Talk:Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)

message: 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 Wikipedia:RX to help you. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Theme section could be developed with further contrasting views from sources of merit.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

text: , 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 | contrib) (ping me) 01:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

text: 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 | contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: 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 | contrib) (ping me) 19:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: , yes, and so that is what I have done. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Themes" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the no.1 on Billboard video sales chart 

message: 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)
thread_title:  odd fourth 'graph of intro