Ghost in the Shell Official Trailer 1 (2017) - Scarlett Johansson Movie

Scarlett always interests me.

The animated movie on which this is based was probably the second most influential one out of Japan next to Akira. I really hope they don't screw it up.

Disappointed about them picking Scarlett for this role...

Rinku Kikuchi would have been perfect but hey, need a star to bring the people in.

JackD201 said:

The animated movie on which this is based was probably the second most influential one out of Japan next to Akira. I really hope they don't screw it up.

Click to expand...

akira is probably is my favorite science fiction album of all time.

Interesting comparison:

______

The real deal:

______

I like Scarlett, I just don't know if she was the perfect choice here.
Personally from my take of the original animated flick; I would have like to see someone new, fresh, captivating, ...exotic oriental fatal attraction.

Oh she truly is; I was referring to magical oriental eyes, real Orient.

I love the music of the original; that's what's playing above. Watching several trailers of this anime adaptation, it wets my appetite.


Release date: Mar 31, 2017 (United States)
Director: Rupert Sanders
Music by: Clint Mansell

jadis said:

Scarlett always interests me.

Click to expand...

I like her too.

YashN said:

Disappointed about them picking Scarlett for this role...

Click to expand...

That was risky.

JackD201 said:

Rinku Kikuchi would have been perfect but hey, need a star to bring the people in.

Click to expand...

• Paramount blame Scarlett Johansson's casting for poor opening

Steve Williams said:

For my money Scarlett is about as exotic and captivating as any actress out there

Click to expand...

+1

Me, for that very important role, and for all the hardcore fans, I'm with Jack. :b
? Rinko Kikuchi

JackD201 said:

Rinku Kikuchi would have been perfect but hey, need a star to bring the people in.

Click to expand...

NorthStar said:

Me, for that very important role, and for all the hardcore fans, I'm with Jack. :b
? Rinko Kikuchi

Click to expand...

In principle, I agree with you both.

But as Jack alludes to, there's a very simple reason Ms. Johansson got the role.

A friend of mine works in development for Studio Canal. Every year, as well as reading (and rejecting) hundreds of scripts, her job involves packaging films together to sell to overseas distributors. Here's how it works:

She turns up at an international festival with a catalogue of films Studio Canal is producing. She'll then attempt to sell the rights to the films to overseas distributors ahead of the film's release. In the catalogue, each film is given a title, a brief description of the film's premise, with (usually) two names: The director; and the star.

This is before a single frame is shot. In some cases, it's before the screenplay is even written.

Whatever money is made from the overseas distribution rights then is put into a development budget so the film can begin preproduction in earnest. Location scouting, contracts for crew, casting, and writing (and re-writing and re-re-writing) are pulled from that budget. Studio Canal will then look to partner with other production companies to finance the film's production/post-production, if indeed, the film even gets that far.

All of this is completely contingent on three things: A title, a premise, and a star. The star may even only be loosely "attached". The director may yet to have been decided upon.

But without the star, the film's very likely not to proceed. It's part of the reason A-list actors and actresses can command the fees they do, because they know their name being attached to any film is often leveraged to get it made in the first place.

It's a crazy world, but it's possible we have Scarlet Johansson to thank for a live action remake of Ghost in the Shell even existing, to say nothing of whether the film's any good. Or not.

853guy

853guy said:

In principle, I agree with you both.

But as Jack alludes to, there's a very simple reason Ms. Johansson got the role.

A friend of mine works in development for Studio Canal. Every year, as well as reading (and rejecting) hundreds of scripts, her job involves packaging films together to sell to overseas distributors. Here's how it works:

She turns up at an international festival with a catalogue of films Studio Canal is producing. She'll then attempt to sell the rights to the films to overseas distributors ahead of the film's release. In the catalogue, each film is given a title, a brief description of the film's premise, with (usually) two names: The director; and the star.

This is before a single frame is shot. In some cases, it's before the screenplay is even written.

Whatever money is made from the overseas distribution rights then is put into a development budget so the film can begin preproduction in earnest. Location scouting, contracts for crew, casting, and writing (and re-writing and re-re-writing) are pulled from that budget. Studio Canal will then look to partner with other production companies to finance the film's production/post-production, if indeed, the film even gets that far.

All of this is completely contingent on three things: A title, a premise, and a star. The star may even only be loosely "attached". The director may yet to have been decided upon.

