Talk:Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

See also: Whitewashing in film

I removed this from the page, but my edit was reverted. Surely the relevance of this should be justified in the article before linking to another page. Spaceyavin (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am removing it again, as I agree. It is already linked in the relevant controversy section. 141.210.34.117 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, "The Major" vs "Motoko Kusanagi" edit

IMDB credits Johansson as "Kusanagi". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219827/ Jyg (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit IMDB, it is not a reliable source. Sro23 (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can submit changes. Ostensibly, they verify changes before accepting them. Drantin (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you showcase that they do this? It's Wikipedia standard that we don't use IMDb as a source. So this would have to be something taken to a higher level, not just discussion here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a few specific cases where the IMDb is a reliable source, such as when the credits are officially validated by a reliable source, such as when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) signs off on the writer credits. Otherwise, no, it's basically a wiki. This story demonstrates why it's not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've remove the links of The Major to Kusanagi's character. To date Kusanagi's name has not been mentioned in any official source about the movie. In fact all material has been extremely careful to only refer to her as The Major. To say this character is Kusanagi is synthesis and original research at this time and is making an assumption. Until it's released, or we have a reliable source, I don't think we can make that assumption especially as it's looking increasingly possible it's not supposed to be Kusanagi. If it's to be added back in it needs to be supported by a reliable source. Remember we need sources for this stuff, not assumptions. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

There's been some edit warring involving the retainment of this statement: "since the main character has been portrayed as a full body cyborg (or "shell") with a Caucasian appearance (despite being originally an Asian person)". Allow me to explain my actions: reading this immediately gave me a bad feeling. As far as I can tell, most sources point to the main reason why the fans in Japan didn't get as upset at the casting being that it's a Hollywood movie, and I guess they associate Hollywood with white actors, NOT because in the original the main character supposedly was an Asian person in a Caucasian cyborg body. It's personal opinion at best, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE with troubling implications at worst. Unless this has been confirmed by the creators themselves or well trusted experts, please do not re-add the statement. A few tweets from fans isn't good enough. Sro23 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The source doesn't say anything about a Caucasian cyborg body. It says that they assumed an American would play the role. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

OMG. Mettaton from Undertale looks like Motoko.... --RainPearl233 (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

These opinions are obviously biased by financial gain, I added a quote from Pavan Shamdasani of Asia Times to try and balance it a little. --184.75.234.66 (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

'Criticism'

This section opens with

"fans have argued that changing both the Japanese setting and main character's name to make the film a complete cultural adaptation would be a wiser decision."

There are 2 glaring issues with this, firstly it isn't actually in the cited source, which presents some "fan" tweets and proceeds to talk about "whitewashing" as a general topic without suggesting any remedy. Secondly because the original was set in a fictionalized Hong Kong, not Japan. I'd change it myself, but I long ago learnt the perils of editing someones pet project on wikipedia, especially when identity politics are involved. 51.7.8.191 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, if you're afraid you'll be treated unfairly because you're an IP or something, there's nothing stopping you from creating an account. Sro23 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've got (or rather had) an account, but I stopped being active on wikipedia years ago for reasons alluded to above, and I've no intention of being brought back into the fold. It's far easier to point out an error and let someone else deal with the bureaucracy of actually correcting it. 51.7.8.191 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Casting criticism / controversy

This entire section, except for the last sentence looks like it is a positive spin on it that was written by DreamWorks' Public Relations department. In no way does this sound neutral to me, nor does it accurately reflect the criticism I have seen from this controversy. It makes it looks like most fans assumed that a Hollywood production would choose a white actress in the lead role, and that is just not what I am seeing. It's backed up by a quote from the company that holds the rights to the series and its characters, who is obviously going to promote the movie to protect their financial interests. Sanders, Paul, and Johansson are obviously going to spin their movie in a positive way; and so is Mamoru Oshii when he is being paid by the production company for an interview to make the movie look good.

When I research the movie online, this is what I find: http://nextshark.com/ghost-shell-tries-making-viral-meme-severely-backfires/

That seems like the exact opposite reaction of the one claimed in this section. Furthermore it covers a new marketing controversy separate from previous criticism. That attempt at viral marketing really backfired. --Macha Panta (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• The section does seem to give a bit too much weight to Sanders' and Johansson's statements, and comparatively very little to the actual criticisms. If you were to link to a source talking about the particular issue mentioned in the article you linked to, the original Polygon article might be a better source. V2Blast (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• • It was added at that at the end it is shown that the Major was originally Japanese. From the articles I've read, this just reminded the reviewers that the film is whitewashed. I'll try to add the sources when I get back from vacation since I have trouble doing it from my phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B023:D526:F485:EC58:12E5:E2C4 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• • • The latest source at the end of this section makes a great point that I think should be mentioned in the article. The director claims that he had to go with a White actress because there are no big name Asian actresses, but then makes no attempts to farm any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.66.153 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The section is way too long. It's also quite silly. Why don't you talk about the Non Japanese Asians cast as Japanese? Are all Asians the same? LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B11E:9E5D:2C04:4A40:163D:D1E5 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I added Sam Yoshiba's statement to the lead.

i think his statement is relevant enoguh especially since he (and his company) controlls the rights to the series NokSuk (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And, as seen here and here, you were twice reverted on the matter by Popcornduff per the addition being WP:Undue weight. I agree with those reverts. Stop WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

omiting the voice of the owner in favor of agenda driven opinion pieces give the casting criticism undue weight. the owner has the end say in the matter and he said it wasn't meant for a japanese actress in the first place adn scarlet is a good choice. end of story. NokSuk (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus for this change first. You're still being reverted by (multiple) editors, and it's still edit warring. Sro23 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

so the concensus can override the voice of the owner of the series? serriously?? NokSuk (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Sro23 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

yay!! wiki the supposed encyclopedia that isn't at all for virtue signaling or agenda pushing. NokSuk (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead already says people defended it. The article goes into more detail and presents views on both sides of the controversy, leaving readers free to make up their own minds. Reach Out to the Truth 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

just take a look at the history. agenda driven individuals want to erase the fact that the owners of the original work say there is no controversy since they're ok with the casting and the character wasn't imagined to ethnic japanese in the first place. NokSuk (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did take a look at your history. It's not flattering, but people can change. Are you making a sincere attempt to contribute productively to Wikipedia, or are you still trying to get blocked? Reach Out to the Truth 04:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I wasn't blocked, despite my best attempt, I try to make myself useful. If wiki politicos let me. I already rationalized and communicated my view. I believe i was just trying to strike a balance on this page, since the (bloated casting and) criticism section gives undue weight to the whole whitewashing controversy, despite the fact that the owners of the original work basically poured cold water on the simmering issue with one simple statement. But if agenda pushing is more important than a neutral, informative wiki, well... I already wrote my goodbye post. NokSuk (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to your recent edits, the creators of any given media do not get "the last say" on what is written about their work on Wikipedia. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view and depends on reliable sources. The current wording in the lead ("The film also drew accusations of whitewashing for its casting of Johansson from Western critics, despite defences of the casting by Japanese creative members of the original work") is biased particularly in its use of the loaded term "despite", which suggests the critics should be listening to the "Japanese creative members" (whoever they are - since when do works have "members")? Popcornduff (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

the whitewashing controversy stands on the premise that the series was changed to fit either an american exceptionalist or white supremacist agenda. Why is the word of the owners of the series important? simple, they hold authority over what is and what is not canon. if they say the character wasn't japanese (or asian) in the first place, it means it wasn't 'white-washed'. NokSuk (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, and your WP:Edit warring while logged in and while logged out, I can support mention of "western" or "American" in front of "critics" since it appears that only American and/or western critics and fans have been outraged, or that they are the main ones outraged. As for stating "despite defences of the casting by Japanese creative members of the original work," if it's just the one creator, it does not belong in the lead unless there is more than the brief commentary included in the Criticism section. If it's more than just the creator, this needs to be covered lower before it can be placed in the lead. And the wording would need to be different anyway. No "despite." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And like I just noted here, I will get this article WP:Semi-protected if need be...in order to stop the suspicious IP edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NokSuk, do this one more time, and see what happens. I do not have time for your silly edit-warring. And I will not be tolerating it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That edit you reverted was not WP:Vandalism in any sense of the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

don't you have someone to check the IPs? that wasn't me. if you hadn't noticed, there are mutliple IPs adding and reverting on this page, genius. also, it's clear that you're not interested in talk or reason, only accusations and threat. you're so great at your job. check sarcasm. NokSuk (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think I am stupid? You have quite clearly been edit warring while logged out. I noticed that when first appearing at this article. Do not insult my intelligence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

i'm doing that right now thanks to you. what are you implying?? that i'm edit warring with myself? are you nuts? NokSuk (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sighs. Because of this latest edit you made, I will now be reporting you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I did warn you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Reported. Note, as mentioned in the report, the article has been semi-protected. Thank you, El C. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the section below, Betty Logan stated: As for the latest dispute over the lead it is reasonable to mention the whitewashing since there is an entire section dedicated to it and the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article, but perhaps it can be worded a bit more neutrally: "The film also became embroiled in a controversy over whitewashing for its casting of Johansson." Using the word "controversy" rather than "accusations" means that the lead doesn't promote a side in the debate.

I see that Sro23 added, "In addition, the casting of Johansson generated controversy."

Either wording is fine, but I prefer Betty's because it's clearer about what the controversy is. I understand that Sro23's version pipelinks the Whitewashing in film article, but his wording would be clearer as "a whitewashing controversy."

Also, does anyone other than NokSuk feel that the creators not viewing the matter as whitewashing should be noted in the lead? Or no? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier wording: "The casting of Johansson also drew accusations of whitewashing from some western critics."

Rationale:

* To say that something "drew accusations" doesn't suggest Wikipedia is taking a side. It's stating a fact, in plain, neutral English, which is covered and cited extensively in the body.

* Other suggestions, such as "became embroiled in a controversy", are verbose and smack of a writer trying to duck an issue... I don't see the utility of it or what it offers over "drew accusations".

* "The casting of Johansson generated controversy" isn't great because it a) has an easter egg link (the user has to investigate the "controversy" link to discover where it goes) and b) it contains less information.

I think adding "but the creators disagree" (or whatever words to that effect) is largely pointless, because of course they do. It's not meaningful information. It would be like saying "the film received negative reviews, but the creators of the film disagree with the reviews". Like, who cares? We might, instead, summarise some of the meaningful counter-arguments, like the argument that race is immaterial because of the story's themes, etc. I'm not thrilled about that because it smacks of overkill, and I always lean towards using as few words as possible, but it would at actually at least contain information. (Disclaimer, as apparently some editors in this debate suspect agendas or whatever: I haven't seen this movie and have no particular opinion about the casting.) Popcornduff (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your points and don't object. I've certainly cited WP:EGG enough times (although I'm not sure that it applies in this case since the wikilink pointed readers to where they would expect to go -- an area about the controversy). I only suggested that we might mention something about the creators' view(s) in the lead because it is covered in the Criticism section and because NokSuk is pushing for it to be in the lead and is unlikely to stop pushing for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The controversy link there is very much an easter egg link, along the lines of the examples given at WP:EASTER. On the face of it I would expect it to take me to the controversy page, or maybe some broader page about controversy in film, or something. There's nothing to suggest it leads to the whitewashing in film article, and in print, that information is lost entirely. Popcornduff (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Beauty standards in Japan as a reason for Japanese natives not being outraged by the film

As seen here (followup edits here, here and here), I took some material from an already existing source in the section. The source is from The Hollywood Reporter and it interviews four Japanese American actresses about the whitewashing controversy. I came to this article to add a bit on their view that one reason people in Japan are not outraged by the controversy is because of the beauty standards in Japan. The view that Japanese people idolize white or western beauty is nothing new, and is addressed in some academic sources, such as those discussing eyelid surgery. I don't see why this aspect should be excluded any more than other commentary in the section. When I came to this article, I saw that the source was already used in the section. To me, it was odd that the section used the source for the mother-child content, but not for the beauty standard content as well. I moved the source up and added the beauty standard content to the relevant paragraph about why native Japanese people are not outraged by the casting of Johansson. My text was going to be a sentence along the lines of "There is also sentiment that beauty standards in Japan, with white beauty being held as ideal, have contributed to the lack of outrage among Japanese natives about the casting of Johansson." You know, something like that. And I would still be okay with using that sentence in place of what I added. I was also going to use an additional source if I came across it. I kept the original "The Hollywood Reporter spoke to a group of female Japanese American actors" text, which names the actors, because it is what was used lower in the section and I was wondering if I would need to introduce the actresses twice. Instead, I decided to introduce them early on, and trim the bottom part that also mentions them; see this edit again.

I decided to watch the article, partly because I felt that this content might be removed because it is a controversial view. And, sure enough, it was removed by NokSuk, with the rational that "This is just opinion piece filler in an already bloated section." I reverted, stating, "Yeah, it's just an opinion, just like everything else in this section, but it's [a] relevant [...] opinion echoed by more than one Japanese American actress. Taking this matter to the talk page." So opinions are needed on this issue. I will contact WP:Film to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me if this controversy extended to Asian or Japanese media, so I think what The Hollywood Reporter did was worthy and interesting: they sought an Asian female perspective on the issue and if the controversy is going to be covered the Asian-female perspective should be included. There may be better alternatives to THR piece but at the moment they are filling a gap that needs to be filled. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty Logan. Popcornduff trimmed the material when trimming the section. I trimmed it further to focus on the heart of the commentary from the actresses, which are the beauty standards held in Japan. I also included only one of the actresses names -- the one with a Wikipedia article -- since there is WP:Notability there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Followup edits here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: 1. The view that Japanese people idolize white or western beauty is nothing new, and is addressed in some academic sources, such as those discussing eyelid surgery. It would be interesting to see links to the sources. East Asian blepharoplasty is largely a Korean & Taiwanese phenomenon, not a Japanese one; and it's reference as validation for a theory of Japanese idolization of Western beauty is strange. 2. The views of the Japanese-American actresses, while interesting (I had read & appreciated the interview prior to arriving at this discussion), would, from a Japanese perspective, not be viewed as providing a Japanese or Asian perspective; they would be viewed as clearly providing an American perspective (an American Nikkeijin perspective, but an American one nonetheless). 3. A better understanding of the Japanese perspective might be gleaned from articles such as this, also by The Hollywood Reporter [1], and this, in The Verge [2] (includes Japanese street vox pop video). From those and others, it's clear that the controversy did not extend to Japanese media. 5. From the point of view of WP:DUE, we may be placing too much emphasis on a single, primary (interview) source for opinions of non-experts. I suggest removing the quotes in the final paragraph of the "Casting criticism" section, and aligning the sentence in the second paragraph of that section with the whole of the interview; if it is to stay at all. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryk72 is coming from this report on NokSuk's edit warring. Like I stated there, the following bit is not WP:UNDUE: "The Hollywood Reporter spoke to a group of female Japanese American actors, including Keiko Agena, about the film; the actresses argued that Japanese natives are not upset by the film because of white beauty standards that are held in Japan."

When it comes to including this material, I agree with Betty Logan. The controversy concerns Americans and native Japanese people. Currently, the section mostly has a lot of views from white Americans. So it is perfectly due, and especially relevant, to include the view of Japanese-American women. I see no logical reason to single out this perspective. As for moving the material concerning this interview from the bottom of the section to the paragraph about Japanese natives not being outraged, I disagree for flow reasons. That second paragraph is specifically about why Japanese natives are not outraged. The last paragraph is about a different topic, and the actresses' piece fits there as well. There is no rule stating that we cannot use the same source, or commentary from a person (or group of people), more than once in a section. In fact, such sourcing is common on Wikipedia.

As for my statement that "The view that Japanese people idolize white or western beauty is nothing new, and is addressed in some academic sources, such as those discussing eyelid surgery.", this is not the article talk page to be presenting material on that. The material would not belong in this article unless the sources tie it to this film anyway. But for point of reference, this 2008 Skintight: An Anatomy of Cosmetic Surgery source, from Bloomsbury Academic, page 41, states, "Skin-whitening is a worldwide phenomenon but particularly prevalent in Japan. [...] Of course Japanese women are also subject to 'universal' or 'master-term' versions of so-called 'Caucasian' beauty (Darling- Wolf, 2003: 166)." This 2012 Faces around the World: A Cultural Encyclopedia of the Human Face source, from ABC-CLIO, page 86, states, "While up to half of all Asians with the epicanthic fold have the single eyelid, the double eyelid has become the standard of beauty among Asians. Women (and some men like action star Jackie Chan) who receive the surgery say that they want to have eyes that look larger, less sleepy, and that are easier to apply makeup on. Opponents of the procedure, however, charge that its popularity is a direct result of the globalization of Western standards of beauty, which demand light skin and Caucasian facial features, and that women who undergo blepharoplasty are, at least subconsciously, trying to look white. At the very least, say critics, Asians are emulating a standard of beauty found in Asian celebrities or Japanese anime, but in both cases, the beauty being emulated is not found among the majority of the population and seems to echo the big eyes (often green or blue) seen on Caucasians." This 2015 Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism, Second Edition source, from Routledge, page 153, notes that "much cosmetic surgery is directed at making Asian women look more like a common white view of ideal female beauty. In September 2013, Julie Chen, host of CBS's television The Talk, revealed that early in her career she had cosmetic surgery to change her 'Asian eyes.'" There are various sources like these. So, yes, it's quite relevant to include this view from the aforementioned Japanese-American actresses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am always uneasy when race debates are conducted exclusively by white-centric media so I think input from the Japanese media, non-white organizations and Asian actresses—who are really at the center of the debate—should be included if possible. As I stated earlier, there may be better alternatives to THR piece but at the moment they are providing a perspective that is otherwise absent from the article. As for the latest dispute over the lead it is reasonable to mention the whitewashing since there is an entire section dedicated to it and the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article, but perhaps it can be worded a bit more neutrally: "The film also became embroiled in a controversy over whitewashing for its casting of Johansson." Using the word "controversy" rather than "accusations" means that the lead doesn't promote a side in the debate. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the section immediately above this one, I just now commented on what you stated about the lead; this is to keep commentary on what to do about with the lead, regarding the casting controversy, in one section instead of two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Home media

According to Amazon, the film will be released on DVD and digital download on august 7. Nekomajin42 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The page is no longer protected. Feel free to add this information yourself. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Production companies

Per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Sourcing for production companies, sources should explicitly label production companies. In too many cases, people just look at a list of companies (usually reproduced from the poster's billing block) and use their own original research to label which ones are the production companies. The Variety review cited in the infobox does this – reproducing the billing block. We already have a source from Variety itself that explicitly labels the production companies; I don't see why we're using original research to add more of them. I've been trying to clean up the original research and hoaxing in film infoboxes for a while now, which is why I've been such a hardass about this. I think we should remove the companies that aren't explicitly labeled as production companies unless someone can provide a better source. There's just too much original research going on in this arena. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Article is written by idiots

Article is written by idiots in regards to the "Criticism" section.

96.40.157.171 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique

In my opinion, I think this article was very informative in regards to providing insight into the film's history predating its initial production. I also like how concise all the information is presented, everything is very clear and clean cut as well as properly cited which is definitely a plus. Some negatives about this would be that I would like to see more pictures, as well as more visual representations pertaining to what the specific section. Otherwise, I think it was pretty well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Production

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why is there a "citation needed" after "Ultimately, credit for the screenplay was given to Moss, William Wheeler and Ehren Kruger"? We just have to look at the movie to see "Screenplay by Jamie Moss and William Wheeler and Ehren Kruger", isn't that enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArMaP (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Box office bomb

There's been a lot of edit warring over whether or not this movie's been a box-office bomb. How can $169 million be a bomb when it costs $110 million? Because movies have to gross double their budget to break even. Theaters take about half the gross. I pitched in on similar arguments on the talk pages on The Lone Ranger and Power Rangers. My answers are still there for anyone who wants to see them. Bombreport.com has a write up on Ghost in the Shell's finances here.

On a related subject, some have wondered what makes the film eligible for Best Picture at the Oscars? It's on the reminder list for eligible productions. see here. Crboyer (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, telling whether a film made money or not is rather complicated. See this article. Also, there's a reason why we have an article on Hollywood accounting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Box office bomb?

I’m a little confused as to why this film is supposedly consider the box office bomb because it made enough money to exceed production costs.73.51.193.121 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

See above. Crboyer (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese response

While I'm glad the article includes some Japanese response to the film (and more would be better if possible, but) unfortunately Yahoo! Movies Japan is not a good source. Wikipedia does not normally allow user voted web polls (such as IMDB scores) because they are unreliable and the Yahoo! Movies Japan score is based on votes from the web. WP:UGC -- 109.76.209.240 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I still think an abundance of caution is needed when looking at user voted web polls but Hollywood Reporter did note "3.5-star rating on Yahoo Movies Japan, which is, remarkably enough, higher than the 3.2 stars held by Mamoru Oshii's seminal 1995 anime" which I suppose makes it barely acceptable.

Box office bomb

There seems to be some disagreement over this being a box office bomb or not. These claims were sourced and seemed reasonable, but if there are problems with the sources that should be discussed. Maybe more sources are needed.

One edit summary said "misleading to call this a bomb when it earned well over budget" but this seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding, films can earn more than their budget and still be considered a flop. The film only grossed 1.5 times production budget, and generally a film must earn 2 times the budget to break even (since theaters keep half the gross) and there are other costs such as P&A. It does seem like a flop to me, but instead of saying flop or bomb the article could use a more neutral wording and say "it was not a financial success". -- 109.78.196.37 (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how trustworthy "Bomb Report" is overall (what you've linked), but calling a movie a bomb/flop implies earning less than budget. The logic behind this is however much one invests into creating a film ($110M in this case), one hopes it'll gross at least that much—obviously more is better—so the production will earn more money than what was spent making it. When the worldwide total amount this earned was $169.8M, just calling it an outright financial failure gives readers the wrong impression. If anything, the movie might be a domestic bomb when only about $40.6M of the earnings came from North America. Another problem I had with simply calling this a flop is that sources once used such a claim came from less than a month after this film's release. Those articles were mere speculation at that point and being too presumptuous as the movie was still in theaters back then and still had the chance to gross more money.

If citing something that says this didn't do well financially, then you'd have a stronger case by at least using a source that was from after it left theaters and factors in grand totals. I also wouldn't use claims of box office failure off of something that only bases such assertions from domestic grosses as that doesn't take into account all territories. To be clear, I'm not saying this was a big box office hit, only that we should avoid the misleading implications introduced by calling this an outright flop. Saying "it was not a financial success" would be more fair assessment and a potential compromise. There's also the idea of just giving budget and grosses without any comment on whether it was financially successful. In any case, thank you for not just blindly reverting me and my non-box office edits like another IP did. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided the link because it was the first I found there are many others, it is a rule of thumb that a film that doesn't make at least double the budget is not profitable, and if we aren't all working from that shared premise the discussion is difficult almost impossible. This discussion has come up many times (here's one [3] it makes a good general point about avoiding hyperbole) on film articles but I struggle to find a better link, I urge you to take a closer look. Unfortunately the article Box-office bomb is not as well developed as it should be, the copy included with List of biggest box-office bombs is only marginally better. Example: Salon.com quoting Screenrant "the general rule of thumb is that in order to break even a movie needs to gross double its production budget at the box office".

I don't have strong feelings about this, but I do hope you will reconsider your starting point. I wish the guidelines from WP:MOSFILM were clearer. Getting more editors involved could help maybe. --

FWIW The IPV6 editor is not acting in good faith. He is failing to provide edit summaries or discuss here. The edit front loading the intro with all those references wasn't a good idea either. We should still have standards so I removed his adding of a bad source.

I'd like to let the figures speak for themselves but that would be misleading because of the rule of thumb of a film needing to at least double it's budget. This film certainly was not any kind of a success, and arguably a flop, but I don't want to make a big deal about it. -- 109.78.196.37 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny thing I just noticed, this very article already had a discussion about this being a box office bomb, but it got moved to the archive Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Box_office_bomb. It included an article from the New York Times from 1987 that explains WHERE MOVIE TICKET INCOME GOES.

• "the studio that releases a film to theaters - usually ends up with less than 50 percent of the money paid for tickets" hence the 50% rule of thumb
• the percentages vary depending on what deals the studio has and the studio takes a higher percentage in the opening weekend (Disney was in the news after they squeezed theaters for an even higher percentage of opening weekend)

The article doesn't even get into Hollywood Accounting by which studios use all kinds of tricks to claim that a film has not made a profit despite no matter what happens. -- 109.76.239.236 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)