2nd GIG Episode: Poker Face

Talk about GitS:SAC, 2nd Gig, & SSS here!

Moderator: sonic

User avatar
Lightice
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:22 am

Post by Lightice »

wrote:Maybe she already had the control program already downloaded and she shot out the jamming device to make Saito believe that she is currently downloading the control program, which would have given him an advantage but he should have realized that she was bluffing Saito.


Yes, that's what it looked like, to me. But to me it seemed, that Saito made a desparate bet. A sidearm would have been more appropriate choice at that distance, than his long-barreled sniper rifle.
douyang wrote: For me it didn't explain enough about them. For example, why did any of them even join the military to begin with? Where were the major and Ishikawa before being selected for that mission?


It didn't explain much, true, but that would be because it would require an entire separate series or a movie, to do properly.
For that matter, why are the major, Ishikawa, and Batou fighting for the opposite side? Just because their government ordered them to?


Major and co. are apparently in a special forces unit of the UN, gathered from various countries. They were in the military and they were ordered to go, or volunteered - how much more explanation could there be?
For me, it would have been more gratifying if she were shown less experienced and making mistakes and going through a learning process.


If that was the case, the story shouldn't be told by Saito, but by Major, herself, to make a point about learning. Again, it would be a different story, then and would require more effort to make. I've always been under impression that she was a prodigy and far more capable of adapting abilities and skills downloaded in her external memory, than an ordinary person.
We even have Ishikawa saying that the major is mystery even to him, even though he's been working with her for longer than anyone else we know of.


Well, she wouldn't be much of a mystery, if any one in her team would know something concrete about her. Considering how she claims, that not even she can remember her original name, we can imagine that she was extremely through in destroying her past.

I was hoping for more character development, but the episode is really more like a side story that occured in the past.


That it most definately was. Some serious character development in the past would have needed far more than just a single episode in the middle of a storyline, like I already said.
And why do the writers apparently have something against Americans? The American commanding their unit is described as a bigot and seen to be generally inept.


Well, if you have troubles watching Americans in negative roles, you're out of luck. Just wait 'till the later episodes. Personally I find it quite refreshing that Americans aren't always decipted as heroes. All too often in Hollywood, the only thing that the people seem to need is an American hero. It seems, that the scriptwriters decided to strike back by reminding that the reasons why the US (or American Empire, by 2030) goes around the globe are hardly selfless.

In that particular scene it was just important to make Major look good - as such, the seargant couldn't be too smart - otherwise he'd have taken away her spotlight. I don't think that in this particular episode it actually mattered, that he was American.
Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!
User avatar
cowboyfunk22
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by cowboyfunk22 »

Lightice wrote: Well, if you have troubles watching Americans in negative roles, you're out of luck. Just wait 'till the later episodes. Personally I find it quite refreshing that Americans aren't always decipted as heroes. All too often in Hollywood, the only thing that the people seem to need is an American hero. It seems, that the scriptwriters decided to strike back by reminding that the reasons why the US (or American Empire, by 2030) goes around the globe are hardly selfless.

Yeah GITS: SAC had a pretty poor view of America and Americans throughout. I also find it a bit jarring, just in the sense that the show is something i like deeply and it may not like me back :cry: That said part of the reason i love the show is cause it makes me think, and rather than make me think of something im nuetral about, this makes me think of something im pretty steadfast in. However, only a fool blindly goes through life and one's eye must always be open for stuff like this.

Interesting to note the world this take place in. It's war torn (I think its up to World War 4 with one nuclear world war). The place of an old superpower could easily be changed then, some sort of policing of other nations to stop the destruction of the entire planet. Japan could easily be playign a similar role as a new superpower, thus creating a desire for a "return to a shangri-la way of life". This would create detractors, but Americas intentions might be good. The show also maintains a pretty bleek view of homeland government as well. The future may not be the bright place for us to live in, but we will get robot bodies if we are rich, so there's that (I'm on the list for a jameson type body).

In the past, GITS SAC only showed negativity towards Americans through corrupt individuals for the most part. Its a differen't boat than calling out an entire nation which this episode kinda showed. I believe America will always be a great place, but there are those who have unAmerican goals in the government and beurocracy. Whatever nation exists in 2030 might not be something i consider to be American. In which case i would stand to say that the real America was lost in the shuffle and it no longer what i feel deeply about now (some might say its already there, but i don't think thats true yet). I believe in the America that was set up by our forefathers, not specifically where it steers itself from generation to generation. Thus my opinion of America at any given point in time is based on how closely its actions fit the ideals of its creators (they were brilliant men). So in 2020, it seems to be a nation thats lost its way, the opinion the show seems to have of it might be entirely correct.
User avatar
Lightice
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:22 am

Post by Lightice »

cowboyfunk22 wrote: In the past, GITS SAC only showed negativity towards Americans through corrupt individuals for the most part. Its a differen't boat than calling out an entire nation which this episode kinda showed.


Strange. I didn't see anything that could be considered as hostile towards Americans in general, just the goverment that makes all it's decisions based on the greatest possible income, as long as the public opinion can be held on it's side. Criticism towards the goverment isn't the same thing as criticism towards the people.
To me it seems, that the scriptwriters are drawing plenty of parallels towards the world's current political situation. It tends to look pretty bleak, as well, at least if compared to pre-9/11 expectations of the future. Since then, even the most democratic nations have gone towards the authoritarian choices and bordercases, like Russia have seriously degraded. To some extent they may also be trying to warn about the consequences of this trend. In whole, the scriptwriters of this series seem like a quite nationalistic bunch, but at the same time not very pro-goverment.
Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!
User avatar
cowboyfunk22
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by cowboyfunk22 »

Lightice wrote:
cowboyfunk22 wrote: In the past, GITS SAC only showed negativity towards Americans through corrupt individuals for the most part. Its a differen't boat than calling out an entire nation which this episode kinda showed.


Strange. I didn't see anything that could be considered as hostile towards Americans in general, just the goverment that makes all it's decisions based on the greatest possible income, as long as the public opinion can be held on it's side. Criticism towards the goverment isn't the same thing as criticism towards the people.
sorry i should have clarified that. It was directed towards the government and not the people. Before even though there were corrupt individuals in the government (im thinking of Jungle Cruise in particular) it was never seemed as though it went much further than that. Now this episode shows that the ertire national govenrment is part of a scheme to misguide the intent of their actions. by entire nation, i meant the whole national governernment. With elected officials, it makes one wonder if it is the will of the people as well.

I'm taking a course at school called the American Occupation of Japan. It focuses on the success/failures of democratization there. Article 9 was mentioned often throughout "Poker Face". I had to the read the constitution (which was basically written by American authorities) and remembered it:

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a soverign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land,sea,and air forces, as well as other potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognize."

This of course all comes from the Cold War era Gohda is trying to revert to (or so hes said). Oddly enough, America allowed japan to rearm 2 years after the occupation began.
User avatar
Lightice
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:22 am

Post by Lightice »

cowboyfunk22 wrote: sorry i should have clarified that. It was directed towards the government and not the people. Before even though there were corrupt individuals in the government (im thinking of Jungle Cruise in particular) it was never seemed as though it went much further than that. Now this episode shows that the ertire national govenrment is part of a scheme to misguide the intent of their actions. by entire nation, i meant the whole national governernment. With elected officials, it makes one wonder if it is the will of the people as well.


Well, people are easily manipulated when the circumstances are right. That's what the 2nd Gig is all about. Plus to me, the American Empire gives the impression of a military junta, rather than a proper democratic nation, even though it propably still pretends to be one. There is a discussion later in the series between Gouda and a CIA agent, where Gouda makes a remark of how AE represents freedom and equality to the people, to which the CIA man laughs and tells that appearances can be decieving.
Oddly enough, America allowed japan to rearm 2 years after the occupation began.


Not that odd, really. The costs to protect an entire separate nation are enormous. Also, there was the War of Korea to consider, even though the Japanese didn't actually take part, since it could have easily spread into other parts of Asia.
Hei! Aa-Shanta 'Nygh!
User avatar
douyang
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:08 pm

Post by douyang »

cowboyfunk22 wrote:
In the past, GITS SAC only showed negativity towards Americans through corrupt individuals for the most part. Its a differen't boat than calling out an entire nation which this episode kinda showed. I believe America will always be a great place, but there are those who have unAmerican goals in the government and beurocracy. Whatever nation exists in 2030 might not be something i consider to be American. In which case i would stand to say that the real America was lost in the shuffle and it no longer what i feel deeply about now (some might say its already there, but i don't think thats true yet). I believe in the America that was set up by our forefathers, not specifically where it steers itself from generation to generation. Thus my opinion of America at any given point in time is based on how closely its actions fit the ideals of its creators (they were brilliant men). So in 2020, it seems to be a nation thats lost its way, the opinion the show seems to have of it might be entirely correct.
What do you mean by "America"?

For me, speaking of "America" being this or doing that is ludicrous. It makes no sense to speak of an entire nation of individuals, each with a variety of different political, religious, moral, and other personal opinions as being a single entity with a single will, set of actions, or a single anything. I feel that this is basically a type of stereotyping and collectivist thinking that leads to mindless, ego pumping nationalism and bigotry against people based merely off of nationality. (Any fellow Americans remember "freedom fries" on the white house menu?)

It has always struck me as highly ironic that the "patriotic" flag waving idiocy of some Americans is based off the same kind of thinking that people like Osama Bin Laden use to justify their hatred and acts of violence against people of the same country.

For me, it's individual Americans, especially those in power, who are responsible for their own actions, not "America", whatever that means.

What bothered me about Poker Face was that I have nasty feeling that the writers imply and promote this type of bigoted thinking with the way they choose to portray every American character on the show that I know of. And that it somehow all ties back to 9/11 and the subsequent wars. (And maybe that time a couple Japanese relief workers ended up in one of the infamous Iraqi Insurgent hostage videos).

Don't think I'm attacking you or anything. But I wanted to be clear on something: By "America" do you mean the ideals this country is supposed to represent and practice? The American Government, which is whatever administration will be in power in that time? Or something else? Saying "America" doesn't tell me much.

And I believe the majority of the founding fathers were hypocritical by implying they believed in freedom, rights, and equality for all when they really meant those things for their own privileged class of white male aristocrat landowners, many of whom owned slaves. One notable exception, however, was Thomas Paine. Try looking him up on wikipedia or something, he was really ahead of his time and represented "American" ideals more than anyone else.
User avatar
cowboyfunk22
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by cowboyfunk22 »

douyang wrote:
Don't think I'm attacking you or anything. But I wanted to be clear on something: By "America" do you mean the ideals this country is supposed to represent and practice? The American Government, which is whatever administration will be in power in that time? Or something else? Saying "America" doesn't tell me much.

cowboyfunk22 wrote: I believe in the America that was set up by our forefathers, not specifically where it steers itself from generation to generation.

The former.

I mentioned in a later post that i was referring to the government, but one has to wonder how it is reflecting the will of the people at anytime, let alone in this fictional world 14 years from now.

douyang wrote: It makes no sense to speak of an entire nation of individuals, each with a variety of different political, religious, moral, and other personal opinions as being a single entity with a single will, set of actions, or a single anything.
Actually, Japan durring WWII is actually still characterized this way to by scholars. They were a nation with a single will, religious, and political views (There were about 100 people with communist views locked in jail at the time). Its' been contended that America was very similar at the time. Of course now it does not hold for pretty much anywhere on the planet. It would be silly to believe that at this time or in the future anything like this would occur again. The episode made it seem that the enitre government had this will, as opposed to just a few corrupt individuals as before, which is why i felt it was jarring.
User avatar
douyang
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:08 pm

Post by douyang »

cowboyfunk22 wrote:
douyang wrote:
douyang wrote: It makes no sense to speak of an entire nation of individuals, each with a variety of different political, religious, moral, and other personal opinions as being a single entity with a single will, set of actions, or a single anything.
Actually, Japan durring WWII is actually still characterized this way to by scholars. They were a nation with a single will, religious, and political views (There were about 100 people with communist views locked in jail at the time). Its' been contended that America was very similar at the time. Of course now it does not hold for pretty much anywhere on the planet. It would be silly to believe that at this time or in the future anything like this would occur again. The episode made it seem that the enitre government had this will, as opposed to just a few corrupt individuals as before, which is why i felt it was jarring.
Regardless of how some historians or sociologists may treat the issue of differing views, I'll bet you this is only the way people choose to see things. I find it impossible for any group of people to be that completely homogenuous, there is always something that sets this or that person apart from the others. Those 100 Japanese communists you talked about are an example of this, and so are some Americans (including one elected representative) who actually opposed involvement in WW2, even after Pearl Harbor. Also, note that there were many Japanese Americans put into internment camps who were undoubtedly pissed as hell at how their own government and neighbors treated them
,some of who renounced their citizenship and moved to Japan, others who resisted being drafted since they saw it as yet another bigoted test of their "loyalty".

If anything, apparent homogeneity only shows how ruthlessly a culture suppresses dissent from what some designate as the "right" view, way of doing things, etc. It would not surprise me that in times of war oppressive nationalism censored or marginalized those with non-mainstream views, which is why it seems everyone has only "one will" or set of views.
User avatar
Jeni Nielsen
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:35 am

Post by Jeni Nielsen »

douyang wrote:

It has always struck me as highly ironic that the "patriotic" flag waving idiocy of some Americans is based off the same kind of thinking that people like Osama Bin Laden use to justify their hatred and acts of violence against people of the same country.
What exactly do you mean by this? As far as I understand Osama bin Laden's attack on the west is founded in the Muslim theory that if something is a threat to Islam then it should be eliminated. He expressly said in one of his recent messages that it is the American presence in Iraq and other Muslim nations that he finds abhorrent. I'm pretty sure it isn't just the American way of life. Unless you're saying that American imperialism which is inherently related to nationalism is what he objects to. I think that point can probably be argued. But it isn't just McDonalds and globalization nor is it simply American patriotism
User avatar
douyang
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:08 pm

Post by douyang »

I'm saying that Osama couldn't hate "America" or all Americans and indiscriminately kill them the way he does (or hold us all collectively responsible for corrupting/subjugating the muslim world or doing whatever else it is he hates) without thinking of America in the same way that a patriot/nationalist thinks of it: As a single entity.

