Support NeoGAF

[Poor GRIMES]

The conclusion to take away from this is to make better movies. Reviews don't make or break a movie but combined with WoM it can sway the results in one extreme or the other.

The props were great, wish there'd been more of that, instead we got 120 minutes of mostly boring action with little substance beyond that. The movie punches you in the face with subtlety. For instance they don't just hint at what GitS is supposed to mean they literally spell it out for you, multiple times, throughout the movie. They spent all their exposition dump in the beginning on pointless stuff that they explain in the movie agsin anyway. Then disregard the city the movie plays in altogether.

Personally I'm not upset about ScarJo's casting nor about the whitewashing, but the role was bungled either by her, the writer or the director or a combination thereof. I forgot they changed her name so wasn't surprised about the twist either.

It's funny you haven't seen the movie but still see the need to compare it to Marvel movies with snide remarks.

I'm on mobile so I can't thoroughly drag you for this, but you literally just said you didn't give a shit about the whitewashing. It's not in your place to concot handwaved excuses for something that clearly affected the perception of this film to people that otherwise might have seen it

 

[border]

I refuse to believe Sci-Fi is inherently niche in the late 2010s when Arrival made bank last year

Interstellar, Gravity, The Martian, Star Wars

Sci-fi isn't inherently niche. Though I think robot-oriented Cyberpunk is a particularly difficult-to-sell type of science fiction. We'll have to see how Blade Runner does later this year to get a better idea of its commercial viability.

 

[Jobbs]

It's funny you haven't seen the movie but still see the need to compare it to Marvel movies with snide remarks.

I haven't seen GITS and make no presumptions about whether it's good. I didn't compare it to anything.

 

[99Luffy]

Zack Snyder should have directed this movie instead. He would have nailed the source materials visuals.

 

[Haly]

Maybe cyberpunk itself is just too "been there done that" for audiences? But that doesn't explain the endless reboots.

Or perhaps audiences have already moved beyond reboots and studios haven't got the memo yet.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I'm on mobile so I can't thoroughly drag you for this, but you literally just said you didn't give a shit about the whitewashing. It's not in your place to concot handwaved excuses for something that clearly affected the perception of this film to people that otherwise might have seen it

I didn't realize I was primarily arguing about whitewashing... I wasn't making any excuses, the movie is bad, the RT score reflects that. Someone brought up whitewashing in response and I shared my personal opinion on that.

 

[TDLink]

I refuse to believe Sci-Fi is inherently niche in the late 2010s when Arrival made bank last year

Edit:
Interstellar, Gravity, The Martian, Star Wars

I was too broad with what I meant. Also notably those are all involving Space which has a wider appeal than something that explores philosophical ideas or is grounded futuristic, or whatever you want to call it. It's late and I'm not using the right words, but I hope my point is coming across better.

Sci-fi isn't inherently niche. Though I think robot-oriented Cyberpunk is a particularly difficult-to-sell type of science fiction. We'll have to see how Blade Runner does later this year to get a better idea of its commercial viability.

This is basically what I meant. Outside of The Matrix cyberpunk has never really appealed much to the masses. And it's certainly more niche than superhero action movies or a King Kong adventure movie.

 

[BocoDragon]

Zack Snyder should have directed this movie instead. He would have nailed the source materials visuals.

Must be a troll post?

No he wouldn't have nailed the movie's source visuals (he would have covered it in rain and aggro posing), and the movie we got basically does nail the look. I mean that exact shot you posted is in the movie.

 

[Chumley]

Me neither, but if Arrival and Ex Machina are any indication, modern audiences prefer their sci-fi to be more cerebral, outside of Marvel. Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, all sci-fi with an eye towards "intelligent viewing".

Ironically, it leads me to think that this movie might've done better if they maintained some of Oshii's sophistication, because then audiences can feel smart for having seen it. I think perhaps the market for "big dumb action show" is dead unless you're Marvel. But then again John Wick and Deadpool prove me wrong there. It's hard to say exactly what went wrong.

Maybe this movie is just bad!

Cyberpunk with a female robot lead character is very different from sci-fi and a far harder sell than a lot of people here seem to realize.

Also, this wasn't a big dumb action show at all and didn't try to be one. That comment makes me think you haven't even seen it. There aren't even that many action scenes, and the ones that are there are over quickly except for the end of the movie.

 

[Nanashrew]

Cyberpunk was at its most popular and most frequent in the 80's and 90's. The Matrix even happened in 1999.

