How is this going to turn out?
>probably terrible if there's black widow tier acting
Should there even be a live action adaptation?
>just look at previous live action adaptations of anime
Will we get to see Scar-jo nude and wired up to a lesbian lover?
>god I hope so but it ain't gonna happen
You know, i'd totally buy it if it was set in the american empire, and the major was taking a ride in an american body to blend in.
Maybe even include some internal dialog in Japanese.
But i can't see this happening.
It will be a by the numbers action movie with some interesting visuals lifted wholesale from the movie and Stand Alone Complex and maybe some of the themes and scenes left intact.
I'm more interested on how much is it going to make in the Box Office, since I don't see the possibility of more hollywood anime adaptations as something completly terrible, all the movies really need is a competent director/producer that respects the material and that is willing to fight the studio to maintain the feel of the source material
, for exemple I have hopes for Nolan's Akira
I also, am interested if anime/manga/other japanese IPs will become the next "Big Thing" Hollywood goes after once the capeshit well runs dry. Specially with so much news popping up one after the other with Cowboy Bebop, Tiger and Bunny, Akira, Alitta, etc. and the success of the recent Godzilla remake spelling the rise of a "Kaiju Cinematic Universe".
If that happens, and I'm not saying it is, the noth-american comics will go into a complete colapse and /co/mblr will be BTFO
Ghost in the Shell depends on it's cyberpunk setting, and cyberpunk traditionally has Japanese or Chinese influences as part of the backdrop. At the very least they need to pay homage to that, even if it's just that major scenes happen in a Chinatown, like most American cyberpunk movies.
Hollywood is hoping this is what will help kickstart anime adaptations and make them become a regular thing but there is no way in hell it would work instead here is what we actually get:
>All philosophical content removed entirely
>The entire thing will be dumbed down and feel like an episode of CSI dealing with MUH SUPER HACKERS ON STEROIDS
>SJW shit everywhere
>Young adult tier
They should've just got the girl from Pacific Rim and Kumiko the Treasure Hunter to play The Major, at least she would've done a better job. Biel would've been nice too.
>Implying edge of tomorrow wasn't cool
Sure they could have stuck with the original ending but it wouldn't have fitted with the tone the film set out on.
>take an established title be it from novels, games or other foreign media or whatever
>buy the rights to said titled
>read the brief synopsis to that title you just bought
>scavenge through the Hollywood basement for abandoned scripts that vaguely matches the title you just bought
>adapt said script and slap the title to it
Congrats, you have now learned how to be a Hollywood movie exec
Probably gonna be shitty CGI robots all over the place and ScarJo's standard wooden acting. Throw in a dash of feminist scenes where she beats up dudes who sexuall harass her to turn her into a generic strong hollywood female character void of personality.
If they were afraid of going full chink they could've gone with past Bond girls. Both Olga Kurylenko and Bérénice Marlohe look Eurasian and would've fit the part better. Sure Scarjo has a bigger name, but they could've counterbalanced it putting the big names on the Section 9 or in other prominent role.
They're still doing it but here in the west we've shifted our priorities to being offended about everything instead of focusing on tech. So these days people are more appealed by dystopian and post apocalyptic shit than high tech because that future seems more likely at this rate.
I've watched plenty of Japanese produced live action adaptations. From GTO to Kenshin to Sailor Moon. They all have major flaws while simultaneously lacking the thing that made the anime good.
There's just some things you can do in animation that can never be done in live action. Even the Matrix and SPeed Racer, with hundreds of millions put into special effects, still can't produce a comedic reaction to a joke that anime can do on the budget of a low budget sit com.
So the question is, why don't they spend that 100 million trying to make animation as a whole more popular in the west? Instead of spending 100 million on the special effects for one live action movie? In the long run, they could make 50 animated movies for the budget of one live action remake.
>>So the question is, why don't they spend that 100 million trying to make animation as a whole more popular in the west?
Because cartoons are for kids.
>Instead of spending 100 million on the special effects for one live action movie?
Popcorn munching retards will buy several hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tickets to look at flashing lights for two hours. This is how Michael Bay has career.
>In the long run, they could make 50 animated movies for the budget of one live action remake.
