Probably, it gets harder to believe that though as the years go by. The criticism was ubiquitous online, I say let them believe it. If anything they will double guess picking a white lead to "appeal to the masses".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Paramount Says Ghost In The Shell Flopped Because Of Whitewashing Controversy
- Thread starter KSweeley
- Start date
- Status
Probably, it gets harder to believe that though as the years go by. The criticism was ubiquitous online, I say let them believe it. If anything they will double guess picking a white lead to "appeal to the masses".
InfiniteBento
Member
Casting definitely was a nail in the coffin but that was not the only problem with this film
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Unadaptable is industry short hand for "Costs too much and has too narrow an appeal for financial success." It doesn't mean that it's literally impossible to make an adaption.
Yep. This is just classic "this movie failed for any reason but the quality of the movie" deflection.
But if it kills their equally-wrong assertion that having nonwhite people kills ticket sales, I guess it's fine for them to believe otherwise.
Vincent Alexander
Member
A million times this.
When I think about it, they really dropped the ball with this film hard..
* Rupert Sanders is practically a newbie, and giving him a complex film such as Ghost in the Shell was a terrible decision by Paramount. You don't let little Billy go and paint Picasso for your art exhibition. You get someone who is well versed in understanding the importance of smoothly adapting material over to another medium. Why anyone would give him a 100 million dollar film to play with is unimaginable to me. He should not have been anywhere near this. The same goes for the unknown scriptwriters. The writing in this was absolutely horrendous. Just another miss that Paramount didn't bother with right from the start.
* Scarlett Johansson was attached just because she supposedly has star power. Star power has lost its edge it once had, and has proven itself to be an unreliable indicator when aiming to make a profitable movie. The franchise is much, much more important. Just look at the films Disney put out, with Marvel, Pixar and their in house productions. No one gives a shit who's in it, as long as the story is interesting. You know that you'll be getting quality. Avatar is a film full of unknowns, but is one of the most financially successful film of all time.
* This film shouldn't of been a 100 million dollar block buster, because:
1) It would be white washed to hell
2) It would be dumbed down beyond any reasonable doubt
3) It would have a PG-13 rating.
None of these things work with a IP like Ghost in the Shell, and those things are exactly what we got. Really, it doesn't make any sense to bother with adapting GiTS if you can't convey the things the original film did. There's just no point.
The problem with Hollywood is that they want to start off big, sinking in hundreds of millions of dollars into movies without any good reasons for doing so. They're pretty much gambling their chances and hope for the best. This is not how it works in real life. Nothing starts big, so when you start entering uncharted territory with noob directors, a white washing process, and deliberately sabotaging any goodwill you possibly had, it's a terrible idea to go all in. As someone that's a fan of the original franchise, It's frankly idiotic.
The fact that Hollywood studios doesn't know how to play the mid-tier game anymore is alarming. They've lost their touch.
* Rupert Sanders is practically a newbie, and giving him a complex film such as Ghost in the Shell was a terrible decision by Paramount. You don't let little Billy go and paint Picasso for your art exhibition. You get someone who is well versed in understanding the importance of smoothly adapting material over to another medium. Why anyone would give him a 100 million dollar film to play with is unimaginable to me. He should not have been anywhere near this. The same goes for the unknown scriptwriters. The writing in this was absolutely horrendous. Just another miss that Paramount didn't bother with right from the start.
* Scarlett Johansson was attached just because she supposedly has star power. Star power has lost its edge it once had, and has proven itself to be an unreliable indicator when aiming to make a profitable movie. The franchise is much, much more important. Just look at the films Disney put out, with Marvel, Pixar and their in house productions. No one gives a shit who's in it, as long as the story is interesting. You know that you'll be getting quality. Avatar is a film full of unknowns, but is one of the most financially successful film of all time.
* This film shouldn't of been a 100 million dollar block buster, because:
1) It would be white washed to hell
2) It would be dumbed down beyond any reasonable doubt
3) It would have a PG-13 rating.
None of these things work with a IP like Ghost in the Shell, and those things are exactly what we got. Really, it doesn't make any sense to bother with adapting GiTS if you can't convey the things the original film did. There's just no point.
The problem with Hollywood is that they want to start off big, sinking in hundreds of millions of dollars into movies without any good reasons for doing so. They're pretty much gambling their chances and hope for the best. This is not how it works in real life. Nothing starts big, so when you start entering uncharted territory with noob directors, a white washing process, and deliberately sabotaging any goodwill you possibly had, it's a terrible idea to go all in. As someone that's a fan of the original franchise, It's frankly idiotic.