 

[Paganmoon]

Because if we're being honest, the majority of the American movie-going audience doesn't give a single shit about whitewashing in Hollywood.

as if the average movie goer cares if a movie is shit according to reviews?

come on, to everyone saying it's cause the movie is bad, people don't tend to care. The marketing made the movie bomb (in the US at least, we'll see for international when more than 8 markets are counted).

 

[Haly]

Cyberpunk with a female robot lead character is very different from sci-fi and a far harder sell than a lot of people here seem to realize.

Ex Machina???

And no I haven't seen it. Just going by impressions.

 

[border]

Me neither, but if Arrival and Ex Machina are any indication, modern audiences prefer their sci-fi to be more cerebral, outside of Marvel. Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, all sci-fi with an eye towards "intelligent viewing".!

Ex Machina???

Ex Machina made like $30M worldwide on a production budget of $15M. After the cost of marketing and distribution, it may not have even turned a profit. Ghost in the Shell has already outperformed it.

If Ghost in the Shell were as good as Arrival, and if it had a better, less crowded release window.....then it might have done okay. But with its budget, even Arrival's numbers wouldn't have made it much of a success. I get the sense that the studio wanted this to perform like a Marvel/superhero project, even though it really isn't that sort of thing. I think the success of Lucy kinda doomed the whole thing because they thought they could put ScarJo in whatever they wanted and have it do Lucy's numbers. But Lucy benefited from a more grounded, relatable premise, and much less competition from other films.

 

[Chumley]

Ex Machina???

And no I haven't seen it. Just going by impressions.

She wasn't the lead character, and that was a relatively low budget movie with lower box office goals. Not really all that comparable.

The last mainstream cyberpunk movie was Tron Legacy, which didn't exactly bomb as I recall but didn't set the world on fire. The last massive cyberpunk success was The Matrix, over 16 years ago, and that movie basically downplayed the cyberpunk aspect to it as much as it could (only the "real world" looked like that).

It's always been a hard sell.

 

[Haly]

Ex Machina made like $30M worldwide on a production budget of $15M. After the cost of marketing and distribution, it may not have even turned a profit.

Oh that's a shame, I thought it did well. I guess it was just critical reception.

 

[Paganmoon]

Ex Machina???

And no I haven't seen it. Just going by impressions.

Ex Machina made 25 million in total gross for it's US run, and 11 million WW. It was also an independent movie that cost 15 million, so no real comparision.

As I said in another thread, Cyberpunk is a subgenre of Sci-fi, it's the future of the 80's, it just doesn't jive too well with audiences.

 

[99Luffy]

Must be a troll post?

No he wouldn't have nailed the movie's source visuals (he would have covered it in rain and aggro posing), and the movie we got basically does nail the look. I mean that exact shot you posted is in the movie.

He would have covered it in some bluish green filter.. like the original and not do some weird 5th element thing with the wardrobe.

 

[TDLink]

as if the average movie goer cares if a movie is shit according to reviews?

come on, to everyone saying it's cause the movie is bad, people don't tend to care. The marketing made the movie bomb (in the US at least, we'll see for international when more than 8 markets are counted).

It can be more than one thing. A bad movie can still do well if it at least has cool action (see: Transformers)...this didn't have that. A good movie will get word of mouth and that doesn't guarantee a success but it does tend to cause more people to see it. The marketing was not good and off-putting to most people, but as we can see with the final product they didn't really have a lot to work with. This is a hard movie to market because the action and writing are both not great.

This movie failed because of a combination of things. And those main causes of failure are:

1. It was bland both in writing and action, leading to an overall mediocre movie
2. The marketing didn't appeal to people, causing apathy
3. Bad critical reception throwing people curious off, and bad word of mouth due to #1
4. Packed release window where audiences had a lot of other options

 

[Chumley]

as if the average movie goer cares if a movie is shit according to reviews?

come on, to everyone saying it's cause the movie is bad, people don't tend to care. The marketing made the movie bomb (in the US at least, we'll see for international when more than 8 markets are counted).

Marketing is an utterly amorphous thing that's different for every movie, blaming it just doesn't make any sense to me for any movie. It's easier to point to the genre and the style of movie that the marketing inherently had to highlight. Cyberpunk has historically never been a genre that does well.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Also, this wasn't a big dumb action show at all and didn't try to be one. That comment makes me think you haven't even seen it. There aren't even that many action scenes, and the ones that are there are over quickly except for the end of the movie.

That's exactly what it is. Don't go into the movie expecting any political message or philosophical lesson because either of those are platitudes.

