Ghost in the Shell (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I watched this movie in 3-D and thought it was very enjoyable. I have no knowledge about the source material nor previous movie. I don't know if that helped me to enjoy this film more than some other people. Of course, Scarlett looked splendid on the big screen in 3-D.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I watched this movie in 3-D and thought it was very enjoyable. I have no knowledge about the source material nor previous movie. I don't know if that helped me to enjoy this film more than some other people. Of course, Scarlett looked splendid on the big screen in 3-D.

And in that outfit. Where's the dirty old man leer emoticon when you need him.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But did you enjoy the film Josh?

Not terribly, because the trailer had ruined all of the twists and reveals for me.

I'm not a guy who watches trailers at home or scrutinizes frame grabs to try to figure out what's going to happen in the movie. I only see them if they play before something else at a movie theater. All of that's to say, i don't think it's my fault for excessively watching the trailer - the studio put it out there and I saw it at the theater.

The trailer reveals that everything the Major thought about her existence was a lie, that she wasn't a volunteer for the robotics program but had her life stolen away. Nothing is what it seems, she had a former identity, and the people she works for are the enemy. This is all made explicitly clear in the trailer, but the film itself takes nearly an hour (of its approximately 95 minute running time) to get there. So watching the start of the movie, I didn't believe any of it. I knew she was being taken for a ride and was bored watching a movie where it seemed perfectly obvious to me what was going on while the character remained oblivious. Once the movie catches up with the trailer, there's not much movie left, and what remains plays out in a completely predictable fashion. There was no thrill of discovery for me, no point at which the movie showed me something I hadn't already figured out.

Visually the film was pretty, but much like with the plot, all of the best visuals are given away in the trailer. Much of what's in the movie but not in the trailer is reminiscent of things I've seen before. I'm told a lot of the most inspired looking shots and designs are directly taken from the original comic book and/or animated film.

The movie didn't engage me enough on any level for me to even care enough to form an opinion on the casting controversy. The biggest problem with the film isn't Johansson; the biggest problem is that there's almost no "there" there, and what tiny bits of story the film does have were all revealed in the trailer.

I used to resist blaming a film for its trailer, but enough - the studio who made the film made the trailer for it, and their trailer robbed the movie of whatever minor enjoyment I would have gotten from it.

I checked my watch at least four times in the theater during the film. That's not good.

 

[AshJW]

I will see it next week.
Till then I will have finished GitS-SAC which was sitting on my shelf for ten years...

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Not terribly, because the trailer had ruined all of the twists and reveals for me.

I'm not a guy who watches trailers at home or scrutinizes frame grabs to try to figure out what's going to happen in the movie. I only see them if they play before something else at a movie theater. All of that's to say, i don't think it's my fault for excessively watching the trailer - the studio put it out there and I saw it at the theater.

The trailer reveals that everything the Major thought about her existence was a lie, that she wasn't a volunteer for the robotics program but had her life stolen away. Nothing is what it seems, she had a former identity, and the people she works for are the enemy. This is all made explicitly clear in the trailer, but the film itself takes nearly an hour (of its approximately 95 minute running time) to get there. So watching the start of the movie, I didn't believe any of it. I knew she was being taken for a ride and was bored watching a movie where it seemed perfectly obvious to me what was going on while the character remained oblivious. Once the movie catches up with the trailer, there's not much movie left, and what remains plays out in a completely predictable fashion. There was no thrill of discovery for me, no point at which the movie showed me something I hadn't already figured out.

Visually the film was pretty, but much like with the plot, all of the best visuals are given away in the trailer. Much of what's in the movie but not in the trailer is reminiscent of things I've seen before. I'm told a lot of the most inspired looking shots and designs are directly taken from the original comic book and/or animated film.

The movie didn't engage me enough on any level for me to even care enough to form an opinion on the casting controversy. The biggest problem with the film isn't Johansson; the biggest problem is that there's almost no "there" there, and what tiny bits of story the film does have were all revealed in the trailer.

I used to resist blaming a film for its trailer, but enough - the studio who made the film made the trailer for it, and their trailer robbed the movie of whatever minor enjoyment I would have gotten from it.

I checked my watch at least four times in the theater during the film. That's not good.

But don't you ever enjoy re-waching a movie, already knowing the twists and reveals? And if so, was this different because it was the first time you saw it?
I still enjoy Sixth Sense, and I've seen it several times, so like George Lucas said to Spielberg whne he was worried the plot to Indy 4 had leaked: "Jaws was a book before it was a movie, didn't matter, people want to see how you do the story" (or words to that effect).

Since I like Scarlett more than I dislike 3D, I would like to catch this on the big screen, being fully aware it is probably something like Fifth Element with regards to story, stupid, but pretty and enjoyable, and since I know nothing about the original, I have no issues with what might have been done to the story or characters.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But don't you ever enjoy re-waching a movie, already knowing the twists and reveals?

