entirely based on star power and she has a ton of Star Power. I agree that it's a catch 22. Asian American actresses don't get a chance often to have career makers so you rarely if ever see them get the spotlight. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I completely understand why in this particular film, given it's extremely niche status by Hollywood standards went the direction they did.

Sure. But what they didn't HAVE to do, is to try and justify it in the plot in the way that they did.

smileyforall220 · Apr 1, 2017

hirokazu said:
Haha, what? The first post you replied to refuted your statements. You said it was set in Japan. It isn't. You said everyone in the film had Japanese names. They don't.

? I said the movie seemed to be based in a Hong Kong/China because of their being more diversity than your typical Japan setting.

hirokazu · Apr 1, 2017

smileyforall220 said:
? I said the movie seemed to be based in a Hong Kong/China because of their being more diversity than your typical Japan setting.

The movie isn't set in Hong Kong, just as the 1995 movie isn't, even if it's stylistically based on HK. You also say the movie is made in Japan. It isn't.

Trokil · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
I find it interesting how people talk about a spoiler, without any real context mind you, but also mention it in their posts.

If you think it's a spoiler, don't mention it, eh?

You could change the title and add a spoiler warning. Because people will talk about spoilers in this topic, so that people at least know what they can expect.

MHWilliams · Apr 1, 2017

Trokil said:
You could change the title and add a spoiler warning. Because people will talk about spoilers in this topic, so that people at least know what they can expect.

I'm talking about a different film mentioned in this thread.

smileyforall220 · Apr 1, 2017

hirokazu said:
Or made in Japan. It isn't.

? The original is directed by Mamoru Oshii from Japan, with many characters having Japanese names and being produced in Japan, even though the setting in the movie is a vague combination.

hirokazu · Apr 1, 2017

Aztechnology said:
In no way was my argument that Scarjo Jo was/is "a more amazing actress than a potential Japanese one". Not even close. I don't even think ScarJo is more than a middling actress usually. Her lines fall flat on me in delivery. I normally don't find her believable. It was entirely based on star power and she has a ton of Star Power. I agree that it's a catch 22. Asian American actresses don't get a chance often to have career makers so you rarely if ever see them get the spotlight. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I completely understand why in this particular film, given it's extremely niche status by Hollywood standards went the direction they did.

There's an element of star power involved in her casting for sure. I think a flaw with the debate is people either go all in on star power, hence no whitewashing, or whitewashing, her star power is irrelevant.

I think it's a little bit of both, but all the evidence to me suggests that they had this plot in mind from very early on, so they planned to cast a white lead all along. Scarlett was convenient because she could lend her star power.

kewlmyc · Apr 1, 2017

Mesoian said:
I mean, it is...But you're right, that means nothing.

Get ready though, Death Note is coming, and if you're mad about white washing here, you will be LIVID on that one.

It's an version of Death Note that takes place in America, so I don't consider this whitewashing. An American re-imaging, unlike a GiTS, which tries to take place in the same universe as the original GiTS.

Trago · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
Problem with that argument.

Star power doesn't work. A poorly written, badly shot film, will die regardless of who stars in it.

Star power hasn't worked for a long time. Brands themselves are more important that whoever is in them. See: Chris Hemsworth as Thor making money, Chris Hemsworth as anything else? Box office bomb. Because it's bunk. It's been bunk. That's why GITS is losing to Boss Baby and trending near Power Rangers' second week. They put the star above the brand and hurt the brand by doing so.

And feeding into the incorrect perception doesn't help anything.

Here's the thing though, you're correct, but in the minds of some these film executives, star power is still very much a thing. Several of them are in a bubble, so of course this casting decision made sense to them, meanwhile the filmmakers are the ones who are gonna take most of the heat for this fuckery. And the decision clearly blew up in their faces, because the film ain't doing so hot at the box office.

I'd bet if the director made the film how he really wanted, it would have been so much better.

Not · Apr 1, 2017

Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku! said:
Can't wait for the sequel

I don't think there are enough swords on this cover

Aztechnology · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
Problem with that argument.