That is, the common mindset of your America hating Islamic Fundamentalist and the jingoistic patriot is that they both see the actions and will of the American government or any given group of Americans or even, in some cases, individual Americans, as being the actions and will of all of America, of all Americans. We are all held collectively responsible for what Bush or whoever does, whether those actions be good or bad, not based off our individual responsibility for them, but simply because of our nationality.

Sort of like labeling "black people" as criminals because you got mugged by one.

Likewise, the American nationalist might say "we saved France's ass in World War 2, so how dare they criticize the U.S for the invasion of Iraq", when in fact that individual may have had nothing to do with the liberation of France from the nazis and may not even have been born at the time; he just credits himself and all other Americans based off of nationality.
User avatar
james_sb
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by james_sb »

#EDIT#
Apologies about the scathing nature of this post. Just finished running an election campaign where we got our guy elected as President of the Student Union for next year in my college. The college has 22,000 students eligible to vote. Only 4,500 voted in total. Three candidates and it was a very tight race. That's my excuse. Sorry.
#EDIT#


You may be federalist, but your still a quasi-democracy. It's a wierd two party system, but here's the thing. It's still proprtional representation!

If you don't want to be seen as all a bunch of George Bush's, elect someone else! You put him in office TWICE! [forget the whole court thing, it's mute] He was elected by the people to represent the majority of public opinion, that's what proportional representation is. Granted it's only a choice between two, but you chose him. As the president, he is the figure head, he does represent you on the global stage. And people will take him to represent you, because you said he could by electing him!

Get this, VOTE! It's important, see.




People this side of the world hear so little about actual America, rather than just political america. So much so, that most people forget it's made up of individual states. Rather they see it as just one country. The 'US'. This amalgamation lends itself to the idea that all people are one person, forget the differeing opinion of regions in the US, the US has one opinion. As britian has one opinion, as France has one opinion...

The outcry on the ground, with protesting to get the minority voice heard (Maybe it's the majority, but you just didn't vote) will be washed over when the president does whatever it is he want's to do with his powers. That's then what America is doing. Sort of in an opposite to vicarious liability sense.. [Is there a phrase for that?]


And please don't miss my point with voting by saying he changed since we voted him in, or we didn't know all we were getting. As with all democracies, these drawbacks apply. You vote on the person who most applies your view on issues. Regardless then of anything the person does after elected, that person can then say, "I Represent the American people and their views."
Last edited by james_sb on Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Are you ANTI-POP?
User avatar
douyang
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:08 pm

Post by douyang »

Sorry if I got a little off topic back there, but I have another question about the episode: How exactly did Saito lose his left eye? I know the major pinned his hand to the wall with a knife, but did she use the knife to put his eye out or did she do that when her bullet skimmed his face? I watched the episode twice and I don't think they actually showed his eye getting put out.
User avatar
Motoko2030
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Saline, Michigan

Post by Motoko2030 »

Motoko shot out his left eye with her rifle.
Someone
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by Someone »

I have wacthed the episode i think the fact that batou and everyone acted all werid was possbily batou was was allready in section 4 proably before hand it could of been a play to actully get a new eprson and a war zone is all of the good reason to find good freash valulable meat right? and am new to the formes here hooray for me
User avatar
Tonks_kittygoth
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:57 am
Location: The dark dark woods where the kitten monsters live....or happy la la land, my summer home.

Yea back to the episode!

Post by Tonks_kittygoth »

I dont know the timeline, but since Batou managed not to get shot, earned the Major's seldom givin trust, and had his eyes in, I believe he was already post rangers. Plus hasnt it been established that he served in the world wars, and this acording to Saito was after them?

So What Is with those eyes anyways? Are they better than regular cyber eyes?
Are they the only ones you can have if you have a natural head?

(I'm guessing here, cause, A. in the manga he says something like "maybe I should go full cyber" after Motoko clocks him one for picking on her,(yeh diff. univereses..) and B. I doubt that standard head models have broken noses, and C. they establish that custom head models have little expression, which does not apply to Batou.)

Where did you all get this info on Section 4?????
Is there a list of sections somewhere????
Post Reply