Captain Marvel 2: Boden and Fleck Out, New Writer

[IMJ]

If Ghost In The Shell was released at any other time other than at the apex of the mania that was going on at the time, then it wouldn't have mattered that she was cast as Kusanagi.

There are still loud voices shouting out lowest common denominator thinking ("only gay people can play gay people on film!" style arguments), but now that nonsense is subsiding you could release GITS today and it would've probably made more money than it did three years ago.

It wasn't a perfect movie, but it was really, really good.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by IMJ

If Ghost In The Shell was released at any other time other than at the apex of the mania that was going on at the time, then it wouldn't have mattered that she was cast as Kusanagi.

There are still loud voices shouting out lowest common denominator thinking ("only gay people can play gay people on film!" style arguments), but now that nonsense is subsiding you could release GITS today and it would've probably made more money than it did three years ago.

It wasn't a perfect movie, but it was really, really good.

100% correct.

My only gripe about that movie is the PG-13 rating it had no business having.

Originally Posted by Voltron

Casting Scarlett Johansson as a Japanese woman brings up an interesting point in light of Leo's comment.

Did they, though? I haven't seen the movie, but she's a robot with a Japanese human brain, right? As in, they built her a body that looks like ScarJo, but a Japanese brain inside, yeah? And they show her original human body somewhere in the movie, to boot (or do they? could be wrong)? It just seems like a dumb argument. It's not far off from saying Robocop is "chromewashing" Alex Murphy because he's supposed to be a white guy with a fully white body.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

100% correct.

My only gripe about that movie is the PG-13 rating it had no business having.



Did they, though? I haven't seen the movie, but she's a robot with a Japanese human brain, right? As in, they built her a body that looks like ScarJo, but a Japanese brain inside, yeah? And they show her original human body somewhere in the movie, to boot (or do they? could be wrong)? It just seems like a dumb argument. It's not far off from saying Robocop is "chromewashing" Alex Murphy because he's supposed to be a white guy with a fully white body.

Chromewashing? No. It'd be more like taking Alex Murphy and deliberately putting his surviving organs in an Asian body just because. But they give him an Irish name, anyway.

Wasn't the whole point of doing this to create a cyborg that could be easily controlled? Without memories? That was a detective? The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. A super android that can solve mysteries but her whole creation was a crime? And then you leave a huge clue to her identity IN HER IDENTITY? I hope whoever green lit that idea was ****-canned. Or, at the very least, acknowledge that's a weird thing to do.

Also, if you haven't seen the movie, then what's your problem with it?

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Casting Scarlett Johansson as a Japanese woman brings up an interesting point in light of Leo's comment.

Did they really NEED to cast Scarlett Johansson as Kusanagi? It's not like there aren't Japanese actresses (or even East Asian) that could have filled the role. The studio dished out some cash on a big name star to drum up interest in the film.

I still agree with Leo's opinion that the story is more important than the cast (usually), and a big budget, live action Ghost in the Shell movie would've have gotten me in the theater.

However, I'm having a hard time coming up with big name actresses of Asian descent in Hollywood.

Do you think there would've been a significant loss in revenue had the studio actually cast a lesser known (or no name) actress? It would've cost less money to do it, but would it have been a kiss of death for the film's revenue?

Also, I thought it was kind of weird how they kidnapped a Japanese girl, erased her memories, put her into a hot blonde android, but then still gave her a Japanese name.

Motoko wasn't blonde in the movie. IDK, even in the OG anime movie, Motoko never looked particularly Asian to me. Scarjo brought the character to life and looked like the character better than any Asian actress could have. Or at least any that come to mind.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Motoko wasn't blonde in the movie. IDK, even in the OG anime movie, Motoko never looked particularly Asian to me. Scarjo brought the character to life and looked like the character better than any Asian actress could have. Or at least any that come to mind.

It's weird you say that. In Japan, anime characters look "Japanese". However, being stylized as they are, people can also see them as caucasian. We see what we're used to, it seems.

It should be noted that the whole casting thing is purely a Western problem. In Japan, the anime-to-live action adaptations always star Japanese actors, regardless what they are in the story. Attack on Titan is a big one. The Shin Godzilla film had a Japanese actress play an American political adviser. She spoke English phonetically, and I couldn't even understand it. So. . . whatever.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Also, if you haven't seen the movie, then what's your problem with it?

I already said. Passing familiarity with the source material and a general and basic sense of vehemence that it's been PG-13ized when by no means should it have on any level.

This should not have been a children's movie.

[Voltron]

In fairness, PG-13 is aimed at teenagers, not children. And it really wasn't. The movie was pretty dark and creepy, despite the friendly rating. Those geisha robots were pretty unsettling. And they replace a man's eyes with metal prosthetic implants.

For comparison, The Dark Knight featured a serial killer slamming a pencil through a dude's eye and the burn ravaged face of the DA.

My point is: if someone is bringing their elementary school kid to one of these films, I question their parenting skills.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Voltron

In fairness, PG-13 is aimed at teenagers, not children. And it really wasn't. The movie was pretty dark and creepy, despite the friendly rating. Those geisha robots were pretty unsettling. And they replace a man's eyes with metal prosthetic implants.

Yeah. Still shouldn't have been. Blood should have been flying everywhere, as best as I can figure.

My point is: if someone is bringing their elementary school kid to one of these films, I question their parenting skills.

No, I wouldn't go down that route. As a kid, my parents took me to many an R-rated movie. As in, sat down next to me and covered my eyes when I was crying out and this or that (I didn't need them to, but I was worried about nightmares, which I'd had all on my own over nothing). You know what that did, after watching a bunch of Freddies and Jasons? It made my nightmares go away. And care a whole less about people caring about language.

I'm definitely 200% anti-coddling. Especially now. I feel like I've raised my daughter properly. Expose and teach. Not hide and weep.

[AquaParade]

I think you should watch something before declaring your only gripe with it, personally. It's dangerous to base your knowledge off of hearsay, headlines, assumptions, etc.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Voltron

My point is: if someone is bringing their elementary school kid to one of these films, I question their parenting skills.

Oh for god's sake, do you have any idea how many elementary school kids watch cartoons on a regular basis that are packed with dark content and innuendos?

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah. Still shouldn't have been. Blood should have been flying everywhere, as best as I can figure.



No, I wouldn't go down that route. As a kid, my parents took me to many an R-rated movie. As in, sat down next to me and covered my eyes when I was crying out and this or that (I didn't need them to, but I was worried about nightmares, which I'd had all on my own over nothing). You know what that did, after watching a bunch of Freddies and Jasons? It made my nightmares go away. And care a whole less about people caring about language.

I'm definitely 200% anti-coddling. Especially now. I feel like I've raised my daughter properly. Expose and teach. Not hide and weep.

Idk. Minus a few shots of guys getting riddled with bullets in the beginning of the anime movie there wasn't much blood that I remember.

But I mean she even hired a prostitute in the movie so idk how much 'for Kids' you want the movie to be even without blood..

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah. Still shouldn't have been. Blood should have been flying everywhere, as best as I can figure.

Ehhh. The original two GITS anime flicks were more about the intellectualism than the gore. Actually as I can recall they aren't overly bloody. Most people that are ripped apart are robots. It's a good flick, you should check it out.

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Oh for god's sake, do you have any idea how many elementary school kids watch cartoons on a regular basis that are packed with dark content and innuendos?

Like the Batman example above also illustrates - some people just can't function in society without having an absolute framework to adhere to. They need that rigidity to make decisions and get by.

Most regular people would take their kids to the Batman movie and have fun with it and explain "well you know this is entertainment, right? He didn't really put the pencil into someone's eye and you don't want to be in a world where people really do things like that." Then the conversation is over.

[Autbot_Benz]

Rumor is Rogue will be introduced as an Adversary

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...dversary.html/

According to Marvel Insider Mikey Sutton, and reported on by Superhero Buzz, Rogue will be one of the first X-Men characters to join the MCU. Superhero Buzz, noting Sutton’s credible past, stated:

The first X-Men fans will see in the MCU may be one of the most unexpected ones, at least to be initially introduced. Sutton has heard from several inside sources that Rogue is being developed to be a key figure in reviewing the X-Men under the intense vision of Kevin Feige. Just like her comic book debut…Rogue will appear as a villain, a member of the mutant terrorist group.

[Andrew NDB]

Rogue in Captain Marvel 2... you know what that means.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Rogue in Captain Marvel 2... you know what that means.

I know what I HOPE it means...

Spoiler:

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Rogue in Captain Marvel 2... you know what that means.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

https://i.imgur.com/TTt0U40.gif

Only it'll just somewhat depower Captain Marvel, not strip her of flying or anything. In this. Bet.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Only it'll just somewhat depower Captain Marvel, not strip her of flying or anything. In this. Bet.

of course Brie wouldn't allow it

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Hell yes, that's the only way to get me excited for this movie. Bring in Rogue!

[Coola Yagami]

If that's true then here we go again. People will flock to Cap Marvel because it was the last movie before End Game, not for her, but people will spin it like omg everyone loves Cap Marvel, everyone loves Brie.

Now people will flock to see Cap Marvel 2 cause of potential X-Men characters but they'll spin it like everyone loves Cap Marvel, everyone loves Brie.