Talk:Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



"Themes" section
The Theme section is completely pointless when it is being used to turn the entire article into one theory's vanity page. Why is it a prominent feature if no one is going to bother talking about the other "many themes" it alludes to in this section? It looks sloppy and unprofessional to say the least. Where are the opposing viewpoints? It is obvious in the second paragraph all the quotes were likely mined to support the first paragraph's points (and barely do), rather than offer anything with any actual substance. There is a wealth of academic literature on this film and most of it isn't lazily equating women's existence to reproduction. Honestly if you actually watch the film this barely makes sense. Is just anyone's half baked thesis wikipedia material now?

Unless it is expanded (and that may be difficult without it overtaking the actual factual content people come to this page for) I think it would be better to remove it entirely and/or try incorporating just a mention of it and other academic writing on it into the body of the main article. Or at the very least clarify this section is speculation.
 * A good way of dealing with it is doing a literature review of everything talking about the film. If the theory appears in multiple sources, you can give more space to it. If only this one academic talks about it, we can give less space. The reason why it's unbalanced is that nobody's done a literature review of the topic, so we don't know how significant the theory is. WP:WEIGHT explains how and when to give "space" depending on the prominence of the theme in sources. You can use RX to help you. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Theme section could be developed with further contrasting views from sources of merit.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that this section be removed entirely to avoid it becoming a battleground for a discussion about gender politics. If you watch the film, it’s clearly not about gender issues primarily. It’s rich with issues and anyone can choose to interpret a film how they wish. But I agree with the initial comment here that featuring gender as the one and only theme of the film is misleading. Look up “literary criticism” and see how many different lenses there are through which to interpret a written work. Same goes for film. Another way to fix this section could be to cite interpretations from different critical perspectives. But in any case I think it would be favorable to remove the section entirely. I’m not sure how helpful it is to present various interpretations of the film. It’s a subjective work of art and it would be better to leave it to the viewer to interpret the artistic value themselves. I think focusing on a technical and historical discussion in this article is far more insightful and helpful. Anyway it’s certainly more objective. If this section can’t be properly expanded I would suggest that it be taken down for the time being. Peacetype (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This movie is not about gender at all, not even in the slightest. You really have to hunt for and stretch the meaning of this movie torturously to get at any hint of gender topics. The movie is clearly about evolution, and the themes relate to that. Natural selection, death and progeny, the philosophical implications of an A.I. wanting to achieve life by dying and reproducing, the fleeting nature of perception, and what truly constitutes life, dna or systems of information. Having watched this film religiously, I can say that the best argument I can make for a "gender theme" would be that Major Kusanagi (Makoto) has a female body, but no genitalia as far as we know (this could be intentional or just an art decision not to draw them for the sake of propriety), and that she, like 2501, can't reproduce. This at most only serves the theme of "what constitues life" and the purpose of progeny. Scottiekaz (talk) 11:26, 03 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , editors cannot reference their own opinions to reject coverage from reliable sources. Some of the coverage has been gender-related, but this does not mean that other themes can be covered. Many films are interpreted from different angles. For example, the "References to use" section above identifies a chapter about the film in a book about bioethics in film. The section can be expanded, not removed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I flagged the Themes section for rewrite since this discussion reveals that this is a contentious issue. Film analysis is a highly-subjective arena, so it's unlikely that a consensus can be reached here about a single common interpretation. To resolve this, we could replace the contents of this section with only first-source material. In other words, do not rely on subjective interpretation from film critics, authors, etc. but instead only source direct quotes from the filmmakers (if any can be found). Another solution would be to expand this section to provide a greater diversity of interpretations. Peacetype (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to look at wikipedia to see the work that took inspirations from Ghost in the Shell, and I see this? Guys why not just remove the theme section? I really don't see what is the point of it being on wikipedia. If you want themes go to another website. Wikipedia is supposed to have factual statements not figurative analysis that a critic crapped out of his head. c'mon. Tisthefirstletter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisthefirstletter (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You're not required to read such a section. Themes, whether intended or not by the creators, are part of works of art. Do you think To Kill a Mockingbird should be denied a "Themes" section? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t about me wanting to read it or not (and yes I don’t think themes should be a thing on wikipedia; amazing work or not however this is just personal belief). Hell if you really want a theme section fine I don’t care, but can you please make it reasonable? I’m a rather big fan of this film (watched it a good four times), and it took me a half an hour just to understand what I was reading here. The only clear reference it makes to a “body free of reproduction” is where we see Motoko’s body without genitals. There is also another problem it makes with “gender identity” Motoko’s ghost isn’t made like an AI. Her “ghost or soul” is memories and ego was from when she was a pure human (without cybernetics). Granted, these critics didn’t know, but I guess you can’t expect them to know anything really. The biggest theme which was really obvious (I promise you it wasn’t a davinci’s code) is her struggle to understand if she really is human with a body like hers. Especially in an incredibly digitized world where her body machine type has literally copies here and there making her understanding of human much more muddled. She even quotes to this. How does this even fly over their heads? At this point I might as well write a theme of how amazing the film alluded to the act of tossing a condom into the toilet and watching the beautiful slow swirls absorbing it into the depths of the sewage system. Like the previous user said we should consider deleting the theme section here or re-editing it completely with the main topic in mind concerning the meaning of truly being a human. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Erik, why did you remove “undue weight” template as outdated? This was inserted at December 2020, and nothing was done to the Themes in order to fix its issue. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You said before that Wikipedia articles should not have themes sections, now you're saying that they are appropriate but that this one needs to be more "reasonable" in readability. And yet, you also think the section has undue weight. A form of this section existed when the article was nominated for Good Article status, and it was not an issue in terms of its existence, readability, or weight. I find its existence acceptable, and I do not think it is undue weight because the other sections are more substantial, both part and collectively compared to this one. In terms of readability, I can accept that academic language can be dense, but that means diving into the sources to get the full context. We have to be careful not to be interject our own opinions because we are not the ones who have been published. As editors, we summarize what has been written about a topic. Pinging the editor who assessed this as a Good Article: . I know it is years later, but do you have a particular take about this section's contents? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re giving me a headache. Did you even watch the film? This is not about editor bias. The main topic this film tackles is the question of humanity. The themes section makes it seem like gender identity and post reproduction of women is all that the film is about(absolutely wrong). There is a good time when even editors need to intervene. I doubt you need someone to help pointing you where to piss in the toilet. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove the template at the top of the Themes section until the debate about this section is resolved. I think the whole section should be removed, but I put a template there instead so we can talk about finding a more permanent solution.

It's misleading to have a Themes section that discusses conclusions that are outside the scope of the work's main themes. The revision history of this article has numerous incidents where people have felt that a discussion of gender identity is confusing, misleading, and not representative of the work's dominant themes. I would suggest that a discussion of themes be left out of this article entirely. Leave the film's interpretation up to the viewer to make up their own mind.

Yes, some Wikipedia articles about films do include a discussion of themes. Generally speaking, I think this practice is a slippery slope that can lead to critics asserting their own opinions and interpretations about someone else's work. I think it's best to let the artist's message speak through the work. Let each audience member form their own opinion.

However, I'm not trying to change Wikipedia by saying that no article about a film or other artwork can include discussion about themes. But in the case of this particular article, we have a long history of controversy about this one particular interpretation of the film. It was first introduced on 14:19, 15 August 2013 by user ChrisGualtieri and has since been expanded. If you examine the entire history of this section (as I have) and note the number of occasions where someone has raised an objection to it, I think it's clear that this is a problematic section.

Gender identity is a hot-button topic in politics today. To avoid continued argument and controversy, we should eschew this issue if we can reasonably do so without harming the integrity of the article. In this case, the film is not primarily about gender issues because it does not discuss them at all. Anyone who watches this film objectively will note that the topic is never discussed. You actually have to go into the weeds and start making up personal theories and subjective interpretations of the film to argue that it has anything to do with gender identity at all.

I don't think we need to bend over backwards to maintain a section of this article that is creating controversy. If people really want this article to be a place where subjective theories about a film are presented, then the Themes section should be expanded to include a collection of different viewpoints about the film's interpretation. And the template at the top of the section should remain up until the section is so expanded, in order to alert people that the section is in need of expansion.

But I don't think Wikipedia is a place for making personal interpretations of an artwork. That sort of thing belongs on a blog or some other Internet discussion forum. Wikipedia should be a source for definitive information about a topic. That's why I think we should steer away from presenting academic theories about film interpretation. Even a scholar is just one person with an opinion. They are not the work's creator. Let a work of art speak for itself, and let's just present factual information about the film based on non-ambiguous sources.

But if the consensus is that we really want to present a variety of different people's interpretations of the film, then we at least need to provide a greater variety of opinions to give readers a more diverse view of what people are saying about this film. It's misleading to have a Themes section that says this film is just about gender identity issues, especially since that opinion diverges greatly from what the film objectively presents in its images and dialogue. There is a danger that readers who have not seen the film will come here looking for information and will go away misinformed about the film's actual content. The more we can stay away from subjective interpretation and stick to facts, the better. Peacetype (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that this is a coatrack, disagree that it's undue. Gender and sexuality is one of the most discussed concepts in reference to GITS, and all of these critics are notable for their opinions on the film. I don't really get what the issue is here, except that some may disagree with the interpretation. Disagreeing with the opinions of experts does not mean that those opinions don't belong on wikipedia, and I think these two things are way too often conflated around here. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

, you are missing the point. The problem is that the Themes section contains statements about the movie that are factually inaccurate. I am arguing that we keep personal interpretations out of this page. However, some people seem to think that we should allow a section here where people can explore different viewpoints about the film's meaning by presenting a variety of interpretations of the film. This is not uncommon for works of art like literature and film. My opposition is because I think the practice is a slippery slope, and the frequent controversy over this section should be evidence enough that it is a bad idea here. If this continues we may risk the article's status under the good article criteria.

If the consensus is that we want to maintain such a section, then the section as it stands today will require a lot more work to meet standards. Even as a section for interpretation, it is currently one-sided and represents a highly subjective and fringe view of this artistic work. Therefore, it is misleading to anyone who comes here for information about the film. If we are to keep this section, at the very least it needs to be more inclusive of diverse views, not just one wildly speculative theory. Above all, it should contain at the forefront an analysis that is representative of the film's actual, objective content. Right now, all we have is a single viewpoint which is why it is not up to quality standards.

, do you have a plan for expanding this section? If not, it should be taken down until such time as it can be improved. At present, it misrepresents the film and will mislead people who come here to learn about it. Peacetype (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd love to improve it slowly over time. However, I'd also add that we may have a consensus (via compromise) that this section is fine as is, and could use improvement, but doesn't need it to remain on the wikipedia. Don't mistake your opinion that it should be removed if not improved for a WP:PAG. As far as I can tell, this opinion is not consistent with any policy. I would describe this view as "deletionist" which is more of a philosophy.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 11:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

, there is clearly a lack of consensus and you can confirm that the same way I did. I went through the entire view history of this page and saw that this problem goes all the way back to 2013. There is a long history of this section being taken down and then put back up again, back and forth, because some people apparently agree with this interpretation while others disagree with it. The compromise is to leave it up for now with a tag to let people know that it is in need of additional work. Peacetype (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, and so that is what I have done. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yikes this is a real disaster Tisthefirstletter (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

About the no.1 on Billboard video sales chart
This article has written a paragraph: "In August 1996, Ghost in the Shell became the first Japanese film to top the Billboard video sales chart, with over 200,000 VHS copies sold." But I have never heard about Billboard has kind of chart about video that doesn't relate to music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truy Mộng (talk • contribs) 02:34, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

== Japanese home video release ==

Hope this is the right place, if not my apologies. I have to cite a couple corrections regarding said editions. I own the 2017 Japanese Blu-ray re-issue, and did own 1999's initial Amaray, as well as its 2009 re-issue. The article incorrectly states Japan released the restored DVD in 2004, but that is incorrect. There wasn't a 2004 Japanese DVD release (of the original GiTS), but rather a 1999 Amaray, and 2009 priced-down re-issue respectively. Furthermore, 2009's re-issue uses the same audio & video as its previous print, and the movie wouldn't get a restoration until Japanese Blu-ray. Surprisingly, GiTS of all titles never received a Japanese R2 HD remaster, unlike others. e.g. (original) Evangelion, Macross: Do You Remember Love?, DBZ: Deadzone, Perfect Blue, ect. ect., all of which I own. I have digital receipts/order #s, one from Amazon.jp and the other from CDjapan for both 1999 and 2009 to verify my purchase. Pioneermac (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Edits were made by author. I couldn't be sure off the top of my head if the original article's date (2004) was correct, which is why I initially took it as truth and assumed myself to be wrong. But double checking my receipt shows that 1999 & 2009 are indeed the correct dates.


 * Catalogue # for 1999 is BCBA-0246, while 2009 reads BCBA-3703. Realized I was missing that crucial piece of information, should anyone want to verify my claim. Pioneermac (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for multiple replies. Am unable to edit original post. 2009's re-issue is still available for purchase both on CDjapan & Amazon.jp from suppliers. Must have mixed it up with another title while browsing. Pioneermac (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources are as follows: -Amazon.jp -CDjapan.jp Both websites have titles for sale from third party sellers as of this writing, and each list a release date of 1999 & 2009 respectively.

odd fourth 'graph of intro
The fourth paragraph of the intro seems odd to me. It's two sentences long I think, and neither sentence has anything to do with the other, one's about a minor remaster which has nothing to do with the second which is about a non-canon sequel? Maybe lengthen it to say something like subsequently it would be remastered and a non canon sequel by the same director was released. Fanccr (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)