Forum - View topic

REVIEW: Ghost in the Shell (2017)

some would say that the main criteria for a big film like Ghost in the Shell is if you are entertained.

And I must admit that in spite of my trepidation, I actually found myself enjoying this adaptation.

One area where the film really succeeds, though, is in the production design.

Almost completely missing the essence of the series; a shallow Hollywood interpretation

If you are a anime/manga fan and looking for a good adaptation, forget it.

Jonny Mendes wrote:

If you are a anime/manga fan and looking for a good adaptation, forget it.

Can't agree with this statement at all unless you add to it "and are so anal about the adaptation being accurate that you can't tolerate any deviation." I am a big fan of the franchise (seen all of the animated content, rated Stand Alone Complex's second season as one of the best of the 2000s, read at least some of the manga) and generally liked it.

I will probably watch the movie tomorrow. Ultimately, the movie sounds as expected but to give it some due, it does not look like it defecated all over the franchise as previous adaptations have done. Reading these reviews, they sound a lot like those for Doctor Strange (which was perfectly adequate). Lowering our expectations for Hollywood to 'meh, it was fine' are a topic for a seperate day though.

I hope the movie does well, we may get a more adventurous sequel.

Sounds like one of those films you watch once and forget it existed.

Sounds like one of those films you watch once and forget it existed.

Themaster20000 wrote:

Sounds like one of those films you watch once and forget it existed.

Hardly, it is very much going to be in the same category as David Lynch's Dune. Which was a movie that strayed from the source material had good acting and an ok script but will be remembered for having outstanding visuals.

If you a fan of 1980's cyberpunk then you will probably like it, if you do not it will hold little appeal to you. I love 1980's cyberpunk and would give the film a B.

I find it baffling the word adaptation is constantly thrown around in the context of this franchise. None of the entries within it fit that. At best they only take influence from and refer to one another in sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle ways. You have the manga, the 1995 film and it's sequel, the Stand Alone Complex series and its movie, Arise, and even this 2017 live action version. Every one of those entries is merely a different imagining of the same universe. Just as each one features a different take on Motoko yet they all stand apart. You can tell that while they are from the same franchise they are all very different works.

Each one is a different experience. Were you to sit down and actually compare the manga to oh say the 1995 film, you'd again see only a very loose interpretation of its structure. The same goes from any other entry. They're all different beasts bred from the same monster. You can tell each one is “Ghost in the Shell” yet each timeline is meant to stand on its own just as this most recent entry is.

So of course this entry isn't all that directly faithful to the manga. None of them are. Read chapter 2 of the manga. Now watch the 1995 movie. Different huh? Kind of like Gundam. Whether it's the UC or one of many alternate universes. No matter what the entry you can still recognize the franchise for what it is.

That's the point. Every timeline entry can be enjoyed one its own. The same goes from this most recent entry. They're made in such a way that you can start anywhere and not be lost. They're supposed to stand apart yet again still very clearly be spawn from the ideas introduced in the original manga. That's one of the best things about the franchise, there are an increasing number of ways you can enter its world.