There are basically three kinds of scenes exposition dumps, action scenes and a loosely connected identity crisis for Major.

 

[wazoo]

She wasn't the lead character, and that was a relatively low budget movie with lower box office goals. Not really all that comparable.

The last mainstream cyberpunk movie was Tron Legacy, which didn't exactly bomb as I recall but didn't set the world on fire. The last massive cyberpunk success was The Matrix, over 16 years ago, and that movie basically downplayed the cyberpunk aspect to it as much as it could (only the "real world" looked like that).

It's always been a hard sell.

People forget that Cyberpunk movies are usually terrible (see Johnny mnemonic) and as much as a success was Matrix, the two sequels killed the genre for long.

Tron Legacy bombed, Strange Days bombed (and it was a Bigelow/Cameron cooperation !), Total Recall remake made as much as GITS in its first week end and not so great after (it killed Wiseman good will as well), and so on

Only Minority Report did great, and this is motherfucking Spielberg at work.

 

[Chumley]

That's exactly what it is. Don't go into the movie expecting any political message or philosophical lesson because either of those are platitudes.

There are basically three kinds of scenes exposition dumps, action scenes and a loosely connected identity crisis for Major.

Being reductive is cute but it doesn't make you right. I could go down the list of "kinds of scenes" but there's no point, though I will say that action scenes amount to probably no more than

Spoiler

10-15 minutes of the film.

 

[takriel]

Good. Fuck whitewashing. I hope that's a wakeup call for Hollywood.

 

[BocoDragon]

Good. Fuck whitewashing. I hope that's a wakeup call for Hollywood.

Yeah, they've probably cancelled Akira by now.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

They messed up the story in this I feel. It barely felt like Ghost in the Shell. A movie that's cosplaying with it's own story that's loosely related to the anime. There are many different recreations of events that happened in the different versions of GitS but it's just there for fanservice. The opening showed potential, but the way direction it goes after made it boring.

I would rather they had the deeper theme of the series than recreating scenes, and visuals only. Maybe Ghost in the Shell: Deep Dive Complex would have been the movie where they take the training wheels off.. yeah, right. They messed it up.

Give the other characters something to do!!! Geez, some of them looked cool too, but they didn't do much. They felt a bit weak. It would be nice if this version of that robot wasn't Major, but just some other person that share her same model. No Section 9, more finding herself story. Then you possibly see hints of the S9 in news reports in the background. Togusa and Batou in his car (spotting Major would be impossible), and back to tea and pondering from the main story robot. The MGS2 effect. Go in thinking this was about Major, come out thinking there's a chance to see awesome Major and Section 9 taking care of business in GitS 2.

 

[Paganmoon]

It can be more than one thing. A bad movie can still do well if it at least has cool action (see: Transformers)...this didn't have that. A good movie will get word of mouth and that doesn't guarantee a success but it does tend to cause more people to see it. The marketing was not good and off-putting to most people, but as we can see with the final product they didn't really have a lot to work with. This is a hard movie to market because the action and writing are both not great.

This movie failed because of a combination of things. And those main causes of failure are:

1. It was bland both in writing and action, leading to an overall mediocre movie
2. The marketing didn't appeal to people, causing apathy
3. Bad critical reception throwing people curious off, and bad word of mouth due to #1
4. Packed release window where audiences had a lot of other options

True, definitly more than one thing that made the movie bomb at the box office. But I think poor reviews (and the white washing), are probably the ones with the least effect on the performance.

Marketing is an utterly amorphous thing that's different for every movie, blaming it just doesn't make any sense to me for any movie. It's easier to point to the genre and the style of movie that the marketing inherently had to highlight. Cyberpunk has historically never been a genre that does well.

Yes, of course. I posted as much in my following post in this thread, Cyberpunk is just not mainstream enough, most people that want futuristic sci-fi want it from todays perspective, not from the 1980's.

Though marketing can help, if it's good, it can sway people to see movies they might not have. Another aspect is, I hardly saw any comercials, or posters for the movie out and about, though that is of course very anecdotal.

People forget that Cyberpunk movies are usually terrible (see Johnny mnemonic) and as much as a success was Matrix, the two sequels killed the genre for long.

Tron Legacy bombed, Strange Days bombed (and it was a Bigelow/Cameron cooperation !), Total Recall remake made as much as GITS in its first week end and not so great after (it killed Wiseman good will as well), and so on

Only Minority Report did great, and this is motherfucking Spielberg at work.

Hey now, lets not go overboard here. Leave Johnny alone, please.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Being reductive is cute but it doesn't make you right. I could go down the list of "kinds of scenes" but there's no point, though I will say that action scenes amount to probably no more than 10-15 minutes of the film.

Spoiler

the hotel, the bar, the dumpster truck, the shady apartment, hanka corp and the shrine

These are the major action scenes I can remember off the top of my head, there are a couple smaller ones interwoven but for them to be less than 10-15 minutes of the movie each of them would have to be approximately just 2 minutes long.

edit:sorry for the spoiler eidted

 

[TDLink]

These are the major action scenes I can remember off the top of my head, there are a couple smaller ones interwoven but for them to be less than 10-15 minutes of the movie each of them would have to be approximately just 2 minutes long.

edit:sorry for the spoiler eidted

That sounds about right. The movie didn't feel like it had more than 10-15 minutes of action. That scene in the trailers with

Spoiler

her fighting the 3 guys in the hallway (which looked like a more awful version of that scene we've seen in every Avengers film) was literally the entire "breaking out of Hanka" sequence,

there was no more to it at all. Which would be fine if the writing/narrative/characters were better. Half of those action scenes also only existed because they were in the 95 film and for some reason they -had- to be recreated, so the plot flimsily contorted to find ways to fit them in (the

Spoiler

dumpster truck/water fight

especially). Length aside, they also weren't particularly good.

 

[Chumley]

That sounds about right. The movie didn't feel like it had more than 10-15 minutes of action. Which would be fine if the writing/narrative/characters were better. Half of those action scenes also only existed because they were in the 95 film and for some reason they -had- to be recreated, so the plot flimsily contorted to find ways to fit them in. Length aside, they also weren't particularly good.

The two big iconic recreated scenes were fantastic IMO, just beautiful looking. But to each their own.

 

[TDLink]

The two big iconic recreated scenes were fantastic IMO, just beautiful looking. But to each their own.

I'm saying the movie contorted to include them. Both of them felt very out of place and kind of just happened. And all of the other original action scenes were very small scale, short, and poorly done.

I already talked about

Spoiler

the water fight above. But the spider tank really showed up with no build up, and their CG Motoko hopping around reminded me of Legolas on the falling rocks in Hobbit 3. It isn't close to as good as the animated 95 version.

They should have come up with their own big setpieces instead of cribbing these two from a different film where they only barely fit. And again, all of the other action scenes were miniscule and poor.

 

[BocoDragon]

The two big iconic recreated scenes were fantastic IMO, just beautiful looking. But to each their own.

I was surprised by how much it thrilled me to see those classic scenes recreated in live action.

I can totally understand not being on board for recreated scenes. I've seen those movies that mine old scenes for completely undeserved retreads: Star Trek: Into Darkness, Silent Hill: Revelation, and I even raged a whole bunch at TFA for repurposing the mere style of ANH.

But something about this reuse of scenes worked for me. I guess I was happy to see these moments play out in perfect live action recreation, even if their context was changed.

It's not that different from Nolanverse Batman and how it reuses elements from graphic novels in new ways.

 

[Chumley]

I'm saying the movie contorted to include them. Both of them felt very out of place and kind of just happened. And all of the other original action scenes were very small scale, short, and poorly done.

I already talked about

Spoiler

the water fight above. But the spider tank really showed up with no build up, and their CG Motoko hopping around reminded me of Legolas on the falling rocks in Hobbit 3. It isn't close to as good as the animated 95 version.

They should have come up with their own big setpieces instead of cribbing these two from a different film where they only barely fit. And again, all of the other action scenes were miniscule and poor.

I saw the original around 15 years ago so I don't remember enough to contrast with how they were implemented, but

Spoiler

I certainly didn't see any contortion with the water fight and just thought the spider tank was kind of sudden. As far as the actual execution of the scenes themselves, barring the CGI Legolas stuff you mentioned (which was a distraction), I thought they were nearly perfect. One of the few things I did remember from the original was Motoko ripping her arms off to take out the tank, and that scene in the movie brought me back and put a smile on my face. I think that moment in particular would be an instant classic to anyone who's going into this film knowing nothing about GitS.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Sci-fi isn't inherently niche. Though I think robot-oriented Cyberpunk is a particularly difficult-to-sell type of science fiction. We'll have to see how Blade Runner does later this year to get a better idea of its commercial viability.

Is it really comparable though. Blade Runner as a name already has clout among movie-going folks, unlike Ghost in the Shell which is a name only popular among manga/anime people. Not to mention I believe it is being directed by Ridley Scott? It's just incomparable, imo.

