Comments on: Max Landis Explains Why Scarlett Johansson Was Cast In ‘Ghost In The Shell’

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 23:48:56 +0000

Landis is refreshingly on the money here. I hate this system as much as he does but the fact is the studio doesn\’t want to take a risk on an unknown star when the property is so little-known in the United States. People often say "Well what about casting Chris Hemsworth in Thor? Nobody knew him!" but the studio\’s justification of that was that the franchise was the star. There was no way they could ever green light Ghost in the Shell without a star, and the sad truth is that no Asian actress registers as a star TO THEM (putting that in all caps so you don\’t think it\’s me Jeremy saying this.) Ghost in the Shell should be made with an Asian actress in the lead but the studios are so risk-averse right now that the only safety in green lighting the property is if they get a star in it. It\’s a screwed up system and hopefully it changes.

By: VS

VS — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:40:00 +0000

Yeah, like the fact that this remake is going to be directed by that hack who did that stupid Snow White movie is no problem AT ALL, yeah…

By: bob

bob — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:22:41 +0000

well the producers originally wanted Margot Robbie for the part, she is an up and comer with very little track record, so they were barely going for star power before Scarlet

By: Kiki

Kiki — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:12:57 +0000

If you can\’t make this movie with a Japanese actress, then it\’s so simple: don\’t make the movie. Just like Ridley Scott didn\’t have to make Exodus: Gods and Whitewashing.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:16:00 +0000

Fast and the Furious has become a major franchise player, and it is the brand, not the cast,that sell it for sure. But it didn\’t start out that way. The first F&F cost 38 million. Ghost in the Shell is sure to cost neat four times that. THAT is why you need famous person in the lead. GITS has no brand recognition in America. If it were a 40 million dollar movie, they might take a risk. At 180 million, they don\’t.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:39:02 +0000

This is why we can\’t have nice things

By: Hummus

Hummus — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:14:56 +0000

Yeah the rock carries films no offense and he\’s part of FATF….not that there good but he gets them made and they do business. Half Samoan half aftican american too boot.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:01:13 +0000

He\’s basically right about the way the system works… and that system is bullshit. People are right to criticize it. A healthier, more diverse (in terms of race and aesthetics) movie industry wouldn\’t insist on making every single movie a giant A-list blockbuster. Why don\’t the studios ever go the mid-budget route of someone like Quentin Tarantino? He works cheap enough that he can take risks on casting and follow some unusual filmmaking impulses. Instead, the studios insist on making these incredibly bland, generic, interchangeable movies, leaving everyone (even white people) with an appetite for something a little more specific feeling completely alienated.

By: loudrockmusic

loudrockmusic — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:42:53 +0000

I don\’t know if I trust multi-million dollar decisions coming from a grown-ass man who can\’t keep his hair color fresh.