Ghost in the Shell is "international" story

[Jux]

Ghost in the Shell doesn't have the same kind of brand recognition, and therefore casting a lesser-known actor/actress as lead might seriously hurt its profitability unless you have a strong supporting cast to lure in audiences.

Except there has been zero evidence put forth thus far that suggests that happens. How many flops can you think of that would have been blockbusters if the only difference was a mega star had been cast in the lead? Movies flop because either the concept sucks/was poorly executed, or the acting sucked (which is all together different from brand recognition).

 

[Sonmi]

Ghost in the Shell doesn't have the same kind of brand recognition, and therefore casting a lesser-known actor/actress as lead might seriously hurt its profitability unless you have a strong supporting cast to lure in audiences.

Except there has been zero evidence put forth thus far that suggests that happens.

Why do you think they hire big name actors then, especially demanding such high a price? They certainly aren't hiring ScarJo for her very lukewarm acting chops.

How many flops can you think of that would have been blockbusters if the only difference was a mega star had been cast in the lead?

I wouldn't know, as Hollywood is not willing to take the risk of casting unknown actors in high budget projects lacking brand recognition. It's a completely unnecessary risk from their point of view.

Movies flop because either the concept sucks/was poorly executed, or the acting sucked (which is all together different from brand recognition).

Movies can also flop because of poor marketability, or an inflated budget. Just look at Hugo, or John Carter.

 

[MatParker116]

Ghost in the Shell doesn't have the same kind of brand recognition, and therefore casting a lesser-known actor/actress as lead might seriously hurt its profitability unless you have a strong supporting cast to lure in audiences.

Except there has been zero evidence put forth thus far that suggests that happens. How many flops can you think of that would have been blockbusters if the only difference was a mega star had been cast in the lead? Movies flop because either the concept sucks/was poorly executed, or the acting sucked (which is all together different from brand recognition).

The movie going public is unpredictable, what studios have to do is mitigate the risk of failure with IP's such as GITS. Scarlett significantly mitigates that risk along with the Oscar nominated screenwriter and the producers also being responsible for several blockbusters. Let's judge this film on merit not on the decisions of it's casting director.

 

[hermes]

It's racist when movie producers cast someone based on race. It's not racism when we pick what movies to watch based on race.

You might be getting it wrong, after all, the choice of seeing or not a movie based on the race of the protagonist is racism, and it is the core reason whitewashing still exists.

If anything, I find the movie producers to be less racists about it. They are motivated by pure economics sense: they want the actress that will give them a bigger return for their money as possible. If the top grossing actress were Halle Berry, we would be having a lot more black protagonists in movies.

The truly racist attitude is the one that says: "I won't see this movie because the main protagonist is black"... that attitude is real and prevalent in many countries, it is something movie companies have learned through screenings once and are not willing to chanllenge, and it is the reason why this is still a thing.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I'd like to hear what an actual Japanese person has to say about it.

 

[hermes]

The Nostalgia Critic pointed out that a segment of people interviewed in Japan regarding Johansson's casting thought she looked great in the part.

Yeah, they seem to be ok with this, to the point it seems this is a big deal only because it is a Hollywood production.

My guess is because they are not at all unfamiliar with their own brand of whitewashing, since every adaptation they produce is exclusively acted with Japanese people: "Character was western in the original? Just cast it with a Japanese guy and put a wig on him..."

Spoiler: Which one of these are supposed to have german sounding last names?

Spoiler: I guess that is the closest we can get to Miles Edgeworth?

Spoiler: That looks about right.

It doesn't even matter if being foreign and having problems with the language was part of his character, just cast a Japanese guy and make him talk funny.

 

[MatParker116]

I'd like to hear what an actual Japanese person has to say about it.

Don't care think it's great casting actually.

 

[Jux]

Why do you think they hire big name actors then, especially demanding such high a price? They certainly aren't hiring ScarJo for her very lukewarm acting chops.

An outdated way of thinking. ScarJo is a good actress, but I still don't think she's right for the role.

I wouldn't know, as Hollywood is not willing to take the risk of casting unknown actors in high budget projects lacking brand recognition. It's a completely unnecessary risk from their point of view.

Pan [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5920962/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm]? That was just last year, $150 budget. The Legend of Hercules [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_4], that was a $70 million dollar budget, Vampire Academy [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1686821/?ref_=nv_sr_1], $30 million dollar budget. So... not exactly true that Hollywood doesn't cast no names in high budget films. And those were all flops.

What exactly made Sam Worthington a big name when he did Avatar, which btw was a $237 million dollar budget? What made Taylor Kitsch have the name recognition to justify putting him in Battleship, which had a budget around 209 million.

I can keep going if ya like.

Movies can also flop because of poor marketability, or an inflated budget. Just look at Hugo, or John Carter.

And aside from CGI, one of the biggest bloats to budget is paying stars for name recognition. Look at Adam Sandler, among others [http://stylecaster.com/overpaid-actors/].

 

[COMaestro]

Why do you think they hire big name actors then, especially demanding such high a price? They certainly aren't hiring ScarJo for her very lukewarm acting chops.

An outdated way of thinking. ScarJo is a good actress, but I still don't think she's right for the role.

I wouldn't know, as Hollywood is not willing to take the risk of casting unknown actors in high budget projects lacking brand recognition. It's a completely unnecessary risk from their point of view.

Pan [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5920962/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm]? That was just last year, $150 budget. The Legend of Hercules [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_4], that was a $70 million dollar budget, Vampire Academy [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1686821/?ref_=nv_sr_1], $30 million dollar budget. So... not exactly true that Hollywood doesn't cast no names in high budget films. And those were all flops.

What exactly made Sam Worthington a big name when he did Avatar, which btw was a $237 million dollar budget? What made Taylor Kitsch have the name recognition to justify putting him in Battleship, which had a budget around 209 million.

I can keep going if ya like.

Movies can also flop because of poor marketability, or an inflated budget. Just look at Hugo, or John Carter.

And aside from CGI, one of the biggest bloats to budget is paying stars for name recognition. Look at Adam Sandler, among others [http://stylecaster.com/overpaid-actors/].

Um, all the movies you listed, minus Avatar, had brand recognition, which was mentioned by the person you quoted. Everyone knows Peter Pan and Hercules and Battleship, and Vampire Academy is a best selling series of young adult novels. Every film company wants to find the next Harry Potter series which is why there have been so many YA novel adaptations over the past number of years.

Also, let's not move the goalposts on some of these. Pan? Top billed actor is Hugh Jackman, not Levi Miller.

The average budget for a Hollywood film in 1997 was $60 million, and then around $100 million in 2007, so in the nine years since then it's probably gone up at least another 20-30 million, if not more. So Legend of Hercules and Vampire Academy both do not count as "high budget" films.

The "star" of Avatar was the CGI. That's the reason most people went to see that movie.

Battleship was just a stupid idea in the first place, but let's not pretend that there were no big name stars (Liam Neeson) in the film who were heavily showcased in the trailers.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I'd like to hear what an actual Japanese person has to say about it.

Don't care think it's great casting actually.

You're only one person so I can't proclaim my hypothesis confirmed, but that's what I figured. Fans think this is a big fucking deal when it really isn't. This movie isn't even going to make a blip on pop culture radar lasting longer than a month or two if that. Saying this is a huge racist statement is just wrong. Now if a movie was getting made about the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that tells the story of the atrocities and suffering inflicted by those attacks and it starred Tom Cruise in yellow face I think outrage would be justified.

This is just white weeaboos getting worked up on the internet again. If this movie was important to me I'd be spending much more time being psyched that anyone bothered to make a GitS movie at all.

 

[Sonmi]

An outdated way of thinking. ScarJo is a good actress, but I still don't think she's right for the role.

It's not outdated, it's an unfortunate side of the business.

People are attracted to big names and familiar faces, thus casting them is the safe choice.

Pan [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5920962/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm]? That was just last year, $150 budget. The Legend of Hercules [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1043726/?ref_=nv_sr_4], that was a $70 million dollar budget, Vampire Academy [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1686821/?ref_=nv_sr_1], $30 million dollar budget. So... not exactly true that Hollywood doesn't cast no names in high budget films. And those were all flops.

Pan was helmed by Hugh Jackman, whose face was plastered on every single poster.

The Legend of Hercules and Vampire Academy are both too low budget compared to the average budget of a blockbuster, as pointed by the poster above. And both Hercules and Peter Pan have widespread source material recognition.

What exactly made Sam Worthington a big name when he did Avatar, which btw was a $237 million dollar budget? What made Taylor Kitsch have the name recognition to justify putting him in Battleship, which had a budget around 209 million.

I can keep going if ya like.

Avatar had James freaking Cameron directing the project, and the main attraction was the 3D. People didn't go to the theatres to know more about Worthington's character, they simply wanted to know more about the intricacy of the 3D environments, and wanted to know what James freaking Cameron (the money machine behind Titanic) was going to do. Avatar also had the queen of science-fiction, Ellen Ripley herself, as one of the main character.

Battleship was a total shit-show, but I think it's probably the worst example you could have brought up against actors being one of the main commercial attractions considering that the trailers kept reminding us that "Rihanna is totally in the movie you guys!".

And aside from CGI, one of the biggest bloats to budget is paying stars for name recognition. Look at Adam Sandler, among others [http://stylecaster.com/overpaid-actors/].

Adam Sandler might be an absolutely terrible actor and general human being (Punch-Drunk Love excepted), but you're mistaken if you don't think he's a safe bet for making a quick buck. (With the notable exception of Punch-Drunk Love, ironically)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=adamsandler.htm

He pretty much consistently brings in some amount of profit and a number of people to the theatres, and that's without counting the blatant product placement deals he has in a good deal of his movies.

He's overpaid, sure, but he's the only reason people go see the trite bullshit he stars in.

 

[Yopaz]

The truly racist attitude is the one that says: "I won't see this movie because the main protagonist is black"... that attitude is real and prevalent in many countries, it is something movie companies have learned through screenings once and are not willing to chanllenge, and it is the reason why this is still a thing.

I would have replied to your entire post if not for this. You can't pick a definition of racism that is valid for one race and then not valid in the exact same situation for another race. You judge someone based on race - racism. Sure, you can cherry pick things all you want to shape your own view of the world, but don't expect anyone to accept it as valid.

 

[hermes]

The truly racist attitude is the one that says: "I won't see this movie because the main protagonist is black"... that attitude is real and prevalent in many countries, it is something movie companies have learned through screenings once and are not willing to challenge, and it is the reason why this is still a thing.

I would have replied to your entire post if not for this. You can't pick a definition of racism that is valid for one race and then not valid in the exact same situation for another race. You judge someone based on race - racism. Sure, you can cherry pick things all you want to shape your own view of the world, but don't expect anyone to accept it as valid.

Where did I do that? If anything, you are the one cherry picking what racism is when saying stuff like "It's racist when movie producers cast someone based on race. It's not racism when we pick what movies to watch based on race."

 

[hentropy]

I gave up on the prospect of this movie being any good the day it was announced as a serious project. None of this other business changes my opinion of it for bad or good, seeing as my expectations are already at rock bottom.

I hope they whitewash it to hell, alienate the entire anime fanbase so they don't see it, barely advertise it, and it becomes a catastrophe for the studio. I hope it's the stinkiest, nuttiest piece of excrement that ever got plopped out of a foolish producer's sphincter so that the words "live-action Hollywood movie based on an anime" becomes something you can be fired over for suggesting.

Not for any social justicey reasons, of course, but because for once I'd like to see them leave perfectly good pieces of media and franchises alone.

 

[Jux]

Um, all the movies you listed, minus Avatar, had brand recognition, which was mentioned by the person you quoted. Everyone knows Peter Pan and Hercules and Battleship, and Vampire Academy is a best selling series of young adult novels. Every film company wants to find the next Harry Potter series which is why there have been so many YA novel adaptations over the past number of years.

When I think 'brand recogntion', I'm talking about either a sequel, or something based off of a best seller. There have been countless Hercules and Peter Pan movies over the years, you can hardly judge whether the next one is going to be good based on all the others made. And as for battleship, that was a plastic board game.

Also, let's not move the goalposts on some of these. Pan? Top billed actor is Hugh Jackman, not Levi Miller.

Didn't help the movie at all now did it? And the point was they got a no name to head it, which isn't moving the goal posts at all.

The average budget for a Hollywood film in 1997 was $60 million, and then around $100 million in 2007, so in the nine years since then it's probably gone up at least another 20-30 million, if not more. So Legend of Hercules and Vampire Academy both do not count as "high budget" films.

That was literally 5 minutes of looking at recent movies. I can go look for more if ya'll like, but the fact remains that high budget films do not require name recognition to make money.

The "star" of Avatar was the CGI. That's the reason most people went to see that movie.

Still runs counter to the conventional wisdom that you need a big name person to headline a big budget movie for it to make money.

Battleship was just a stupid idea in the first place, but let's not pretend that there were no big name stars (Liam Neeson) in the film who were heavily showcased in the trailers.

Who didn't headline the movie. Wanna cast ScarJo as a supporting character in GITS? Go ahead, not a problem to me. But if people want to make the argument that a big budget film needs to be headlined by a star for it to make money, then that's the goalposts we're working with.

 

[Redryhno]

- Children, young and old, who want to watch robots transform into stuff.

I asked the successful head of marketing at a major studio if he needed a star to market a movie and he responded, ?People pay money for concepts. Having a star doesn?t matter. ... [http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/why-stars-dont-matter-gavin-polone.html]

Go on, tell me more. Calling Optimus Prime 'the star' that drives people to see transformers is like saying Major Kusanagi is the star that drives people to see GITS. It says nothing about the person voicing, or acting, the character.

Nobody is saying it's necessary, just that it's a reliable method to get people to go see a movie and that it automatically sets the bar for criticism and praise.

Do you think anyone would've given a shit about St. Vincent if Bill Murray wasn't attached to it? You think Avengers would've gotten anywhere near the praise it got if it weren't for Whedon? Do you think Birdman would've been noticed it Michael Keaton and Edward Norton hadn't been involved?

It's not necessary, but the movies that are automatic successes more often have someone amazing behind it that gets people to go see it than the ones that have no-names. And having no-names on a project like this one is a pretty big risk if we hope to see more adaptations. That's the argument.

Not to mention the article you linked is both five years old and says further into it that a concept needs to be realized for an audience to get said audience. Which GitS unfortunately is not simply due to its origins as manga/anime for many people.

And are you reading anything people are saying or just have your conclusions of "racism" and "Hollywood don't know what they're doing" are using any and all means it takes to justify it?

 

[Jux]

An outdated way of thinking. ScarJo is a good actress, but I still don't think she's right for the role.

It's not outdated, it's an unfortunate side of the business.

People are attracted to big names and familiar faces, thus casting them is the safe choice.

Except that I've already provided sources that show this 'conventional wisdom' is just plain wrong.

Pan was helmed by Hugh Jackman, whose face was plastered on every single poster.

The Legend of Hercules and Vampire Academy are both too low budget compared to the average budget of a blockbuster, as pointed by the poster above. And both Hercules and Peter Pan have widespread source material recognition.

And you can refer to my response above.

Avatar had James freaking Cameron directing the project, and the main attraction was the 3D. People didn't go to the theatres to know more about Worthington's character, they simply wanted to know more about the intricacy of the 3D environments, and wanted to know what James freaking Cameron (the money machine behind Titanic) was going to do. Avatar also had the queen of science-fiction, Ellen Ripley herself, as one of the main character.

Again, if people are going to claim big budget films need star power to bring people to the seats, that's the standard we're working with.

Battleship was a total shit-show, but I think it's probably the worst example you could have brought up against actors being one of the main commercial attractions considering that the trailers kept reminding us that "Rihanna is totally in the movie you guys!".

Except my argument has always been 'it's not the actor, it's the concept'. Yea, Battleship was a shitshow, and it would have been a shit show with any 'A lister' in the lead.

Adam Sandler might be an absolutely terrible actor and general human being (Punch-Drunk Love excepted), but you're mistaken if you don't think he's a safe bet for making a quick buck. (With the notable exception of Punch-Drunk Love, ironically)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=adamsandler.htm

He pretty much consistently brings in some amount of profit and a number of people to the theatres, and that's without counting the blatant product placement deals he has in a good deal of his movies.

He's overpaid, sure, but he's the only reason people go see the trite bullshit he stars in.

I wouldn't know, he's the reason I don't see his films actually.

 

[hermes]

- Children, young and old, who want to watch robots transform into stuff.

I asked the successful head of marketing at a major studio if he needed a star to market a movie and he responded, ?People pay money for concepts. Having a star doesn?t matter. ... [http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/why-stars-dont-matter-gavin-polone.html]

Go on, tell me more. Calling Optimus Prime 'the star' that drives people to see transformers is like saying Major Kusanagi is the star that drives people to see GITS. It says nothing about the person voicing, or acting, the character.

-"Honey, lets see this movie, Ghost in the Shell..."
-"Who is in it?"
Scenario A
-"Some Asian girl"
Scenario B
-"Scarlett Johansson"

And you are arguing both of those arguments are equally convincing?

Movie stars drive sales. Big names drive sales. Sure, they are not the only factor, but they help. You can point to a hundred examples of movies with stars that flopped, or a hundred examples of movies that make it big without recognizable names, yet I can name a hundred examples of movies that didn't flopped despite being considered pretty awful, mostly because they had recognizable names. Look at most of the Adam Sandler's movies, or half of Robin Williams and Jim Carrey movies: The 6th Day didn't flop, Eraser didn't flop, Kindergarten Cop didn't flop, Patch Adams didn't flop, Pixels didn't flop, Grown Ups didn't flop, Zohan didn't flop, The Longest Yard didn't flop and Lucy didn't flop; and all those movies were driven by the popularity of their protagonists alone (not even the protagonists... the popularity of their single main actor).

The fact is, there are a lot of reasons why a movie might flop, or end up being awful. There is no simple formula, no "get a good concept and a decent writer" that guaranties a success. If there were, every movie would employ the same talented people and making a bad movie would be as rare making a bad door. The truth is that many things could contribute to ending in a flop, so film producers have to stack up as many chips as they can that would help it succeed, and one of them is "secure the most recognizable names you can get"... and Scarlett Johansson is one of the top grossing actresses in the world right now.

 

[Jux]

And you are arguing both of those arguments are equally convincing?

The conversation would go more like this:

-"Honey, lets see this movie, Ghost in the Shell..."
-"I loved those movies/series, ok."

Though tbh, I'll probably be skipping this one, if only based on the sad whitewashing. ScarJo might do just fine, but I can skip out on a movie to stick to my principles.

 

[hermes]

And you are arguing both of those arguments are equally convincing?

The conversation would go more like this:

-"Honey, lets see this movie, Ghost in the Shell..."
-"I loved those movies/series, ok."

Though tbh, I'll probably be skipping this one, if only based on the sad whitewashing. ScarJo might do just fine, but I can skip out on a movie to stick to my principles.

Really? You honestly think there are more people in America (or the world) that are more familiar with GitS than ScarJo?

Adam Sandler might be an absolutely terrible actor and general human being (Punch-Drunk Love excepted), but you're mistaken if you don't think he's a safe bet for making a quick buck. (With the notable exception of Punch-Drunk Love, ironically)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=adamsandler.htm

He pretty much consistently brings in some amount of profit and a number of people to the theatres, and that's without counting the blatant product placement deals he has in a good deal of his movies.

He's overpaid, sure, but he's the only reason people go see the trite bullshit he stars in.

I wouldn't know, he's the reason I don't see his films actually.

Now you are just being biased toward information to try to probe your point. Sandler's entire career in the last decade has been "he is an awful actor, but put it in front of the camera with a semblance of a script and get a shovel for the piles of money". He is the 2000s golden boy of "star power can financially compensate for bad acting, bad script and bad track record"