So now we're going to be offended that the American film industry sets adaptations of works in America when making movies for American audiences?
I may not be progressive enough, but that seems absurd. The Departed was fine. The Magnificent Seven is fine.
It looks like the alternative is a lot worse.
Maybe Hollywood could spare us these particular remakes, but that's an unreasonable request apparently.
But...I liked Edge of Tomorrow. It was good.
I liked it too, I even own it. Though I don't think it was world changing either. That's why I said the alternative is worse.
The Departed is a good adaptation. I've praised it in the past. Ghost in the Shell looks like it's going to be a pretty bad one.
I agree that GitS seems like it might be garbage.
I just see the goalposts getting dragged towards "why wasn't EoT kept in Asia? Or The Departed?" That's ridiculous to me. Local movie industries localize properties for their target market. So an American rewrite of Internal Affairs is gonna be in Boston, not Hong Kong. That's how it works.
If you want to see more Asian-centric films set in Asia, what's wrong with watching movies made in that market?
I don't see any issue with EoT being localized for this market. Maybe it would have been better with an Asian lead, it a black lead, or any other minority lead. Even another female lead. But why shouldn't the last name still be Cage regardless? Nothing wrong with that. It's an American movie.
Though that movie in particular I think would have suffered with a different lead. It's the first Tom Cruise movie Id seen in years I actually liked him in.
Given the enormity of the problems we're seeing now--like using CG to try and make Caucasian actors look "more Asian"--yeah, I don't really have a problem with Scorsese giving his take on Hong Kong police drama like he did in The Departed. That's just me personally--I don't think everyone shares that opinion, and honestly, I'm kind of glad for that.
In truth, if it took a moratorium on all Hollywood adaptations, even good ones, to stop the Ghost in the Shells coming down the pipe, I'd personally support it. There are good films and books for those original properties. They're more likely to be available in English than ever before--not just Japanese, but Chinese and Korean cinema. We don't need a Hollywood production of every single series or film of note. Because for every Live. Die. Repeat. it looks like we're getting multiple Speed Racers and Dragonball: Evolutions.
Of course, that's an imaginary solution to an actual problem. I wish someone could gather all the big-shots who make these decisions in a room, smack them over the heads with rolled-up newspapers and go "NO! NO! BAD PRODUCER! GO BUTCHER YOUR OWN COUNTRY'S PROPERTIES FIRST!" if that's what it took.
Well, the marketplace will probably do the part of rolled-up newspaper for us from the look of things.
I will be there for GitS, but that's because I am such a fan of the original work I have to see it for myself.
Its like watching Judge Dredd so that the payoff when Dredd 3d came out was all that sweeter.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
Let's continue with this train of thought. How incensed should we be over the American version of The Ring?
I'm not the one being incensed here. I was merely saying it'd be great if more adaptions were more recognizable rather than the trite Hollywood formula where America is the only county that matters. America is not restricted by other countries with the film industry and it can cause enormous change with its influence. Would it really be that bad for Hollywood to make an All You Need is Kill movie?
What about film adaptations of novels, such as All You Need Is Kill into Edge of Tomorrow? Are we only allowed to be mad about adaptations of foreign novels, or can we complain about domestic ones as well? I certainly didn't like how Henry Wu's character was cut down to almost nothing in the film version of Jurassic Park compared to the novel... or does that balance out because he died in the novel but got to show back up in Jurassic World? Help me out here.
You're ignoring the nuance in my argument, I wasn't saying it's all or nothing. Surely it'd be ok with more foreign adaptions to have minority protagonists and diverse casts and in places more than America? America all the time, every time is boring. Pacific Rim may not be an adaption, but at least it tried something new by setting it in Hong Kong.
Edge of Tomorrow does not take place in America, it's set in the UK and France. The characters present in the film are multinational, and while Tom Cruise's character is American, Emily Blunt's is British. Guess what? In the original novel, Rita Vrataski was American! Had the original ethnicity of the characters been preserved, would you be here complaining about how Hollywood made it so the American taught the Japanese how to fight, despite that being literally how it happens in the Japanese-penned original?
I hadn't missed the nuance in your argument because none was present as you had presented it.
I now understand the nuance you had intended to present, thanks to this subsequent post of yours where you've clarified that you meant to say that you wanted Hollywood to make films that were more oriented towards foreign audiences (in this particular case, Asian audiences, but I suppose it would depend based on where the source material originates, yes?). That is a more understandable position. I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I do disagree with the idea that all Hollywood adaptations of foreign properties need to be made with the originating country in mind as an audience.
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
Not less. Less of a category. Which would be replaced by more from a different category. There are so many possibilities for things that could exist that we'd be hard pressed to make a dent in that pile.
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
All of the canon info dumps of the recent pages have fallen back into the issues that I was trying to bring to light about 6 pages ago.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
Tried something new, and underperformed domestically.
Not everything new does this.
Hollywood may be racist but perhaps they aren't as dumb as they are frequently portrayed as. I'd wager that there's a reason their American adaptations tend to focus on, well, America. Money is the bottom line for Hollywood and any solutions that don't address money are basically just oral farts.
