Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Last Samurai
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Shadow
If anyone was ever interested in playing a true Samurai in shadowrun, I mean a real one. They should go see The Last Samurai. The whole movie is about Bushido and definetly worth watching. After you watch the battle scenes, ask yourself...

Now if that katana was Dikoted....

I know this seems off topic, but I run a Bushido web for Shadowrun so ha! nyahnyah.gif
Fortune
QUOTE (Shadow)
...but I run a Bushido web for Shadowrun...

...which is overdue for updating. biggrin.gif
Shockwave_IIc
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Shadow @ Dec 14 2003, 12:31 PM)
...but I run a Bushido web for Shadowrun...

...which is overdue for updating. biggrin.gif

hear that, good for what it's got though!
Connor
I do have to agree with you. That movie did an exceptional job at showing and explaining Bushido. It was also did a great job of telling the story of 19th century Japan in a historical fiction kind of way.

I have to say I sat through that movie and until this post didn't connect it to Shadowrun in any way whatsoever. Which is pretty rare for me to do. It was kind of refreshing now that I think about it.
Tanka
It's good to hear that some people who actually know Japanese history are giving it compliments that aren't "OMG COOL" or something akin to that. I was very worried that it would shred apart history and everything contained in it. Now I may just have to go see it.
Fortune
QUOTE (Shockwave_IIc @ Dec 14 2003, 01:33 PM)
good for what it's got though!

Most definitely. smile.gif

From all the reviews I've seen (haven't seen the movie yet, damnit! frown.gif), they are saying that it's an excellent movie, and Tom Cruise's best role to date.
Shadow
Well I do have a full time job, a wife, and a three month old baby...

Having said that, Christmas break is coming and I get 2 weeks off. I have a couple of projects and one of them is updating Shadowrun Bushido. So look for that around Christmas time. I have another webpage I am starting called the Shadowrun Webpository, guess what that's about.

Back on topic, I am by no means an expert in Japanese culture or the Samurai. But I am an enthusiast, I read what I can and I watch the history channel as much as I can. And in my mind, that movie was pretty accurate. As historically accurate as a movie can be anyways.
Tanka
Exactly what I meant. I was expecting it to be so far off base that I'd simply leave halfway through the film. Thus far, however, I've only gotten good reviews.
Hero
The way "The Last Samurai" portered the samurai class was very accurate as far as I can tell. My grandmother is a native from Japan and her father was of the samurai class, so I have been asking her this and that about the samurai class. And from what shes told me and what the movie showed, it was pretty damn accurate IMO.

[Edit]
For a Hollywood movie it was some what accurate, history is a bit off, but accurate in the context of the daily life of a samurai.
[/Edit]
Glyph
QUOTE (tanka)
It's good to hear that some people who actually know Japanese history are giving it compliments that aren't "OMG COOL" or something akin to that.  I was very worried that it would shred apart history and everything contained in it.  Now I may just have to go see it.

Actually, the reviews that I have read point out its historical inaccuracy. And it gets bashed from both sides of the spectrum. One side says that it glorifies people who were essentially similar to the Taliban in their outlook, while the revisionist historians who romanticize the good ol' days of warlords, rigid social castes, random beheadings, and subservient women are still upset about the ethnically insulting "white guy saves the day" stuff.

I know I'm not going to see it. I have nothing but contempt for so-called "historical" movies that give a simple-minded and romanticized view of actual events, and take the wrong side to boot. But then again, this movie was made by the people who brought us "Thirtysomething".
Tanka
The one thing I'll be watching is how the samurai treated samurai under a different master. They weren't too kind when they met somebody that had a different Shogun, or even Daimyo than their own.

Ronin were another story entirely.
Dende
From what I know, not having seen it. I have heard there is a historically inaccurate part near the ending. This was confirmed by a history major who concentrates in japanese history... I don't know what yet, neither will tell me, since I haven't seen it.
Anyone know what they might be talking about?

POF, I hear the rest is almost spot on accuracte.
Tanka
QUOTE (Glyph)
QUOTE (tanka)
It's good to hear that some people who actually know Japanese history are giving it compliments that aren't "OMG COOL" or something akin to that.  I was very worried that it would shred apart history and everything contained in it.  Now I may just have to go see it.

Actually, the reviews that I have read point out its historical inaccuracy. And it gets bashed from both sides of the spectrum. One side says that it glorifies people who were essentially similar to the Taliban in their outlook, while the revisionist historians who romanticize the good ol' days of warlords, rigid social castes, random beheadings, and subservient women are still upset about the ethnically insulting "white guy saves the day" stuff.

I know I'm not going to see it. I have nothing but contempt for so-called "historical" movies that give a simple-minded and romanticized view of actual events, and take the wrong side to boot. But then again, this movie was made by the people who brought us "Thirtysomething".

This is also coming from people who look for something just to bash it. The "white guy" learns something, just as the other guys do too (If I'm understanding the plot correctly). Also; women are being portrayed as subservient back then because they were subservient back then.

Anyway; I'll see it a.s.a.p. and probably write something about it somewhere.

Nobody spoil it or I'll be forced to feed you to my rabid parrot.
Fortune
QUOTE (tanka)
Nobody spoil it or I'll be forced to feed you to my rabid parrot.

There's a white guy in it. Oh yeah, and some Samurai. All that, and it's set in Japan. biggrin.gif
Tanka
That's it!

*grabs Fortune and grinds him into a fine paste, then pours Fortune-paste over his parrot's dinner*

Told you. devil.gif
Frag-o Delux
I don't go the movies, I'll see it when it comes out on DVD. I'll see it just for the story and the action. If I want to see accurate history I'll pick up a book (like all history in books are accurate smile.gif ). It is nice that it is accurate, but I am not going for a history lesson. Why are people so hooked on accuracy? I mean I don't want to see something completely outrageously wrong or just plain wrong, like I said I am not going for a history lesson, I have a few books on Japanesse history and Samuria for that.
Toa
Since I study Japanese Sciences, and already had a seminar about Japanese history, I'm not so enthusiastic about the historical accuracy of this movie. But I'll go see it anyway as soon as it starts showing over here in Europe, and if it's just to make fun of it. wink.gif

The biggest mistake certainly is displaying the "White Guy" as "The Last Samurai", which definitely is bulldrek.

There are a lots of false myths about Japan and especially Samurai, so I'm afraid this movie might even spread this misconceptions further.
Kurukami
That wasn't at all the impression I took away from the movie. I took it more as the "last samurai" mentioned in the title to be a plural -- that is, that with the rebellion and the following cultural shift died the significant portion of Japanese society that adhered to that outlook.
Tanka
Indeed. After all, the plural of Samurai is Samurai, not Samurais. That would be a huge inconsistency in the language, as every word ends in a vowel.

1 Samurai, 2 Samurai
1 Ninja, 2 Ninja

So on and so forth.
Cray74
QUOTE (Glyph)
I know I'm not going to see it.  I have nothing but contempt for so-called "historical" movies that give a simple-minded and romanticized view of actual events, and take the wrong side to boot.  But then again, this movie was made by the people who brought us "Thirtysomething".

I know Hollywood couldn't string together an accurate docudrama to save its collective life, so I go to "historical" movies knowing full well that I'll be getting a romanticized, hyped-up of view of events. Therefore, I try not to get caught in the stuffy artsy critic attitude that pans modern Hollywood "historical" movies. I don't go to the movies to watch documentaries, I go for a thrill, and the Last Samurai delivers. But, gee, if I want reality, I'll watch the History channel (and I do just that - much more informative but dry than the Last Samurai).

Last Samurai was a very fun movie. I've picked up a dash of 1800s Japanese history thanks to recent programs on the History channel and, y'know, I don't care about inaccuracies in the Last Samurai. (I didn't care about the bad history in Gladiator, either, and I look forward to Troy.) What mattered is that there was action, big unit combat, and more - character development, good acting, interesting plot, etc. It gave a good, Hollywood lowest-common-denominator description of Bushido and Tom Cruise and whatshisname the Head Samurai played their parts well.

Funny thing is, I think bushido's goofy. I much prefer the modern military pragmatism of the Imperial troops to the Bushido of the rebel samurai, but I went with the flow and rooted for the underdog in the film, the samurai. Definitely a fun movie.
Frag-o Delux
Is it about the 47 ronin rebeling the newly re-established imperial family? Just curious it is starting to sound like it.
Shadow
QUOTE (Toa)
Since I study Japanese Sciences, and already had a seminar about Japanese history, I'm not so enthusiastic about the historical accuracy of this movie. But I'll go see it anyway as soon as it starts showing over here in Europe, and if it's just to make fun of it. wink.gif

The biggest mistake certainly is displaying the "White Guy" as "The Last Samurai", which definitely is bulldrek.

There are a lots of false myths about Japan and especially Samurai, so I'm afraid this movie might even spread this misconceptions further.

That isn't it at all, go watch it, I think you will be pleasently suprised.

Frago-

It isn't a remake of 47 Samurai .
toturi
Isn't the plural of samurai samurii?

And the plural of ninja ninji?
Sokei
just to clear it up , the white guy isnt the last samurai , but the white guy helps the last samurai in his rebellion. over all i thought it was ok historically, romanticized yes, but good for a movie. i expected it to be horrible based soley on the lack of real knowledge about samurai most people have. i figured they would dumb it down, it wasn't bad.



as far as going to the history channel for "real" history, for a channel that shows 75% WW2 history its not half bad. but going to it for a 60 min special on the samurai wont give you a whole lot of information. the samurai sword demos were interesting i suppose, aside from that it was annoying to hear the military historian call the samurai the bad guys for standing against the modernization of the country... the truth is they just wanted it to slow down, not stop altogether.


although i will say this, the ending is all hollywood goo for about 15 mins, still a good movie spin.gif
CanvasBack
QUOTE (Sokei)
...aside from that it was annoying to hear the military historian call the samurai the bad guys for standing against the modernization of the country... the truth is they just wanted it to slow down, not stop altogether.



