Ghost in the Shell - Trailer #1 - General

[QUOTE=bunguer;51364018]It is visually stunning, I think the environments and the overall atmosphere was captured correctly. I still don't get the CGI critics, what part especially caught your eye? They seem pretty good to me. So much better than "indie movies", that I simply can't grasp that critic. On the narrative side, there's a lot of questions about its quality, but overall I still think people might be overly negative from what they have showed. It seem to be much better than most anime adaptions and I'm personally looking forward to it.[/QUOTE] The CG backgrounds and stuff like that look pretty good, the problem is that in a lot of cases the characters don't feel like they're part of it, it just looks like they're on a greenscreen. That one shot with the major uncloaking and running towards the camera looks especially fake.

scarlet johansson really looks weird as the major it's interesting how they took the geisha scene from the manga, iirc that wasn't in any of the movies/animes.

[QUOTE=nunu;51364062] Never thought i'd see the day ghost in the shell was in a cinema tbh so im happy.[/QUOTE] Now to wait for the Hollywood adaptation of Fullmetal Alchemist

The CGI looks terrible. For example the scene when she jumps from the building makes her body look more fake than the rest of the scene. The 1:27 part where she emerges from the white goo is 90s level CGI. The 1:37 scene where she is standing above the guy in her suit also looks terrible, the body looks worse than the surrounding and the body is supposed to actually be real.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51364117]The CGI looks terrible. For example the scene when she jumps from the building makes her body look more fake than the rest of the scene. The 1:27 part where she emerges from the white goo is 90s level CGI. The 1:37 scene where she is standing above the guy in her suit also looks terrible, the body looks worse than the surrounding and the body is supposed to actually be real.[/QUOTE] None of that looks bad. Do you want a cold towel or something?

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51363549]This is gonna be another one of those movies that is half decent but you're unable to actually enjoy it because the director decided to make it their own adaptation instead of following the formula 1:1 and it'll be a frozen day in hell before purist fanboys let that slide.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree, if only for the fact that the ghost in the shell manga is highly different from any of the animated adaptions. Each version has a different feel to it, the problem is not that it's not 1 to 1 adaption, it's that from what I've seen the changes really seriously miss the CORE aspects of what make gits good in the first place. They seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the Major being the [I]first [/I]full body cyborg here for example, which is an incredibly American style sci-fi plot and exists in stark, completely inverted contrast to the character's existential crisis in the manga and 1995 film of being generic and replaceable. Her entire personality is formed around being replaceable, being nothing special really, and until I see evidence otherwise, they've missed the mark and ended up on something far more generic and westernized. I like the film and the tv anime equally, they are vastly different in tone and characterization, but they never lose that core gits feel, and I do not feel that in this trailer. It reminds me of Ghost in the Shell Arise, the most recent animated adaption of gits, which got the setting design and characters all close enough to be recognizable, but the feel was just slightly off the whole way through. Now, this movie might be great, it might suck, trailers can't be used to judge a final movie. However, I am somewhat concerned going forward with what I see. The west [I]can[/I] do solid cyberpunk, so maybe they can pull it off, maybe.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51363549]This is gonna be another one of those movies that is half decent but you're unable to actually enjoy it because the director decided to make it their own adaptation instead of following the formula 1:1 and it'll be a frozen day in hell before purist fanboys let that slide.[/QUOTE] Except the producer outright said they just cherry picked elements from the series/movie to create this one. It's not a re-imagining or reinterpretation like GITS Arise it is a remake with jumbled scenes. A bunch of visual-centric scenes and action sequences masquerading as story beats, that's Avi Arad's movies in a nutshell. The fact they've put all these random scenes in then somehow decided Kuze should be their villain speaks volumes.

As a nonfanboy, I gotta say, this movie looks stylish as fuck. Am gonna see it.

i dont like this "first of your kind" "scarlet johanson acts like the terminator because they havent invented emotions yet" nonsense. In GITS cyborgs are already common, there's no weirdness associated with it or people going "aaa what are you aaa".

The huge holograms are kinda dumb looking imo. Cool enough for one scene, but the third time they showed them I was like "yeah yeah I'm amazed ok"

I predict that the movie will turn out to be ok/10. The visuals look decent but it'll miss the point of GITS by a mile. Also why the hell is Togusa like 50 in this.

I think they made Batou's eyes a bit too small.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51364117]The CGI looks terrible. For example the scene when she jumps from the building makes her body look more fake than the rest of the scene. The 1:27 part where she emerges from the white goo is 90s level CGI. The 1:37 scene where she is standing above the guy in her suit also looks terrible, the body looks worse than the surrounding and the body is supposed to actually be real.[/QUOTE] That's a lotta empty platitudes you got there. Not seeing much in the way of anybody here criticizing the CG actually being able to describe [I]how[/I] it's "bad." The only shot where things fall apart for me is in the recreation of the river fight. They didn't quite match the daylight exterior lighting on her camo suit. Actually, upon doing a bit of research I've found that the studio doing the brunt of the VFX for this movie is MPC (Jungle Book, Terminator Jennysize), and I've noticed they've always made a lot of concessions in terms of photo realism the sake of style, and more importantly, control. It looks like they're trying to sell depth and contrast more by faking bounced lighting with area lights so shadows can be darker in specific places, while sacrificing a lot of the reflectivity one would expect to see on buildings in an overcast day. In the end, a lot of things that stop an effect from being as photoreal as possible is when reality itself goes against what the director wants a shot to look like. [QUOTE=AntonioR;51364117]when she jumps from the building makes her body look more fake than the rest of the scene. [/QUOTE] lul more fakerer fuck off [QUOTE=AntonioR;51364117]The 1:27 part where she emerges from the white goo is 90s level CGI.[/QUOTE] What the fuck do you even mean here? That's probably the best shot in the trailer! The materials are well done, the translucency of the waxy shit is a beautiful touch, and cloth simulation of that caliber (that tears!) wasn't even fucking available in the 90s you fucking plop. The best it got in that decade was Spawn's cape. A hand animated plane with a bunch of noise displacements scrolling across it. That's what 90s CGI was. The earliest ripping cloth simulation I can remember seeing in a movie was in 2004's Van Helsing for the skin ripping open on werewolf transformations. I remember them making a big deal about it, actually. [QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;51364234]I completely disagree, if only for the fact that the ghost in the shell manga is highly different from any of the animated adaptions. Each version has a different feel to it, the problem is not that it's not 1 to 1 adaption, it's that from what I've seen the changes really seriously miss the CORE aspects of what make gits good in the first place. They seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the Major being the [I]first [/I]full body cyborg here for example, which is an incredibly American style sci-fi plot and exists in stark, completely inverted contrast to the character's existential crisis in the manga and 1995 film of being generic and replaceable. [/QUOTE] Wasn't she the first though? I mean, granted, it was when she was 13 or so when it happened, so it shouldn't be anything that makes her special. At least, that's what was implied in 2nd Gig. Even then, that's [I]only[/I] the SAC continuity. She's got a few different backstories depending on who's telling it, doesn't she? [QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;51364234] I like the film and the tv anime equally, they are vastly different in tone and characterization, but they never lose that core gits feel, and I do not feel that in this trailer. It reminds me of Ghost in the Shell Arise, the most recent animated adaption of gits, which got the setting design and characters all close enough to be recognizable, but the feel was just slightly off the whole way through.[/QUOTE] I don't agree. I feel like Arise got closer to the tone of the manga than the movie and SAC. It's still inside the bubble, imo. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming (again)" - Blazyd))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=spekter;51364249]Except the producer outright said they just cherry picked elements from the series/movie to create this one. It's not a re-imagining or reinterpretation like GITS Arise it is a remake with jumbled scenes. A bunch of visual-centric scenes and action sequences masquerading as story beats, that's Avi Arad's movies in a nutshell. The fact they've put all these random scenes in then somehow decided Kuze should be their villain speaks volumes.[/QUOTE] If that's what the director took from it, and is what he wanted to bring to the table then so be it. I think it would be fair to wait for the movie's release to come to such a conclusion though. Things like this always reminds me of the quote (whether it's fairly relevant or not) from George R.R. Martin, "How many children did Scarlett O'Hara have, anyway? In the book [I]Gone With the Wind[/I], Scarlett O'Hara had three children. In the film however, she only had one child. So how many children did Scarlett have? Well, the answer is none, because Scarlett O'Hara doesn't exist."

all I can hope is that this serves as the "Blade" of Western adaptations of cool Eastern shit, and even if this is just ok it will see enough success for execs to start taking it all more seriously and letting more faithful adaptations happen down the line. I[B][U] WILL [/U][/B] be the one to write and direct film adaptations of Phantom Blood through Stardust Crusaders. I promise the four movies (SC will be split into two films ofc) will have less parentheticals and commas than I type in this forum.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;51364303]i dont like this "first of your kind" "scarlet johanson acts like the terminator because they havent invented emotions yet" nonsense. In GITS cyborgs are already common, there's no weirdness associated with it or people going "aaa what are you aaa".[/QUOTE] I thought she was the first full body cyborg or something like that?

[QUOTE=squids_eye;51364416]I thought she was the first full body cyborg or something like that?[/QUOTE] It was new technology, but she was not the first, even when the procedure happened at childhood.

Well, she's got the "dead inside" feeling down pat, and this is coming from a guy who's only seen snippets of Ghost in the Shell on YT. Which should I watch if I wanted to...prepare for any sort of disappointment in this movie?

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;51364444]Which should I watch if I wanted to...prepare for any sort of disappointment in this movie?[/QUOTE] Start with Stand Alone Complex if you want something more digestible, or the original film if you want something slightly more cerebral

[QUOTE=xalener;51364356]That's a lotta empty platitudes you got there. Not seeing much in the way of anybody here criticizing the CG actually being able to describe [I]how[/I] it's "bad." The only shot where things fall apart for me is in the recreation of the river fight. They didn't quite match the daylight exterior lighting on her camo suit. Actually, upon doing a bit of research I've found that the studio doing the brunt of the VFX for this movie is MPC (Jungle Book, Terminator Jennysize), and I've noticed they've always made a lot of concessions in terms of photo realism the sake of style, and more importantly, control. It looks like they're trying to sell depth and contrast more by faking bounced lighting with area lights so shadows can be darker in specific places, while sacrificing a lot of the reflectivity one would expect to see on buildings in an overcast day. In the end, a lot of things that stop an effect from being as photoreal as possible is when reality itself goes against what the director wants a shot to look like. lul more fakerer fuck off What the fuck do you even mean here? That's probably the best shot in the trailer! The materials are well done, the translucency of the waxy shit is a beautiful touch, and cloth simulation of that caliber (that tears!) wasn't even fucking available in the 90s you fucking plop. The best it got in that decade was Spawn's cape. A hand animated plane with a bunch of noise displacements scrolling across it. That's what 90s CGI was.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what I meant and are flaming and insulting me for giving my opinion. For the emerging from goo stuff I meant exactly that; the shot from the thumbnail and the one before it, it looks very bad and cartoony to me. Have I mentioned cloth simulation anywhere ? No. As for the other scenes her CGI body simply looks as it is of lower quality than the rest of the scenes and really pops out.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51364492]You have no idea what I meant and are flaming and insulting me for giving my opinion. For the emerging from goo stuff I meant exactly that; the shot from the thumbnail and the one before it, it looks very bad and cartoony to me. Have I mentioned cloth simulation anywhere ? No. If you have a several layers of CGI; like the background and her character which is a mix of CGI and live action and they don't blend well like in those other scenes I mentioned... well that looks "fakerer" (worse) than a scene that is full blown CGI to me.[/QUOTE] I'd like you to show me at least 1 scene from the 90's that looks less "fakerer" or is superior technologically speaking.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51364522]I'd like you to show me at least 1 scene from the 90's that looks less "fakerer" or is superior technologically speaking.[/QUOTE] I didn't say 90s CGI is better, I said it is as bad as it. Also google "hyperbole", you might learn a thing or two.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51364492]You have no idea what I meant and are flaming and insulting me for giving my opinion. For the emerging from goo stuff I meant exactly that; the shot from the thumbnail and the one before it, it looks very bad and cartoony to me. Have I mentioned cloth simulation anywhere ? No. [/QUOTE] If you mentioned the goo, you mentioned cloth simulation, cuz that's what it was when it flaked off.

[QUOTE=xalener;51364356]Wasn't she the first though? I mean, granted, it was when she was 13 or so when it happened, so it shouldn't be anything that makes her special. At least, that's what was implied in 2nd Gig. Even then, that's [I]only[/I] the SAC continuity. She's got a few different backstories depending on who's telling it, doesn't she?[/quote] It was new experimental technology, at least in SAC. it wasn't ever shown in the original manga or movie, and she was a cyborg from birth in Arise cause Arise is kind of dumb if you want my honest opinion. [QUOTE=xalener;51364356]I don't agree. I feel like Arise got closer to the tone of the manga than the movie and SAC. It's still inside the bubble, imo.[/QUOTE] It's really not, it's goofier then the others but not in the same way as the manga. In the original gits, the characters are lighthearted and goofy, but the things happening are serious and realistic for contrast. In Arise, literal naruto villains show up at one point and it's all about ridiculous action setpieces. None of the characters act like they do in the manga either, they're actually closest in SAC in my opinion.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51364537]I didn't say 90s CGI is better, I said it is as bad as it. Also google "hyperbole", you might learn a thing or two.[/QUOTE] I know it's a hyperbole, that's what I was calling you out on, Mrs. Condescending.

[QUOTE=xalener;51364543]If you mentioned the goo, you mentioned cloth simulation, cuz that's what it was when it flaked off.[/QUOTE] She was shown rising from that tank of goo, that is what I meant. I don't see how you would translate "part where she emerges from the white goo" to "white skin peeling of her body" ? The goo was basically skin by then, I wouldn't call it goo which is a fluid. You can't do cloth simulation on fluid.

[QUOTE=Jackald;51364567]I think what AntonioR is getting at is to do with consistency. When the whole film is CGI, or Anime, or has the same limitations, you get used to it. It's how you can get engrossed in terrible 90s video game CGI, or When the styles are a mishmash, however, it becomes a lot more jarring. For example, this opening looks totally fine despite having technically worse CGI (fewer keyframes, lower resolution textures, no bumpmapping or advanced shading) because it's consistent. There's no jarring contrast between real life actors and this art style, or 2D animation and this 3D art style. [/QUOTE] I gotta retort just a little to say non photoreal shading is a difficult complex puzzle in its own right and those textures are probably absurdly high res so those pen strokes can look sharp on close ups. I know what you're getting at though, and it slots into the "director's call" thing I was getting at.

I think it looks all right

Definitely gonna see this when it comes out. Even if it's not great, I'm always down for some GITS.

Gives me a better impression of the movie than those pretentious teasers from earlier.