Ghost in the Shell | March 31, 2017 | Scarlett Johansson | Paramount | New Trailer on page 43!!!

[Blaze Heatnix]

36 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Lasted 16 seconds. Why is her voice like that?

 

She's the woman that thinks John Wick should have been rated PG-13.

 

 

[AJG]

1 minute ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

She's the woman that thinks John Wick should have been rated PG-13.

 

 

 

If there was just a '13' rating I'd agree with her.

[robertman2]

3 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

She's the woman that thinks John Wick should have been rated PG-13.

 

 

And Deadpool!

1 minute ago, AJG said:

 

If there was just a '13' rating I'd agree with her.

That is the 13 rating

[AJG]

Just now, robertman2 said:

And Deadpool!

That is the 13 rating

 

No, I mean if the rating was just '13', and only people aged 13 and up were permitted to watch the film. Deadpool, John Wick, and Logan would be fine with a theoretical '13+' rating.

[Valonqar]

19 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

The poster for Lucy was Scarlett's face with her name written on her own face.

 

She was the draw.

 

Nobody watch movies based on a poster. Trailer showed concept. So that was Scarlett in the right movie. GitS isn't that. 

 

She ain't Bullock yet. or even Angelina. Not even close. Maybe she will be but she isn't now. 

[PPZVGOS]

29 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

@PPZVGOS

 

 

Well, drawing got seriously stalled in US. Besides, she never opened shit except Lucy so that was way prematurely to crown her a legit draw. One movie that was more about a concept than anything else where recognizable name was added value but hardly the main reason to see the movie. 

 

There's this annoying trend of prescribing drawing power to actors who appear in franchise movies where franchise itself is the biggest draw. And rushing to confirm the status after just one non-franchise hit. To be Bullock, Leo, Cruise, Denzel, Will, etc one has to have at least 5 movies sold on their name, the more varied genres the better. Not this Lucy and nothing else shit.

 

I have repeatedly said on this forum that stars are no longer able to turn movies into blockbusters. The days when Tom Cruise could just make Risky Business, Top Gun, Cocktail, Rainman, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, Mission Impossible etc etc etc on the trot or Julia Roberts could do 10 major hits in the space of 11 years is by now ancient history. 

 

But if we were to choose female actresses based on overall fame to global audiences then who could we choose? I would say, Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett Johansson would be the first two names on the board. This doesn't mean that these two actresses can turn any movie into a hit, they simply cannot. But the same applies to former super-A-listers such as Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, DiCaprio, Will Smith, Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts. It's a sad reality, but the age of the Hollywood star is over. 

 

But what I can also say, is that while the age of the superstar may be over, you still need a globally acknowledged actor in order to lead your big-budget film, you simply cannot go with complete unknowns. Even if actresses like Scar-Jo and Jen-Law suffer BO bombs from time-to-time (for any number of reasons) they will keep getting roles for the very simple reason that they are still far and away the best known female leads out there. 

 

As for Johansson's success as Black Widow in the MCU. Of course the main draw there is the franchise itself, but in my view at least (and here I would like the views of other members in here) Scarlett Johansson is virtually irreplaceable as Natasha Romanoff, she like RDJ and Chris Evans have made that role their own. She definitely adds rather than subtracts to the franchise. I think that this was most evident in the two Captain America sequels and especially Winter Soldier. 

[Valonqar]

10 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

I have repeatedly said on this forum that stars are no longer able to turn movies into blockbusters. The days when Tom Cruise could just make Risky Business, Top Gun, Cocktail, Rainman, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Interview with the Vampire, Jerry Maguire, Mission Impossible etc etc etc on the trot or Julia Roberts could do 10 major hits in the space of 11 years is by now ancient history. 

 

But if we were to choose female actresses based on overall fame to global audiences then who could we choose? I would say, Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett Johansson would be the first two names on the board. This doesn't mean that these two actresses can turn any movie into a hit, they simply cannot. But the same applies to former super-A-listers such as Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, DiCaprio, Will Smith, Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts. It's a sad reality, but the age of the Hollywood star is over. 

 

But what I can also say, is that while the age of the superstar may be over, you still need a globally acknowledged actor in order to lead your big-budget film, you simply cannot go with complete unknowns. Even if actresses like Scar-Jo and Jen-Law suffer BO bombs from time-to-time (for any number of reasons) they will keep getting roles for the very simple reason that they are still far and away the best known female leads out there. 

