Talk:Ghost in the Shell

Live-action film casting controversy

This article fails to mention the backlash the film has received for casting ScarJo in the lead role of the live-action movie adaptation. The movie may not even be made with her in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.41 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why this article can't be organized universally as "media"

First off, theres too much media interconnecting eachother. its far too difficult to do so. Even if we were to merge the manga back, we would still have to organize it differently. There would have to be a "related media" and "alternate series" sections. and if you can't agree to those, we might aswell keep this article. Lucia Black (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is how every other god damn article on anime and manga is set up. It's described by the released media. The manga, the video game based directly on the manga, the two Ishii films, the SAC TV series and its related media, and the ARISE films/OVAs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like we've said before in previous discussions: Ghost in the Shell isn't like other series. The fact that each individual series of its own is notable on its own, with their own respected media, makes it difficult to organize it the way you think would fit all. Its not one size fits all. And even then, people such as User:DragonZero have been making edits of their own to get rid of it. Not to say he's completely right, but there is room to deviate from the original. Where have you been in WP:ANIME the past few months? this is a hot issue. You can't just say "all articles follow this method". of course they do, when appropriate. Lucia Black (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that makes this different from any other anime. Stop making exceptions. We should not be basing the divisions of this article on interpretations of canon. It should be the method that the things were released. The manga, the films, the video games, the TV series, and the OVAs. Just because it's easy to divide them into canons does not mean we should here. You don't have consensus for your proposed change. Leave this be until a third opinion agrees with you because the way things are now are a result of the god damn year of discussion that you, I, and Chris had together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Before this discussion continues, i ask for an agreement to never use the word "canon" ever in this discussion. I don't want my points to be dismissed just because you're choosing to look at it with the wrong point of view. And further misunderstanding could lead to others follow the same trend...For the billionth time, this is "NOT" about canon. Canon is about what is confirmed to be "true" within a series. Which despite can be verified at times, isn't the key issue. If canon was really the point i wanted to make, i would say whether the "novels" or the "video games" were canon or not. I would of wanted to organize it in a much more horrendous way.

However what does matter is how to organize the information in a way that best helps the reader understand. You want to know what makes Ghost in the Shell different? The fact that it is actually organized by limited ammount of series in the real-world. Unlike Gundam, where each new entry is equal to the last to the point that can't be organized in such a fashion, Ghost in the Shell is the few that can. Trying to organize it by type of media universally, would either be inconsistent and redundant (like what you're trying to do by salvaging the video game section yet other sections also mentioning their own video games) or too universal to even be helpful to the readers, which was attempted in the past.

You're still trying to get your way, but you aren't even trying to do things right. Look at what you're doing? In this revision of yours, you are attempting to organize it universally by the type of media, but if we truly needed to organize it that way, we would not add the name next to it. The names are there for a reason, and its to keep info like manga spin-offs and novel spin-offs separate that aren't related to the respected series. That's why it was organized the way it was then. It was originally done by series. So you know "series" to a degree plays a part. You just not willing to accept its what helps explain the series to others.

More reasons why its not like any other series: The video game is confirmed to be part of the original manga series. This is an established division by reliable sources, there is no "interpretation" needed. This wouldn't be a problem if the other media didn't have respected media of their own. But the fact that they do shows that they are a series of their own. Unlike most series, these are notable and get their own article, and not only that but they are noted for being their own series separate from the original media. And normally when that happens in anime/manga, the original media is not notable enough to stand alone separately from the more well-known lose adaptation (ex. Blue Submarine No. 6). But that's not the case, the Original manga is plenty notable to stand alone in its own article.

If the manga were to be merged, there would have to be "Alternate series/adaptations" and "Related media". The Related media section would hold media confirmed to be directly part of the manga series, such as companion books and the video game spin-off. Alternate series/adaptations would be used to list series like the film series, Stand Alone Complex series, and Arise. This is not much of a stretch at all, they have their own respected media, they have their own articles. Organizing it by series "helps" readers. WP:ANIME doesn't have to say they accept other ways to organize media because they have accepted other ways. Lucia Black (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever god damn word you want to use then that's the word that I disagree with formatting the article. This is the media of the Ghost in the Shell franchise which was a manga, a video game, two related movies, two related television series and a made for TV movie with several other submedia, and an OVA series. That is how we should format this page. Not combine things based on their continuities.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ANd the TV series obtained OVAs, manga, novel, and video game adaptations of their own. The films has also received novels of their own, and the OVA series also has a manga adaptation of their own. YOu want to do it all unilaterally for this article, you're going to have to oranize it by "Manga, Films, TV series, and OVA". Which i promise you will not as clean as you expect.

Their is a reason why you didn't remove the names from the media, and its because you know its to help organize the article the way i intended, but in the way you feel comfortable reading it as. But the problem is still "redundancy". We dont need a "video games" section, just because you want it, it contradicts your edit before when you removed the other games.

Theres too much Cross-media. al their respected articles are organized universally by type of media, but they are covering a single series. This article isn't. Lucia Black (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "cross media" or whatever you're calling it. Spin-off stuff gets its own coverage within the other spin offs. Just because the tv show version has its own separate manga does not mean that we have to discuss that manga with all of the other manga. It gets discussed as an aspect of the tv show.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Then by default, the video game should be merged with the original manga. and organize it by series. Lucia Black (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

no, because by default everything is just an extension of the original manga in some form.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• The different versions all have the same characters and general setting don't they? They all come from the same writer? One manga seems to have ended right before the next one started, just retelling things differently but still the same theme. Marvel and DC comics have their stories totally redone all the time. They stop one long running series, and then start its numbering over again with a new writer even, or cancel it for years then restart it again totally different. But we don't sort the cartoons, video games, and whatnot separately based on what comic book time period they are based on. Dream Focus 20:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No they don't all have the same writer or the same Director. The films are done by Mamoru Oshii, the SAC series is done by Kenji Kamiayama, the Arise series is done by Kazuchika Kise. And i wouldn't compare it too easily to Marvel and DC as they are constantly redoing the plot of their own stories, and none of their stories are organized. its completely different in GITS case as its only a small handful that is clearly defined by reliable sources.

Although everything is an extension of the manga in "some" form, that doesn't mean that all the forms are the same. The video game spin-off (confirmed to being part of the original manga's continuation) isn't equal to the Stand Alone Complex series that garnered its own media. Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing different between what you want and how things were was no separate section for the ps1 game and I don't see why it has to be that way. This format lists all the different media, with an obvious emphasis placed on how the stand alone complex stuff and the arise stuff has its own set of separate media that we discuss on their own article. Still, all these problems would be solved if we didn't have that damn separate page on the manga.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And the original manga has its own "stuff" aswell which happens to include the video game. That's what you're choosing to ignore. you can't use that analogy half-way by applying it to SAC, and Arise, and NOT apply it to the original manga. I refuse to support a single page if you want to organize everything too universally, there's a clear division. And again, these are by sources. Especially for the video game. Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything is an adaptation of the manga FFS. Now everything is divided by media including the SAC games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're only copromising the article further, and you don't even care about it. Lucia Black (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not too long ago, you were against such organization. Now you're for it? And for what reason? Only so that the video game gets its own section. You had no consensus for it. and i'm going back to my revision because its the most sensible. you are not even trying to provide a reason why it should be organized the way it is.

No more distractions. Answer me this: What does the previous rendition do that the other doesn't? Lucia Black (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because I want to have no separate article on the manga does not mean that this article should not be formatted as it stands.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see Lucia's version as an improvement as it increases accessibility to a general reader. It also has more consistent subheadings, since the current revision's video game subheading is out of place here. I didn't read through most of this discussion but This is how every other god damn article on anime and manga is set up. isn't a good reason on why the article's structure is legit. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the video game sub-heading from the article is all. Just because two of the other subheadings have other media within them (which we cover on another article) does not mean that the manga and video game, which allegedly take place in the same continuity should also be listed together. There is such a massive gap between the release of the manga and the video game adaptation that they don't really count as an entity together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Arise Information

"The year 2013 saw the start of the Ghost in the Shell: Arise film series with the release of the first two episodes. The third episode of the four-part series is set to be released on June 28, 2014."

It seems as though the last edit to this was prior to the release of Borders 3 and Border 4 this year (2014). However, I don't feel comfortable enough to make changes since I'm unsure of the actual release dates (besides what is written in the wiki) or how to correctly update that sentence. Or does it even need to be there, anymore?

"[..]with the release of the first two episodes while 2014 concluded the series with the release of the two final episodes." Perhaps?--172.15.5.84 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've performed a fix. You can take a look again to see if it's better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Drastically more appropriate (and up to date), but still doesn't feel "quite right". However, I can't really put my finger on why that is, so it seems fine for now. Thanks for the fix! --172.15.5.84 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kōkaku Kidōtai

I would like to iterate to everyone that the original publishing title of the franchise has always been Kōkaku Kidōtai, Kokaku Kidotai or 攻殻機動隊 (written in Japanese above the subtitle). The Ghost in the Shell was indeed the subtitle of the first one volume plot in the manga, as well as any Western localizations of series installments, but that does not excuse retconning history and leaving out the original title. I would like User:Ryulong to provide any reasons to the contrary here. --BrettMosco (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to provide that indepth of an explanation of the original title on this page. This page is meant to only have summary style descriptions, which means we do not need to have "Kōkaku Kidōtai" and "Ghost in the Shell" for all of these items. In addition, this is the English Wikipedia so the official English translation gets prominence over the Hepburn romanization when we do not need to include both. There is no "retconning history" or "leaving out the original title". The original title is at the top of the page. We describe the fact that Shirow always wanted it to be "Ghost in the Shell" but acquiesced to his publisher's desire for "Kōkaku Kidōtai". SO to sum things up, we do not need to be excruciatingly detailed on this general page and the common English name prevails over pedantry over the actual name in Japan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify this again BrettMosco, omitting repetitions of the Hepburn romanization of 攻殻機動隊 in one section on this article is not considered "retconning" or "rewriting history" or whatever you want to call it. It is entirely unnecessary to go "Kōkaku Kidōtai: The Ghost in the Shell (known as Ghost in the Shell in English)" for every single version of the manga that was not explicitly called "Ghost in the Shell" in Japan. Stop restoring your contested content per WP:BRD. Until you have a consensus here, then the status quo is kept.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@BrettMosco: I've responded to you here. You are not following the basic etiquette and protocols of WP:BRD. When your change to the article is reverted you do not keep restoring your change because you think it's right. Your edit was contested by me and now it is up to you to convince me otherwise because when this happens status quo prevails over your proposal. There is no reason to have "Kokaku Kidotai" preface every single title of the manga on this article. This is only a basic English language version summary. It is not supposed to house an indepth discussion on the different titles in Japan and abroad.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Brett is correct. The original title as released was Ghost in the Shell. The over zealousness of the Chinese commenter is unnecessary and incorrect. Anyway a more important note is the supposed literal translation of the title is inaccurate. 　攻殻 xould in no context ever mean "mobile" and "armored" is a bit of a stretch as we would use that to mean shell. Literally: SHELL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.3.105.57 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

I think the title translation/formatting in the first sentence could use some work. Currently it reads

Ghost in the Shell, known in Japan as Mobile Armored Riot Police (Japanese: 攻殻機動隊, Hepburn: Kōkaku Kidōtai)

however, this is not usually how Wikipedia deals with animes that have different titles in the original and in the English translation. For example, see these articles:

Neon Genesis Evangelion (Japanese: 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Hepburn: Shinseiki Evangerion, lit. "New Century Gospel")

Attack on Titan (Japanese: 進撃の巨人, Hepburn: Shingeki no Kyojin, lit. "The Attack Titan")

Fullmetal Alchemist (Japanese: 鋼の錬金術師, Hepburn: Hagane no Renkinjutsushi, lit. "Alchemist of Steel")

Erased, known in Japan as Boku dake ga Inai Machi (僕だけがいない街, lit. The Town Where Only I Am Missing)

Umineko: When They Cry (うみねこのなく頃に, Umineko no Naku Koro ni, lit. When the Seagulls Cry)

Based on this, I would either put bold on the English title only, or bold the Hepburn transliteration, but I would not bold the literal translation. I believe the phrase "Mobile Armored Riot Police" is invented by some Wikipedia editor, so it seems excessive to give it so much weight.

Second, as other people noted above, I think the translation "Mobile Armored Riot Police" is a bit dubious. The phrase kōkaku is an invented word in this anime, literally it means something like "attack shell" or "offensive shell". (When googling, I came across a blogpost by someone saying that based on the title they would have expected the anime to feature mechas shaped like sea-shells.) The Japanese article gloss it as "9課は、思考戦車という“殻”を着て戦う“攻性”の組織であることから“攻殻機動隊”とも呼ばれている"---"because Section 9 is an 'offensive' organization, which fights wearing think-tank 'shells', it is also known as kōkaku kidōtai", and cite some official pamphlet. So maybe we can be a bit more literal about it.

(In addition, I wonder if it's problematic to translate kidōtai as 'riot police', since Section 9 doesn't seem like what we would call riot police in English---they seem more like a combination of a SWAT unit and an investigation unit. Maybe the Japanese word doesn't completely overlap with the English one.　Kidōtai literally means "mobile unit", and while this word mainly seems used in the riot police force, elsewhere in the Japanese police system there are also 'mobile investigation units' Kidō sōsatai, and 'traffic mobile units' kōtsū kidōtai. The word 'mobile' means that these units are not responsible for a particular geographical area but can be put to use where they are needed, I guess simlar to the French Mobile Gendarmerie.)

Anyway, unless anyone has any better idea, I propose changing the intro to say

Ghost in the Shell, known in Japan as Kōkaku Kidōtai (Japanese: 攻殻機動隊, lit. Attack Shell Riot Police)

Vilhelm.s (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)