Jump to content

Ghost in the Shell Live Action - March 31, 2017


Mechinyun
 Share

Recommended Posts

This film is bound to already be treading the fine line between AAA action film and animated action film as it is, with the amount of CG that's become inescapable in movies today. I think that can be our metaphorical parallel to the fine line between human and inhuman for now.

I'm still waiting for the second trailer (because the first trailer, whenever we get it, is never indicative) before I make any determinations about the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to put on our Race Studies cap for a moment, but only a moment. :p

Oh come now, the studio directly replied to those allegations, stating it was a test shot on a background character that they dropped immediately, and this rag maintains their original statement?


Is there reason for them to NOT maintain their original statement? The studio only partly refuted the allegation - specifically that the test was done on ScarJo - and the rag's "sources maintain Johansson’s character was specifically the focus of these tests, though they were done without her participation or knowledge."

But whether ScarJo was the subject or the end-goal (or even unrelated to the test), I think what's more problematic is that this test was conducted at all. Instead of using CGI to "yellowface" a Caucasian actor, why not cast an Asian actor to begin with? And if ScarJo WAS the subject and/or end-goal of this, then does that not indicate that the studio DID want Motoko to look Asian, in which case, again, why not cast an Asian actor to begin with?

The pragmatic answer is that there simply aren't any Asian actresses in Hollywood who share ScarJo's qualities, and so you have to necessarily lower race as a priority for casting... which becomes a problem when, on the other hand, you SAY that representation and diversity is a top priority, and in fact congratulate yourself for being representative and diverse. What's more, it isn't even that there AREN'T any Asian actresses in Hollywood who share ScarJo's qualities. It's that Hollywood CAN'T FIND any Asian actresses in Hollywood who share ScarJo's qualities (or even any who can potentially share her qualities, as I'd posit Rinko Kikuchi can do). They're paying lip service to a social cause, but not putting in the actual work to further said social cause.

What work would that involve? Well, I don't know the ins and outs of Hollywood, but I think this interview with Trevor Noah and Lupita Nyong'o by the NY Times sheds a bit of light on the matter:

TN: When it comes to diversifying, I had never realized how ingrained people’s mentality can be. It’s not even conscious. When I was looking for new people to try on the show, the network sent out all their tentacles. And people sent in audition tapes. And 95 percent of them were white and male. I was like: Does nobody else want to be a part of this show? Does nobody else even want a job?

PG: What did you do?

TN: I said, “I want more diversity.” And they said, “But this is what we’re getting.” So I said, “Then I will go out and look for it in the street.”

LN: However they were reaching out was not reaching into diverse communities.

TN: So I went to all the young comedians I knew — black, Hispanic, female, whatever — and I said, “Are you interested?” And they all said: “Are you crazy? Of course, I’m interested.” So I asked, “Why didn’t you audition?” And they said, “We didn’t know about it.” But they told me they’d sent it out to all the agents and managers. And they all went: “Oh, that’s where you made the mistake. We can’t get agents or managers.” We can say we want diversity, but there’s this little roadblock that no one tells you about.

LN: The gatekeepers.

PG: The employer may not be racist, but the institution still is.


LN: We’re at this interesting moment when prejudice is in the subconscious a lot of the time. Where prejudice occurs before you’ve even had a conscious thought. The laws have changed, but now the battle is with the mind. And that’s much harder to get to.

TN: Especially when people feel attacked. People are always asking me, “Why aren’t you angry?” Because I grew up in a world where being an angry black person got you nowhere. It got you shot or arrested. There’s a place for anger, but you can get so much further with diplomacy and empathy. You have to feel for the other person, even if you think they’re completely wrong. And they think the same about you.


So if Hollywood really wanted to diversify its pool of acting talent, it would have to, along with the rest of the entertainment industry, invest heavily in methods of finding and recruiting diverse talent, and in many cases groom talent from a young age the way it does with white talent. Contact actors without agents representing them. And while it's taken steps to do as such, there's still significantly less infrastructure in place allowing for it to reach Asian(-American) talent in particular, and minority talent in general. The laws and public sentiment have changed, but the institutions in place are still heavily skewed in favor of white people.

And so since they have to deal with this very pragmatic concern that they can't get Asian talent to fit the role but also want to appeal to calls for diversity, they resorted to this "ignorantly racist" technique. I say "ignorantly racist" because I don't think they were consciously thinking "Oh yeah, those things that white people did back in the early days of film that was super racist? Yeah, let's do the 21st-century equivalent of that because I'll die before I let those gooks take our jobs." I think they were thinking "Okay, how do we make this White actor/actress look more Asian?" which in itself isn't racist. If you ignore the history of race in this country, it's not racist. But put into context, it becomes super super racist.

I mean, kudos to them for recognizing it for the colossal mistake it was and canning it (so far as we know; I wouldn't put it past them to try and slip it back in because Hollywood does dumb crap like that). In another time, they would have looked at the results and said to themselves, "Ah, that's even more convincing than Charlie Chan!" and been done with it.

this is a movie based on a manga where the main character is literally a robot with a human mind, and that robot body is deliberately made so white it makes me a little uncomfortable. ... Making the Major physically Japanese just because the show is Japanese, even though the source material goes out of its way to portray her as something other, would be closer to racism, in my mind.


How so? I legit don't understand your meaning here. You say that Motoko is so pale, so white, as to be unsettling, so I would think that the manga portrayal is more of her as something other than human, not something other than a specific race. Is your statement

Scenario 1:
Casting an actor of a specific race to play a race-less character because the show is of the same race as the actor is racist.
Actor = Race A
Character = n/a
Show = Race A


or

Scenario 2:
Casting an actor of a specific race to play a character of a different race because the show is of the same race as the character is racist.
Actor = Race A
Character = Race B
Show = Race B

This isn't like casting Sokka and Katara as white people in that Avatar adaptation ... It's like casting Taiwanese actor Jay Chou to play Japanese teenager Takumi Fujiwara in the 2005 Hong Kong live action adaptation of Initial D.

Or, what, was that mainland Asian-washing that cast? Oh, right, it only counts if a white person does it. Gotcha.


You're assuming that Taiwanese and Japanese are two different races. Your assumption isn't necessarily wrong, but it's also not necessarily right, either. You're equating race with nationality, when even in the States, nationality plays little to no role in defining race.

I mean, think about what nations "Asian" encompasses: China, Japan, Korea (East Asia); Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia (Southeast Asia); India, Pakistan, Tibet, Sri Lanka (South Asia); and/or the Phillipines (Pacific Islands). While there's overlap in everything from skin color to cultural practices, there's also way more that sets all these countries apart from each other. And yet they're all considered "Asian." (And you might even be able to fold in Middle Eastern countries as well.) This racial group is categorized not so much by skin color or cultural practice or nationality or anything else so much as shared experiences in/by (white) America. A shared "orientalism," a shared hyper- and de-sexualization. And so on and so forth.

You're oversimplifying race, which leads to an oversimplification of racism, which leads to your second statement there: "It's only racist if a white person does it."

You say it sarcastically, because it comes from this oversimplification of race, but if you were to study the history of race in America, you'd realize that the statement is closer to true than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with sh9000. If the movie is good, then I'll watch it. In my own head canon it can exist as a parallel to the other GitS stories. They are all unquely different, anyway--the manga is different from the Oshii movies, the SAC universe is different from the Arise universe. There is no perfect commonality between them, except that there is a team led by a strong female leader who uses the name Matoko Kusanagi.

The issues with hiring policies and descrimination may be valid, but moviegoers cannot create these modern-day contracts for actors no matter how good their intentions may be. Affecting policy from within is like moving a sleeping elephant: it takes time, knowledge, the ability to apply/enforce changes, and persistence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming that Taiwanese and Japanese are two different races. Your assumption isn't necessarily wrong, but it's also not necessarily right, either. You're equating race with nationality, when even in the States, nationality plays little to no role in defining race.

This is the only part of this I'll reply to, since I didn't bother to read the rest. Race is a garbage concept. It only exists in very broad terms. Ethnicity, however, does exist, and it is both significant and very much tied to small regions. Is it racially, ethnically, or culturally sensitive to cast a Paiute actor to play the role of a Pueblo character, just because they're vaguely the same skin color? It may be the best you can pull off, but you have to admit sensitivity didn't play any part, only pragmatism did. Similarly, Taiwanese are similar in color to Japanese, sometimes, but are dissimilar in many physical regards, and nearly all ethnic regards. Casting Taiwanese to play Japanese characters is another issue of pragmatism, done for reasons beyond ethnic or racial sensitivity. You probably just needed somebody who looked generically Asian to play in your role. Or, in the case of the Initial D adaptation, you needed somebody who spoke fluent Cantonese who also had a fair amount of star power in Hong Kong and wasn't Jackie Chan.

Casting a character a certain race just because they're vaguely the right color is a matter of practicality, done without respect to ethnic significance. With characters like those in Ghost in the Shell, where physical race is irrelevant because everyone has a robot body, it's even less sensitive to cast one race versus another, simply because the source material is from somewhere in Asia. In a situation like this, it makes far more sense to cast actors who look the part and have the acting prowess to portray characters who have physical characteristics that are specifically non-Japanese in the source material, on purpose. Casting the Major, whose primary features are ghostly skin and pale blue eyes, as an Asian would reek of tokenism, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that looking the part doesn't matter, in a discussion about race.

And it's not even like the original movie and manga gave everyone that typical-anime-whiteface. That world was populated with decidedly Asian-looking people, with robot-bodied characters at the forefront who often defied that aesthetic because their bodies were, in fact, not human and not bound to their birth race. So to say Motoko Kusanagi has to be Asian, just because her name is Japanese, is silly from just about every perspective I can think of. Especially once you consider that much of the cast, and apparently nearly all of the background cast are already Asian. (Because it's pragmatic to hire Asians to play vaguely-the-right-color background infill in a movie that's supposed to be set in urban Japan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only part of this I'll reply to, since I didn't bother to read the rest.

Well, that's rather a bit of an insult, isn't it? If you don't feel like talking about this stuff, then by all means, say so and I'll drop the subject entirely. But I took the time to read the entirety of your opinion and consider the points you made. I'd have hoped for the same in kind.

It's not like I don't get why you'd find it bothersome. I'm sure you must be as tired of discussing race as I am. But this is a discussion forum, and it certainly seemed like you, by virtue of posting, wanted to have a discussion.

For instance, if you had read what I said, you'd have seen that I made much the same point as what you said here:

Is it racially, ethnically, or culturally sensitive to cast a Paiute actor to play the role of a Pueblo character, just because they're vaguely the same skin color? It may be the best you can pull off, but you have to admit sensitivity didn't play any part, only pragmatism did.

...

Casting a character a certain race just because they're vaguely the right color is a matter of practicality, done without respect to ethnic significance.

Namely that casting actors of a different race/ethnicity than the character is done often out of pragmatic concerns, not so much out of racist intent. (Disregarding that in the early history of American cinema the opposite was true.) I went further by saying that this pragmatism, however, clashes against the industry's voiced support for diversity and representation.

With regards to the GitS CGI bit, you had asked why the magazine was still maintaining its original stance when the studio had already directly refuted it. I answered by clarifying Dreamworks' response and the magazine's rebuttal, and from there I began discussing why they couldn't just have cast an Asian actress in the first place if they wanted Motoko to be an Asian character.

So nowhere in there did I talk about whether I thought the character should be any particular race.

And it's not even like the original movie and manga gave everyone that typical-anime-whiteface. That world was populated with decidedly Asian-looking people, with robot-bodied characters at the forefront who often defied that aesthetic because their bodies were, in fact, not human and not bound to their birth race.

I don't know what you're referring to by "that typical-anime-whiteface" so this might be unrelated, but I've read - I'm sure you must have, too - that Japanese audiences largely see any anime character, unless they are explicitly made to be exaggeratedly white/black/etc., as Japanese. And white people see those same characters, unless they are explicitly made to be etc. etc. etc., as white.

No matter how exotic the hairstyle, no matter how un-brown the eyes or un-black the hair or even un-white the skin, anime characters are Japanese... if you're Japanese. And white... if you're white.

For my part, whenever I've seen pics of the Major, I've always thought of her as having this exact kind of Anime Ethnicity. Perhaps more Japanese than not, if only because I know the source material is Japanese, but then I also know the source material draws from Western fiction and philosophy, so... yeah.

EDIT:

Forgot to respond to this, too:

The issues with hiring policies and descrimination may be valid, but moviegoers cannot create these modern-day contracts for actors no matter how good their intentions may be. Affecting policy from within is like moving a sleeping elephant: it takes time, knowledge, the ability to apply/enforce changes, and persistence.

I'd say that while moviegoers can't create contracts, they could certainly put consumer pressure on the studios to do as much, partly because of exactly what you said about change from within. It's a bit of a tall order, admittedly, getting moviegoers to collectively work for a cause. One could also argue that it would unfairly place the entire community's responsibilities upon the studios, but then I don't know if that would necessarily be true. Hm... More to think about. The how of it all.

Edited by kajnrig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if The Matrix is anything to go by, I think that GitS has a very good chance to come out good.

Afterall, The Matrix was heavily inspired by GitS and the Wachowski Bros. even used the '95 GitS movie as pitching material.

Yes but at the same time many of the cool ideas of GTIS are not new to general audiences anymore, it may appear as highly derivative even when it was the source, much like it happened to John Carter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's advocate: outside of the first movie, Kusanagi hasn't looked the least bit Asian in either the manga or anime. That goes for characters in most anime and manga, for that matter.

Outside of SJ being cast, I know nothing about this production, and I wouldn't expect much more than a cgi crapfest out of this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're referring to by "that typical-anime-whiteface" so this might be unrelated, but I've read - I'm sure you must have, too - that Japanese audiences largely see any anime character, unless they are explicitly made to be exaggeratedly white/black/etc., as Japanese. And white people see those same characters, unless they are explicitly made to be etc. etc. etc., as white.

Brain was a bit frazzled, I'd just woken up, couldn't find the words "unintentional racial ambiguity". Whereas with Kusanagi, there's very much intentional racial ambiguity. Like, typically, a character in anime is racially ambiguous as a side effect of being animated, whereas in Ghost in the Shell, that ambiguity is by design, because robot bodies.

But at this point, everything's been talked about and I'm just tired, full stop. I'm out of energy for even my own opinions, and can't see why people are in such a fuss that a full-body cyborg has been cast as one type of human over another type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaiks, that looked like a fan made shot. I think Scarlet's a real beauty but that shot did not do her justice at all.

I thought the exact same thing.

Exclusive: ‘Ghost in the Shell’ Producers Reportedly Tested Visual Effects That Would Make White Actors Appear Asian

Not sure if clickbait or what and even though it appears the idea was dropped, the fact that this even came up is disturbing.

I was going to post that article. It's far from clickbait misleading stuff as the studio actually responded to it.

I've posted my reasons for being against this casting here many times. Those curious can go back and read them. I stand by those posts and my feelings haven't changed. But this story about potentially attempting to make Scarlett more Asian shows that not only are they aware of the backlash but still won't do the right thing and will go to extremes not to hire the right person if true. The excuse of a background character sounds like bull to me. Why do that kind of work or even bother to test it on a lesser background character?

Also an artist made some well thought Twitter comments and added a photoshop of Rinko Kikuchi as Motoko from Scarlett's image.

https://twitter.com/jontsuei/status/720803648121405441

post-15104-0-39067700-1460995165_thumb.jpg

I think Rinko looks closer to what I would think of a live action Motoko and it makes the shot look more Ghost in the Shell just from that change. She could still be more Eurasian though. Remember this is supposed to be a future Asian society.

Here is a good post from the Neogaf Ghost in the Shell topic about how Jennifer Lawrence started, worked her way up, and the backing she received to become a leading actress capable of bringing in high Box Office results.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=201093626&postcount=384

I'm tired of the same corporate talking points, reasons, and excuses going around as I'm fairly certain of what it really is at this point.

So here's a thought...

What if they take the original movie/comic ending, where the major winds up in a new, startlingly different body... and in this version she winds up in the body of an asian female?

Highly doubtful as if you have checked the casting and watched the shows, you'll see that Michael Pitt is playing Kuze who is a character from Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig. They are, as with many things in Hollywood, attempting to make this as a franchise for Scarlett. No way would they be that creative and risktaking by going with the full plot lines from the original Ghost in the Shell movie and Innocence.

Edited by JetJockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly doubtful as if you have checked the casting and watched the shows, you'll see that Michael Pitt is playing Kuze who is a character from Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig. They are, as with many things in Hollywood, attempting to make this as a franchise for Scarlett. No way would they be that creative and risktaking by going with the full plot lines from the original Ghost in the Shell movie and Innocence.

Oh, I figured it was a very unlikely possibility because every movie has to have room for a sequel, and changing the lead character's body would be "confusing to audiences". But it would be amusing.

I am unsure how copying someone else's movie verbatim would be "creative", but hold forth great hope that they will completely ignore Mamoru Oshii's take on the franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to Hollywood.

A pretty accurate description of the situation these days.....

i can only take max in small doses, but he's right.

Well, that's certainly the most condescending and intellectually dismissive video I've seen today. "The only reason to be mad is because you don't know better," said the missionary to the natives as he burned their ancestral altar to the ground. "Here, let me tell you."

I was completely neutral on the casting decision until now, but damn if this didn't slide me over right quick into the "frakk this movie" territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that Hollywood have not really provided actors/actresses of other ethnicities as many roles/opportunities that can lead them be an A-list star that he's talking about. He's missed the point and came a premature conclusion without thinking it through with any depth about why some are angry about the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the point on A-listing to sell the movie, but I also feel studio's often overlook good casting.

Good casting is half the movie sold. Otherwise the audience will not get invested in the character and subsequently the movie.

An A-lister cast wrongly cast can sink the movie or even the A lister's reputation...*cough* Tonto *cough*

A B-lister who fits the character description well, can pull crowds via good reviews or to see a breakout star...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the point on A-listing to sell the movie, but I also feel studio's often overlook good casting.

Good casting is half the movie sold. Otherwise the audience will not get invested in the character and subsequently the movie.

An A-lister cast wrongly cast can sink the movie or even the A lister's reputation...*cough* Tonto *cough*

A B-lister who fits the character description well, can pull crowds via good reviews or to see a breakout star...

Reviews rarely affect the box office of big properties, and those movies don't get green lit without a name attached. "Good casting" doesn't get a movie made or drive audience interest. While it's not always so cut and dry, that's generally the truth of things.

As to the casting of this movie, I'd have more of an issue with it if so many of the characters we see in anime didn't look more western than asian. I'll throw a fit over the westernization of the 47 Ronin, but anime is just different.

Edited by Duke Togo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the casting of this movie, I'd have more of an issue with it if so many of the characters we see in anime didn't look more western than asian. I'll throw a fit over the westernization of the 47 Ronin, but anime is just different.

Except of course you're wrong.

Well, not wrong, that's just a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect, but anime characters DON'T look more white than Asian. It's well-documented. Google "anime character ethnicity," and you'll find that there is a lot of ongoing debate over the "ethnicity" of anime characters (the obvious caveat being that anime characters don't inherently possess an ethnicity). Ask the majority of Japan and they'll agree that the average anime character is Asian. Do the same to (white) America and they'll agree that the average anime character is white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaiks, that looked like a fan made shot. I think Scarlet's a real beauty but that shot did not do her justice at all.

I agree. Not a flattering shot, and her forelocks don't flow forward. Much ado is made of Scarlett, and while she's a pretty woman, she's not the paragon of beauty that she's made out to be. She benefits from the nose job, though.

While I think Scarlett, with the help of stunt doubles, can pull off the physicality, Rinko would have been my first choice for the character. The first time I saw her in Pacific Rim, I thought "Motoko". Now I have a tough time seeing anyone else in the role. But, as others have pointed out, the Major has never been animated as an overtly Asian looking character, at least in the original movie, SAC, or Arise, but rather Caucasian, married to the idea that she is a cyborg and can essentially choose her ethnicity. It's a neat idea, actually, and one that would be interesting to see explored. It wouldn't be the first time Motoko's ghost has occupied a different body.

Edited by M'Kyuun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(the obvious caveat being that anime characters don't inherently possess an ethnicity).

Which supports my point. This is all very creator/character designer dependent, but the history of anime is littered with Asian characters who clearly do not look Asian. Shirow does not draw the Major with a distinctly Asian look--or even close to one, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(the obvious caveat being that anime characters don't inherently possess an ethnicity)

Which supports my point. This is all very creator/character designer dependent, but the history of anime is littered with Asian characters who clearly do not look Asian. Shirow does not draw the Major with a distinctly Asian look--or even close to one, really.

It... doesn't, actually. The caveat, both by itself and within the context of my larger post, is that anime ethnicity is perceived, not inherent. The history of anime is littered with anime characters who clearly look Asian... to Asian audiences. The Major is no exception. Like I said, whenever I've seen her I've always thought she was more Asian than not. I'd imagine the majority of Japanese audiences think the same.

EDIT:

In regards to the video, I spent quite a long time trying to marshal my thoughts about it into a cogent comment (from whenever it was linked here to now), but I got tired of listening to him, so I'll just post here what I ended up posting there:

You may as well have started by saying, "I'm not racist, but..."

You are absolutely "whitesplaining," claim as you might otherwise. You dismiss the myriad reasons for being upset about this racist action as a collective case of "you don't know how the movie industry works." As if whitewashing and yellowface IS NOT how the industry works, as if taking the already few opportunities available to people of color and handing them to over-represented white actors IS NOT how the industry works.

You talk about the mentality and the mechanisms of the industry as if that somehow absolves them of sin, as if "understanding how the industry works" frees them from blame. You are saying that it's okay to be racist and to perpetuate a racist culture because you're acting out of fear.

And then you end your little "lesson" with an intellectually bankrupt, condescending, prescriptive nothing of a speech. You "envy" people who have a problem with whitewashing and yellowface. You "envy" people who decry the blockades that exist at every single possible level of society through laws and policies and practices and "imaginary metrics" that advantage white people like you.

You "envy" people who think the world is black and white, and yet this movie NEEDED to have an A-list actress attached to it in order to be.

What a farce. You can take your "envy" and shove it.

You seem to be trying really hard to wrap your head around this - and failing spectacularly in that regard - so here's how it is:

Is it unfair for ScarJo and the rest of the GitS crew to be responsible for fixing the racist system? Yes.

Are they being asked to fix the racist system? No. They are being asked to fix THIS MOVIE. They are being asked to hire ONE actress. They are being asked to use their not insignificant power to fight ONE battle.

Is it unfair for them to have to do even that? Yes. But then it's unfair that they should have so much wealth and fame disproportionate to the amount of work they've done. It's unfair that they get to reap the rewards of this broken system while entire communities continue to be shut out and exploited.

It is unfair that they have to be asked and can refuse. It is unfair that minorities were not, are not, and cannot.

Edited by kajnrig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ScarJo looks fine to me.

I can only hope they are getting SAC Motoko instead of movie Motoko as template.

Original comic Motoko. Straight-up badass with a surplus of attitude.

Godwin's Law hasn't been enacted yet. :p

NOT CASTING AN ASIAN AS THE MAJOR IS LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER!11111

Checklist complete?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stole this from someone on Kotaku: "If you look at the extra notes from Masamune Shirow in the compiled Manga release of the original books, the author himself mentions that a lot of it is based on Western characters and society, rather than Japanese, simply because he was heavily interested in it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stole this from someone on Kotaku: "If you look at the extra notes from Masamune Shirow in the compiled Manga release of the original books, the author himself mentions that a lot of it is based on Western characters and society, rather than Japanese, simply because he was heavily interested in it."

I've tried explaining this to people for a while now, but more or less get told to shut up and I don't know what I'm talking about. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried explaining this to people for a while now, but more or less get told to shut up and I don't know what I'm talking about. :(

No one cares, and most of the people who are mad about this haven't read the manga or seen any of the anime, and almost certainly have no idea who Masamune Shirow is.

Look, Hollywood has had a problem with whitewashing it's movies for as long as they've been making them. It's gotten better, but it still has a ways to go. However, the casting in this adaptation of GitS is only a problem for people who don't know the source material.

Edited by Duke Togo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put this out there. My beef isn't the casting of Ms. Johannson in the role. That was a foregone conclusion which we noted at the start of this which the interwebs is only finding out about now (Really?). My issue is with the whole test VFX to make a character look "more Asian", which is something I find troubling. It's the potential to do this to any actor's/actress' character, not just to Ms. Johannson or this movie. The thought that this was even considered brings things back to the 1920s when it was done with traditional makeup instead of with a computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • azrael changed the title to Ghost in the Shell Live Action - March 31, 2017

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...