I'm gonna call bullshit on that. Hollywood is full of people, not robots. They bring their own biases, racism and stupidity creating an industry where incidents like GiTS are the norm, not the exception. They're severely flawed across multiple fronts. Not that money alone isn't a good reason for racist practices, too many in Hollywood use that as a shield because being seen as mercenary is a lot more tolerable than being seen as racist.
(Which is why I said if a film bothers you don't see it. Shopping with your dollars isn't the end all be all, but it is more effective than complaining on the internet)
Not enough to make a difference. What culture changes has something like this done for the betterment of Hollywood?
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
Kipling has articulated my view well, so I'm not going to repeat points I just wanted to reply so you knew I wasn't ignoring you. I go away to eat dinner and come back to a page and a half of new posts geeze. I should know better that to post right before leaving.
Let's continue with this train of thought. How incensed should we be over the American version of The Ring?
I'm not the one being incensed here. I was merely saying it'd be great if more adaptions were more recognizable rather than the trite Hollywood formula where America is the only county that matters. America is not restricted by other countries with the film industry and it can cause enormous change with its influence. Would it really be that bad for Hollywood to make an All You Need is Kill movie?
What about film adaptations of novels, such as All You Need Is Kill into Edge of Tomorrow? Are we only allowed to be mad about adaptations of foreign novels, or can we complain about domestic ones as well? I certainly didn't like how Henry Wu's character was cut down to almost nothing in the film version of Jurassic Park compared to the novel... or does that balance out because he died in the novel but got to show back up in Jurassic World? Help me out here.
You're ignoring the nuance in my argument, I wasn't saying it's all or nothing. Surely it'd be ok with more foreign adaptions to have minority protagonists and diverse casts and in places more than America? America all the time, every time is boring. Pacific Rim may not be an adaption, but at least it tried something new by setting it in Hong Kong.
Edge of Tomorrow does not take place in America, it's set in the UK and France. The characters present in the film are multinational, and while Tom Cruise's character is American, Emily Blunt's is British. Guess what? In the original novel, Rita Vrataski was American!
Is she white? I know Tom's character isn't.
Had the original ethnicity of the characters been preserved, would you be here complaining about how Hollywood made it so the American taught the Japanese how to fight, despite that being literally how it happens in the Japanese-penned original?
I dunno, Hollywood didn't exactly give me the chance to see it.
I hadn't missed the nuance in your argument because none was present as you had presented it.
Fair enough.
I now understand the nuance you had intended to present, thanks to this subsequent post of yours where you've clarified that you meant to say that you wanted Hollywood to make films that were more oriented towards foreign audiences (in this particular case, Asian audiences, but I suppose it would depend based on where the source material originates, yes?). That is a more understandable position. I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I do disagree with the idea that all Hollywood adaptations of foreign properties need to be made with the originating country in mind as an audience.
Not all adaptions, no, I should have clarified that. But I'd like to see a bit more more on that direction, rather than the usual Americanization 100% of the time.
All of the canon info dumps of the recent pages have fallen back into the issues that I was trying to bring to light about 6 pages ago.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
The adaptions we have had, that you've listed are able to be faithful without ditching it's Japanese core. Why is this impossible for Hollywood to do?
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
Not less. Less of a category. Which would be replaced by more from a different category. There are so many possibilities for things that could exist that we'd be hard pressed to make a dent in that pile.
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
This is what I wonder about too. I can see how it might be differently, but I'm not convinced that Ghost in the Shell being killed pre-production deprives us of art that we wouldn't get in another form (which might've been better or worse). There is absolutely something to be said about the employment of film crews, actors (well, besides Johansson, who would have her swimming pool of money, or equivalent, regardless--honestly I doubt this film will help her career in a meaningful way outside of a middling paycheque) that come with a film, but in that case, shouldn't we hope every possible film gets made? The remake of Fantastic Four WAS art. It employed people. The fact that it kept a license within the license holder (I think?) is just an addition benefit.
I'm actually looking forward to the Warcraft film, as a fan of the old RTS series of the 1990s and onwards. But if it doesn't get made, I'm not convinced those artistic assets, backgrounds, even plot lines are somehow never available even within the the realm of that fiction, much less sucked out of the realm of art as a whole.
Plus, as Batman versus Superman demonstrated--complaining on the internet is your privilege, nay, right as a consumer of media.
I'd prefer it does well, because Sci-Fi and Japanese stories get a real bum rap over here
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
Not less. Less of a category. Which would be replaced by more from a different category. There are so many possibilities for things that could exist that we'd be hard pressed to make a dent in that pile.
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
This is what I wonder about too. I can see how it might be differently, but I'm not convinced that Ghost in the Shell being killed pre-production deprives us of art that we wouldn't get in another form (which might've been better or worse). There is absolutely something to be said about the employment of film crews, actors (well, besides Johansson, who would have her swimming pool of money, or equivalent, regardless--honestly I doubt this film will help her career in a meaningful way outside of a middling paycheque) that come with a film, but in that case, shouldn't we hope every possible film gets made? The remake of Fantastic Four WAS art. It employed people. The fact that it kept a license within the license holder (I think?) is just an addition benefit.
They don't have to kill it, but it isn't unusual for movies to go through upheavals during production or development hell. That said, it'd highly likely they will choose to kill it rather than address the complaints.
