Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazzlazzlazz | Hacker News Reader

That's because the new one was essentially simplified to the level of a Robocop cliché. It was really embarrassing to see how limited movie producers believe our imaginations are.

The original Ghost in the Shell is still difficult for many to grasp because the core theme around the essential features of identity are not yet culturally available to everyone.

View on HN

I didn't get that at all. Both still ask what it means to be human. This just asked it in a slightly different way that made it more accessible.

Mostly her beefs with the original was be lack of things that explain what's going on. This movie made those things more accssible.

But that's the thing. They mixed up so many elements from the original movie and series it doesn't ask the same questions at all. Here we have two people whose brains were put into bodies and reprogrammed. This is not the case with the original, where you have a different mind of sorts that doesn't actually need a body and isn't bound to a brain. And at the climax, the answer to "join me" was "yes", but this movie had a "no".

Eh, I didn’t find it that big of a deal. That is, it didn’t ruin the movie for me.

The 'no' surprised me so much I laughed

She probably said "no" in order to be able to make further sequels movies with the same top-selling actress (whatever her name is), not due some deep philosophical decision.

That appears to be an objectionable decision in and of itself, if I understand the argument of the person you've replied to.

She had already transcended in Lucy. Once is enough...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com