# Ghost in the Shell (Teaser)



## Hand of Evil (Sep 22, 2016)

[video=youtube;vWDBpTB6T0Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=vWDBpTB6T0Q[/video]

Just see this as being done wrong but it is a teaser.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 22, 2016)

I realize this is only a teaser, but you'd think they would actually include some stuff that would give people who were in doubt a hint that they were going in the right direction with this. 

But I don't see any of that. I wish they would have included something that would have at least shown that they nailed the cyberpunk look and mood of the original story. Also, this does not convince me that Scarlet Johansson is a good Major.

Pretty ineffective as a teaser.

*There are 4 more teasers, here's a playlist with all of them in a row:*

[video=youtube;HapT0SKcyfY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HapT0SKcyfY&index=1&list=PLVjwdZylAT2m2nfBKVXeCupsbV3PGmRVU[/video]

So far the only teaser I like, is of The Major waking up in front of the window, which is reminiscent of the opening of the animated movie.




Stylistically though, I think the animated version looks way better. The high contrast reduces the Major to a silhouette (which may be packed with symbolism), while the slow building soundtrack enhances the feeling of emptiness and loneliness. The scene even holds on the window for a very long time, while waiting for the Major to get dressed off screen, and then leaving for work. It is a work of art.

Original scene from the animated movie

I appreciate that they are paying tribute to the animated movie (or maybe they are simply copying frames from the manga). But I have my doubts if they'll be able to even get close to the Cyberpunk mood of the animated movie.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 22, 2016)

Talk about body language, Scarlett looks like a person waking up scared and weak in her image.  In the animated, she looks worn and tired facing another day.


----------



## Istbor (Sep 22, 2016)

I don't know how much I need this.  All the Ghost in the shell stuff out there has kind of wore me down on this to where my excitement level is...meh. 

Glad to see Scarlet creeping out from under the Marvel shadow though.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 22, 2016)

Hand of Evil said:


> Talk about body language, Scarlett looks like a person waking up scared and weak in her image.  In the animated, she looks worn and tired facing another day.




Indeed. A lot of people have commented that a cyborg should probably not be trembling so much. In the animated movie the Major has these dead eyes, and she has the emotional range of a machine. Johansson looks too human, and she looks afraid to hold a gun.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 23, 2016)

The esthetics of #1 and 5 are awesome and promising. GitS was alwasy more about esthetics than plot and characters dept, so if writers did something decent this could be the start of a whole new franchise! 

Ew. Franchise. Never mind. 

Maybe the start of a wave of white washed live action adaptations of mangas and animes?


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 23, 2016)

Truth be told, I'm less concerned with the white washing thing with this movie. They needed to cast a well known star in the roll, and they went with Johansson. Not a strange choice, considering her popularity. And the race of the Major is not really all that important to the character.

But I do wonder if Johansson is right for the part, and I have serious doubts if they can nail the world of Ghost in the Shell. Apart from Bladerunner, I know very few movies that managed to do Cyberpunk right.

Also, how did a Director like Rupert Sanders, with such a short resume, land this huge movie deal? All I know him from, is Snowwhite and the Huntsman... Alright, now make the next Bladerunner.. Yeah, I don't see that happening.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 23, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> Johansson looks too human, and she looks afraid to hold a gun.



Have you seen her in Under the Skin?
She can definitely play the part of a completely emotionless alien being...


----------



## MarkB (Sep 23, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> I realize this is only a teaser, but you'd think they would actually include some stuff that would give people who were in doubt a hint that they were going in the right direction with this.
> 
> But I don't see any of that. I wish they would have included something that would have at least shown that they nailed the cyberpunk look and mood of the original story. Also, this does not convince me that Scarlet Johansson is a good Major.
> 
> ...




I think the cityscape works better in the live-action one. The view in the anime version looks quite ordinary by modern standards, whereas the one in the live-action conveys a sense of claustrophobia, the high-rises having grown and clustered to the extent that they crowd out the sky.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 23, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> Truth be told, I'm less concerned with the white washing thing with this movie.



Few people care about diversity. 



> But I do wonder if Johansson is right for the part



Her role as Black Widow and Lucy in _Lucy_ probably convinved the producers she is viable as an action star and draw crowds to an sci-fi action flick by herself. _Lucy_, a sci-fi action flick staring Johansson, made 463 million dollars world wide on a 40 million budget. I'm pretty sure producers want to recreate that success with GitS. Plus she can act, is pretty and is famous.



> Also, how did a Director like Rupert Sanders, with such a short resume, land this huge movie deal? All I know him from, is Snowwhite and the Huntsman... Alright, now make the next Bladerunner.. Yeah, I don't see that happening.



Young directors with little experience handling big projects is the trend now. Some are successful (_Guardians of the Galaxy_) others less so (_Fantastic Four_). _Snow White and the Hunstman_ focused a lot on estehtics, so he does seem like a good fit for GitS. The teasers tell us he doesn't disappoint on that front.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 23, 2016)

Big yawn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Madlefty (Sep 24, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Few people care about diversity.
> 
> Her role as Black Widow and Lucy in _Lucy_ probably convinved the producers she is viable as an action star and draw crowds to an sci-fi action flick by herself. _Lucy_, a sci-fi action flick staring Johansson, made 463 million dollars world wide on a 40 million budget. I'm pretty sure producers want to recreate that success with GitS. Plus she can act, is pretty and is famous.
> 
> Young directors with little experience handling big projects is the trend now. Some are successful (_Guardians of the Galaxy_) others less so (_Fantastic Four_). _Snow White and the Hunstman_ focused a lot on estehtics, so he does seem like a good fit for GitS. The teasers tell us he doesn't disappoint on that front.



Quote. Scarlett seems to be not so similar to the original character, but maybe she's the right choice for revenue purposes


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 25, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Few people care about diversity.
> 
> Her role as Black Widow and Lucy in _Lucy_ probably convinved the producers she is viable as an action star and draw crowds to an sci-fi action flick by herself. _Lucy_, a sci-fi action flick staring Johansson, made 463 million dollars world wide on a 40 million budget. I'm pretty sure producers want to recreate that success with GitS. Plus she can act, is pretty and is famous.
> 
> Young directors with little experience handling big projects is the trend now. Some are successful (_Guardians of the Galaxy_) others less so (_Fantastic Four_). _Snow White and the Hunstman_ focused a lot on estehtics, so he does seem like a good fit for GitS. The teasers tell us he doesn't disappoint on that front.




I like that Hollywood is at least trying something new, by looking for fresh eyes on how to present a story to the audience. Unfortunately "Fantastic Four" wasn't one of those. They didn't trust the director they chose and tossed him out on his ear (after which he had a meltdown). Obviously this is pure speculation but based on what has been released about Trank's vision it would have done better than the third act debacle that the producers hastily threw together, in place of the original scripting.


----------



## Dualazi (Sep 25, 2016)

The fact that this is even being made depresses me, and the trailers have done nothing to alleviate that feeling. The original GitS movie was a masterpiece, still is, and was one of the defining films of 90's anime. I also hold zero faith that Hollywood idiots won't butcher key elements of the plot, like they've done with All You Need is Kill, and any number of book franchises warped through its lens. 

My one dear hope is that this bombs spectacularly so they don't attempt anything else anime-related for a while.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 25, 2016)

Dualazi said:


> The fact that this is even being made depresses me, and the trailers have done nothing to alleviate that feeling. The original GitS movie was a masterpiece, still is, and was one of the defining films of 90's anime.




Agreed. It is a master piece.



Dualazi said:


> I also hold zero faith that Hollywood idiots won't butcher key elements of the plot, like they've done with All You Need is Kill, and any number of book franchises warped through its lens.




Sadly, Hollywood has a VERY poor record when it comes to live-action adaptions of anime. So I echo that lack of faith. Despite that I like Johansson as an actress.



Dualazi said:


> My one dear hope is that this bombs spectacularly so they don't attempt anything else anime-related for a while.




If the final product is as bad as probably many of us dread, then it should bomb spectacularly. There should be a huge backlash if they mess this up. I hope there is. 

But lets hope that they don't mess this up.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2016)

Ryujin said:


> I like that Hollywood is at least trying something new, by looking for fresh eyes on how to present a story to the audience. Unfortunately "Fantastic Four" wasn't one of those. They didn't trust the director they chose and tossed him out on his ear (after which he had a meltdown). Obviously this is pure speculation but based on what has been released about Trank's vision it would have done better than the third act debacle that the producers hastily threw together, in place of the original scripting.



And it isn't a sequel. For all its problems, I hope this production is a financial success cause I want some new(ish)* stories. 

*GitS isn't that new, I know.


----------



## Joker (Sep 25, 2016)

Allow me to qualify my following thoughts by saying that I am extremely biased.  

Pardon the cliché, but when I saw the original movie for the first time, it blew my mind.  This film defined the genre for me.  Heck, it defined movies for me.  
Every movie I've seen since has been held up to this one to see how close they came to challenging and entertaining me as a viewer.  

The original is perfect.  I don't think my bias is showing in that description.  It has no superfluous scenes.  It has no sharp edges.  It is art, frame by frame.  

So, this live-action version is going to come out and I'm a little wary.

I don't care that they cast a white actor to play the Major.  She's a full body cyborg, it can be rationalized.  While I don't rate Scarlett as an actor, I'm sure she'll do an adequate job with what she's given.  
But I'll echo what has been said before:  She's too human.  The Major is suppose to show very little emotion. 

I suppose my main concern is that the, albeit complex, themes of the original will be dealt with in a very hamfisted way.  I am not confident that a Hollywood movie with a high-profile actor can deliver on that front and that we'll get some Matrix-esque action-fest instead.

Furthermore, I don't really like what I've seen in the teasers.  MarkB mentioned that the cityscape works better in the live version.  I see it differently.  The contrast in the original makes it look like we're viewing it from inside someone's head.  The window has a digital quality to it to build up the theme of reality vs. simulated reality.  In the live-action version, the background blends in with the foreground, putting the focus on the Major and the Matrix plug she pulls from her brain.  Maybe that's something that still needs to be adjusted in post.  

I disagree with Goldomark's assessment that GitS is more about aesthetics than it is about character or plot.  The whole movie is the Major trying to figure out who she is.

Also, I'm worried about these teaser shorts.  I've had bad experiences with movies that put out a lot of extra content before a movie comes out.  Prometheus did it, Suicide Squad as well.  I don't know if I'm confirming my own bias here but movies that add a lot of material before it comes out generally leave me with a bad experience.  

An on a last, optimistic note.  If anything, I hope this movie points new audiences towards the original and the series.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 25, 2016)

Joker said:


> MarkB mentioned that the cityscape works better in the live version.  I see it differently.  The contrast in the original makes it look like we're viewing it from inside someone's head.  The window has a digital quality to it to build up the theme of reality vs. simulated reality.  In the live-action version, the background blends in with the foreground, putting the focus on the Major and the Matrix plug she pulls from her brain.  Maybe that's something that still needs to be adjusted in post.




Further more, the animated movie was not trying to portray a futuristic city like we are used to seeing in sci-fi movies. *MarkB *said that the cityscape in the animated movie looks too mundane... well that was the point of the movie.

The world of Ghost in the Shell, with all its technological advances, looks like a dilapidated version of the world of today. Humans are becoming more and more less human, while the world around them decays. It looks depressing and old. This is what the animated movie was all about. You won't see flying cars all over the place in Ghost in the Shell. 

Take this scene for example:

[video=youtube;z2mXrndt1ZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2mXrndt1ZI[/video]

Yes, they have robots, hi-tech weapons, optical camouflage, and digital communication through their brains. They even have cybernetic augmentations. But every day life looks very familiar. The city looks old and used up, and does not look hi-tech at all. Ghost in the Shell is supposed to look that way. It's not supposed to look futuristic. People still sell their fruit and vegetables at ordinary markets, while surrounded by decaying skyscrapers and neon signs, much like in Bladerunner.

This is especially obvious here.


----------



## Joker (Sep 25, 2016)

Exactly.  One of the things that interested me about the movies is that the world of the near future in GitS seems plausible.  There wasn't such a giant leap forward in technology and more importantly, not one in society.  We see the struggles and conflicts arising from where old meets new.  Where the new is actually a level above human interaction.
The details are important.  We see the same social and political interactions in the future as we see now.  This makes it more compelling for me.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 25, 2016)

Meanwhile, while I like the anime, I much preferred the original source manga. I found the anime needlessly compressed multiple stories and lacked some of the whimsy and wonder, replacing it pretension, over-seriousness, and T&A.

The TV series they did, Stand Alone Complex, was pretty solid. And interesting early look at meme culture.

But between the original manga, first anime, Innocence, SAC, Rise, the couple manga sequels and more there's a *lot* of GitS and a lot of people doing their own take on the characters. This movie has just as much right to the series. Happy to see a live action one, which could be cool. 

The teasers are doing their job: teasing. Too often teasers are just short trailers. Teasers are almost an announcement. Getting people aware the movie is a thing.This does that.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2016)

Joker said:


> I disagree with Goldomark's assessment that GitS is more about aesthetics than it is about character or plot.  The whole movie is the Major trying to figure out who she is.



It is there, buried in the action and the aesthetics. It is an afterthought and doesn't go into much dept. Mystery is mistaken for dept. But that is a regular trope in Japanese sci-fi. So is blending mystecism with sci-fi. 

Don't get me wrong. It is great piece of art to look at, but you do not have much to mull over after.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 25, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> Meanwhile, while I like the anime, I much preferred the original source manga. I found the anime needlessly compressed multiple stories and lacked some of the whimsy and wonder, replacing it pretension, over-seriousness, and T&A.
> 
> The TV series they did, Stand Alone Complex, was pretty solid. And interesting early look at meme culture.
> 
> ...



My teen self loved the anime as it reminded me of other great films like _Akira_ and _Ninja Scroll_, but it was the TV series that really made me a fan thanks to more world building. I bought the manga, but I found it childish and lacking compared to the TV series or the first film. The series lost some of its oomph along the way and _Arise_ was a bit of a let down, but I'll definately check out any GitS film and TV series. Not mangas though.


----------



## Joker (Sep 25, 2016)

goldomark said:


> It is there, buried in the action and the aesthetics. It is an afterthought and doesn't go into much dept. Mystery is mistaken for dept. But that is a regular trope in Japanese sci-fi. So is blending mystecism with sci-fi.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. It is great piece of art to look at, but you do not have much to mull over after.




I can't disagree with you more.  Her attempting to understand her own character and her place in the world is the premise of the film and the reason for the climax.  I don't know what sort of depth you're looking for if this doesn't qualify as character development.


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 25, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> But between the original manga, first anime, Innocence, SAC, Rise, the couple manga sequels and more there's a *lot* of GitS and a lot of people doing their own take on the characters. This movie has just as much right to the series. Happy to see a live action one, which could be cool.
> .



^This....

I've never read the manga, but I do own one of the movies (there's four rember) and the anime (both GitS:SAC and GitS:SAC: 2ndgig) I've watched some of Arise on netflix.  I look forward to the trailer.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 25, 2016)

goldomark said:


> It is there, buried in the action and the aesthetics. It is an afterthought and doesn't go into much dept. Mystery is mistaken for dept. But that is a regular trope in Japanese sci-fi. So is blending mystecism with sci-fi.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. It is great piece of art to look at, but you do not have much to mull over after.




Then you clearly did not understand the movie. The movie is literally all about the main character trying to figure out if she is really a person, or if she is just another shell. 

This is why the movie has a very long scene in the middle FULL of symbolism, where the main character gazes at mannequins in a window, and spots a woman in an office who looks identical to her. This scene also has several close ups of garbage floating in the water, which is again symbolic for the feeling of self worth that the main character struggles with. And the climax of the movie is all about the central question of personhood. It is not mere afterthought that the movie ends with a climactic battle between an arachnid-robot and a human, and the mech fires shots that destroy fossils on the wall, and destroys an image of the tree of life, but ending just short of man-kind on said tree. The message of the movie is pretty obvious.

It's literally all there right from the opening in which the main character is born. The way she rises from the fluid is later mirrored in a scene where she goes diving, and rises to meet her own reflection. And it is not mere aesthetics that we see her in the fetus position during the opening either. 

The movie is all about what makes us human. Are we human because we have a unique face, unique voice, unique memories, and because people treat us as a fellow human? If not, then what does make the difference between a human and a cyborg? This is explained in this scene. The movie also has a heavy theme of reflections. We often see the Major gazing at her own reflection, especially during scene in which the afore mentioned aspects of being human are questioned. For example, in the scene when they interrogate the armed suspect whom they arrested after the big chase scene, and find out his memory has been wiped, and false memories have been implanted in him. It is not strange that the very next scene is of the Major diving, to meet her own reflection and get in touch with that intangible feeling of what makes her a person.  

This leads us to the goal of the antagonist, the Puppetmaster; To become something new.. something greater than a mere cyborg, and to merge with the main character. And this central question is literally woven into countless scenes throughout the movie. It is not mere aesthetics or directionless Japanese mysticism.

I think you just assumed the movie was shallow in its message, when it was in fact too complex for you to understand on an initial viewing. You are not alone. Many people don't understand the movie at first, because it is about a very complex topic that seems almost beyond the scope of just a mere animated movie. I didn't get the movie either the first time I saw it. It took me many viewings to fully understand the film.

And once you understand the film, you can start to try and figure out the ending. It is all about reflections...


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> Then you clearly did not understand the movie. The movie is literally all about the main character trying to figure out if she is really a person, or if she is just another shell.



Yup. It was pretty obvious. And that is pretty much it. A question. You can ask it in many ways, but that doesn't mean it was deep. You can pause and contemplate an answer, but contemplation does not equal dept or development. 

Philosophers have been asking that question for a long time and are beyond those. 



> The movie is all about what makes us human.



It wants to project that, but it does it superficially. It is done beautifully, but beauty is only skin deep.



> I think you just assumed the movie was shallow in its message,



It was. It doesn't really propose any meaningful reflection on identity or the human state aside from cliches. "Does having a unique face make me human?" It is a question that is literally and figuratively just about the surface.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 26, 2016)

Joker said:


> I can't disagree with you more.  Her attempting to understand her own character and her place in the world is the premise of the film and the reason for the climax.  I don't know what sort of depth you're looking for if this doesn't qualify as character development.



I've seen many films about identity and contemplation. Often with little dialogue and in black and white! Cinephile street creed, yo. Anyway, at some point you just realize many directors often have little to say, but say it beautifully.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 27, 2016)

goldomark said:


> Yup. It was pretty obvious. And that is pretty much it. A question. You can ask it in many ways, but that doesn't mean it was deep. You can pause and contemplate an answer, but contemplation does not equal dept or development.
> 
> Philosophers have been asking that question for a long time and are beyond those.
> 
> ...




You seem to be suggesting that the movie does not provide any meaningful answer to the question it poses to its audience, and that it there for lacks 'depth'. Whether it is a deep thought provoking movie is subjective of course. But the suggestion that it doesn't offer any meaningful answers to its central question, I strongly disagree with.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 27, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> You seem to be suggesting that the movie does not provide any meaningful answer to the question it poses to its audience, and that it there for lacks 'depth'. Whether it is a deep thought provoking movie is subjective of course. But the suggestion that it doesn't offer any meaningful answers to its central question, *I strongly disagree with*.



You are of course free to do so.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2016)

Really loved the 1st Manga, the first two flicks and SAC but I wouldn't call myself a purist.  But so far this looks like poop.


----------



## Joker (Nov 14, 2016)

Kramodlog said:


> I've seen many films about identity and contemplation. Often with little dialogue and in black and white! Cinephile street creed, yo. Anyway, at some point you just realize many directors often have little to say, but say it beautifully.




We're throwing around street cred?  Well, I see your qualifications and raise you four years of film school and an average of 600 films per year at my peak.  So, I'm not entirely out of my depth when I say I recognize plot and character development when I see it.

Anyway, the trailer is out.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4VmJcZR0Yg

From the trailer it seems they've shifted the focus from Section 9's work and Motoko's existential crisis to an exploration of her past.  I know it's a little too early to make that assumption but that's the vibe I'm getting from it.
I've read that they've taken elements from both seasons of the series and the two first movies and made all of that into one movie.  They're going with the Laughing Man plot from the first season while using the villain from the second season while jamming in scenes from Ghost in the Shell and Innocence.  

We'll see how it turns out.  But I'm increasingly aware of how ridiculously biased I am.  Every familiar thing I saw in the trailer, I automatically compare it to the corresponding scene in the original content.  I don't think I'm the audience for this movie.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 15, 2016)

I don't care about street cred, I care about arguments.

I see things in the trailer that I like, and I see things that I don't. I still have a lot of trouble with the look of the characters, and with basically any scene where Johansson portrays the Major. I also still don't see the sort of mood that I'd like to see for the world of Ghost in the Shell. I also don't like the look of the city.


----------



## Joker (Nov 15, 2016)

Imaculata said:


> I don't care about street cred, I care about arguments.




You're right.  That was unnecessary.  The trailer got me worked up.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 15, 2016)

I've never seen the cartoon, but that trailer didn't really do much for me. Looked very formulaic.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 15, 2016)

Morrus said:


> I've never seen the cartoon, but that trailer didn't really do much for me. Looked very formulaic.




Unfortunately the problem here, as with many seminal works, is that they are copied so much that the original can end up looking formulaic, when later viewed.


----------



## MarkB (Nov 15, 2016)

The trailer makes it feel like too much of a retread, with many scenes being direct copies of scenes from the original anime movie. I can see that they're trying to appeal to fans of the original, but the movie needs to do more than slavishly copy its source material. So far, there's too little sign of it having the potential to establish its own identity.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 16, 2016)

MarkB said:


> The trailer makes it feel like too much of a retread, with many scenes being direct copies of scenes from the original anime movie. I can see that they're trying to appeal to fans of the original, but the movie needs to do more than slavishly copy its source material. So far, there's too little sign of it having the potential to establish its own identity.




Spot on. It needs to be its own thing. 

I understand that they are trying to be true to the original manga, while also taking some cues from the anime. But I'm not seeing a vision here. I'm not getting a vibe, like with the Valerian trailer. And btw, that movie may end up being terrible, but at least its clear right from the Valerian trailer that Luc Besson has a vision of what it should be. With Ghost in the Shell, it still looks like a light retread of the anime, but with not enough new ideas. And I really don't find Johansson convincing as the Major. She simply comes across as far too vulnerable.

The original anime had a very strong feeling of melancholy, and light depression. It wasn't a happy movie. Everything about the city in the anime looked decayed. And I know that according to the director, that is what they are going for: cities built on cities... but I'm not seeing it. Not from the trailer at least. It looks stale... dry... without voice.


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 17, 2016)

As I said in a friend's post on Facebook, I am non-plussed that they are going with have an existential crisis over identity rather than over humanity. The Major knows who she is. The conflict has always been from asking what she is.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jan 9, 2017)

This is a potentially controversial, unhappy, subject. But it is something that has been playing at my mind.
Have you ever considered that Ghost in the Shell is a peculiar kind of rape fantasy; the Puppet Master rapes and effectively impregnates the Major.


----------



## Joker (Jan 9, 2017)




----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jan 9, 2017)

1. The Major is female in portrayal.
2. The Puppet Master is male in portrayal.
3. The Puppet aster expressly is motivated to reproduce, or at least to over come its inability to do so. 
4. The Puppet Master essentially overcomes her resistance, functionally coercing the Major into merging with itself.
5. This produces a new entity.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 10, 2017)

I think you're going way way beyond what the creators were thinking about


----------