I'm actually looking forward to the Warcraft film, as a fan of the old RTS series of the 1990s and onwards. But if it doesn't get made, I'm not convinced those artistic assets, backgrounds, even plot lines are somehow never available even within the the realm of that fiction, much less sucked out of the realm of art as a whole.
It not being impressive to me isn't enough to think it shouldn't exist, but this is a very different situation to what GiTS is doing.
Plus, as Batman versus Superman demonstrated--complaining on the internet is your privilege, nay, right as a consumer of media.
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
+3
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
All of the canon info dumps of the recent pages have fallen back into the issues that I was trying to bring to light about 6 pages ago.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
The adaptions we have had, that you've listed are able to be faithful without ditching it's Japanese core. Why is this impossible for Hollywood to do?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Yes, it may be possible (but that doesn't make it desirable or practical), no that doesn't make original material normative or definitive, it is fictional.
The details of Doyle's work have no bearing on either of the current, acclaimed, modern adaptions of Sherlock Holmes in Elementary and Sherlock. They are separate, "Sherlock Holmes uses cocaine and occasionally morphine" is correct for some adaptions not others - in Elementary he is a recovering addict, but it is opiates not cocaine that he uses, but in Sherlock he has no hard drug habits (but is a self confessed sociopath and uses nicotine patches to improve his mental acuity. Discussing the time, setting or race and gender of Watson in Doyle's work has no bearing on the setting in Elementary. There are no exclusive, absolute truth claims to be made - they are relative to the work in question.
In the current case, the 2017 adaption isn't the manga, the movie, the subsequent works discussing what the Major is or isn't in the other sources doesn't tell us what the adaption will do with the corresponding character, or what it will do in general. There is a lot of apparent assumption that because it is one way in the manga/whatever it must be the same way in adaption - it need not be the case, the fact that the setting is very Japanese and it feeds one part of the story doesn't mean that the story cannot be changed, that those parts that the Japaneseness informed can't be excised to explore other aspects in a coherent fashion.
Anyway, talking about fictional characters is weird and there's a lot of philosophy of language that addresses that - and basically the main conclusion is "it is confusing, try to be precise".
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
Not less. Less of a category. Which would be replaced by more from a different category. There are so many possibilities for things that could exist that we'd be hard pressed to make a dent in that pile.
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
Why would we want less of a particular category, if people want to make it? it's just a weirdly fascist principle to uphold.
Even if you try and couch it in the pragmatic - shopping with your dollars sense, such a position is very much in the minority. People want to see the things they like adapted into other mediums, the first response when people read a book they like is "they should make it into a movie!".
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
I'd heard of the controversy via Gizmodo--I got those details confused. I actually think what you described...is kind of worse, albeit in a different way.
I don't feel my expectations are particularly definitive in any way--I've repeatedly noted that, in my understanding, it's not a treatment like The Departed, but that it's not a certainty either--it just looks like more and more from the gradual escape of information. We're all making assumptions--the fact that some of us are increasingly dismayed with each reveal is (somewhat) informative in its own form.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
Not less. Less of a category. Which would be replaced by more from a different category. There are so many possibilities for things that could exist that we'd be hard pressed to make a dent in that pile.
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
Why would we want less of a particular category, if people want to make it? it's just a weirdly fascist principle to uphold.
Even if you try and couch it in the pragmatic - shopping with your dollars sense, such a position is very much in the minority. People want to see the things they like adapted into other mediums, the first response when people read a book they like is "they should make it into a movie!".
Sometimes people want things that are bad.*
If expressing my disapproval of those things and my preference for other things that are good* makes me a fascist, well, so be it, I guess.
* disagreements about what is good and what is bad are, I presume, to some extent the driver of these conversations we are having right now
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
All of the canon info dumps of the recent pages have fallen back into the issues that I was trying to bring to light about 6 pages ago.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
That's the issues, no one has problems with American made adaptations. It's when they take very little care to make the adaptation worthwhile. You can't just stick a white person in the very Japanese setting and story and call it a day. You have to make an effort to capture why the story is so culutrally relevant. If they had rewritten the character to fit the changes made, we might be getting somewhere. But no evidence shows this. And again, you run the risk of just shoving this imagery in with no justification for it; the setting of Neo Tokyo is important to the story, similar to the location in Old Boy. The American Old Boy lost a lot of the mystique and themes of the first, just shoving Josh Brolin into the same movie doesn't work.
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
It sounds like they were going to use the technique a lot for major characters, but the test was done on a small-scale for a background character, but it didn't work, and now they're playing selective semantics to wiggle their way out of it.
nobody really has any idea what the asian cgi thing was about but everyone definitely has a strong incentive to draw some wide-ranging conclusions about it
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
There are possibilities that don't lend themselves to extras.
The question of plausibility assumes certain things about what they intended to shoot. These are the assumptions that do the discourse a disservice. But we should ensure that we are addressing the real issues - not strawman and apples to oranges comparisons.
Certainly, not hiring Asian actors and actresses in favour of digital correction for a mundane background shot would be largely inexplicable absent at the very least a latent racism not to mention being extraordinarily wasteful and risky (and dumb as a box of hammers).
On the other hand, you can't simply hire an Asian extra for the sorts of special effects shots that I described earlier in the thread - like ubiquitous holographic masks (or a unique one for a unique person) that change a person's apparent ethnicity while maintaining their apparent identity, or The Major selecting a face prior to an operation/as part of digital introspection while still having it be recognisable as Johansson. These may still be bad ideas (excuted well I don't think they would be) for other reasons - like Aegeri's contention that you cannot split a troubled history from any present cross-race-masquerade - but it isn't a bad idea because for the same reason as above because it can't be achieved by hiring extras.
Eschewing a more nuanced discussion of the possibilities sans assumptions is only useful as a method of stoking outrage.
All of the canon info dumps of the recent pages have fallen back into the issues that I was trying to bring to light about 6 pages ago.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
That's the issues, no one has problems with American made adaptations. It's when they take very little care to make the adaptation worthwhile. You can't just stick a white person in the very Japanese setting and story and call it a day. You have to make an effort to capture why the story is so culutrally relevant. If they had rewritten the character to fit the changes made, we might be getting somewhere. But no evidence shows this. And again, you run the risk of just shoving this imagery in with no justification for it; the setting of Neo Tokyo is important to the story, similar to the location in Old Boy. The American Old Boy lost a lot of the mystique and themes of the first, just shoving Josh Brolin into the same movie doesn't work.
Why would it be a very Japanese setting once adapted? That's an unjustified assumption. That views the adaption as constrained by the source. You have no idea about how they are going to adapt it as yet.
I liked the remade Old Boy better than the original, though I didn't really care for either. I don't think your aesthetic preferences are normative or definitive.
Furthermore, contrary to your own opinions I think all of the Japanese specifics that have been identified is boring cruft (and furthermore it is entirely inaccessible to large numbers of the viewing public outside of Japan). I don't care about a national sense of identity at all, let alone against the background of a recently demilitarised nation, I don't care about ripped from the headlines parallels with true crimes. The parts that interest me is the birth and pursuit of an AI, the relationship between one's body identity and self, transhumanism in general, the morally suspect actions of a government against its own people, power struggles between different branches of government juxtaposed against the interference of dangerous outsiders and am interested in seeing it made with high production values, a thoughtful cohesive plot and devoid of any jarring and annoying anime/manga convention. And if I get that, then I will have a thing that I want and you will have the thing that you want - the original manga, movie, the other manga reboots/sequels, the series, etc.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
It sounds like they were going to use the technique a lot for major characters, but the test was done on a small-scale for a background character, but it didn't work, and now they're playing selective semantics to wiggle their way out of it.
the pseudo-Left new style, whereby if your opponent thought he had identified your lowest possible motive, he was quite certain that he had isolated the only real one.
nobody really has any idea what the asian cgi thing was about but everyone definitely has a strong incentive to draw some wide-ranging conclusions about it
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
There are possibilities that don't lend themselves to extras.
The question of plausibility assumes certain things about what they intended to shoot. These are the assumptions that do the discourse a disservice. But we should ensure that we are addressing the real issues - not strawman and apples to oranges comparisons.
Certainly, not hiring Asian actors and actresses in favour of digital correction for a mundane background shot would be largely inexplicable absent at the very least a latent racism not to mention being extraordinarily wasteful and risky (and dumb as a box of hammers).
Stranger things have happened in Hollywood, I'm curious why you have so much confidence given what we've seen. What is that you know about the movie that gives you the idea that they know what they're doing?
On the other hand, you can't simply hire an Asian extra for the sorts of special effects shots that I described earlier in the thread - like ubiquitous holographic masks (or a unique one for a unique person) that change a person's apparent ethnicity while maintaining their apparent identity, or The Major selecting a face prior to an operation/as part of digital introspection while still having it be recognisable as Johansson. These may still be bad ideas (excuted well I don't think they would be) for other reasons - like Aegeri's contention that you cannot split a troubled history from any present cross-race-masquerade - but it isn't a bad idea because for the same reason as above because it can't be achieved by hiring extras.
No, extra casting is a separate topic sharing the overall subject, there is no silver bullet for this. I can't decide if the studio doing this either amazingly ballsy, incredibly stupid, mind bogglingly racist or all of the above.
Eschewing a more nuanced discussion of the possibilities sans assumptions is only useful as a method of stoking outrage.
We use assumptions because 1) Hollywood has a bad history of doing this badly (and recently) and 2) there isn't a lot of evidence they will do this right. GiTS is an IP with a huge burden to prove itself right out of the gate, that's what they take on by using that license. So far, I am unconvinced this isn't a well intentioned train wreck - which I'd hate to tarnish Johansen's career.
nobody really has any idea what the asian cgi thing was about but everyone definitely has a strong incentive to draw some wide-ranging conclusions about it
It doesn't matter what it was about. The fact that they were doing CGI to make a character, any character, "more asian" rather than just hiring an asian actor is just beyond ridiculous.
+11
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
nobody really has any idea what the asian cgi thing was about but everyone definitely has a strong incentive to draw some wide-ranging conclusions about it
We need less art isn't really a position that is anything but radical. I categorically disagree that this is desirable.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
There are possibilities that don't lend themselves to extras.
The question of plausibility assumes certain things about what they intended to shoot. These are the assumptions that do the discourse a disservice. But we should ensure that we are addressing the real issues - not strawman and apples to oranges comparisons.
Certainly, not hiring Asian actors and actresses in favour of digital correction for a mundane background shot would be largely inexplicable absent at the very least a latent racism not to mention being extraordinarily wasteful and risky (and dumb as a box of hammers).
Stranger things have happened in Hollywood, I'm curious why you have so much confidence given what we've seen. What is that you know about the movie that gives you the idea that they know what they're doing.
On the other hand, you can't simply hire an Asian extra for the sorts of special effects shots that I described earlier in the thread - like ubiquitous holographic masks (or a unique one for a unique person) that change a person's apparent ethnicity while maintaining their apparent identity, or The Major selecting a face prior to an operation/as part of digital introspection while still having it be recognisable as Johansson. These may still be bad ideas (excuted well I don't think they would be) for other reasons - like Aegeri's contention that you cannot split a troubled history from any present cross-race-masquerade - but it isn't a bad idea because for the same reason as above because it can't be achieved by hiring extras.
No, extra casting is a separate topic sharing the overall subject, there is no silver bullet for this. I can't decide if the studio doing this either amazingly ballsy, incredibly stupid, mind bogglingly racist or all of the above.
Eschewing a more nuanced discussion of the possibilities sans assumptions is only useful as a method of stoking outrage.
We use assumptions because 1) Hollywood has a bad history of doing this badly (and recently) and 2) there isn't a lot of evidence they will do this right. GiTS is an IP with a huge burden to prove itself right out of the gate, that's what they take on by using that license. So far, I am unconvinced this isn't a well intentioned train wreck - which I'd hate to tarnish Johansen's career.
I don't have any particular confidence in anything about the movie, I am simply reacting against what appears to me to be unjustified certainty upon what are ultimately empirical matters and things which are manifestly underdetermined (or contraindicated) by the available evidence. As far as I know there's hardly any information about the movie available at present - a few publicity shots of Johansson as the Major, and not much else. Certainly the idea that there are a lot of clear and present indications of likely failure aren't clear - and furthermore my impression of the general fan echo chamber around most properties is that they have no idea/no concern for what makes a good movie (and I don't like most movies anyway).
Of the things that I do know - it would be vastly more expensive to hire Caucasian actors and digitally correct them compared to simply hiring Asian extras AND that casting directors tend to be very concerned with establishing appropriate diversity in crowds (even if they don't achieve it, they want to do so) - it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the plan was to do anything that could be handled by simply hiring Asian actors instead of exploring CGI options.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded as it doesn't apply to what I was saying.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
nobody really has any idea what the asian cgi thing was about but everyone definitely has a strong incentive to draw some wide-ranging conclusions about it
It doesn't matter what it was about. The fact that they were doing CGI to make a character, any character, "more asian" rather than just hiring an asian actor is just beyond ridiculous.
You can't hire an actor to achieve particular scenarios like those I have mentioned above.
paramount might have wanted to alter existing footage that can't be reshot
or it might have been a test case for the general technological problem of how to change people's faces using CGI, something which would have much broader applications than just making people asian
or it might have been an ill-conceived scheme to avoid accusations of whitewashing while still casting scarlett johannsen, i guess? but it seems uncharitable to not at least consider other, less idiotic possibilities
We can cut slack if it feels appropriate. But we live in reality, where whitewashing and yellowface have a history going back a hundred years. Ignoring that context is folly.
Look at the recent Cloud Atlas, a movie coincidently director by the Wachowskis, the people who made the Matrix- which is explicitly inspired by Ghost in the Shell. It had Hugo Weaving in yellowface via CGI. It doesn't seem like we can give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt here when they have made these same mistakes in the past.
Cloud Atlas actually used prosthetics for... I want to say everything except some close-ups on eyes?
They also went with prosthetics in order to keep the same cast over the span of all the time/geographical settings the story(ies?) took place in. They had a diverse cast to begin with and it's not like they cast non-white actors only to give them token bit parts in each segment.
Their reasons for doing makeup on their actors is different from these other cases that are being discussed in the thread. I'm not saying they are completely absolved of all criticism because of it, because of course hell is paved with good intentions, but at the same time...
I wish they had done a commentary track for the film. The production history of the film is, from what little is known, quite fascinating.
paramount might have wanted to alter existing footage that can't be reshot
or it might have been a test case for the general technological problem of how to change people's faces using CGI, something which would have much broader applications than just making people asian
or it might have been an ill-conceived scheme to avoid accusations of whitewashing while still casting scarlett johannsen, i guess? but it seems uncharitable to not at least consider other, less idiotic possibilities
And if it were these things, why didn't they respond in kind?
When someone accuses you of eating all the cookies, is your response that you have once, at some point in time, eaten a particular batch of cookies?
When people say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," they don't exactly tag on, "For a very specific definition of "sexual relations". Or, "We did not fire him for being black, ... it was because he listened to rap music and had dreadlocks."
Nobody here's even accusing them of lying; we're taking Paramount for their word; how is that uncharitable?
Posts
Well, the marketplace will probably do the part of rolled-up newspaper for us from the look of things.
I will be there for GitS, but that's because I am such a fan of the original work I have to see it for myself.
Its like watching Judge Dredd so that the payoff when Dredd 3d came out was all that sweeter.
I'm not convinced that it means less art--since we could see the same producers put effort into distributing those materials in a better form (like good translations, or at least not awful ones) instead of, well, theatrical remakes with CG race changes, and seeing them proliferate into an audience that would never see them--at the cost of less profit, probably, but still some.
But I'm not going to claim that as a scientific outcome either. And I can sympathize with the person who thinks five Twilight films are garbage but we ought to have them nonetheless (and the huge media ecosystem that surrounds them).
Edge of Tomorrow does not take place in America, it's set in the UK and France. The characters present in the film are multinational, and while Tom Cruise's character is American, Emily Blunt's is British. Guess what? In the original novel, Rita Vrataski was American! Had the original ethnicity of the characters been preserved, would you be here complaining about how Hollywood made it so the American taught the Japanese how to fight, despite that being literally how it happens in the Japanese-penned original?
I hadn't missed the nuance in your argument because none was present as you had presented it.
I now understand the nuance you had intended to present, thanks to this subsequent post of yours where you've clarified that you meant to say that you wanted Hollywood to make films that were more oriented towards foreign audiences (in this particular case, Asian audiences, but I suppose it would depend based on where the source material originates, yes?). That is a more understandable position. I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I do disagree with the idea that all Hollywood adaptations of foreign properties need to be made with the originating country in mind as an audience.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also I am fully capable of both shopping with my dollars and complaining on the internet.
Ghost in the Shell is a fictional work and the adaption isn't the same as the manga, original movie or subsequent works within the same universe. It doesn't matter to the adaption whether the Major was a cyborg from birth, or a little girl or after an accident as an adult in the manga/SAC/2nd Gig/whatever. Viewing adherence to the original source material as normative is not uncommon but it is unexamined and very strange (as in, something which we ought reject) from an ontological perspective.
Not everything new does this.
I'm gonna call bullshit on that. Hollywood is full of people, not robots. They bring their own biases, racism and stupidity creating an industry where incidents like GiTS are the norm, not the exception. They're severely flawed across multiple fronts. Not that money alone isn't a good reason for racist practices, too many in Hollywood use that as a shield because being seen as mercenary is a lot more tolerable than being seen as racist.
Not enough to make a difference. What culture changes has something like this done for the betterment of Hollywood?
You see an America adaption about All You Need is Kill as radical art?
I don't see why this is desirable. If people want those things, they have access to them. If people want to produce an adaption of other work then I support that.
And stop repeating the canard about CGI race changes - firstly, it isn't happening, secondly, the official statement was that it was for a single scene and a background character. Representing it as a systematic approach to the production of the movie or within Hollywood as a whole is not accurate.
What are you even talking about? "Radical" doesn't modify "art" it modifies "position" within the sentence above.
It certainly tells us something about the attitude at DreamWorks approaching this project. I think it bears repeating (though it should be noted that it was aborted--I've noted as much in the past). It's one particularly cringe-inducing aspect of the project as a whole which has other cringe-inducing aspects.
If DreamWork's financial investment into this creative endeavor hurts the future prospects of the property in the United States in the future, then I think we've seen a creative output that isn't worth it--in my mind anyway. The "price" may or may not have implications for the property in the future, and that is worrying. We also don't know if the 2017 film is diverting funds, talent, and manpower that might appear in other creative ventures (which could be bad in their own right certainly, though probably not with the same issues).
Kipling has articulated my view well, so I'm not going to repeat points I just wanted to reply so you knew I wasn't ignoring you. I go away to eat dinner and come back to a page and a half of new posts geeze.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Is she white? I know Tom's character isn't.
I dunno, Hollywood didn't exactly give me the chance to see it.
Fair enough.
Not all adaptions, no, I should have clarified that. But I'd like to see a bit more more on that direction, rather than the usual Americanization 100% of the time.
The adaptions we have had, that you've listed are able to be faithful without ditching it's Japanese core. Why is this impossible for Hollywood to do?
I disagree that it is cringe worthy, inherently. You have nothing but assumptions about the movie and how the technology may have been deployed.
This is what I wonder about too. I can see how it might be differently, but I'm not convinced that Ghost in the Shell being killed pre-production deprives us of art that we wouldn't get in another form (which might've been better or worse). There is absolutely something to be said about the employment of film crews, actors (well, besides Johansson, who would have her swimming pool of money, or equivalent, regardless--honestly I doubt this film will help her career in a meaningful way outside of a middling paycheque) that come with a film, but in that case, shouldn't we hope every possible film gets made? The remake of Fantastic Four WAS art. It employed people. The fact that it kept a license within the license holder (I think?) is just an addition benefit.
I'm actually looking forward to the Warcraft film, as a fan of the old RTS series of the 1990s and onwards. But if it doesn't get made, I'm not convinced those artistic assets, backgrounds, even plot lines are somehow never available even within the the realm of that fiction, much less sucked out of the realm of art as a whole.
Plus, as Batman versus Superman demonstrated--complaining on the internet is your privilege, nay, right as a consumer of media.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They don't have to kill it, but it isn't unusual for movies to go through upheavals during production or development hell. That said, it'd highly likely they will choose to kill it rather than address the complaints.
It not being impressive to me isn't enough to think it shouldn't exist, but this is a very different situation to what GiTS is doing.
Agreed.
I didn't say "inherently" (though I wouldn't rule that out)--but I personally have extreme reservations about using CG or physical effects to adapt a cast to a different racial background out of what seems like a forced decision out of a preemptive fear of controversy (and a rather unhelpful gesture at that) from past films, and I think that the reasons given by others about the core issue of Hollywood's hiring practices are fair. I actually didn't mind it being used as a mechanism in Cloud Atlas, though that movie wasn't without it's own issues. And as before, I don't mind if you disagree.
Insomuch as that I have "only assumptions"--I think that's true about all of us. As I said in an earlier post, this could be an outstanding film. But it's not unreasonable for us to operate from the assumption that that's unlikely for included reasons. Otherwise wouldn't we be obligated to wait until it came out and we'd personally seen it (so much for voting with your wallet).
The details of Doyle's work have no bearing on either of the current, acclaimed, modern adaptions of Sherlock Holmes in Elementary and Sherlock. They are separate, "Sherlock Holmes uses cocaine and occasionally morphine" is correct for some adaptions not others - in Elementary he is a recovering addict, but it is opiates not cocaine that he uses, but in Sherlock he has no hard drug habits (but is a self confessed sociopath and uses nicotine patches to improve his mental acuity. Discussing the time, setting or race and gender of Watson in Doyle's work has no bearing on the setting in Elementary. There are no exclusive, absolute truth claims to be made - they are relative to the work in question.
In the current case, the 2017 adaption isn't the manga, the movie, the subsequent works discussing what the Major is or isn't in the other sources doesn't tell us what the adaption will do with the corresponding character, or what it will do in general. There is a lot of apparent assumption that because it is one way in the manga/whatever it must be the same way in adaption - it need not be the case, the fact that the setting is very Japanese and it feeds one part of the story doesn't mean that the story cannot be changed, that those parts that the Japaneseness informed can't be excised to explore other aspects in a coherent fashion.
Anyway, talking about fictional characters is weird and there's a lot of philosophy of language that addresses that - and basically the main conclusion is "it is confusing, try to be precise".
Nothing about the details of the CGI technology implies any sort of force - it was for a background character, it was rejected immediately, it certainly doesn't suggest that it was to be used to preempt controversy by making non-Asian characters Asian for long periods of time. Those are some of the assumptions to which I refer - the purpose of the cgi and the subsequent motivations and implications.
Yes, we do all have only assumptions so we ought not be definitive in the pronouncements we make about the nature of the film. Which isn't to say that we ought not make predictions.
Why would we want less of a particular category, if people want to make it? it's just a weirdly fascist principle to uphold.
Even if you try and couch it in the pragmatic - shopping with your dollars sense, such a position is very much in the minority. People want to see the things they like adapted into other mediums, the first response when people read a book they like is "they should make it into a movie!".
I'd heard of the controversy via Gizmodo--I got those details confused. I actually think what you described...is kind of worse, albeit in a different way.
I don't feel my expectations are particularly definitive in any way--I've repeatedly noted that, in my understanding, it's not a treatment like The Departed, but that it's not a certainty either--it just looks like more and more from the gradual escape of information. We're all making assumptions--the fact that some of us are increasingly dismayed with each reveal is (somewhat) informative in its own form.
If expressing my disapproval of those things and my preference for other things that are good* makes me a fascist, well, so be it, I guess.
* disagreements about what is good and what is bad are, I presume, to some extent the driver of these conversations we are having right now
That's what the studio is claiming, anyway. It seems awfully unlikely though, if they want some asian extras they can just grab some asian extras, it's cheaper than testing out and paying a top-tier digital effects studio to alter extras in post production. Like seriously, does that sound convincing at all? It doesn't to me.
That's the issues, no one has problems with American made adaptations. It's when they take very little care to make the adaptation worthwhile. You can't just stick a white person in the very Japanese setting and story and call it a day. You have to make an effort to capture why the story is so culutrally relevant. If they had rewritten the character to fit the changes made, we might be getting somewhere. But no evidence shows this. And again, you run the risk of just shoving this imagery in with no justification for it; the setting of Neo Tokyo is important to the story, similar to the location in Old Boy. The American Old Boy lost a lot of the mystique and themes of the first, just shoving Josh Brolin into the same movie doesn't work.
It sounds like they were going to use the technique a lot for major characters, but the test was done on a small-scale for a background character, but it didn't work, and now they're playing selective semantics to wiggle their way out of it.
The question of plausibility assumes certain things about what they intended to shoot. These are the assumptions that do the discourse a disservice. But we should ensure that we are addressing the real issues - not strawman and apples to oranges comparisons.
Certainly, not hiring Asian actors and actresses in favour of digital correction for a mundane background shot would be largely inexplicable absent at the very least a latent racism not to mention being extraordinarily wasteful and risky (and dumb as a box of hammers).
