Talk:Ghost in the Shell (2017 film): Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Film: American Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. New Zealand Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I removed this from the page, but my edit was reverted. Surely the relevance of this should be justified in the article before linking to another page. Spaceyavin (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing it again, as I agree. It is already linked in the relevant controversy section. 141.210.34.117 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB credits Johansson as "Kusanagi". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219827/ Jyg (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit IMDB, it is not a reliable source. Sro23 (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can submit changes. Ostensibly, they verify changes before accepting them. Drantin (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you showcase that they do this? It's Wikipedia standard that we don't use IMDb as a source. So this would have to be something taken to a higher level, not just discussion here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few specific cases where the IMDb is a reliable source, such as when the credits are officially validated by a reliable source, such as when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) signs off on the writer credits. Otherwise, no, it's basically a wiki. This story demonstrates why it's not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've remove the links of The Major to Kusanagi's character. To date Kusanagi's name has not been mentioned in any official source about the movie. In fact all material has been extremely careful to only refer to her as The Major. To say this character is Kusanagi is synthesis and original research at this time and is making an assumption. Until it's released, or we have a reliable source, I don't think we can make that assumption especially as it's looking increasingly possible it's not supposed to be Kusanagi. If it's to be added back in it needs to be supported by a reliable source. Remember we need sources for this stuff, not assumptions. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some edit warring involving the retainment of this statement: "since the main character has been portrayed as a full body cyborg (or "shell") with a Caucasian appearance (despite being originally an Asian person)". Allow me to explain my actions: reading this immediately gave me a bad feeling. As far as I can tell, most sources point to the main reason why the fans in Japan didn't get as upset at the casting being that it's a Hollywood movie, and I guess they associate Hollywood with white actors, NOT because in the original the main character supposedly was an Asian person in a Caucasian cyborg body. It's personal opinion at best, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE with troubling implications at worst. Unless this has been confirmed by the creators themselves or well trusted experts, please do not re-add the statement. A few tweets from fans isn't good enough. Sro23 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The source doesn't say anything about a Caucasian cyborg body. It says that they assumed an American would play the role. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Mettaton from Undertale looks like Motoko.... --RainPearl233 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These opinions are obviously biased by financial gain, I added a quote from Pavan Shamdasani of Asia Times to try and balance it a little. --184.75.234.66 (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section opens with

"fans have argued that changing both the Japanese setting and main character's name to make the film a complete cultural adaptation would be a wiser decision."

There are 2 glaring issues with this, firstly it isn't actually in the cited source, which presents some "fan" tweets and proceeds to talk about "whitewashing" as a general topic without suggesting any remedy. Secondly because the original was set in a fictionalized Hong Kong, not Japan. I'd change it myself, but I long ago learnt the perils of editing someones pet project on wikipedia, especially when identity politics are involved. 51.7.8.191 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you're afraid you'll be treated unfairly because you're an IP or something, there's nothing stopping you from creating an account. Sro23 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got (or rather had) an account, but I stopped being active on wikipedia years ago for reasons alluded to above, and I've no intention of being brought back into the fold. It's far easier to point out an error and let someone else deal with the bureaucracy of actually correcting it. 51.7.8.191 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section, except for the last sentence looks like it is a positive spin on it that was written by DreamWorks' Public Relations department. In no way does this sound neutral to me, nor does it accurately reflect the criticism I have seen from this controversy. It makes it looks like most fans assumed that a Hollywood production would choose a white actress in the lead role, and that is just not what I am seeing. It's backed up by a quote from the company that holds the rights to the series and its characters, who is obviously going to promote the movie to protect their financial interests. Sanders, Paul, and Johansson are obviously going to spin their movie in a positive way; and so is Mamoru Oshii when he is being paid by the production company for an interview to make the movie look good.

When I research the movie online, this is what I find: http://nextshark.com/ghost-shell-tries-making-viral-meme-severely-backfires/

That seems like the exact opposite reaction of the one claimed in this section. Furthermore it covers a new marketing controversy separate from previous criticism. That attempt at viral marketing really backfired. --Macha Panta (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]