Star power doesn't work. A poorly written, badly shot film, will die regardless of who stars in it.

Star power hasn't worked for a long time. Brands themselves are more important that whoever is in them. See: Chris Hemsworth as Thor making money, Chris Hemsworth as anything else? Box office bomb. Because it's bunk. It's been bunk. That's why GITS is losing to Boss Baby and trending near Power Rangers' second week. They put the star above the brand and hurt the brand by doing so.

And feeding into the incorrect perception doesn't help anything.

SuperStiltzkin said:
Sure. But what they didn't HAVE to do, is to try and justify it in the plot in the way that they did.

But who would they have chosen? I can't think of a really solid Japanese American actress out there for the role right now. It would be a "career maker" for someone. And good luck getting that project funding with a cast of people with little Star Power. If you've ever seen me in these threads before you know I'm nearly always on your guys side of the argument. I constantly ask for new talent to be given a chance because everyone starts somewhere and Hollywood is brimming with unexplored talent and frankly I'm bored of seeing the same actors all the time. But I understand at least generally how these things shake out in terms of securing funding. Internationally and beyond. It's a problem of misconceptions I agree. But it's the one that people who have money share and that's what matters when it comes down to getting funding.

hirokazu · Apr 1, 2017

smileyforall220 said:
? The original is directed by Mamoru Oshii from Japan, with many characters having Japanese names and being produced in Japan, even though the setting in the movie is a vague combination.

Are we talking about the 2017 film directed by Rupert Sanders and starring Scarlett Johansson? Because I thought that's what were talking about in this thread. What relevance does the older film adaptation have to do with that?

Violence Jack · Apr 1, 2017

I'm glad there's a thread to talk about this freely because other ScarJo herself, the twist was by far almost had me hate the movie.

I'm not sure I buy the social commentary excuse by having a corporation turn a Japanese woman white and give her an American sounding name. I think they were just looking for a way to address the criticism, and made up one of the most bullshit endings ever to a perfectly decent film. Some people in my showing laughed, I just face palmed and shook my head.

smileyforall220 · Apr 1, 2017

hirokazu said:
Are we talking about the 2017 film directed by Rupert Sanders and starring Scarlett Johansson? Because I thought that's what were talking about in this thread. What relevance does the older film adaptation have to do with that?

I'm not sure, you asked if I have even seen these movies. I think you are confusing my statements between the traditionally animated films and the live action one. The existing films are relevant because they are used as the basis for conparison. I feel like we got way off topic from what we were initially debating by confusing each other's statements lol

Zero315 · Apr 1, 2017

Trago said:
I'd bet if the director made the film how he really wanted, it would have been so much better.

I doubt it, the only other big film he's made (Snow White and The Huntsman) suffered from the same problems. Very pretty but extremely lacking in everything else.

Trago · Apr 1, 2017

Aztechnology said:
But who would they have chosen? I can't think of a really solid Japanese American actress out there for the role right now. It would be a "career maker" for someone. And good luck getting that project funding with a cast of people with little Star Power. If you've ever seen me in these threads before you know I'm nearly always on your guys side of the argument. I constantly ask for new talent to be given a chance because everyone starts somewhere and Hollywood is brimming with unexplored talent and frankly I'm bored of seeing the same actors all the time. But I understand at least generally how these things shake out in terms of securing funding. Internationally and beyond. It's a problem of misconceptions I agree. But it's the one that people who have money share and that's what matters when it comes down to getting funding.

These in-their-bubble dumbass film executives throwing all this money into a film are looking to get that investment back. It's a serious problem.

Unfortunately, when they see actresses like this:

They aren't thinking, "well she will definitely get butts in those seats", despite several examples of IP bringing in audiences more than star power doing.

Staccat0 · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
I find it interesting how people talk about a spoiler, without any real context mind you, but also mention it in their posts.

If you think it's a spoiler, don't mention it, eh?

Why is that interesting? It seems odd to not expect anyone to go, "hey that's kinda rude." In hopes the person might edit their post politely for the next guy. Mentioning it exists doesn't inspire someone to go back a few pages to find it.

Aztechnology · Apr 1, 2017

hirokazu said:
There's an element of star power involved in her casting for sure. I think a flaw with the debate is people either go all in on star power, hence no whitewashing, or whitewashing, her star power is irrelevant.

I think it's a little bit of both, but all the evidence to me suggests that they had this plot in mind from very early on, so they planned to cast a white lead all along. Scarlett was convenient because she could lend her star power.

That's where I'm at. It's clear when they looked at the anime they saw a white female in the major.

Which frankly isn't exactly surprising.

Most people in the U.S who also watched the anime probably watched the dubbed variation leading to that being even more ingrained.

I do agree it was a route that was already likely laid out during the early stages. But I still think they tested at least the concept with test groups. We will never know though. I wish film, TV and games were more transparent. Huge improvements could be made. Or at least people would have a better understanding of why choices were made and then we'd be able to properly address issues.

tuxfool · Apr 1, 2017

Trago said:
I'd bet if the director made the film how he really wanted, it would have been so much better.

I wonder. The director had a choice of script, even if he didn't have a choice of actress. The script was still a rather superficial facsimile of the source material. Though I can certainly see your point being applicable on a case-by-case basis, I don't think it applies here.

OSHAN · Apr 1, 2017

Chaw's review is worth reading:

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-2017.html#more

Not · Apr 1, 2017

kewlmyc said:
It's an version of Death Note that takes place in America, so I don't consider this whitewashing. An American re-imaging, unlike a GiTS, which tries to take place in the same universe as the original GiTS.

How cool would it be if Ki Hong Lee or somebody was Light though

Trago · Apr 1, 2017

tuxfool said:
I wonder. The director had a choice of script, even if the didn't have a choice of actress. The script was still rather a rather superficial facsimile of the source material. Though I can certainly see your point being applicable on a case-by-case basis, I don't think it applies here.

Maybe. In which case, it was fucked from the beginning.

Zero315 said:
I doubt it, the only other big film he's made (Snow White and The Huntsman) suffered from the same problems. Very pretty but extremely lacking in everything else.

Hey now, I thought the scenes cherry-picked from the '95 film adapted into live action was fun to see at least. ¯\_(&#12484

_/¯

Grizzlyjin · Apr 1, 2017

MHWilliams said:
Problem with that argument.

Star power doesn't work. A poorly written, badly shot film, will die regardless of who stars in it.

Comedy is one of the few places this does not hold true.

Yeah, when they first announced ScarJo I handwaved it away as them trying to sell the movie. But the more I thought about it, that doesn't work anymore. Maybe in the 80s or 90s, but movies aren't selling because of any actor these days. Comedies, that's about it. People will see a movie solely because they think (Blank) is funny as fuck. But for popcorn munchers like this, it doesn't matter.

Nobody is bankable like they were back in the day. There are an endless number of examples of actors who are in billion dollar franchise now that can't even open up side projects to decent numbers. Smart studio would save their money and stop hoping that big stars can save these bloated projects

They just really messed this up in every way someone could mess up. It smells of total obliviousness.

Not · Apr 1, 2017

Trago said:
These in-their-bubble dumbass film executives throwing all this money into a film are looking to get that investment back. It's a serious problem.

Unfortunately, when they see actresses like this:

They aren't thinking, "well she will definitely get butts in those seats", despite several examples of IP bringing in audiences more than star power doing.

Careful not to imply that you may empathize with people who think white people are better looking than Asians.

Trago · Apr 2, 2017

Not said:
Careful not to imply that you may empathize with people who think white people are better looking than Asians.

Not "better looking", but the "star power" mentality, which in the context of this film, is dead wrong.

Basically, they don't see "star power" in literally any other Asian actress to "market" this film, which as I said before is a huge problem.

hirokazu · Apr 2, 2017

smileyforall220 said:
I'm not sure, you asked if I have even seen these movies. I think you are confusing my statements between the traditionally animated films and the live action one. The existing films are relevant because they are used as the basis for conparison. I feel like we got way off topic from what we were initially debating by confusing each other's statements lol

I asked specifically saw this movie. Singular. And you've been chirping on about it being made in Japan before I called it out. We're discussing accusations of whitewashing in the 2017 film. Earlier, you said you don't see how it's whitewashed and later backed up your view with statements such as it being made in Japan with everyone having Japanese names. I refuted those statements because they were factually wrong when referring the 2017 film.

Now you claim you're referring to the older adaptations as well all along, which just doesn't make much sense when you're talking about accusations of whitewashing specifically in the 2017 film. I don't see this argument going anywhere so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

Aztechnology · Apr 2, 2017

Violence Jack said:
I'm glad there's a thread to talk about this freely because other ScarJo herself, the twist was by far almost had me hate the movie.

I'm not sure I buy the social commentary excuse by having a corporation turn a Japanese woman white and give her an American sounding name. I think they were just looking for a way to address the criticism, and made up one of the most bullshit endings ever to a perfectly decent film. Some people in my showing laughed, I just face palmed and shook my head.

I agree. I still enjoyed the film despite that. But it was a stupid decision. Making excuses almost always inevitably makes it worse.

Trago · Apr 2, 2017

Aztechnology said:
I agree. I still enjoyed the film despite that. But it was a stupid decision. Making excuses almost always inevitably makes it worse.

And that's a shame, because as I said before, I think there's quite a bit to like about this film. And that's surprising considering I walked in expecting the worst piece of shit to come out this year.

parrotbeak · Apr 2, 2017

Chmpocalypse said:
What?

Did you literally just say that diversity in casting should only be relegated to nonessential roles? Really?

I was mockingly paraphrasing Matt Damon when he whitesplained to a black director that it's ok for white people to control everything as long as they try to be diverse in casting.

hirokazu · Apr 2, 2017

Aztechnology said:
I do agree it was a route that was already likely laid out during the early stages. But I still think they tested at least the concept with test groups. We will never know though. I wish film, TV and games were more transparent. Huge improvements could be made. Or at least people would have a better understanding of why choices were made and then we'd be able to properly address issues.

I think someone in this thread mentioned test screenings they attended, and the major plot elements that's causing controversy now was present in all of them. I wonder if they could provide a summary of the changes in the different test screenings, that would be interesting.

Zero315 · Apr 2, 2017

Aztechnology said:
In no way was my argument that Scarjo Jo was/is "a more amazing actress than a potential Japanese one". Not even close. I don't even think ScarJo is more than a middling actress usually. Her lines fall flat on me in delivery. I normally don't find her believable. It was entirely based on star power and she has a ton of Star Power. I agree that it's a catch 22. Asian American actresses don't get a chance often to have career makers so you rarely if ever see them get the spotlight. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying I completely understand why in this particular film, given it's extremely niche status by Hollywood standards went the direction they did.

Except she doesn't though! Disney won't even let her headline a film for the character that supposedly gives her so much "star power" and she was the lead of a Sci-fi "action" film that was critically middling but made decent money.

smileyforall220 · Apr 2, 2017

hirokazu said:
I asked specifically saw this movie. Singular. And you've been chirping on about it being made in Japan before I called it out. We're discussing accusations of whitewashing in the 2017 film. Earlier, you said you don't see how it's whitewashed and later backed up your view with statements such as it being made in Japan with everyone having Japanese names. I refuted those statements because they were factually wrong when referring the 2017 film.

Now you claim you're referring to the older adaptations as well all along, which just doesn't make much sense when you're talking about accusations of whitewashing specifically in the 2017 film. I don't see this argument going anywhere so I'll stop while I'm ahead.

Lol what? Of course this movie isn't made in Japan, it's a Hollywood film that has criticism of being white washed. I never said it was made in Japan. I was talking about the older film while debating with someone else about a completely different subject of Asian names and ethnicity. I stand by the claim that I don't see the Major as inherently Asian though, much like many of the cyborgs being a mix of different ethnicities. Batu in particular with his blond hair

Noks415 · Apr 2, 2017

I'm a GiTS fan and wasn't too pleased with the casting, but I haven't seen this film yet and think this a cool nod. (please don't chew my head off)

I definitely see the why people would take additional offense at the twist but I just don't feel the same.

Also, this may be a stupid question but I'm assuming there is a huge outrage in Japan over this right?

TheTurboFD · Apr 2, 2017

kewlmyc said:
It's an version of Death Note that takes place in America, so I don't consider this whitewashing. An American re-imaging, unlike a GiTS, which tries to take place in the same universe as the original GiTS.

Yea also, with L being black, is that considered black washing and white washing as they're both supposed to be Asian? With GiTS was there any mention of the city being in Japan? I don't remember.

MugiwaraCole · Apr 2, 2017

Aztechnology said:
That's where I'm at. It's clear when they looked at the anime they saw a white female in the major.

Which frankly isn't exactly surprising.

Most people in the U.S who also watched the anime probably watched the dubbed variation leading to that being even more ingrained.

I do agree it was a route that was already likely laid out during the early stages. But I still think they tested at least the concept with test groups. We will never know though. I wish film, TV and games were more transparent. Huge improvements could be made. Or at least people would have a better understanding of why choices were made and then we'd be able to properly address issues.

This is such a dumb argument. I have genuinely never understood people's claims that they look at anime and see predominantly white characters. Especially when the one in question is named Motoko.

They did not see a white woman. They just wanted to cast one. It says more about how mind-fucked we are into thinking white is the norm that people argue they look at anime and typically think "these characters are white". I promise you, they usually aren't.

RedSwirl · Apr 2, 2017

MHWilliams said:
Problem with that argument.

Star power doesn't work. A poorly written, badly shot film, will die regardless of who stars in it.

Star power hasn't worked for a long time. Brands themselves are more important that whoever is in them. See: Chris Hemsworth as Thor making money, Chris Hemsworth as anything else? Box office bomb. Because it's bunk. It's been bunk. That's why GITS is losing to Boss Baby and trending near Power Rangers' second week. They put the star above the brand and hurt the brand by doing so.

And feeding into the incorrect perception doesn't help anything.

Here. Someone else writes about it.

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...bank-pulling-power-famous-actors-fading-stars

So basically, movies make stars. Stars don't make movies (unless it's one of t hose unique cases where the actor and the role are perfect for each other. i.e.: Ryan Renolds and Wade Wilson).

Aztechnology said:
But who would they have chosen? I can't think of a really solid Japanese American actress out there for the role right now. It would be a "career maker" for someone. And good luck getting that project funding with a cast of people with little Star Power. If you've ever seen me in these threads before you know I'm nearly always on your guys side of the argument. I constantly ask for new talent to be given a chance because everyone starts somewhere and Hollywood is brimming with unexplored talent and frankly I'm bored of seeing the same actors all the time. But I understand at least generally how these things shake out in terms of securing funding. Internationally and beyond. It's a problem of misconceptions I agree. But it's the one that people who have money share and that's what matters when it comes down to getting funding.

Probably an Asian actress no one in this thread has heard of, which is the whole point. You have to be willing to give someone a shot.

But really, the American GitS should have been a full-blown adaptation. That plot point at the end wasn't necessary. I'm be wiling to argue it shouldn't have even been called Ghost in the Shell because at this point you're already pissing off fans too much for them to go see it.

It's such a shame too. I was down for the idea of this movie because I've wanted Hollywood to do another big cyberpunk movie for a long time. We haven't really seen cyberpunk done with today's production quality and special effects. I guess this new move probably at least gets the look down.

AHA-Lambda · Apr 2, 2017

Why? Just why??

How did no one at any point think this didn't seem like a terribly bad idea??

Bronx-Man · Apr 2, 2017

I'd love to see an analysis talking about how Get Out uses sci-fi to address race & appropriation so expertly while Ghost in the Shell completely fails doing the same.

smileyforall220 · Apr 2, 2017

MugiwaraCole said:
This is such a dumb argument. I have genuinely never understood people's claims that they look at anime and see predominantly white characters. Especially when the one in question is named Motoko.

They did not see a white woman. They just wanted to cast one. It says more about how mind-fucked we are into thinking white is the norm that people argue they look at anime and typically think "these characters are white". I promise you, they usually aren't.

I think it's more of the case that people see anime characters and put in their own notions of what ethnicity the characters are. Unless the anime is done in a style that is realistic, different styles can make it hard to tell, and honestly, it shouldn't matter what ethnicity the anime character is unless it's plot relevant that you know.

Hallowed · Apr 2, 2017

MugiwaraCole said:
This is such a dumb argument. I have genuinely never understood people's claims that they look at anime and see predominantly white characters. Especially when the one in question is named Motoko.

They did not see a white woman. They just wanted to cast one. It says more about how mind-fucked we are into thinking white is the norm that people argue they look at anime and typically think "these characters are white". I promise you, they usually aren't.

Just to throw in my opinion, I see Major, despite her having a Japanese name, as looking like a white woman, because she just does. If I were to go purely on looks, I wouldn't say there was anything Japanese about her. And to be honest that goes for a lot of anime.

I wasn't confident about ScarJo being Major for this film, but having seen it last night, from a purely stylistic point of view, I really loved how she looked as Major (love the fashion in this movie).

hirokazu · Apr 2, 2017

Noks415 said:
I'm a GiTS fan and wasn't too pleased with the casting, but I haven't seen this film yet and think this a cool nod. (please don't chew my head off)

I definitely see the why people would take additional offense at the twist but I just don't feel the same.

I wasn't offended by the casting and didn't really participate in the discussion before I saw the movie because in the context of the source material, it's not too strange if they adapted Motoko to be white.

Having seen what they actually did, though, it's hard not to acknowledge the extent of the whitewashing. I'm still not offended by it, but I think this is something people should talk about it it'll mean Hollywood will finally change their ways.

I don't think it should prevent you from seeing the film. You might enjoy it despite all this.

Noks415 said:
Also, this may be a stupid question but I'm assuming there is a huge outrage in Japan over this right?

Japan doesn't get outraged by this stuff because their society is one of the most homogenous in the world. So just as a Japanese adaptation would probably have Japanese actors, they'd think it normal for a Western adaptation to have Western actors. But if you explain the social demographics of western countries to them, they'd probably understand why there's controversy over it.

WrenchNinja · Apr 2, 2017

Hallowed said:
Just to throw in my opinion, I see Major, despite her having a Japanese name, as looking like a white woman, because she just does. If I were to go purely on looks, I wouldn't say there was anything Japanese about her. And to be honest that goes for a lot of anime.

what would an anime character have to look like for you to assume they're Japanese and not white

ZehDon · Apr 2, 2017

As someone who considers the 1995 animated film one of the best ever, reading the "twist" as explained in the OP had me:

I don't know enough about the actual business of making films to make any kind of intelligent contributions on that front. All I can say is, as a fan, I wanted something closer to "Dredd" - smaller production budget, more faithful adaptation. The Wachowskis, who cited GotS as a huge influence, did "The Matrix" for $65m. This cost $110m. Even with inflation, I feel the film makers aimed for Minority Report, which is a design paradigm the 1995 animated film never really went for, and had to manage their elevated risk accordingly. Potentially to the detriment of the overall project. My 2 cents.

Candescence · Apr 2, 2017

Really, the twist might've worked if the writers had some kind of self-awareness and executed it differently. But the end result was as tone deaf as you'd expect.

Bloody hell.

hirokazu · Apr 2, 2017

TheTurboFD said:
Yea also, with L being black, is that considered black washing and white washing as they're both supposed to be Asian? With GiTS was there any mention of the city being in Japan? I don't remember.

Death Note is an adaptation set in the US, so it's a different situation to this, where the character in the film is

explicitly Asian through and through, before she got Shelled.

Of course there were people complaining regardless. I think where the complaints have merit was when the Asian guy tried to audition for Light and they told him they were looking for a white guy. Otherwise, as with this, I'll reserve my judgment until after I've seen it.

Support NeoGAF

Ghost in the Shell's ending spurs new accusations of even worse whitewashing

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Fail out bailed

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Member

Member

Similar threads