On the other hand, you can't simply hire an Asian extra for the sorts of special effects shots that I described earlier in the thread - like ubiquitous holographic masks (or a unique one for a unique person) that change a person's apparent ethnicity while maintaining their apparent identity, or The Major selecting a face prior to an operation/as part of digital introspection while still having it be recognisable as Johansson. These may still be bad ideas (excuted well I don't think they would be) for other reasons - like Aegeri's contention that you cannot split a troubled history from any present cross-race-masquerade - but it isn't a bad idea because for the same reason as above because it can't be achieved by hiring extras.
Eschewing a more nuanced discussion of the possibilities sans assumptions is only useful as a method of stoking outrage.
There were, notably Dr Bashir and his parents in DS9 are 'Indian' (apparently the director didn't settle on any of them being of a single ethnicity).
Though Alexander Siddig is Sudanese, Brian George is Israeli (born to Lebanese and Indian parents), and Fadwa El Guindi is Egyptian
I liked the remade Old Boy better than the original, though I didn't really care for either. I don't think your aesthetic preferences are normative or definitive.
Furthermore, contrary to your own opinions I think all of the Japanese specifics that have been identified is boring cruft (and furthermore it is entirely inaccessible to large numbers of the viewing public outside of Japan). I don't care about a national sense of identity at all, let alone against the background of a recently demilitarised nation, I don't care about ripped from the headlines parallels with true crimes. The parts that interest me is the birth and pursuit of an AI, the relationship between one's body identity and self, transhumanism in general, the morally suspect actions of a government against its own people, power struggles between different branches of government juxtaposed against the interference of dangerous outsiders and am interested in seeing it made with high production values, a thoughtful cohesive plot and devoid of any jarring and annoying anime/manga convention. And if I get that, then I will have a thing that I want and you will have the thing that you want - the original manga, movie, the other manga reboots/sequels, the series, etc.
The fact that it exists is not encouraging.
Stranger things have happened in Hollywood, I'm curious why you have so much confidence given what we've seen. What is that you know about the movie that gives you the idea that they know what they're doing?
No, extra casting is a separate topic sharing the overall subject, there is no silver bullet for this. I can't decide if the studio doing this either amazingly ballsy, incredibly stupid, mind bogglingly racist or all of the above.
We use assumptions because 1) Hollywood has a bad history of doing this badly (and recently) and 2) there isn't a lot of evidence they will do this right. GiTS is an IP with a huge burden to prove itself right out of the gate, that's what they take on by using that license. So far, I am unconvinced this isn't a well intentioned train wreck - which I'd hate to tarnish Johansen's career.
It doesn't matter what it was about. The fact that they were doing CGI to make a character, any character, "more asian" rather than just hiring an asian actor is just beyond ridiculous.
I don't have any particular confidence in anything about the movie, I am simply reacting against what appears to me to be unjustified certainty upon what are ultimately empirical matters and things which are manifestly underdetermined (or contraindicated) by the available evidence. As far as I know there's hardly any information about the movie available at present - a few publicity shots of Johansson as the Major, and not much else. Certainly the idea that there are a lot of clear and present indications of likely failure aren't clear - and furthermore my impression of the general fan echo chamber around most properties is that they have no idea/no concern for what makes a good movie (and I don't like most movies anyway).
Of the things that I do know - it would be vastly more expensive to hire Caucasian actors and digitally correct them compared to simply hiring Asian extras AND that casting directors tend to be very concerned with establishing appropriate diversity in crowds (even if they don't achieve it, they want to do so) - it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the plan was to do anything that could be handled by simply hiring Asian actors instead of exploring CGI options.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded as it doesn't apply to what I was saying.
You can't hire an actor to achieve particular scenarios like those I have mentioned above.
or it might have been a test case for the general technological problem of how to change people's faces using CGI, something which would have much broader applications than just making people asian
or it might have been an ill-conceived scheme to avoid accusations of whitewashing while still casting scarlett johannsen, i guess? but it seems uncharitable to not at least consider other, less idiotic possibilities
Look at the recent Cloud Atlas, a movie coincidently director by the Wachowskis, the people who made the Matrix- which is explicitly inspired by Ghost in the Shell. It had Hugo Weaving in yellowface via CGI. It doesn't seem like we can give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt here when they have made these same mistakes in the past.
They also went with prosthetics in order to keep the same cast over the span of all the time/geographical settings the story(ies?) took place in. They had a diverse cast to begin with and it's not like they cast non-white actors only to give them token bit parts in each segment.
Their reasons for doing makeup on their actors is different from these other cases that are being discussed in the thread. I'm not saying they are completely absolved of all criticism because of it, because of course hell is paved with good intentions, but at the same time...
I wish they had done a commentary track for the film. The production history of the film is, from what little is known, quite fascinating.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And if it were these things, why didn't they respond in kind?
When someone accuses you of eating all the cookies, is your response that you have once, at some point in time, eaten a particular batch of cookies?
When people say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," they don't exactly tag on, "For a very specific definition of "sexual relations". Or, "We did not fire him for being black, ... it was because he listened to rap music and had dreadlocks."
Nobody here's even accusing them of lying; we're taking Paramount for their word; how is that uncharitable?