• Last Seen: 6 yrs ago
  • Old Guild Username: mbl
  • Joined: 10 yrs ago
  • Posts: 3648 (0.97 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. mdk 10 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

9 yrs ago
new leg today. I AM TERMINATOR REBORN
3 likes

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

But he's pretty much on the cusp of victory, with or without chemical weapons. If the rebels were about to bust down his door to crucify him, I would understand how he might reach that level of desperation. But no, the dude's winning, has Russian support, and up until the gas attack had the indirect approval of the US because Trump seems to be okay with what is happening there with Russia. He is putting all of that in jeopardy, and for what? So he can taunt the US (and the world), hedging his bets on the belief that the US is still unwilling to enforce the red line? Seems way too risky and unnecessary.


The misconception here is that Assad just started doing the chemical thing. He's been dropping chlorine bombs for a while now, if the opposition is to be believed. CNN cited evidence that not one but three different attacks in the last several months were launched out of this base. The only unique thing about the latest attack is that the aftermath was caught on video.
1. There's still a pretty strong chance this was a false flag (as in ISIS gases people and Assad gets blamed). Pressure and preparation are warranted; war is not.

2. The US should absolutely not get into another unilateral op, and removing Assad without providing stability is only going to empower ISIS. If there's a military repercussion, either make it limited enough to maintain the balance of power (which is hurting ISIS badly), or make it sufficient that ISIS has no vacuum to fill after Assad is gone. This would be the perfect opportunity for the EU, the UN, and/or NATO to do something useful for a change.

3. Assad is really a cunt anyway, so if the EU, UN, and/or NATO would like to skip step one, I'm all in favor. I just better not see another OIF-style """"""coalition""""" in which >80% of the funding is coming from the USA.

Update: missile retribution has been delivered.

Double update: conflicting reports, but at least some sources are saying 59 missiles hit home and the barrage caused zero casualties? Game-changing-ish levels of interesting if true.
@Doc Doctor
I have never watched TTGL.

Now I need to watch all of it in just under 24 hours so that I can make use of this new utterly imperative development.

Mot fucking damnit.


Worth it. I'm sure you'll agree!
<snip?


ffs why are you still here?

I haven't watched the Hollywood take on GitS since it's not out in my region yet, but I do plan on giving it a shot.

I've watched the 1995 movie, SAC and Arise (2015 reboot). GitS was one of the titles that piqued my interest in the cyberpunk genre, and I really enjoy it for the philosophical and psychological exploration of the characters and setting, of man versus computers. Even the director of Matrix cited GitS as one of the sources of inspiration to the trilogy.

So yep. I feel that I should give the live action a chance even if the "whitewashing" feels a bit odd to me, and the trailer shows numerous scenes similar the 1995 animated movie. It's going to be hard to watch it unbiased, but I know the CGI and actions won't disappoint at least.


Honestly it's on par with the 2015 reboot. They each have their own charms (2015 is better with the squad, Hollywood is better with the spectacle), and each is a Major diversion (2015 had Kusanagi "born" as a cyborg, 2017 has her as the first). If I had to give one of them an edge, I mean..... nothing beats some Section 9 tactical demos, so 2015 is cool and all, but the goddamn visual Hollywood can afford? Best Spider Tank scene since, well, the original.
I'm glad you guys liked the movie.

I was afraid that fans of the original would give it a far below average rating rather than the about average rating it deserves. Some are doing that.


It might honestly be above-average, but that's speaking more against average than it is speaking for GITS.

I know people keep comparing the city to Blade Runner, but honestly (and I'm surprised I haven't heard this anywhere else) all I could think about was Repo! the Genetic Opera. Which is again interesting, because that remake did about the same thing for its subject matter as GiTS.
<Snipped>


Why are you STILL still here?
<Snipped quote by Iuniper>

Then whose surplus labor would we exploit?


Boxer the horse.
@BrobyDDark

I didn't just outright say it was bad at first...I just pointed out other people's opinions and shared my thoughts on why I was hesitant to watch it...I think I had a little bit more nuance. But his comments where pretty blunt and fairly mean spirited. M.Night's not the best example. But I get your point...I think outright ignoring those things is a bit foolish

Like I said I didn't outright attack him. I said, glad he enjoyed the movie. But I'm not sure if that really convinces me to see it...maybe if he explained why he liked it so much, that be more useful than saying my opinion is "regurgitated" while being as passive aggressive as possible. <.< (Also you can't guarantee saying positive and negatives won't lead to people being assholes, you vastly under predict the assholishness of others...and I'd argue I already did that...still snapped at...)

I did edit myself there, in fact you have the edited version. I said a lot, doesn't mean everyone. I didn't mean to generalize, hell maybe not even targeted at this forum specifically. A lot of forums, seem to miss the purpose of what it's suppose to be.

You really, really don't have the numbers right on "everyone saw it but you." Literally at beginning five other people mentioned not watching it or haven't seen it yet or didn't mention it. So, yeah...if I asked "Others seemed to dislike it, why did you like it?" I have a feeling I'd of gotten the same spiteful reaction. :/

And really, there's a lot of anti-social tendencies I've seen across this forum, but that was more of a joke than a discussion jumping off point, so I'll leave it at that.


why are you still here
April Fool's. Don't even bother checking Adult Swim.
MDK'S VERDICT: NOT BAD

New GiTS is decidedly NOT a terrible movie. It's also a let-down, but not for the obvious reasons..... yes, it readily departs from all the established universe, yes it changes like a BUNCH of characters.... all that basically makes sense in the movie, even (especially) the whitewashing aspect. I really wanted to hate Batou, but couldn't. Anyway, it's none of the expected stuff that makes the movie suck, I guess, is the point of this intro -- suck is a strong word. It's got weaknesses. Let's dive in.