The fact that Hollywood studios doesn't know how to play the mid-tier game anymore is alarming. They've lost their touch.
It was stupid to think this film was going to be a hit in the first place. The source material is good but dated and has themes that are hard to approach for mainstream audiences. Should have had half the budget (what we got cost $110 million), R-rated, and been unafraid to cast Asian actors.
That or it would have been much better as a TV show where they would have the time to establish the compelling setting and give audiences something closer to SAC which is more approachable. Hollywood is out of touch and I expect this trend to continue. Akira being next is going to be even worse. That film is a narrative mess that tries to force too much content into too little time. Its looked at fondly for its ridiculous animation that is representative of a style that is basically dead. The basic plot is less niche so maybe it has a shot but I don't see how anyone can expect it to not run into much of the same issues the original did.
That or it would have been much better as a TV show where they would have the time to establish the compelling setting and give audiences something closer to SAC which is more approachable. Hollywood is out of touch and I expect this trend to continue. Akira being next is going to be even worse. That film is a narrative mess that tries to force too much content into too little time. Its looked at fondly for its ridiculous animation that is representative of a style that is basically dead. The basic plot is less niche so maybe it has a shot but I don't see how anyone can expect it to not run into much of the same issues the original did.
What I'm hoping will happen is Netflix takes a gamble at casting an Asian lead for one of their Netflix Original movies and puts in theaters and that movie is used to determine the financial viability for future movies with Asian leads.
I believe the reason why Netflix is being blamed for whitewashing for their Death Note movie is because Netflix is associated with the project but the actual fact is Netflix actually didn't have any say in the pre-production of the movie itself, the Netflix Death Note movie is originally a Warner Bros. movie and the casting was done while it was under Warner Bros.
So it's unfair to argue that Netflix did the casting for Death Note as it was originally a Warner Bros. project that was essentially rescued by Netflix after Warner Bros. dropped it.
I believe the reason why Netflix is being blamed for whitewashing for their Death Note movie is because Netflix is associated with the project but the actual fact is Netflix actually didn't have any say in the pre-production of the movie itself, the Netflix Death Note movie is originally a Warner Bros. movie and the casting was done while it was under Warner Bros.
So it's unfair to argue that Netflix did the casting for Death Note as it was originally a Warner Bros. project that was essentially rescued by Netflix after Warner Bros. dropped it.
Scott Ridley gave a similar excuse for Exodus: Gods & Kings that went along the lines of "no one would see my film if I didn't cast...whoever was playing Moses' brother instead of an actual Egyptian", an equally ridiculous excuse at the time.
P.S. GitS having a diverse group of side characters doesn't change it for the better, it only makes the film all the more tragic. You had a golden opportunity to either cast a relatively well-known Japanese actress like Rinko Kikuchi or cast an unknown name in a reboot of one of the most influential works to ever come from anime and yet they decided to go with "let's make Scarlett Johansson look like she's Asian". Minority actors should not have to be subject to being cast as secondary or background characters to a white lead, let alone have a leading role for a minority handed to a white person like we're in the 1950s. If anything, recent films like Straight Outta Compton, Hidden Figures, The Handmaiden and Get Out have shown that there's a good financial reason to make films with non-white actors in the leading role: People will see these films if you make them without relying on white actors as if they're the default. If you gave the role of Dr. Dre to Mark Wahlberg, Straight Outta Compton would likely have bombed just as badly as GitS did.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
The whitewashing will never be addressed. If your movie did well the whitewashing will be seen as not a problem and studios will be encouraged to keep doing it. If your movie bombed the studios will think it was the budget, writing, etc. which are valid but the whitewashing will, again, be seen as not a problem.
Hari Seldon
Member
This is the route I took with this movie:
- See ad, Scarjo looks almost naked. Has my attention.
- Realize it is anime, eh wait for reviews
- Reviews are bad, pass.
- See ad, Scarjo looks almost naked. Has my attention.
- Realize it is anime, eh wait for reviews
- Reviews are bad, pass.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Honestly, I'd take that as well if it ultimately encourages them to do the right thing even if for the wrong reasons.
CorporateClown
Member
I saw this last night and discussed the movie afterwards with my gf who went to go see BatB (we're one of those couples who don't force each other to see movies we don't want to see).
Overall, I quite enjoyed the movie, though it's difficult to say just how much my expectations were tempered. I think the length catered to a more action-oriented movie and therefore some of the philosophical pieces were not as fleshed out as they could/should have been. Therefore the messaging of what this movie was supposed to be is a bit muddled. Maybe they should have ignored more of the "ghost" and "shell" babble in favour of a more straight forward sci-fi thriller.
Regardless, I think the movie's bombing comes down to a few things for me.
-A lot of hype needed to come from the fans, but the liberties taken combined with the whitewashing ensured that wasn't going to happen.
-Without that hype, the movie needed to rely on messaging, marketing, and reviews. As I mentioned, the script was a bit unfocused and no previews really got across "the point" of the movie.
-Overall, the movie's problems were not enough to weigh the movie down for me, but those combined with the controversy and the "fact" (in my opinion) that Scarlett cannot carry a movie on her own meant the reviews were not going to be there.
-Shitty commercials combined with poor reviews, the controversy talk, etc. made sure it would bomb. Oh well!
Overall, I quite enjoyed the movie, though it's difficult to say just how much my expectations were tempered. I think the length catered to a more action-oriented movie and therefore some of the philosophical pieces were not as fleshed out as they could/should have been. Therefore the messaging of what this movie was supposed to be is a bit muddled. Maybe they should have ignored more of the "ghost" and "shell" babble in favour of a more straight forward sci-fi thriller.
Regardless, I think the movie's bombing comes down to a few things for me.
-A lot of hype needed to come from the fans, but the liberties taken combined with the whitewashing ensured that wasn't going to happen.
-Without that hype, the movie needed to rely on messaging, marketing, and reviews. As I mentioned, the script was a bit unfocused and no previews really got across "the point" of the movie.
-Overall, the movie's problems were not enough to weigh the movie down for me, but those combined with the controversy and the "fact" (in my opinion) that Scarlett cannot carry a movie on her own meant the reviews were not going to be there.
-Shitty commercials combined with poor reviews, the controversy talk, etc. made sure it would bomb. Oh well!
Sweeney Tom
Banned
Where's the people from the other thread who said it didn't bomb tho, hmmm
It still would've flopped or reviewed negatively if it had an asian lead. The twist wouldn't have been ridiculous with an asian lead, but the others would've still exist.
I felt the first half of the movie was bloated and rushed. It tried to introduce the world & characters, add some backstories, establish the conflict & baddie, small background development on the other storyline, etc.
I felt the first half of the movie was bloated and rushed. It tried to introduce the world & characters, add some backstories, establish the conflict & baddie, small background development on the other storyline, etc.
allenpergallon
Member
Nah, it'll just result in more spaced out adaptations of material that could become victims of whitewashing, if it results in anything at all.
My bets are on this resulting in nothing though, this standard deflection is just too easy for them and memories are short. Shame about the actual movie.
Altered Juice
Member
We need Chumley and Trokil to come here and tell us how the film is great and everyone dissing it are meanies with dirty political motivations
UnemployedVillain
Member
It's kind of crazy how people were downplaying the effects. A movie has 4 primary ways that contribute to its success (or can increase its chances).
1. Marketing - This one's obvious. If you bombard people with ads, you're likely to get people interested in seeing it.
2. Innate/Previous popularity - Superhero movies and new iterations in popular movie franchises have this to go by. A new F&F movie will always do fairly well just because there's always a core group of fans. Or a new movie by popular mainstream director (ie. Christopher Nolan or Tarantino).
3. Critical acclaim - Obviously not all good movies do well, but having good reviews definitely can help a movie if they can't rely on #1 and #2.
4. Word of mouth - This falls in line with #3 as something that can help if the movie lacks the first 2. In fact, Get Out is one such movie that HEAVILY benefit from #3 and #4. Yeah it had one half of Key & Peele at the helm, but people are forgetting they also produced Keanu, which didn't exactly do well.
GITS wasn't going to have 1, and 2 was fairly small and limited to only anime fans and those who had seen the original/series. It didn't have 3 to go on either since it started at ~70, but by release day was sub 60 and still dropping. As for 4, from the get go people were voicing complaints at Scarlett Johansson's casting and the white washing. Post release it became fans of the original also voicing how it lost all of its original/unique series elements, and we all know that passionate fans are often the loudest and most vocal.
1. Marketing - This one's obvious. If you bombard people with ads, you're likely to get people interested in seeing it.
2. Innate/Previous popularity - Superhero movies and new iterations in popular movie franchises have this to go by. A new F&F movie will always do fairly well just because there's always a core group of fans. Or a new movie by popular mainstream director (ie. Christopher Nolan or Tarantino).
3. Critical acclaim - Obviously not all good movies do well, but having good reviews definitely can help a movie if they can't rely on #1 and #2.
4. Word of mouth - This falls in line with #3 as something that can help if the movie lacks the first 2. In fact, Get Out is one such movie that HEAVILY benefit from #3 and #4. Yeah it had one half of Key & Peele at the helm, but people are forgetting they also produced Keanu, which didn't exactly do well.
GITS wasn't going to have 1, and 2 was fairly small and limited to only anime fans and those who had seen the original/series. It didn't have 3 to go on either since it started at ~70, but by release day was sub 60 and still dropping. As for 4, from the get go people were voicing complaints at Scarlett Johansson's casting and the white washing. Post release it became fans of the original also voicing how it lost all of its original/unique series elements, and we all know that passionate fans are often the loudest and most vocal.
Again, Sanders is not a newbie, and his previous film cost $60 million more to make than this did. He undoubtedly got the job as a result of Snow White and the Huntsman winding up as a minor success and could be seen as a pretty safe choice to go with that would also not be particularly expensive, compared to a more established director.
I agree except for the part about marketing. It had hella ads where I live, I got really tired of seeing ScarJo jump fly through glass.
I guess if that's what you wanna roll with okay.
Two movies listed for director, 3 "shorts", I'm sorry but I have to say that Sanders is a newbie for directing movies: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2782185/
Kite
Member
I highly doubt it, but I'd be happy if that is one lesson they learned. It is about time Hollywood learned to take Asian-Americans more seriously. But the trailers themselves didn't impress myself as a fan of the movie and tv shows, and my anime-hating friends seemed to have only lukewarm interest.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
wow
BreezyLimbo
Banned
It sounds like he's trying to say that casting Asian-Americans wouldn't make a movie for the masses.
What a mess.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Gods of Egypt probably flopped for the same reason.....
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Probably not.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
It barely has the deep commentary the original had, so probably no. Unless your really into nice visuals.
From what I've heard, not at all. It's a mediocre attempt, and usually that's enough but the whitewashing was the cherry on top
Scarlett Johansson isn't that big of a draw quite honestly. What Paramount really needed was a movie that got amazing reviews and had cast Asian actors to build hype as a big-budget movie that showcased a mostly Asian cast. That would have been unique. By doing that they could have also marketed the film as an intelligent film since they weren't making the mass market moves. By casting Scarlet Johansson they basically painted the movie as a generic action movie, a leave your brain at the door kind of film.
Yes, lets ignore the fact that he already has blockbuster experience, and despite the scandal that resulted from it, a largely successful one at that. The 47 Ronin director, he ain't.
The problems with this film stem more from a corporate level than getting someone "unqualified" to direct it. They okayed the script, they wanted it to be a big tentpole and pushed it to a budget that it didn't warrant, and despite the mounting controversy over ScarJo's casting, still gave the greenlight to a story that makes that even more problematic.
Jawmuncher
Member
This is where I stand. It was a factor, but not the only reason.
Lucy by comparison came out during a pretty dry spell. While GiTs came out agaisn't titles still bringing in decent box office totals. Aside from that the marketing was really weak, I had forgot it even came out and I think that was a case for most people not absolutely following it.
sixteen-bit
Member
It's good they acknowledge this. Hopefully their casting improves.
And that is NOT what kind of movie Ghost in the Shell is, it is NOT a leave your brain at the door kind of movie. This adaptation is just horrible.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Lucy also came out shortly (3 months) after Winter Soldier, which was the first time people started seriously asking about a Black Widow solo movie
DiipuSurotu
Banned
So is this the end of white washing in Hollywood?
So then I'll take this as `the movie was already bad, and the negative press around white-washing made it impossible to save it`
Jawmuncher
Member
I forgot all about that. That definitely played a factor as well.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Even if the movie was good the whitewashing would have still been problematic as fuck.
blame space
Banned
Did that guy just call us fanboys? Uhh, sir, we are woke.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked