Support NeoGAF

[DeafTourette]

Oh they look so distinct from each other that you got them confused huh?

This one looks black enough for you huh? You’ll allow her to have that hairstyle huh?

Whatcha got going on with your family and friends? Y’all busy marginalizing POC whose particular ancestry doesn’t line up with your acceptable definition of blackness?

You make me want to puke, bigot.

You misunderstood everything I said.

It's cool, though.

 

[HotPocket69]

 

[Mihos]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid. Ariel can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told. You all are making a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place. Its a kids movie aimed at mainly young girls and yet we have 14 pages of people acting as if Disney personally dropkicked their grandmothers. Its absurd.

You really don't see it....

 

[Deleted member 738976]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid.

Hear that boys? Time to order some synthetic full-body prosthesis augmented-cybernetic human's from Japan.

 

[TGO]

Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series

While Motoko Kusanagi was Asian the Shell was not

The film was very accurate to the original material, just people who didn't know what the fuck they're talking about threw a pissy fit.
Then again it's was easy to make the mistake if you only seen the newer stuff as Major took on the usual manga look with each release.
Major went from this

To this

 

[Helios]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid. Ariel can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told.

We're not going down this road again. Sorry, can't bait me into this one and than leave when you feel appropriate like you usually do.

You all are making a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place. Its a kids movie aimed at mainly young girls and yet we have 14 pages of people acting as if Disney personally dropkicked their grandmothers. Its absurd.

I'm not making any fuss. I couldn't give less of a shit about this, which is why that was my first reply to this topic. I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy.

 

[DeafTourette]

MLK was real.

Ariel... Isn't.

I feel like this is going to be another back and forth like with Schroedingers Cat.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Thanks to both Nobody_Important and DeafTourette for your ongoing displays of hypocrisy and double standards.

As I said before, such displays are always useful as they allow reasonable people to more easily identify societal grifters.

Your work here is done.

 

[DeafTourette]

Thanks to both Nobody_Important and DeafTourette for your ongoing displays of hypocrisy and double standards.

As I said before, such displays are always useful as they allow reasonable people to more easily identify societal grifters.

Your work here is done.

I find it amazing how you read so much more into what I wrote than I actually implied/said.


Double Standards? Hypocrisy? If that's your narrative, you'll have egg on your face sooner or later. Because everything you said, is wrong.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I find it amazing how you read so much more into what I wrote than I actually implied/said.


Double Standards? Hypocrisy? If that's your narrative, you'll have egg on your face sooner or later. Because everything you said, is wrong.

Oh look. An expression of disbelief. That always works!


You're the one that argued that accurate portrayal is important for real people, then said that it's not important for real people.
Then after you snookered yourself you declared I was still wrong but that you were going to be all high and mighty and leave the exchange as it didn't bother you.
Yet here you are, still at it.

Your argument hasn't improved. You've simply said "You're wrong" and nothing else.
Just like your post at the top of the page. You simply try to discredit someone, but don't actually provide any substantive counterpoint yourself.
You're just sprinkling theatrics and projection and calling verifiable facts that don't support your own self-defeating argument as "narrative".
You've given up on making a proper argument. And just now hoping to smear other people whose arguments are more robust than your own.

And if you don't like being challenged, don't try and surreptitiously call me out.
That's dishonest and its cowardly.

So I'll say it again:

Thanks to both Nobody_Important and DeafTourette for your ongoing displays of hypocrisy and double standards.

As I said before, such displays are always useful as they allow reasonable people to more easily identify societal grifters.

Your work here is done.

 

[Dr. Claus]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid. Ariel can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told. You all are making a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place. Its a kids movie aimed at mainly young girls and yet we have 14 pages of people acting as if Disney personally dropkicked their grandmothers. Its absurd.

"It is fine to change someone's skin colour as long as they were originally white!" - Nobody Important, 2019

Personally, I don't care if they change the race of a character - as long as the actor does a good job in portraying the character. However, I at least stand by my views unlike you who continuously show your hypocritical bullshit. C'mon man, how the hell can you say that shit with a straight face?

 

[lock2k]

Funny thing is... She looks like her beautiful self in the top pic. And it makes it seem dude just doesn't like black girls.

1. No one said she isn't beautiful.

2. No, it doesn't. Lighten up, it's just a joke.

 

[Silent Duck]

 

[Wimbledon]

That's fantastic.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

What a thread.

 

[Silent Duck]

What a thread.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

 

[lock2k]

 

[Silent Duck]

Last one, I promise.

 

[DeepEnigma]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid. Ariel can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told. You all are making a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place. Its a kids movie aimed at mainly young girls and yet we have 14 pages of people acting as if Disney personally dropkicked their grandmothers. Its absurd.

That’s a lot of words for saying,

“Yeah, I’m a hypocrite.”

 

[K1Expwy]

While Motoko Kusanagi was Asian the Shell was not

The film was very accurate to the original material, just people who didn't know what the fuck they're talking about threw a pissy fit.
Then again it's was easy to make the mistake if you only seen the newer stuff as Major took on the usual manga look with each release.
Major went from this

To this

I don't agree that the Hollywood movie was "very accurate to the original material," but the casting wasn't controversial or contradictory. Aramaki is definitely Japanese, and he was played by Beat Takeshi. The rest of Section 9, including the Major, is a combination of international and Japanese mercenaries, and the 30-year-old IP has intentionally avoided getting more specific than that. The fictional GitS setting (unlike say Akira) isn't strictly "Asian" or "Japanese."

 

[DeafTourette]

Oh look. An expression of disbelief. That always works!


You're the one that argued that accurate portrayal is important for real people, then said that it's not important for real people.
Then after you snookered yourself you declared I was still wrong but that you were going to be all high and mighty and leave the exchange as it didn't bother you.
Yet here you are, still at it.

Your argument hasn't improved. You've simply said "You're wrong" and nothing else.
Just like your post at the top of the page. You simply try to discredit someone, but don't actually provide any substantive counterpoint yourself.
You're just sprinkling theatrics and projection and calling verifiable facts that don't support your own self-defeating argument as "narrative".
You've given up on making a proper argument. And just now hoping to smear other people whose arguments are more robust than your own.

And if you don't like being challenged, don't try and surreptitiously call me out.
That's dishonest and its cowardly.

So I'll say it again:

I'm still here because you keep making pedantic arguments (although so far you've been wallowing in semantics thinking I called you a name).

That said, I didn't contradict myself. No hypocrisy is in my posts because you fail to see where you messed up at.

Let's take the movie Selma:

*Was Dr. King a real person? Yes.

*Was the event at the bridge in Selma real? Yes.

*Since most of the people associated with Dr. King are dead (minus his children and the few left alive), can we say certain things he did at home are accurately depicted in the movie? No.

*What about certain things in the movie that didn't follow the real-life time line happening earlier or later in the movie... Are they inherently fake? No.

*Is the movie less enjoyable as a result? No

No biopic is 100% accurate on everything. Unless you think "Ghandi" was 100% accurate, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I don't mind you challenging me on my ideas or thoughts. That's the nature of a message board or even a FB group. But you continually call me a liar and a hypocrite... To which I will continue to push back on.

 

[Tesseract]

people are really pissy today on gaf, goddamn

 

[888]

Last one, I promise.

I approve.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I'm still here because you keep making pedantic arguments (although so far you've been wallowing in semantics thinking I called you a name).

That said, I didn't contradict myself. No hypocrisy is in my posts because you fail to see where you messed up at.

You contradicted yourself when you said accuracy wasn't important for portrayals of real people after you had argued that accuracy was important.
Your denial is just adding a new veneer of dishonesty onto the hypocrisy you exhibited.

No biopic is 100% accurate on everything.

Curious. That was my argument back on page 7 of this thread that:

Unless a film biopic is going to be 100% accurate to real life in every single regard then your argument falls over.

8 pages later and you're trying to re-write history already.

You're being enormously discourteous to adopt my argument and then say I'm quoting a 'narrative' when, in order to wriggle out of the hole you put yourself in, you ignore your own hypcrisy, take my argument and then claim it as your own - in doing so trying to make my position appear to be the opposite of what it is.

And it still defeats your repeated claims about accuracy of portrayals of real people.
(You've now decided to introduce "enjoyment" as some new, conveniently subjective, criteria into your statements which was never the case before. Dishonest goalpost-moving, once again).

It's telling that when specific facts that aren't convenient to you are presented you dismiss it as "pedantry".
Smearing the person, but not addressing the inconvenient detail.

You have exhibted Olympic-levels of goal-post moving, smearing, dishonesty and layers upon layers of hypocrisy.
I absolutely call you a liar and a hypocrite and I have provided verifiable evidence in this post to prove my claim.

 

[DeafTourette]

That said, I didn't contradict myself. No hypocrisy is in my posts because you fail to see where you messed up at.

You contradicted yourself when you said accuracy wasn't important for portrayals of real people after you had argued that accuracy was important.
Your denial is just adding a new veneer of dishonesty onto the hypocrisy you exhibited.



Thank you. Thas was my argument back on page 7 of this thread:

8 pages later and you're trying to re-write history already.

You're being enormously discourteous to adopt my argument and then say I'm quoting a 'narrative' when, in order to wriggle out of the hole you put yourself in, you ignore your own hypcrisy, take my argument and then claim it as your own - in doing so trying to make my position appear to be the opposite of what it is.

And it still defeats your repeated claims about accuracy of portrayals of real people.
(You've now decided to introduce "enjoyment" as some new, conveniently subjective, criteria into your statements which was never the case before. Dishonest goalpost-moving, once again).

You have exhibted Olympic-levels of goal-post moving, smearing, dishonesty and layers upon layers of hypocrisy.
I absolutely call you a liar and a hypocrite and I have provided verifiable evidence in this post to prove my claim.

Hmmm... What was my first comment to you? I must have worded my post wrong and gave a wrong impression. I looked back and couldn't find it (granted, I was skimming pretty fast as I don't have a lot of time to read right now).

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid.

Matoko wasn't Asian. Or rather her body wasn't Asian and was purposely different. Anybody that reads GiTS can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Matoko wasn't Asian. Or rather her body wasn't Asian and was purposely different. Anybody that reads GiTS can correct me if I'm wrong.

The Little Mermaid is imaginary, but GiTS isn’t guys. Come on, keep up with the intersectional hypocrisy olympics.

 

[Whitesnake]

False equivalencies don't do anyone any good. Scarlett Johanson being cast as an asian character in an asian series is not the same as a person of color being cast as an imaginary mermaid. Ariel can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told. You all are making a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place. Its a kids movie aimed at mainly young girls and yet we have 14 pages of people acting as if Disney personally dropkicked their grandmothers. Its absurd.

Robots don’t have ethnicities.

A black girl being cast as a white mermaid in a Danish story is exactly the same as a white woman being cast as an asian robot in a Japanese series. Major can be any race or ethnicity and it still wouldnt matter in terms of her overall story. Her being white, black, or asian would have literally no effect on the story that is being told. You made a fuss over nothing. If you dont like the decision then dont watch the movie. The movie wasnt even directed at you in the first place.

Funny how your opinion completely 180s once the actress is black instead of white. It’s almost like you have no actual opinion or thought of your own and just say whatever thing sounds the most pogressive at the time because you’re too busy trying to be woke to have any level of consitency or nuance in opinion, so you just take whatever stance the left-wing hivemind seems to be going with to toe the line.

 

[Dacon]

I don't agree that the Hollywood movie was "very accurate to the original material," but the casting wasn't controversial or contradictory. Aramaki is definitely Japanese, and he was played by Beat Takeshi. The rest of Section 9, including the Major, is a combination of international and Japanese mercenaries, and the 30-year-old IP has intentionally avoided getting more specific than that. The fictional GitS setting (unlike say Akira) isn't strictly "Asian" or "Japanese."

Ghost in the Shell takes place in Japan, and all of the core members of section 9 are Japanese. Section 9 itself is established in the source material as an anti terrorist unit that's part of the Japanese National Public Safety Commission. In the 1997 animated film they were intentionally vague on the setting, but visually and thematically based the aesthetic off of Hong Kong, yet chose to keep the major characters, and organizations Japanese making it a distinctly asian production with an obvious Japanese leaning.

Especially Stand Alone Complex, which the hollywood film attempts to merge with the original film's plot to varying degrees of success.

I agree with you though, the film wasn't very accurate to the original material, but neither was the original animated film. Some major story beats are there, but gone is the humor, the sexualization, and the major's personality. The story is more brooding and dark, and the major is portrayed as more stoic and less rebellious. Even the artstyle is wildly different.

Still a great movie though, and a tentpole in the sci-fi and animation genres.

Robots don’t have ethnicities.

Motoko is Cyborg, and that's a whole different argument lol.

 

[Malakhov]

This is quite ridiculous. My 8 years old daughter doesnt understand why ariel doesnt look the same as usual.

Typical example of when a company tries too much.

 

[Whitesnake]

Motoko is Cyborg, and that's a whole different argument lol.

She used to be human, but doesn’t she have a fully-artificial body and a “cyberbrain” or whatever?

I don’t think said artificial body would necessarily need to look asian.

 

[Dacon]

She used to be human, but doesn’t she have a fully-artificial body and a “cyberbrain” or whatever?

She is fully prosthetic yes, her identity remains that of a Japanese woman.

I don’t think said artificial body would necessarily need to look asian.

Motoko has a history in the franchise of masquerading around in different bodies, so no not really.

I however don't approve of race changing in any situation or franchise, Gits, TLM, Thor, idgaf don't change a characters race plz. The race change was the least of my issues with GITS though, just like I'm sure the change in The Little Mermaid will be the least of its problems, since it is yet another soulless cash grab.

 

[Silent Duck]

Funny how you mentioned DC because Aquaman because is supposed to be white and have blonde hair. No one seemed bothered by Mamoa playing as Aquaman. Otherwise, there would have been a thread about it.

I didn’t see Aquaman to see Aquaman.

I went to see Jason Momoa as amphibious Jason Momoa fighting CGI bad guys while hooking up with the grown up version of the Little Mermaid. It delivered.

 

[CyberPanda]

I'm disappointed. They should have used the same girl playing Ariel to play this.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Freeform is a subsidiary of Disney cause they did not have the balls to tweet this out as Disney itself.

 

[lock2k]

 

[DeafTourette]

I'm down for this

 

[lock2k]

I'm down for this

Thinking about it, it would actually be fun.

 

[DeafTourette]

I just thought of something

So many people upset about this and, for some reason Mulan...

I remember when the live performance of The Wiz came out on NBC and folks were legit mad about an all black cast in a version of The Wizard of Oz...

Nevermind the fact that it was a Broadway show for over 30 years and was even a theatrical movie with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross.

 

[kegkilla]

Freeform is a subsidiary of Disney cause they did not have the balls to tweet this out as Disney itself.

Disney's disdain for anyone who isn't aboard the multiculturalism bandwagon is well known at this point. However, none of this will stop any of you from going out and watching their next piece of shit Marvel movie, so the battle is already lost.

 

[Halo is Back]

The funny thing is that the same people that are upset about this are the same people who talk about outrage culture what a bunch of snowflakes

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Disney's disdain for anyone who isn't aboard the multiculturalism bandwagon is well known at this point. However, none of this will stop any of you from going out and watching their next piece of shit Marvel movie, so the battle is already lost.

I have not given them money in ages.

 

[Silent Duck]

 

[pennythoughts]

Disney's disdain for anyone who isn't aboard the multiculturalism bandwagon is well known at this point. However, none of this will stop any of you from going out and watching their next piece of shit Marvel movie, so the battle is already lost.

can't stop capitalism.

spiderman far from home was pretty good!

 

[MagnesG]

Can't really win an argument with their their last trump card, 'diversity'. Logic, portrayal, history doesn't matter at all at the end. Could be a nice movie though.

 

[K1Expwy]

Ghost in the Shell takes place in Japan, and all of the core members of section 9 are Japanese. Section 9 itself is established in the source material as an anti terrorist unit that's part of the Japanese National Public Safety Commission. In the 1997 animated film they were intentionally vague on the setting, but visually and thematically based the aesthetic off of Hong Kong, yet chose to keep the major characters, and organizations Japanese making it a distinctly asian production with an obvious Japanese leaning.

Especially Stand Alone Complex, which the hollywood film attempts to merge with the original film's plot to varying degrees of success.

I agree with you though, the film wasn't very accurate to the original material, but neither was the original animated film. Some major story beats are there, but gone is the humor, the sexualization, and the major's personality. The story is more brooding and dark, and the major is portrayed as more stoic and less rebellious. Even the artstyle is wildly different.

Still a great movie though, and a tentpole in the sci-fi and animation genres.



Motoko is Cyborg, and that's a whole different argument lol.

The core members of Section 9 including the Major use aliases.

Spoiler

And that's remained consistent throughout all iterations (other than the 2017 movie).

The members don't have surnames or family (except for Togusa's wife and kid, which doesn't count) that would confirm their background (again, other than the 2017 movie). Aramaki uses his real name, and his relatives with the same family name were featured in the manga and anime series.

The demographics of Japan changed with the influx of refugees in the wake of World War 3.

When you compare the detail put into Shirow's characters in Tank Police and Appleseed, the omission of those details in GitS is deafening and intentional. Leona Ozaki is Japanese despite her Western-sounding name. Deunan Knute is Caucasian with Scandinavian, French, and Sudanese ancestry.

The tone in different versions of GitS swing all over the place. 1995 and Innocence were hard-scifi movies that would make Blade Runner and 2001 proud. SAC and Arise were mostly Law & Order: Anime Unit. The first edition of the manga was standard Shirow material-- tons of world-building, levity/humor and tech jargon, light on coherent story. So there's really no one way to portray GitS.
But I was annoyed that the Hollywood movie revealed the Major's human background, that "Major" doesn't really mean anything, since she was an experiment instead of an experienced war veteran, much of the transhuman themes were dialed back (the 2018 movie Upgrade outdid GitS 2017 in a lot of ways), and I just didn't like that Section 9 had limited screen time.

It was still awesome to see a Masamune Shirow manga become a Hollywood movie, even if it was a bomb.

That post ran a little long. I'm not triggered or anything, I just tried to post a complete answer.

 

[kegkilla]

spiderman far from home was pretty good!

Sure, if you're fascinated by bright colors, predictable plots, action with zero tension and cheesedick humor.

"OH BOY LOOK AT THIS NEW TRAILER!!!! DO YOU GUYS THINK SPIDERMAN CAN STOP MISTERIO?!?!?!?"

"DURRRRRR I DON'T KNOW GUYS MAYBE MISTERIO WINS THIS ONE AND THEY KILL OFF A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR FRANCHISE FOR NO REASON DURRRRRRRR BETTER GO PAY $20 TO FIND OUT."

 

[pennythoughts]

Sure, if you're fascinated by bright colors, predictable plots, action with zero tension and cheesedick humor.

"OH BOY LOOK AT THIS NEW TRAILER!!!! DO YOU GUYS THINK SPIDERMAN CAN STOP MISTERIO?!?!?!?"

"DURRRRRR I DON'T KNOW GUYS MAYBE MISTERIO WINS THIS ONE AND THEY KILL OFF A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR FRANCHISE FOR NO REASON DURRRRRRRR BETTER GO PAY $20 TO FIND OUT."

none of that was in the trailer, you just spoiled a big part of spiderman's plot for anyone who hasn't seen it

 

[kegkilla]

none of that was in the trailer, you just spoiled a big part of spiderman's plot for anyone who hasn't seen it

Great let me go ahead and and spoil the next one too:

Spiderman wins and MJ is still a diversity hire