THE GOOD:

First, the movie sounded fucking brilliant. They're getting a lot of props for the visuals -- those were great, sure, most of the time, but the sound was outstanding. Major props to Clint Mansel, the soundtrack guru you should all know better than you think you do. He nailed this shit.

Second, the visuals. They were cool. The coolness was suitably pervasive too -- background floating fish, holobilboards, etc. It looked slick. They even handled most of the legacy shots well -- the spherical hacking, the robogeisha, all that shit. Visuals were nicely done.

Third (and arbitrarily last), they cast this shit right. Based on the script I just watched, Japanese is the only think Kusanagi couldn't be -- her cover was a refugee killed in a terrorist attack on a boat into the country, so that wouldn't, you know. How would a Japanese refugee be sailing to.... w/e. Yeah they could've written it differently and preserved stuff, but Scarlet nailed it, and so did (almost) everybody else. Had my doubts with Aramaki off the bat, but he turned out to be perfect too. Really, the only people who didn't seem like a perfect cast were evil-white-corporate-villain and the random-third-world-rep (who performed just fine, really, but just could not capture the gravity of his role or dialogue and it's purely an aesthetic thing -- his acting was fine, he just wasn't cast in the right part).

POINT OF THIS SECTION BEING, there's plenty to like. It was paced well (enough), the action was good, various other elements were good.

THE NOT-SO-GOOD:

First and foremost, this was a really simple film -- nothing wrong with that, I guess, if we don't hold it to source-material standards -- but it managed to still do a really terrible job introducing its elements. We never saw (cringe) Major Major's shell as anything particularly special -- the old shit always has a shot of her crashing into some concrete or talks about how she'd sink in water or whatever. This one she just broke on literally every single mission until magically she's ripping apart a tank with her bare hands? It was rough. This was surprising because they started out, like, super good at this -- that African negotiation, where he plays the french lullaby and says "in the time it took her to sing that song, she learned French." PERFECT! They coulda done that level of exposition the whole way through and it woulda been great. But sadly no -- ten minutes later we reverted to sixty fucking lines of trialogue to explain what 'diving' means, and that still didn't turn out to mean anything because at the end of it Major Major just magically knows where the signal was coming from and handwave it just you know hacking or something fuckit let's go shoot Yakuzas. See they tricked me into thinking they were gonna write it well, and then they didn't write it well at all.

Second, the characters were generally awful with some great exceptions. I mentioned Aramaki already -- thought he was gonna be in the awful camp, he wound up in the good camp. Also in that camp: Togusa, Oulet, British agent whose name I never fully registered. Awful camp: pretty much everyone else. Motivations (if they surfaced at all) never made much sense for anyone else, which you can forgive in the random drones I guess, but not in the main characters, so let's focus on them. Major Major swallowing magic plot-suppression juice until she no longer swallows magic plot-suppression juice because random guy she's so bent on killing has a funky tattoo and then I mean shit man do I really have to go on, and all this supposedly after going from zero to ultraterminator in a year? Meh. It was a sad fucking excuse for an arc, summarized nicely by the clumsy Schwarenegger punchline they spent half her scenes building towards. How about White Corporate Villain though? Honestly can't remember if he literally said it out loud, but that was the full depth of his character -- well, that, plus a tedious coward-reveal at the end just to help the audience feel better about Major Major's punchline (it didn't work). Batou, I'm struggling to put into either camp.... On the one hand I thought they generally handled him fine, but then on the other, I can't decide whether he makes any sense at all as less than a full cyborg. I keep going back to the Yakuza Disco, and wondering how he can be both Cyber-Noob and also unit strongman who recklessly throws his measly organics into actual human carjacks and come out on top. He made sense when he was full-cyborg. He didn't make sense here. They didn't have a choice, based on the way they took the script -- but maybe that's a reason they shouldn't have gone that way.

Third, the whole big thing was overly personalized at the expense of nuance. There was one heroine and one villain and everything else was a smokescreen. By doing that, the movie precluded the asking of any significant questions -- "Are cyborgs still human?" "Well you're the main character, so I guess yup, checkmark, done." "How does the team differentiate itself into their different roles -- and how can a guy like Togusa contribute? What even is diversity when every part of you is in a catalogue somewhere?" "You, uh.... I think you said something about a team? What's that?" "Are the structures that govern human society prepared to deal with changes to the way we perceive and experience the universe?" "RAAAAAAH I'M A RAGING CORRUPTED CUNTBAG, RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGHHH!!!" "But...." "RAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!!" You get the idea. Dumb.

But still......

I could go on for a while on either good/bad, but this is the fucking spam section, so naw. Look, I was entertained. It was not a waste of money. The theater where I watched was empty -- that's a damn shame. More people are gonna see Baywatch. GiTS: the Whitening 3D doesn't deserve that bad a reaction. It was fine. They choked the life out of it with Hollywood bullshit, but hey, that's every damn movie. Is it an affront to GiTS God? I mean..... yeah....... but who gives a shit what that guy thinks? This is America. Freedom of Religion bitch, that's the fourth amendment.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet