The original Manga had all characters have humerous moments, while SAC mostly relied on the Tachikomas for comic relief. Personally I prefer the way of the original manga, but the comic relief option still makes SAC stand out positively above all the other adaptions including the live action movie.
Adaptations can work. The problem is that Hollywood is built on an American business model, and consequently they need to profit from their work. Original works are risky, and businesses and capitalism are risk-averse as a whole. This isn't hard to figure out.
@Raxyz: Yeah, the general audience sure hated Warcraft/Batman/Harry Potter/Famous Classical Novel adaptations. Just because there are some big flops hardly means Hollywood as a whole should stop. If anything, such flops weed out the crappy producers.
Reading their interactions with each other, I get the vibe they really should have been the Tachikoma models here. Kind of like the Tachikoma Days shorts at the end of SAC episodes.
The movie wasn't that bad. Wasn't that good either. Seen any Hollywood product in the past ten years? Lackadaisical plot? Emphasis on graphics? Reliance on pretty actors with the actual TALENTED performance being regulated to side-characters? Then you've already seen this movie. So don't bother.
You know, the thing is, the live action movie was hit and miss. In some cases, the little easter eggs from the anime had me giggling like a schoolgirl. Especially Batou and Aramaki bits. The script was, as previously stated, incredibly bland however.
I look at the movie as being the very basic version that any one might be able to enter on.
If any one ask me about it I'm recommending both SAC and the movies. With the recommendation they remember the movies where based on the darker parts of the Manga.
@VenomBHz I agree that if it's based on all of the material, then it should have fuchikomas or tachikomas or what have you. But the think-tank cannot be considered a fuchikoma,they are way smaller and have an actual AI, while the tank is just an automized machine.
@Raxyz: They have made some good ones(edge of tomorrow), the problem comes when you got greedy old farts that know shit and see something popular and think that just by throwing money at it they'll get even more out of it and thats not something hollywood is solely guilty of.
The movie was meh, visually it was stunning and gorgeous to look at, the dialogue was dragged on. The lines used from the anime was just cringe the action was acceptable in my opinion.
The guy who played Batou was spot on and liked I him.
@Stenos Sunborne: There is a spider tank in the 95 movie that you could consider a Fuchikoma (or it's origin), and no, the new movie is not about the 1995 movie, it's an amalgam of all the material, plus new stuff.
Don't mean to sounds like a douche here, but the old 1995 movie didn't have tachikomas or fuchikomas. They only had the guys from Division 9, bro. I didn't watch the movie yet, but I imagine it's based off of the first motion picture only, not Stand Alone or the other movies.
So my point is: Stop copying, start creating. Original ideas might be good, but anything that comes from a game/manga/anime/cartoon/comic/book most likely will be shit to the general audience and will always be terrible if you know the original material.
/rant
Honestly, Hollywood should just stop. They already proved it that they can't handle an adaptation, ANY kind of adaptation. Every good story they try to bring to the big screens will be watered down, boring and have the only redeeming quality of being pretty...
>After vanishing in its opening weekend at the domestic box office to $18.6 million, film finance sources tell Deadline that Paramount/DreamWorks-Reliance’s Ghost In The Shell stands to lose at least $60M
for the uninformed:
> Some sources even assert that the production cost for Ghost is far north of $110M and more in the $180M range — if that’s the case, Ghost is bleeding in excess of $100M.