 

As for Johansson's success as Black Widow in the MCU. Of course the main draw there is the franchise itself, but in my view at least (and here I would like the views of other members in here) Scarlett Johansson is virtually irreplaceable as Natasha Romanoff, she like RDJ and Chris Evans have made that role their own. She definitely adds rather than subtracts to the franchise. I think that this was most evident in the two Captain America sequels and especially Winter Soldier. 

 

TWS was the MCU movie that said all that needs to be said about BW. AoU was a huge step back and her general push into the background of CW did that movie good. It's time for MCU to develop other female characters and retire Romanoff since there's nothing else she could bring on the table. Wanda has potential, Wasp especially, Gamora and increasing number of GOTG ladies, Captain Marvel, Black Panther ladies. Next phase should be Romanoff-free with so many much more interesting heroiens on the horizon. GA won't miss her anyway.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Valonqar

[Nova]

I don't exactly agree with Grace Randolph when she says the film is racist BUT i agree with her reasoning of why she's calling it racist....the word racist imo is being used in the wrong context by her BUT she's not wrong with what she is saying.

 

Spoiler

Like it makes absolutely zero sense to take a Japanese woman's brain, insert it into Scarjo's body aka the shell and then suddenly that brain becomes Scarlett Johansson. This so called brain isn't going to suddenly forget everything. In fact, it should by all accounts remember everything. And thats where the film becomes problematic. They actually would have been fine had they used Scarjo's body and inserted a Japanese woman's brain into it as long as it makes sense. In the context of this film...it simply doesnt make sense. If the shell is supposed to be indispensable and the brain is what matters, then how come they go through all the trouble to preserve Scarjo's "shell" and the brain is what gets tossed to the side. From a scientific standpoint it makes zero sense....and the film doesnt make an effort to explain why a Japanese woman suddenly forgets to speak Japanese. Yea i get it....its called Ghost In The Shell....but for folks who are going in blind....it makes no sense. 

So I have no issue with the criticism....but the issue isn't racist, in my opinion. Its just a problem within the film itself. At least to me. 

[Incarnadine]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

I don't exactly agree with Grace Randolph when she says the film is racist BUT i agree with her reasoning of why she's calling it racist....the word racist imo is being used in the wrong context by her BUT she's not wrong with what she is saying.

 

  Hide contents

Like it makes absolutely zero sense to take a Japanese woman's brain, insert it into Scarjo's body aka the shell and then suddenly that brain becomes Scarlett Johansson. This so called brain isn't going to suddenly forget everything. In fact, it should by all accounts remember everything. And thats where the film becomes problematic. They actually would have been fine had they used Scarjo's body and inserted a Japanese woman's brain into it as long as it makes sense. In the context of this film...it simply doesnt make sense. If the shell is supposed to be indispensable and the brain is what matters, then how come they go through all the trouble to preserve Scarjo's "shell" and the brain is what gets tossed to the side. From a scientific standpoint it makes zero sense....and the film doesnt make an effort to explain why a Japanese woman suddenly forgets to speak Japanese. Yea i get it....its called Ghost In The Shell....but for folks who are going in blind....it makes no sense. 

So I have no issue with the criticism....but the issue isn't racist, in my opinion. Its just a problem within the film itself. At least to me. 

I saw this yesterday, I rather liked it. It wasn't awesome, but it was a decent movie with great visuals.

For this movie I was pretty much a blank slate, I'd heard of GITS, but never read or watched anything about it so I came into it with no preconceived notions.

 

Spoiler

I actually paid close attention to the movie and they did cover most of the points you made.

They erased (mostly) her original memories and added false memories. The shell was intentionally not asian as her new persona was written as an immigrant who survived a terrorist attack (why would an immigrant be Japanese immigrating to Japan, or a Japan like culture). This makes sense as it would make her different and not supposed to have any connection to anything or anyone around her, so she wouldn't go looking for one. They actually made the point several times that the "serum" she was taking was designed to keep her original memories suppressed.

 

[Nova]

17 minutes ago, Incarnadine said:

I saw this yesterday, I rather liked it. It wasn't awesome, but it was a decent movie with great visuals.

For this movie I was pretty much a blank slate, I'd heard of GITS, but never read or watched anything about it so I came into it with no preconceived notions.

 

  Hide contents

I actually paid close attention to the movie and they did cover most of the points you made.

They erased (mostly) her original memories and added false memories. The shell was intentionally not asian as her new persona was written as an immigrant who survived a terrorist attack (why would an immigrant be Japanese immigrating to Japan, or a Japan like culture). This makes sense as it would make her different and not supposed to have any connection to anything or anyone around her, so she wouldn't go looking for one. They actually made the point several times that the "serum" she was taking was designed to keep her original memories suppressed.

 

Welp the latter part flew right over my head. I got the shell part completely. I had no issues with that. It was the brain....I guess I didn't pay close enough attention. I was too busy paying attention to insane visuals  Maybe I'll have to watch it again to fully understand the film. 

And I actually appreciate you explaining it because i had no idea what was going on to be honest so i feel like now that i know this maybe watching it a second time will change how i felt overall about the film. But i still don't think the end result justifies the approach they took to get there.

 

The visuals itself are worth it in my opinion though.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Nova

[hegemony]

Whoever's behind the Battle Angel adaptation has to be a bit worried now. GITS was somewhat known to non-anime fans, but Battle Angel is really niche. 

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

She's the woman that thinks John Wick should have been rated PG-13.

 

Well it was 12+ in France and 13+ in my market (both John Wick 1/2, Logan and Deadpool) so it is not like it is a really strange opinion many official rating agency agree with her.

 

The MPAA is really strick (and puritan) has a rating agency worldwide, in a lot of country those type of movie are seen as for teenager (and arguably they are designed to be and will be watched by them anyway).

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

A much better appraisal of the film was produced by Dan Murrell (even though I liked it much more than he did) who thinks that the movie is pulled down by the fact that while what the original anime did in 1995 was groundbreaking back then, it is by now a cliche as we have seen it in countless movies every since (especially Matrix) The producers of this film failed to push the envelope a little bit more and go for something truly original in this film. They simply got too comfortable and self-restricted themselves by shadowing the original excessively. In matter of fact, quite a few scenes are drawn directly from the original, and while some of them are absolutely gorgeous, it becomes a bit excessive through the duration of the film. 

 

I wish people will remember this everytime an adaptation/remake fail and people assume that it is because they didn't respect the original content enough and didn't do it enough like in the book (or game, or anything it is from), it is far from an automatic that a direct adaptation would have succeeded, people would be saying that if the movie would have diverged a lot and was currently failing.

[Mr Impossible]

I thought this was the 2nd best film of March behind Logan. I am a big fan of the 1995 Original and even its sequels and I thought this was a worthy live action adaptation of it. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Mr Impossible

[marveldcfox]

It's been proven she has no boxoffice draw. 

[elcaballero]

2 hours ago, hegemony said:

Whoever's behind the Battle Angel adaptation has to be a bit worried now. GITS was somewhat known to non-anime fans, but Battle Angel is really niche. 

Alita became a box office failure as soon as it was greenlit.

[MrGlass2]

They should have gone for an Asian actress.

[Barnack]

6 hours ago, hegemony said:

Whoever's behind the Battle Angel adaptation has to be a bit worried now. GITS was somewhat known to non-anime fans, but Battle Angel is really niche. 

 

Landau/James Cameron can probably take a hit they must feel (and I would say legitimately) a bit outsider in term of success, it is not because something similar fail that their version will, with Fox not saying no to them and probably doing their side project without necessarily expecting a return on those, a bit like they did on Solaris in the early 2000's.

 

How much it is niche once it is not a big franchise do not really matter imo, all you need is kill was extremelly niche, The Martian was not that big of a deal, every original movie ever had zero pre-made fanbase.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barnack

[Harpospoke]

9 hours ago, PPZVGOS said:

As for the movie itself and the casting of Scarlett Johansson as "Major", it's astonishing that this is even being discussed as the original anime character looks far more like a European/white American than Japanese (Major even has blue eyes in the original) How people pretend to not have noticed this is beyond me.

 

I had the same question.   ScarJo looks like the character so what's the problem?   The character looks white to me.

 

9 hours ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

As for the inane and frankly artificial "whitewashing" controversy, this is what the actual Japanese think about it: 

 

 

 

So in addition to being technically superior musicians, they also aren't infected with the SJW disease?   I might move there.  (especially since I heard the US is the only country on the planet which requires people to immigrate legally)

 

6 hours ago, Valonqar said:

 

Nobody watch movies based on a poster. Trailer showed concept. So that was Scarlett in the right movie. GitS isn't that. 

 

She ain't Bullock yet. or even Angelina. Not even close. Maybe she will be but she isn't now. 

 

I think "box office draws" are actors who choose/get chosen for popular movies.   No matter who the actor is, the minute they make an unpopular movie, their "drawing power" disappears in a puff of smoke.   That includes people like Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise.

[MrGlass2]

5 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

 

I had the same question.   ScarJo looks like the character so what's the problem?   The character looks white to me.

 

 

Clearly, Motoko Kusanagi is a whitey name.