But Moon and District 9 are autheur movies.
I dunno how much that actually matters, though: District 9 happened after said auteur director couldn't get the Halo movie made - said director just revealed pre-production art for a non-existent Alien movie he wanted to make, too.
There's no reason Ghost in the Shell couldn't be a director's dream project. It likely isn't, but that's because it looks as if it's being developed with an eye towards being a huge tentpole film first and foremost, as opposed to being a good adaptation of a well-known story.
Basically, I'm arguing against misplaced corporate focus here. There's a way for this adaptation to still make the studio money without having to run the gauntlet of bullshit that comes with ballooning the budget to 200 mil and having to face the complaints of "whitewashing" that are sure to foam up around its ankles.
UrbanRats said:
You need to look at an example like Dredd to see the opposite example, there was clearly some care and understanding put in that movie, despite the (relatively) low budget.
Unfortunately it also bombed massively, so i'm not sure what it proves.
Dredd bombed mostly because a) the marketing wasn't great and b) Stallone's original put SUCH a fucking stink on the name and the property that the film couldn't get around it. Those two factors - plus the fact that even if you had no idea what Dredd was, the name "Dredd" just seems too goofy to take seriously ("He-Man" is going to have the same problem if that ever goes into production) and you see why that ate shit at the box-office, although it found life on home video.
But yeah, Dredd is a much better example than the other two I gave. Dredd didn't cost that much, looked great, and even more importantly, translated the world it was set in to live-action really, really well.
There isn't even that much spectacle in GitS.
This, too.