Forum - View topic

REVIEW: Innocence Ghost in the Shell

Zac: No, I just have no taste in overrated mediocre series like you.

No you really can't rest your case, because as I said before, I'm not sure why depicting a guy who jerks off on a comatose girl is intellectually superior to my kind of anime.

But don't worry. When people finally saw the Evangelion movies here, they were able to agree with me about how pretentious and nihilistic they really were, and helped take some air out of the Gainax otaku in the process.

And it's pretty obvious that if One Piece was winning American fans over, FUNimation would be fighting tooth and nail for the rights, and not just settling for Detective Conan and Full Metal Alchemist.

It's amasing how you judge an entire twenty-six episode, two film franchise on barely a minute or two of footage

Hard to take you seriously when you make statements like that. It really, truly is.

Huh? When did this happen? I don't seem to recall any stinging anti-Gainax backlash over the domestic release of End of Evangelion.

So...One Piece has failed to acquire a healthy fanbase because someone hasn't picked it up for local release? Allow me to point you in the direction of a quaint little show called Naruto.

How can you say with absolute certainty that FUNi is not pursuing that title unless you're actually an employee of that company and privy to such dealings?

ALSO check out the Featurette of Dreamworks’ film “Ghost In The Shell: Innocence” to be shown at A-Kon. Times TBA, but likely on Saturday afternoon.

Naruto hasn't been picked up, because different companies might be fighting over it. One Piece hasn't been picked up because those companies care more about Naruto.

Ryosei, I can't keep arguing this with you. You seem to have your own ideas of what it costs to make a film. I was told in the many, many, many, many, many classes I took on film production that if a film costs 2 million to make, it needs to make 6 to break even. Advertising and production are not the only costs associated with a film. Nine times out of ten there are investors who are paid back with interest out of box office revenue who helped to fund the film in the first place. Usually these investors are guaranteed a certain return on their investment.

You say "there's no way advertising cost more than X" but you have no clue what you're talking about; you yourself admit that everything you say is speculation. You are so doggedly trying to prevent anyone from saying anything negative about this film, you're presenting your speculation and interpretation of the facts as irrefutable truth, which is maddening.

Deal with it.

You neglected to mention that the theaters themselves take their cut. And even the theaters that are run by the distributors have expenses.

I have no idea what the percentage is in Japan, but right off the top, a certain percentage of ticket sales goes to the theater.

The individual that "leads" ANN never made any input into this thread up until now, but thanks for insulting me nonetheless.

We will continue to post honest, critical opinions that are not censored for anyone's benefit, not yours, not our good friends at Production IG, and not the North American licensors.

Ryosei, putting aside your petulant intellectualism, there is a major MAJOR flaw in your argumentation. You haven't seen the movie. Gabriel saw the movie, and he judged the philosophical content was too shallow. Zac saw it too and was of the same opinion. And I saw it too and thought pretty much the same thing. You have abolutely NO RIGHT to disagree with anything in this review as long as you haven't seen the film. And maybe -- just maybe -- when you do, you'll think the same thing as us.

I mean, it's not like we universally hate Oshii. He's made some amazing movies and is one of the most significant directors in anime. I admire him. But I think lately he has hit a creative dead-end. He's still obssessed with reality vs. virtuality and his dog/wolf imagery (part of his mad-genius charm in a way) and has been rehashing the same concepts for so long that they have grown stale. In artistic terms, he needs to "re-source".

Furthermore, I find your definition of "commercial success" to be baffling. Since when is breaking even considered a commercial success? That's just too naive.

I have a question about the "Innocence" review that may (hopefully) shed some light on how Mr. Reldman has assessed the film: Under what circumstances did he see it?

Investment in a film is no different than investment in an oil conglomerate, or fast food chain; it's return is relative entirely to its performance. Smart business sense will tell you never to make a deal that will limit your return, regardless of whether it may also diminish it. No investor is ever guaranteed a fixed return on their investment, because no investor would ever agree to that. Their returns always have been, and always will be, relative to the performance of their holdings (ie. the film).