But without the star, the film's very likely not to proceed. It's part of the reason A-list actors and actresses can command the fees they do, because they know their name being attached to any film is often leveraged to get it made in the first place.

It's a crazy world, but it's possible we have Scarlet Johansson to thank for a live action remake of Ghost in the Shell even existing, to say nothing of whether the film's any good. Or not.

853guy

Click to expand...

Fascinating. Thanks.

audioguy said:

Fascinating. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Hi Audioguy,

It's a pleasure.

Obviously, it’s not the only way films get made, but with studios looking to minimise financial liability, it’s become more common than not.

For Ghost in the Shell, Dreamworks purchased the rights in 2008, with two producers attached. They then engaged one writer, replaced him with another, then another, eventually going through seven writers, with the screenplay credited to three of those seven. All of them will have been paid, despite the fact their work may have been scrapped in part or in full.

In January 2014, six years after Dreamworks purchased the rights, and after numerous writers had attempted to adapt it (mostly unsuccessfully), Rupert Sanders was finally announced as director. But it was only once Johansson had signed on - being a “bankable star” - did Paramount agree to co-produce and co-finance the film seven months later in May 2015, essentially taking the film from being “in development” to being “in production”.

Even then, Paramount and Dreamworks would not be the only production companies to co-produce/co-finance the film, with additional resources/production support jointly credited to Arad Productions, Grosvenor Park Productions, Huahua Media, Reliance Entertainment, Seaside Entertainment, Shanghai Film Group and Steven Paul Productions. Eleven people are credited with either a line producer, co-producer, producer or executive producer role. Some of them will also have made back-end deals to take profit share should the film actually make a, er... profit.

Of course, with a film this technical, they would have already been working with production designers, art directors, visual effects companies and post-production houses well before shooting began.

I’ve shared this story before but perhaps it’s worth repeating. If all of the above feels somewhat insane, my friend did tell me she knows of a film that had €600,000 spent on development, only for it to be scrapped completely, never to see the light of day. And, apparently, it's not that uncommon either.

There’s a reason it’s called the film industry, and it’s because a ludicrous amount of money is at stake. And none of the above guarantees the film will make back its production budget.

Be well,

853guy

I watched the original animation again and while I liked it before and still do (Hey they drink San Miguel Beer! What can I say? ) the basic premise just feels passe now. Cyber Punk had its time, the AI theme has been explored extensively from so many angles the most recent being Ex Machina. Sure the whitewashing is an issue but I think it is secondary to the audience being no longer mystified by the digital realm. Quite different from the excitement felt when dial-up was considered a rare privilege.

As for the whitewashing I think the feeling has finally hit critical mass. I remember Avatar: The Last Airbender as the one that really set this off. I guess nobody wants to see a David Carradine Grasshopper in the 21st Century anymore.

Interesting read above, thx 853guy for taking some time to share with us who love movies...and Scarlett.

The original anime, to me, has its power in the music score matching his unique designed animations.
...The overall futuristic atmosphere, with the music being the number one character.

Latest news ? http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/new...he-works-new-movie-set-to-lose-60-million-122

The new film stands roughly @ 50% across all movie critic's average. I hope it comes in 3D when the Blu-ray comes up...and yes it will.
What I would like to see (but it won't) is the 3D BR version included in the UHD/HDR (4K) package. This is not Paramount's territory.
Few of those were available from Sony Pictures*...

----------------------- ----------------------------

Click on anyone of the three pictures ? above.

*

I'm just mentioning the above because 'Ghost in the Shell' on Blu-ray (as in some theaters) comes with a Dolby Vision (some theaters only, not Blu-ray) HDR picture and/or a 3D picture, and with a 3D immersive audio soundtrack, Dolby Atmos. The film might not have real value as per se, but for some audio/video buffs it just don't matter; as long as the picture is very pretty (DV/HDR or 3D) and the sound explosive (Atmos and LF).
• https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html
• http://www.avsforum.com/ghost-in-the-shell-dolby-vision-hdr-atmos-sound/

So to have it all in one BR package give us the opportunity to build our future movie collection...till 8K comes, and Disney, and re-releases with Dolby Vision.

This movie industry, I agree, works on a money selling point. If it would be only for the art of cinema it wouldn't work. The audience for that genre is simply the minority. Hollywood aims for the majority, and kids have a large role in that...Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel super heroes, ...

Rinko Kikuchi

• http://www.thewheelz.com/2017/03/20...shell-will-feature-futuristic-honda-nm4-bike/
______