Too much work. That's 50 projects you have to try to turn a profit on. And without huge spectacle, you have to try to actually WRITE something and sell the story. That's actually hard as fuck. It's easier to sell one movie on spectacle alone and expect a large return. That's how Hollywood likes it. Fewer movies, less competition, fewer choices for the masses, so they go to the big budget ones because those are the names they've heard from the $100 million marketing campaign.
No, they can't. But the best they can do is tell a good story that happens to be set in the GitS universe. Which they probably won't do that, either, because the script they have wasn't supposed to be a GitS script, just one that has had GitS mashed into it by a producer who wants to use the existing name-recognition.
>Too much work. That's 50 projects you have to try to turn a profit on.
Diversifying your potential over multiple projects is a much more sound solution than putting all your eggs into one 300 million dollar movie (see John Carter).
Your claim about too much work is also pointless since there isn't a limit on how many production groups are out there. There's already too many people trying to break in, but aren't given a chance. Not to mention we already have tons of anime production studios who would jump at the chance to make a high budget film for America (and a few already have).
>Diversifying your potential over multiple projects....
The big studios aren't going to do that because 50 movies take forever to make and there are only so many weekends in a year to release them. So they would have to be staggered. Over at least a 10-year period.
And if you're assuming the $100 million divided evenly, that's $2 million per movie. That's fucking nothing. You won't make much for that.
Not to mention all the costs involved in getting it out to the theaters(a lot cheaper since the switch to digital, but still not free) and the costs to market those.
And the marketing is going to be a bitch because a small movie budget means no name actors. No name actors, no immediate crutch to sell the movie on.
And the studios don't want to have many small projects turning in small returns over a long period of time. It's easier for them to have ONE movie making a large return(or not) over a single summer because that's ONE movie they have to market. One movie for people to get hype for. One movie for them to make $500 million profit on and get ANOTHER one next summer.
Yes, there are failures and flops like John Carter, but that was a failure of marketing(Disney was afraid to use the words "of Mars" because Mars Needs Moms had flopped.) It was a perfectly fine movie. Not great, but not bad in any way.
In short, a diverse portfolio is good for the long term. Hollywood doesn't think long-term.
They'll write off a movie as a flop or a hit after one weekend.
>Your claim about too much work is also pointless since there isn't a limit on how many production groups are out there
It's not the grunts you do or don't hire for the projects that matter. My point about hard work is that without spectacle, you have to have a good script(those are exceedingly rare) a good director(even rarer and the good ones cost a lot more money) and a good animation team. Which you won't afford for a mere $2 million. And then you have to market everything.
>The big studios aren't going to do that because 50 movies take forever to make and there are only so many weekends in a year to release them. So they would have to be staggered. Over at least a 10-year period.
And if you're assuming the $100 million divided evenly, that's $2 million per movie. That's fucking nothing. You won't make much for that.
Apparently you missed one of the many points I made earlier. Movies are not the only option available. And like the negative view of animation, Hollywood needs to get over its bias that only movies matter.
>And if you're assuming the $100 million divided evenly, that's $2 million per movie. That's fucking nothing. You won't make much for that.
Most anime movies are made for significantly less than that. Spirited Away was considered a 'huge gamble' when it cost 19 million to make. Your average anime film like Ah! Megami Sama, Tenchi Muyo in Love or a Pokemon movie is around 1 million production cost. And TV animation is even cheaper. Once again pointing to how major high budget films aren't the only option.
But even if we only look at movies compared to movies, you really could make 50 animated movies for the cost of one movie like The Matrix. Unless 3/4 your budget is going to famous hollywood voice actors like your average Pixar/Dreamworks/Disney animated film.
the cast is irrelevant when you have a director whose only feature length work is pic-related. his other work includes advertisements for things like halo odst.
it's being written by two guys and their combined to-date resume is this:
Street Kings (2008)
Straight Outta Compton (2015)
this will probably be a flashy disaster and the actors won't have anything to do with that.
Having a small resume doesn't mean the production crew is bad. You have to start somewhere. And plenty of people who are good are bogged down by tons of 'production notes' and other interference from the producers/CEOs.
But more likely this movie will be bad based on what >>137169938 said. You can't accurately adapt an animated work into live action. Even Disney is failing at it with their live action remakes of all their 2D films. People go into it expecting Cinderella dancing with little mice. Instead they get super serious black drama!
>the script they have wasn't supposed to be a GitS script, just one that has had GitS mashed into it by a producer who wants to use the existing name-recognition.