 

[rekameohs]

To the general public, Lucy was a sci-fi movie starring ScarJo and GitS was a sci-fi movie starring ScarJo. The former did great because it was marketed much better, and the latter seemed like a knockoff, without knowing any background of the project. It's not just because it's anime; they just need to make better movies.

 

[TDLink]

I saw the original around 15 years ago so I don't remember enough to contrast with how they were implemented, but

Spoiler

I certainly didn't see any contortion with the water fight and just thought the spider tank was kind of sudden. As far as the actual execution of the scenes themselves, barring the CGI Legolas stuff you mentioned (which was a distraction), I thought they were nearly perfect. One of the few things I did remember from the original was Motoko ripping her arms off to take out the tank, and that scene in the movie brought me back and put a smile on my face.

I like that they kept

Spoiler

ripping her arm off

as well. I'm not saying those scenes were poor, obviously they were pretty well done. But they're still somewhat small scale compared to most action scenes in films, and those were the biggest action scenes. There was no real showstopper. Even the

Spoiler

Spider Tank, while the finale, felt kinda short and it was more like the movie just sort of got to that scene and you realized it was going to end (because of the simultaneous Aramaki stuff) rather than you felt that was going to be the climax.

Ultimately those scenes absolutely feel they are from a different movie (because they are) since none of the other scenes are composed in a similar way.

All of the other action scenes were very small and short. Like that hallway. Or the opening, which you see entirely in the trailers, looking good (especially the work with the Geisha bots) but there is nothing really to it after Motoko busting in.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I'm saying the movie contorted to include them. Both of them felt very out of place and kind of just happened. And all of the other original action scenes were very small scale, short, and poorly done.

I already talked about

Spoiler

the water fight above. But the spider tank really showed up with no build up, and their CG Motoko hopping around reminded me of Legolas on the falling rocks in Hobbit 3. It isn't close to as good as the animated 95 version.

They should have come up with their own big setpieces instead of cribbing these two from a different film where they only barely fit. And again, all of the other action scenes were miniscule and poor.

When he mentioned

Spoiler

Spider Tank at the end I kind of rolled my eyes. Why even call it that, where did that come from. Now if he said, "That's a dangerous area, I need some way to get to them. I know, prepare the tank for deployment!" it would sound less cheesy then Spider Tank. It could have been an armored wasp helicopter. Wasps > Spiders after all

 

[Chumley]

To the general public, Lucy was a sci-fi movie starring ScarJo and GitS was a sci-fi movie starring ScarJo. One did great because it was marketed much better. It's not just because it's anime; they just need to make better movies.

Lucy was marketed as an action movie with a slight sci-fi edge, and even a full blown traditional sci-fi movie is completely different from cyberpunk. I wish people would stop conflating the two.

 

[TDLink]

When he mentioned

Spoiler

Spider Tank at the end I kind of rolled my eyes. Why even call it that, where did that come from. Now if he said, "That's a dangerous area, I need some way to get to them. I know, prepare the tank for deployment!" it would sound less cheesy then Spider Tank. It could have been an armored wasp helicopter. Wasps > Spiders after all

Spoiler

I would have liked some, any, build up or foreshadowing of that existing in this movie's universe apart from my prior knowledge that GITS as a franchise has spider tanks.

 

[formasymphonic]

I know nothing about Ghost in the Shell going into it, but I enjoyed it. Not the best movie in the world, but a nice popcorn flick.

One of the problems is that Ghost in the Shell deserves to be more than just a "popcorn flick". If that's the best they were able to achieve despite having:
- several manga
- 3 TV series
- 4 movies

...Worth of existing content to build from, then they shouldn't be surprised by the reviews and the reception they are getting.

 

[ReiGun]

lol, only 40k away from grossing less than the 9 year-old Speed Racer.

I'm gonna have to retract my previous statement, seems the online whitewashing controversy actually affected this movie's box office. However, there is something to be said about the fact that this movie and the other whitewashed pics mentioned in the OP were all critically panned.

I don't think it has to be an either/or thing. The whitewashing drove away many of the people that would have been into a GitS sight unseen, and ensured that the movie would have negative WoM out the gate due to fan outcry.

The fact that it is a strange, visually unappealing (and apparently, not very good) movie with a poor marketing campaign meant it gained no traction with the casual movie goer who would have not cared about that. Not to mention that all the WoM is now people either saying "nah" or outright celebrating its failure.