How do I have no clue about what I'm talking about? Has my 15 years following and working in this industry provided me nothing? Have I not attempted to afford as much third-party involvment in my estimations as possible?

Simple, smart business dictates that if you project smaller returns in a region, you do not market more than you need to. I.G has stated in the past they are confident that Innocence will succeed primarily as a word-of-mouth picture, because that is the most effective marketing tool for the demographic Innocence most likely appeals to. If you'd like me to personally contact I.G and even Suzuki-san himself for their estimates on marketing costs, I will, because that is how confident I am that they spent absolutely, positively no more than $5-7 million on said expenses. Take that as you will.

If we were all to take this advice, what would be the point of a 'discussion' forum?

Simply saying you will continue to provide reviews that are 'not censored [towards] anyone's benefit' is a tired old cliche, indicative of the bare minimum one can contribute when providing their rhetoric on a medium or artform.

When I read a review, I expect intelligence, fairness and insight, as that is what I myself have strived to provide in my reviews over the past 15 years. I dislike reading rants, or self-indulgent criticisms (as this review blatantly is, circa "Oshii's philosophy is all repetitive and pretentious, and I saw through it all", repeat ad nauseum).

Yet, what annoys me most of this review isn't so much the end result, but rather the process of critique. The most often laid criticism towards film is always, always directed towards its philosophical thematics, and it is a subject that is both very subjective, and very difficult to comment on. Had Gab provided any slight bit of reasoning as towards why his views of the film's philosophical were as they are, then it's quite possible his review could have been presented as more 'just'.

However, not only has he not, but he's yet to even bother to make an appearance on these boards, providing even the tiniest degree of defense towards his article. In fact, not one individual from ANN present or past (yourself excluded, as I don't think you've mentioned having seen the film or not) has attempted to enlighten me in any way (indepth or not) in this regard.

Any can have an opinion, and as a reviewer of film and other media for quite some time, I find it offensive (considering the time and effort I put into my work) that anyone believes that all have the right to express theirs. An opinionated critique this is on Innocence; an intelligent, opinionated critique it is not.

If this is the mere standard ANN now requires, please inform me, as I will refrain from reading (and thus commenting) on any further reviews on this site.

And for goodness sakes, why won't one of you three ANN employee's (again, past or present) explain why the 'philosophical content is too shallow'? If you ever hope to have a general audience respect and enjoy your reviews, adhere closely to this unwritten rule, that stands above all others:

Rule #1: Explain your position and opinion. EXPLAIN.

The fact that Oshii is the creator and expressionist of the philosophy in this picture has absolutely no relevance to the argument, and seeing it brought up by both you, Zac and the reviewer himself pretty much screams an indirect bias. And that's unprofessional.

Investment in a film is no different than investment in an oil conglomerate, or fast food chain; it's return is relative entirely to its performance. Smart business sense will tell you never to make a deal that will limit your return, regardless of whether it may also diminish it. No investor is ever guaranteed a fixed return on their investment, because no investor would ever agree to that. Their returns always have been, and always will be, relative to the performance of their holdings (ie. the film).

Hence my use of the word individuals

I'd be glad to copy a couple lines from his review to show you that he does explain why he feels the way he deos about the movies.

I'm in a priveledged position, so I DO know what's going on with those titles. Unfortunately, as has been stated before, I can't TELL you what's actually happening with those titles, except to say that you are 100 percent DEAD WRONG and if I say anything further I'll get in big trouble.

I'm really sick and tired of you coming here and spouting off all this misinformation and treating it as FACT.

You need to preface these things with I THINK. It's people like you who know precisely zilch setting yourself up as some kind of know-all authority on a message board, hiding behind anonymity and taking little care with what you say and how you present yourself, that spread misinformation and start rumors.

You don't seem to know what's popular or what sells,

you can't seem to interpret sales data correctly; you throw out wild statements like "Fans here didn't like the Evangelion movies!"

If you're going to continue spouting your little 'facts', have some PROOF before doing so. Otherwise you're like the Bill O'Reilly of this message board.