So it's one of THOSE adaptations. God fucking dammit. My hopes for this movie were low before, but honestly this is likely to be the real killer. I wonder if we'll get a director and/or producer on the project that will brag about never reading the source material.
>And like the negative view of animation, Hollywood needs to get over its bias that only movies matter.
Why? They make literally billions every year from movies. Why would the give a fuck about anything else?
>Most anime movies are made for significantly less than that. Spirited Away was considered a 'huge gamble' when it cost 19 million to make. Your average anime film like Ah! Megami Sama, Tenchi Muyo in Love or a Pokemon movie is around 1 million production cost. And TV animation is even cheaper. Once again pointing to how major high budget films aren't the only option.
Then you're not dealing with Hollywood anymore.
Hollywood deals in movies.
You don't seem to understand that the first rule of show business is that it is, above all else, a business. And businesses follow the money.
There's no reason for them to give a single fuck about you wanting more cartoons or any sort of "art."
The masses don't pay for "art." They pay for explosions.
Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator and if you've ever been to one of the shitty flyover states, you'll know that's pretty fucking low.
And you don't seem to understand my overall point. That businesses can make MORE money by diversifying. Not just focusing on one market.
Hollywood has already figured this out. There's more money being made through TV than movies. But Hollywood still looks down on TV as a secondary medium that is inferior to movies. You're not getting that my argument is separate from purely making money. It is about the way Hollywood looks at things.
Which leads to my original point. If Hollywood looks at TV as secondary to making movies, then Animation is so far down the tier list, it is at the bottom. Beneath radio commercials and amateur school theater. Which is why every 'animated ' product keep getting remade into live action.
Comic book movies being a perfect example. Comics are still considerd a joke. Something only nerds like. Yet their live action counterparts are huge business and 'respected' in Hollywood. Things need to change so that we don't need to spend $100 million to make an Iron Man movie with big name actors and fancy special effects. And instead, get the public to accept a 5 million dollar animated TV series or movie. Which in the long run, would make far more money than one single movie.
>Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator and if you've ever been to one of the shitty flyover states, you'll know that's pretty fucking low.
Holy shit, Rosanne is posting on 4chan!
The original Ghost in the Shell movie was basically the ending of a long running manga. It would be like watching LotR, Return of the King as the first movie. Which is why there has been three anime series, two OAVs and a second movie following this.
I have yet to see an anime adaptation make a full series of movies to develop the whole story. Only series I've seen do it is Resident Evil, a video game series. And even then, that is the perfect example of massive alterations from the source.
>And you don't seem to understand my overall point. That businesses can make MORE money by diversifying. Not just focusing on one market.
But they DO.
Look at who owns all the studios. They also own all the TV channels and most of the websites.
You don't seem to understand how big companies like Viacom are. Disney is.
They own the production all the way down.
You were talking "Hollywood" which makes the movies for theaters. That's what they focus on. Then the media conglomerates own the studios that make the movies for Lifetime channel. And the studios that make the TV series for HBO.
It's all part of the media conglomerates.
And they all exist to do nothing but make money for the suits upstairs.
>Hollywood has already figured this out. There's more money being made through TV than movies.
>Look at who owns all the studios. They also own all the TV channels and most of the websites.
Holy shit dude, read my whole post before you respond.
You keep whining about Hollywood. If you want me to go point by point, fine.
I keep telling you that Hollywood makes movies. The Hollywood studios are owned by conglomerate companies that also own the TV channels and the studios who make content for those TV channels.
No one "looks down on" TV channels. They have less of a budget because there's far, far, far less of a return on investment. They only make more money because there's far more TV content made than movies.
It's also indirect. TV makes its money by selling advertising space. The more people watch, the more the channel can charge.
Hollywood makes money directly from the consumers when they buy their tickets and in the end, individual Hollywood movies make far more than any one TV movie.
>Animation is so far down the tier list, it is at the bottom. Beneath radio commercials and amateur school theater. Which is why every 'animated ' product keep getting remade into live action.
>their live action counterparts are huge business and 'respected' in Hollywood.
Because they make money. The only thing that matters in Hollywood. The ones that bomb, like all the Fantastic 4 movies do, are not respected. And don't forget, every time a live-action movie comes out, sales of related comics spike high.
>Things need to change so that we don't need to spend $100 million to make an Iron Man movie with big name actors and fancy special effects.
Both Avengers movies making over a billion at the box office say no they fucking don't.
>And instead, get the public to accept a 5 million dollar animated TV series or movie.
Why in the bittersweet fuck would anyone do that? You cater to the audience you HAVE. Not the one you want. That's why adaptations change things.
>Which in the long run, would make far more money than one single movie
He doesn't seem to know what he's trying to say. Each iteration of GitS is an adaptation of the manga that is its own continuity.
>Comic book movies being a perfect example. Comics are still considerd a joke. Something only nerds like. Yet their live action counterparts are huge business and 'respected' in Hollywood. Things need to change so that we don't need to spend $100 million to make an Iron Man movie with big name actors and fancy special effects. And instead, get the public to accept a 5 million dollar animated TV series or movie. Which in the long run, would make far more money than one single movie.
No it doesn't. All of these expensive comic book tie-ins make huge profits. Hollywood is in the business of making money, not getting consumers to 'accept' an inferior product that they aren't interested in paying money for.
>keeps trying to discredit someone by repeating the same thing he said
You literally have zero reading comprehension. I hope you're just trying to troll on purpose, otherwise you are certifiable.
Oh, forgot to mention one of the biggest money-makers from movies:
That's how George Lucas turned his $20 million independent space flick into a $3.6 billion dollars.
You have literally no comprehension of Hollywood, nor any ability to lay out your idea.
You're rambling back and forth about a bunch of meaningless shit to the point that you have no point that's in any way valid.
Merchandising is also where the majority of money is made for anime. Once again, why are you working so hard to try and counter someone elses points when your counter argument is the same one he is making?
>You're rambling back and forth about a bunch of meaningless shit to the point that you have no point that's in any way valid.
Sounds exactly like your posts to be honest. Especially since you have contradicted your own points multiple times.
You're not making any point.
You're asking why doesn't Hollywood make anime?
Because that's not what Hollywood studios do.
They own smaller studios that make the cartoons. And cartoons are for kids.
it'll just be another shitty ripoff that chewed through Hollywood writing committees and comes out a turd.
Don't expect any of the moral, ethical or mental dimensions to survive intat. It'll just be CYBORG BADASS DETECTIVES STOP ANONYMOUS SUPER HACKER FROM BLOWING UP HYPER-OATS FACTORY!
I also wouldn't even be surprised if Batou is cast with a black guy and the major gets BLACKED
>Tell us more about how The Avengers is such a commercial failure that it should not be imitated.
Except above where I pointed out that comic book movies are majorly successful.
>Yet their live action counterparts are huge business and 'respected' in Hollywood. Things need to change so that we don't need to spend $100 million to make an Iron Man movie with big name actors and fancy special effects. And instead, get the public to accept a 5 million dollar animated TV series or movie. Which in the long run, would make far more money than one single movie.
Once again you prove you didn't even read my posts. Or that you have such bad reading comprehension, you are an idiot.
>comic book movies are majorly successful
>things need to change
I don't even need to post anything other than your own statements to show how wrong you are. You agree that the status quo works; you're just mad that Hollywood doesn't want to sabotage their own success to match your ideology.
You're getting defensive and trying to be offensive to mask the fact that you literally have no idea what you're talking about and are just trying to rant about literally nothing.
Your point seems to hinge on
>And instead, get the public to accept a 5 million dollar animated TV series or movie.
Why would they want to do that?
>Which in the long run, would make far more money than one single movie.
If you can't support this, then you have no argument and are just whining your wish fulfillment that Hollywood doesn't make your shitty animu just for you.
That guy you just responded to is not the guy who has been arguing with you (me).
>You're asking why doesn't Hollywood make anime?
Except above where I specifically said Hollywood should work on making its OWN animation more popular. Specifically saying it doesn't have to even worry about Japan.
Literally every time you respond to me, its radically changing my point. Proving you don't even understand it.
You don't even understand your own point.
>Hollywood should work on making its OWN animation more popular.
Disney already does a fucking good job of that.
In fact, they're the number one animation studio in the world for good reason. They make shit that sells. And when they can't make shit that sells, they buy the ones who do: Pixar.
Fox owns its own animation studios and Dreamworks does its thing.
They make plenty of money off animation already. What do you want them to change?
You keep whining that things need to change, but you can't seem to explain how.
We're trying to explain to you why it doesn't change.
You are willfully being stupid to miss that.
Comic book movies are majorly successful when they are faithful to their source material. They're complete trainwrecks when they diverge from souce material and do whatever the fuck they want.
All of Marvel and DC comic adaptations are successful, because they are faithful to the material. If Hollywood wasn't run by complete autists, and were faithful to the source material; the manga to live action adaptations would be good, and would succeed.
For fucks sake too, the english dub for SAC is damned good. Avoid whitewashing, avoid source divergence, and just follow the fucking show. 75% of all the work has been done in advance for them.
>All of Marvel and DC comic adaptations are successful, because they are faithful to the material
I already did. You just ignored it.
Hollywood makes one movie for $100 million + $100 million in marketing. It makes another $300 in the box office and $300 in DVD/BD sales. That's $400 million in profit.
Then, hypothetically, let's say they instead spent that $200 million over a large number of animated products. Let's say they made 10 animated movies. Each one cost $5 million to make. That's $50 million. Then spent $150 million to market all those movies. Same $200 million is spent to make not just one big movie, but twenty movies. Now let's say each of those animated movies made a very modest $50 million in box office sales and $100 million in DVD/BD sales. Well shit, that's less than the huge budget liver action movie right? Well, adding up the profit over each movie, you now have $1,500,000,000 dollars. Minus the $200 million initially invested, that's a profit of $1.3 dollars vs the $400 million one single big budget movie made.
In before deflection and changing my point.
>WAAAAAH WE NEED MORE DIVERSITY IN FILMS!
>Except for Asian women, we don't need any of those.
Fucking hypocrites. We're going to get an overweight, white Motoko.
>Comic book movies are majorly successful when they are faithful to their source material. They're complete trainwrecks when they diverge from souce material and do whatever the fuck they want.
Ha! Fucking no.
Listen to any comic book fans any time any of the comic book movies come out.
There are so many continuity issues and other retcons that there is no "faithful" to the source.
Marvel makes silly movies with lots of humor and quips, even if the comic counterpart was nothing like that. Look up "Age of Quiptron" to see the comic fans whine about that.
You're just making up bullshit now to defend your indefensible position.
The only successful animation in the west is super high budget 3D movies. Yes, they are successful. But they need $200 million in marketing to remain successful. My original point (which you keep ignoring) is that you could make just as much money or more by having multiple smaller budget movies. Disney did this for 50 years with 2D animation. Then just gave up on 2D animation once a couple Pixar movies surpassed their 2D movies. Which the problem wasn't so much that they were 2D, but that movies like Pocahontas, Tarzan and Mulan got 1/10th the marketing that Toy Story got. (also because they were shitty movies)
But basically, even when a good 2D movie was made, like Lilo and Stitch or Emperor's New Groove, it got far less marketing. Gee, a 3D Pixar movie got 10x more marketing than a 2D movie in the same year. Holy shit, I wonder why the Pixar movie did 10x better in sales....
>WE NEED MORE DIVERSITY IN FILMS
>Except for asians, lesbians, blacks that aren't in a comedy or tarantino film, gays, trans, or any meaningful diversity.
>We only need diversity when remaking older movies to cause controversy and get people to talk about it.
Hence my point made up at >>137173477
> If Hollywood looks at TV as secondary to making movies, then Animation is so far down the tier list, it is at the bottom. Beneath radio commercials and amateur school theater. Which is why every 'animated ' product keep getting remade into live action.
Your math is bullshit and wishful thinking.
I already explained to you how you can't release so many animated movies in one year.
There's just too much competition to saturate the market with cheap shit.
>Each one cost $5 million to make.
It would cost more than $5 million just to get them into nationwide theaters.
You want them to make a shitty movie for pocket change. You seem to think Hollywood operates like your animu studios.
Nigger it does.
A lead animator is going to make at least 100k working on that project. And you need a fucking team of people like that.
American animators are VERY well paid. Not the ramen-suckers in anime.
You seem to think they're going to hire anime studios to make your cartoons.
Why would they bother?
You really think each movie is going to make back 10 times its budget?
That's a load of bullshit. And they will in no way make back 100 million on DVD.
>Then spent $150 million to market all those movies.
Why would they spend three times the budget marketing cheap shit movies?
>Well, adding up the profit over each movie, you now have $1,500,000,000 dollars.
Biggest load of shit you've posted.
No one is going to watch that much animated shit.
You again show you have literally no clue how Hollywood works.
No to mention,
>It makes another $300 in the box office and $300 in DVD/BD sales. That's $400 million in profit.
You're forgetting the billion dollars in tie-in products and merchandising it makes because people buy shit with logos they recognize.
To be fair, Japanese women aren't very receptive to playing in hollywood roles.
I think Tarantino tried to get Meiko Kaji to come stateside but she declined because she feels she can only act in Japanese. And this is when there was a ton of interest in her work because of Kill Bill's ending song
The solution, then, is to create a few english-subtitled Japanese-language movies to let Japanese actors dip their toes in the water before taking the plunge.
Once that gets rolling I'm sure there will be more interest from Japanese actors to star in hollywood movies.
True. He is maverick enough to do something completely different and weeaboo enough to do something in Japan.
It would be typical, hyper-violent schlock with at least one scene focusing on the lead female's feet.
But he could do it.
By that logic, Anime movies don't sell anywhere near the same as Pixar movies. So why are companies bothering to make live action adaptations of anime movies at all? While at the same time not making live action versions of Pixar films.
Hollywood doesn't just always go where the money is. If it did, Germy Del Taco wouldn't have a career.
>So why are companies bothering to make live action adaptations of anime movies at all?
Literally the same reason they make movies out of books and comics: they come with built-in name recognition.
>While at the same time not making live action versions of Pixar films.
Pixar has been smart enough to make most of their films about non-human subjects.
Disney, however, is making dark and edgy remakes of its classic animated movies.
They're all bad and doing bad at the box office but squeaking by with just enough of a profit for Disney to make more.
>>Hollywood doesn't just always go where the money is. If it did, Germy Del Taco wouldn't have a career.
At this point he doesn't since Pacific Rim 2 was shelved.
He made a lot of money making movies in Mexico and Spain. He just went too animu with Pacific Rim and there just wasn't enough profit for Hollywood to want a sequel.
>Hollywood has no reason to make anime movies because they don't sell
>they make live action adaptations because they have name recognition
Bring out the white coat. This guy is 100% loony.
>Hollywood has no reason to make anime movies because they don't sell
Animated movies, no.
Live-action movies based on anime? For now, yes.
It will take many years and many flops before Hollywood gives up on trying to milk the anime cash cow.
Just look how long it took them to give up on video game movies.
Wasn't the matrix a rip off of some comic book from the 70s/80s?
The puppeteer will be a terrorist. Togusa will have no personality beyond bumbling comic relief, and Bato will be black, the major's main romantic interest, and worst of all, have regular human eyes.
I forget, but originally the humans in the Matrix were being used as processors for the AIs. Though it turned out to be too similar to someone else's copyrighted work. So they changed the humans to being "batteries".
Matrix is a conglomeration of about twenty different sources. But the Brothers have gone on record saying they got the idea while watching Ghost in the Shell and Akira. And copied scenes from those movies directly in the Matrix.
d-do you think she'll wear this sexy outfit? i'd be pretty fucking happy about the movie if she did. still think scarjo is a fucking 10/10 babe
no. She's too old for that.
this is probably as close as they will get.
>implying it won't be super slomo with tons of CGI explosions
The slow motion camera, as well as the shakey 'action' camera, is the worst trend in movies right now. And TV.
Yes, they were invented like 80 years ago. But their overuse in Peter Jackson/Spielberg/Michael Bay/JJ Abrams movies is just getting obnoxious.
It isn't Keanu's best cyberpunk film.
To be fair, people who are 'fans' of Cyberpunk don't even know where the genre begins or ends. Because cyberpunk is more of a collection of styles and ideas, not a true genre.
I mean if you want to get really technical, all fiction is just psychological masturbation we use to momentarily distract ourselves from the creeping realization that the world is more vast and cruel than we had ever imagined, that we will never do anything of note with our lives, and that ultimately even if we did something amazing it wouldn't even matter, because nothing matters, least of all us.
Not anything major that I can think of. And it isn't likely to do so anytime soon. Something that I don't think has been mentioned about Hollywood yet is that nowadays a lot of thought is put into international releases, especially china. It's hard to translate "smart" into chink (And that's ignoring censorship). Explosions and Tits on the other hand, are a universal language.
This. I could see this. Fuck this could be damn near perfect. His voice even comes off similar. And it's almost guaranteed not to happen because hollywood has it's head so far up it's ass it'd probably go to fucking thor instead. Fuck
So far most of the GitS related stuff that's been released recently have been sub par to bad, so I'm not holding my breath.
I'll watch it because I'm a fan, but my I have little hope of it being actually good
Huh, now that you mention it that's pretty true. Like that ronin movie with keanu reaves and some netflix original that's predominantly asian themed but has a white guy as the main character. Hell they even remade Old Boy and cut out all the asians
I feel so conflicted about this.
It is just so much simpler having no one care about anime and leaving it as one of the last big nerd media that isn't cool yet.
I mean if it turns out to be shit then fine but what if it actually turns Hollywood towards anime like everyone is saying?
I mean how does /co/ feel about it? The comic industry must be doing better now compared to the last two decades right? Does that mean that stranger, unique, artsy, quality comics have more space to breath? Or is it just as shit but now everyone knows about your favorite hobby but only through washed out blockbusters? And now the big names just shill out the same stuff over and over knowing it will sell?
I mean Adventure Time got super popular and now CN has more room to take on risky shows, and honestly they seem to be doing alright.
Imagine a stronger anime environment. More variety and quality. I could deal with faggots having shitty opinions (I already deal with /a/) and shitty mass appeal anime being made (it already is) if that means I get better anime.
>It is just so much simpler having no one care about anime and leaving it as one of the last big nerd media that isn't cool yet.
That ended in the late 90s when anime became known on American TV. Even earlier in the 1980s for people living in Central America, South America, France and Italy.
If anything, anime is well known now, just not marketed. And marketing is everything when it comes to making a product appeal to the general market.
Basically, anime is in the same state as the British 'fad'. Everyone knows what it is, but only hardcore fans seek it out. With stuff like Dragon Ball Z and Harry Potter being exceptions, because they got marketed to the masses.
tl;dr Anime could be mainstream if it was marketed more. But making shitty live action versions isn't the way to go about it.
You clearly aren't suited to be a disney executive, then.
But yes, the entire marketing campaign was fucked because Rich Ross, the Chairman of Disney at the time, freaked out after Mars Needs Moms bombed and concluded that Mars was the problem, not little boys being uninterested in movies marketed to their parents.
So he changed the title from Generic Everyman ON MARS to Generic Everyman, and the public shrugged. The underwhelming trailer that showed none of the actually cool stuff, and ended on a "meh" of a pit fight scene, didn't help.
>success of the recent Godzilla
It was a success? And a pretty mediocre flick at that.
>"Kaiju Cinematic Universe"
I thought Pacific Rim bombed.
Some rumours I run up on said that it's going to be as American as it can get, take part in America exclusively and make Sec9 a privately owned security branch of some big ass corporation.
So if this is true, I doubt they'd left those themes in any way other than eyecandy (if at all).
>The comic industry must be doing better now compared to the last two decades right?
The comic industry saw small spikes of reader interest because of the ton of live action movies, but it actually backfired and you saw a regression of comic book sales. Not surprising since the majority of new fans saw a major difference in the comic book style compared to the movies that drew them in. Plus, with 50-80 years of history, many people don't know where to even begin with the comics, while the movies get rebooted every 5-10 years.
>I mean Adventure Time got super popular and now CN has more room to take on risky shows, and honestly they seem to be doing alright.
Kinda, yeah. But a lot of the risky shows they take on kind of suck. I mean, Uncle Grandpa, Regular Show, Clarence, We bear Bears, Gumball, Teen Titans...there's only so much 'lol random' you can have on one network. The shows they are making kind of complete with each other for the same fans. Cartoon Network needs to greenlight a few serialized shows that don't just focus on the same type of comedy and character archetypes.
But you know...shows better than Stephen Universe. A really bad Mahou Shoujo isn't going to help.
>Imagine a stronger anime environment. More variety and quality. I could deal with faggots having shitty opinions (I already deal with /a/) and shitty mass appeal anime being made (it already is) if that means I get better anime.
I use to think this way and actually heavily advocated for more publicity for anime back in the late 90s/early 2000s. Problem is, anime companies were selling the total rights of their shows to small middle man companies like ADV, Viz and 4kids. Who then had total control to butcher the content. And in hindsight, the vast majority of anime we saw in the west was heavily edited and dubbed...which isn't really anime anymore. It a 'westernized' version of a Japanese show. Its almost better to let that die off and just rely on fansubs.
Godzilla is getting a sequel as fast as they can make it. Pacific Rim may be getting a sequel, with the "may" more about studio politics as Legendary and Universal negotiate than an actual lack of desire to make the film.
>>Young adult tier
PEGI 13 (or whatever the US equivalent is).
>and the costs to market those
If it's like with
vidyathose can go up to 50% of the whole aggregated cost of a movie.
>The comic industry must be doing better now compared to the last two decades right? Does that mean that stranger, unique, artsy, quality comics have more space to breath? Or is it just as shit but now everyone knows about your favorite hobby but only through washed out blockbusters? And now the big names just shill out the same stuff over and over knowing it will sell?
independent comics are a lot more prolific now thanks to the internet and digital orders, which is good because the big two are shit. Marvel and DC are beset by a numbers focused mentality and an overwhelming desire to cram diversity down everyone's throats via the most retarded route possible (taking well established characters and turning them into a woman/gay/black), instead of using characters they already have or making new ones not burdened by decades of publication history. Most of this is done to pander to people who don't buy comics(normies and your Tumblr crowd), which is why when they do attempt to make new "diverse" heroes, they crash and burn. This forces them to rely on constant reboots and restarts (the first issue of a comic is always the best selling) to sell, and riding on the name of established heroes (like turning thor into a woman), where nerds will buy it just because they're angry. Old storylines get rehashed because writers are too beset by editorial mandates to actually go anywhere with what they're given.
DC is doing better than Marvel in this regard imo, but their latest reboot has fucked a lot of things as they attempt to squeeze their timeframe into something more feasible, with the end result of a lot of characters not fitting in anywhere, and a lot of boring stories as they spend time explaining how so and so got where they are now
Looks like my tastes don't reflect the situation out there. I really didn't like the new American Godzilla. It lacked the fucking Godzilla too much, pulled a bullshit twist and focused on some boring ass shmuck I couldn't relate to even if I tried.
And about the Pacific Rim, I heard it didn't do even half of what would guarantee a sequel and that Del Toro was being fucked with on some projects, this one included.
>sequel from going on indefinite hiatus
Something like that. Yeah.
Now you mention it, I think I heard it was supposed to be a SAC thing more than anything.
Whatever, it's going to suck (suck - SAC, get it?) anyway.
>many people don't know where to even begin with the comics, while the movies get rebooted every 5-10 years.
Don't know about DC, but didn't Marvel just rebooted all their shit? And did some bullshit stunts with replacing old, tried out heroes with new (and vagina sporting) ones?
Marvel (and DC) have rebooted their comic universe at least twice in the last twenty years. With various reboots within the overall reboots....
When it comes to the movies however, they reboot everything even quicker. Spider Man and Hulk have had three reboots in 15 years. Yet stuff like X-Men don't. Kind of annoying, but the origin movies always sell better than its sequels. So they just reboot them every few years and start over.
When studios hear "why wasn't there more Godzilla? I wanted more Godzilla," they think "we just made 600 million; give them more Godzilla!" and completely miss the lesson.
Which I disagree with; I thought the use of Godzilla was very effective; he's a fucking movie monster and was used like one. Less is more. You're just parroting the hivemind.
I do agree that the protagonist was lackluster, even for a Generic Everyman. I'd rather have switched from character to character as others got squished or left behind. He should have stayed on the ship while we watched the train people in Honolulu, that chill guy who got squashed on the bridge, and the HALO jumpers, rather than damaging the movie with one contrivance after another to keep him involved.
>You're just parroting the hivemind.
He was kinda used like a movie monster of ye old times, but the what's his face MUTO wasn't.
And to redeem myself in Anon's eyes, my two favourite G flicks are the original one and Biollante, both of which skimp on the monster element (in regard to your standard Godzilla schlock).
>I do agree that the protagonist was lackluster
Walter White and the nip egg head could make a very nice pair IMO.
After all the outcry over not enough monsters I can see the next movie ending up like Final Wars but without any of the things that actually made Final Wars fun and enjoyable.
The MUTO aren't the real monsters, they just want to make babies. Godzilla is the real monster, and moves without a single fuck given about the humans awing at his presence.
...You know, I just spitballed that, but I kind of like it. Doubt it's the real reasoning, though.