I do, yes. But there's a difference between me rewatching The Sixth Sense because I enjoyed it the first time and wanted to experience the movie again, vs. my first viewing being spoiled because someone announced the twist in advance. If the twist in the Sixth Sense had been spoiled for me before having seen the movie at all, I might not have enjoyed it as much the first time, which would have made me hesitant to see it again. I think there's also a difference between reading about a spoiler or overhearing one, vs. having the studio spill all of the beans in unavoidable way.

Despite having never read a Ghost In The Shell comic or seen a Ghost In The Shell cartoon, I knew every plot twist and turn that took place in the first and second act thanks to the trailer. It impacted my enjoyment because as everything was being set up at the beginning, I knew not to believe it. And then it continued to go on and on, with Scarlett's character being told lie after lie - but the thing is, I already knew they were lies from the trailer, but her character didn't - and it seemed so incredibly obvious to begin with.

When a movie waits more than 2/3s of its running time to reveal information to an audience, that usually means the audience isn't supposed to have that information at the start of the picture. Having it in the trailer destroys that effect.

 

[Citizen87645]

Josh, you may want to watch the anime (first film) now, at least for comparison purposes. I don't think having seen the live action movie will ruin it.

 

[Edwin-S]

Since I like Scarlett more than I dislike 3D, I would like to catch this on the big screen, being fully aware it is probably something like Fifth Element with regards to story, stupid, but pretty and enjoyable, and since I know nothing about the original, I have no issues with what might have been done to the story or characters.

GiTS has nothing in common with "The Fifth Element". Regardless of my ambivalence about the film, I can safely say that there is nothing particularly silly about the story, unlike TFE.

GiTS is closer to RoboCop than TFE, but plays the story straighter than RoboCop.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

GiTS has nothing in common with "The Fifth Element". Regardless of my ambivalence about the film, I can safely say that there is nothing particularly silly about the story, unlike TFE.

But you wrote: "Thirdly, well, the story was just mundane. Every thing that made the original unique was just jettisoned. The philosophy, the team dynamics....just everything. It was nothing more than the stereotypical evil villain CEO machinating to create the ultimate killing machine and......PROFIT", which sounded as if the story had been Fifth Elemet-ed ...
But I'll probably see it anyway

 

[Edwin-S]

They share the concept of a nasty CEO heading an amoral Corp. That is where the similarities end.

I don't really want give too much away, but the film's story, to me, is like RoboCop played with seriousness of Blade Runner.

One of the main characters comes right from the Manga, which I had forgotten. It may be that the this films story is closer to Sharon's Manga. I would have to dig it out and re-read it to be sure.

 

[Edwin-S]

That should have been Shirow, not Sharon.

 

[Citizen87645]

 

[dpippel]

That should have been Shirow, not Sharon.

You do know that you can edit your own posts, right Edwin?

 

[Edwin-S]

You do know that you can edit your own posts, right Edwin?

Yes, but I was posting using a phone and the edit button wasn't showing up, even if the page was refreshed.

 

[Tino]

On my iPhone the "edit" function is under the "more" tab.

 

[Citizen87645]

http://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-i...hansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/

 

[Edwin-S]

I find some of the criticism about it being cold kind of stupid. The premise was about a human mind in a machine body. What did they expect was going to happen? That she would be a caring motherhood figure full of smiles an warm thoughts?

Even the original film showed that, outwardly, she couldn't express emotion.

Obviously, Hollywood should just stick to making Fast and Furious 17 and Jurassic Whatever 36. It is all North American audiences want anyways

 

[Tino]

I think the film bombed more because of disinterest perhaps in the source material, familiarity of the visuals story etc. "Whitewashing" had little if any impact on the films poor performance in my opinion.

The film probably would not have been made without a major Hollywood star attached.

 

[Edwin-S]

On my iPhone the "edit" function is under the "more" tab.

Thanks for the tip. I just checked and, yes, it was under the more tab on the Android phones as well.

 

[Alf S]

I think the film bombed more because of disinterest perhaps in the source material, familiarity of the visuals story etc. "Whitewashing" had little if any impact on the films poor performance in my opinion.

The film probably would not have been made without a major Hollywood star attached.

Pretty much how I spelled it out in my post from March 23rd:

Like I pointed out earlier, this is one of those movies that appeals to a much smaller niche of moviegoers. Odds are the general public has never watched Ghost in the Shell and probably has never HEARD of it. So it's already sitting on one strike possibly 2. The only reason they opted for Miss Johansson was solely to hope they can attract the general masses. Had it been some no name, this thing would be a guaranteed bomb. With her, they have a smidgen of hope that it can break even (or perfects make a nice profit) at the box office.