So it failed to capture the interest of general audiences, actively alienated fans of the source material, and as a cherry on top, probably costs too much to make for what it was. The powers that be got nothing right with this one.

 

[border]

Is it really comparable though. Blade Runner as a name already has clout among movie-going folks, unlike Ghost in the Shell which is a name only popular among manga/anime people. Not to mention I believe it is being directed by Ridley Scott? It's just incomparable, imo.

Blade Runner was a box office bomb. It has achieved kind of a cult-status in the years after its theatrical release, but in terms of its relevance in pop culture it doesn't rate that much higher than Ghost in the Shell. If you showed the original movie to today's audiences they would likely be quite bored by it. The sequel is not being directed by Ridley Scott, though at this point he's not really a bankable director anyhow.

If Blade Runner 2049 does well, I suspect it will be because of incredible reviews and weak competition.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Blade Runner was a box office bomb. It has achieved kind of a cult-status in the years after its theatrical release, but in terms of its relevance in pop culture it doesn't rate that much higher than Ghost in the Shell. If you showed the original movie to today's audiences they would likely be quite bored by it. The sequel is not being directed by Ridley Scott, though at this point he's not really a bankable director anyhow.

If Blade Runner 2049 does well, I suspect it will be because of incredible reviews and weak competition.

Hoooo I honestly didn't know that.

 

[TDLink]

Ridley Scott is still a great director. I wouldn't say he's not bankable either. The Martian did very well. He is only a producer on Blade Runner 2049 though, yeah. But Denis Villeneuve has also proven he's a good director and his last few films have all done well. Do I think the average person knows who Denis Villeneuve is? Absolutely not. But it bodes well for the movie turning out okay, which could lead to it performing better.

I would definitely set my expectations low though, I don't expect the film to be a hit and it's going to face harsh comparisons to the original, which it almost assuredly won't have the same level of influence and reverence as.

Over GITS it has the advantage of releasing in a month that is relatively uncrowded with big pictures.

 

[Bishop89]

That's disappointing

 

[BocoDragon]

The fact that it is a strange, visually unappealing (and apparently, not very good) movie with a poor marketing campaign meant it gained no traction with the casual movie goer who would have not cared about that. Not to mention that all the WoM is now people either saying "nah" or outright celebrating its failure.

visually unappealing

No. That's not this movie. Lol. It's visually amazing.

apparently, not very good

You can tell a lot of people think a low RT score means they can discuss it like a Bayformers movie or a Resident Evil sequel or something without even seeing it. This movie is simply not bad enough to dismiss out of hand.

I forsee a lot of "hey I actually kind of liked this" come home video time.

 

[TDLink]

The movie definitely isn't a dumpster fire, but there's a lot of missed potential. The action and writing absolutely are bland and subpar. The characters all get barely any development or reason for us to care about them, other than arguably The Major. The visuals and world (ie the franchise) do a lot of heavy lifting to carry it to the serviceable point it's at.

It'd be a lot better if

Spoiler

they did a completely different plot rather than one that revolves around justifying them white washing the lead, which is its own problem. Ultimately that causes it to feel like this whole movie was just an excuse to make people okay with a white person being called "Motoko" (which was a wholly manufactured "problem") and then we can have a "normal" GITS movie "next" rather than just focusing on making this one the best it can be.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

The CG environments looked like crap. Every pan across the city really took me out of the experience.

 

[ReiGun]

No. That's not this movie. Lol. It's visually amazing.




You can tell a lot of people think a low RT score means they can discuss it like a Bayformers movie or a Resident Evil sequel or something without even seeing it. This movie is simply not bad enough to dismiss out of hand.

I forsee a lot of "hey I actually kind of liked this" come home video time.

I need to watch the entire movie to know I didn't like what I saw in the trailers? I don't even know what the RT score for the movie is.

You enjoy the movies looks? Awesome. Glad for you. I did not find what was presented appealing and, given the WoM, I'm not alone in this stance.

 

[ramparter]

I refuse to believe Sci-Fi is inherently niche in the late 2010s when Arrival made bank last year

Edit:
Interstellar, Gravity, The Martian, Star Wars

Interstellar isn't Sci-fi, everything on the movie could be real.

 

[Chumley]

I need to watch the entire movie to know I didn't like what I saw in the trailers? I don't even know what the RT score for the movie is.

You enjoy the movies looks? Awesome. Glad for you. I did not find what was presented appealing and, given the WoM, I'm not alone in this stance.

Then you should say you found the trailers visually unappealing. Not the film, since you haven't seen the film.