Well, the truth is always a point of contention. nyahnyah.gif

Let me get this straight, Tom Cruise's character decides to help the last of Japan's old priviledged feudal class resist the encroachment/reforms of Japan's new priviledged capitalist class because the former was in some way better than the latter? I'm sure the samurai would have allowed moderniztion to go forward had the perceived benefits been accorded to them rather than the upstarts leading the Meiji Restoration (whom incidentally were themselves Samurai, just not from any of the real major clans). They actually set the bulk of the movie about a year after a major/real samurai uprising in Satsuma BTW.

[ Spoiler ]


It did explain Bushido and the idealized motivations of the samurai quite well though and it was a great production in terms of cinematography.
Jason Farlander
QUOTE (toturi)
Isn't the plural of samurai samurii?

And the plural of ninja ninji?

Nope. There are no plural forms of words in Japanese. Some words, like "scissors" or "pants" are innately plural... determining whether other words are plural requires a context (the rest of the sentence).
Fortune
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
Nope. There are no plural forms of words in Japanese.

So in order to talk about the five Samurai warriors standing over by the bar, a Japanese person would have to say "See that samurai, and that samurai, and that samurai, and that samurai, and that samurai..." Instead of "See those five samurai..."?
Jason Farlander
No. There is no plural FORM of the word, that doesn't mean plurality doesnt exist as a concept.... I mean seriously. read the rest of what I wrote in my last post... it's not like I stuttered or anything.
Raptor1033
Fortune, that earns you another trip through the meat grinder, now where's that parrot?
Tanka
QUOTE (toturi @ Dec 14 2003, 08:28 PM)
Isn't the plural of samurai samurii?

And the plural of ninja ninji?

No, there are no double ending vowels in Japanese. You're getting confused with Latin, in which the plural of something ending in certain consonants (Of which Japanese can not) that follow an "i", the consonant is removed and an extra "i" is added to the ending.

The thought of plurality exists, it does not constitute a new rule to the Japanese, however. It does constitute a new word.

Most languages are different from English in that their languages are representations of ideas, not each word having it's own meaning.

Example #1: There is a word in Japanese that, literally translated, means "To kill oneself by throwing onself in front of an onrushing train." One word to represent that thought or idea.

Example #2: There is another word in Japanese that translates as "Unshaved due to laziness." Again; one word representing one thought or idea, not many words representing the same thought or idea as English does.
Fortune
QUOTE (Jason Farlander @ Dec 15 2003, 02:31 PM)
No.  There is no plural FORM of the word, that doesn't mean plurality doesnt exist as a concept.... I mean seriously. read the rest of what I wrote in my last post... it's not like I stuttered or anything.

Actually, I misread toturi's post in the first place, reading it as stating that the plural of Samurai was Samurai, not Samurii, so when you disagreed with him I found it strange. embarrassed.gif

Is this Be Rude To Everyone Day at Dumpshock or what?
Raptor1033
hell yeah it is! plus, it's fun seeing you ground into thin chunks then feed to tanki's parrot
Tanka
Tanka, thank you very much.
Fortune
QUOTE (Raptor1033)
hell yeah it is! plus, it's fun seeing you ground into thin chunks then feed to tanki's parrot

I wasn't referring to your comment. It's always fun to be eaten by some bird. wink.gif
Raptor1033
biggrin.gif i have no idea why, but this thread is ... weirdly funny to me.
Dende
BTW, anyone here know what a plural count noun is as opposed to a plural non-count noun?

Things like trees are count nouns.. you have 1 tree. And 14 trees.
Water however, you havea glass of water, or many glasses of water.

Mind you even non-count nouns can, in contexts have plurals in our language of english: IE the waters of the Chessepeak, or scientifically you have many different kinds of water in samples, thus you have waters.

Other languages have simliar things, the French also pluralize verbs(not merely in the same is/are, but also depending on male/female, repect, and other conditions)

The Japanese nouns merely do not have plural forms. A group of samurai consist of 5 individuals with the title of samurai. As would a group of Shogun...
Tanka
Technically speaking, Shogunate (Or is it Shogunite?) is the right word. That isn't the point, though. nyahnyah.gif
Kurukami
As I recall from my admittedly limited study of the Japanese language, it is often the class of object that modifies the number-word. For example, when referring to five flat objects (like letters or sheets of paper), the word for referring to the quantity is different than one refers to five of some other category of object. That threw me for a while, but then again, every language has its headaches... biggrin.gif
Glyph
QUOTE (tanka)
Tanka, thank you very much.

Isn't tanki the plural of tanka?
Kurukami
Nah, that would be if his name was "tankus". biggrin.gif
gknoy
QUOTE (tanka)
1 Samurai, 2 Samurai
1 Ninja, 2 Ninja

Speaking of which ...

[ Spoiler ]


smile.gif
Tanka
QUOTE (Kurukami)
Nah, that would be if his name was "tankus". biggrin.gif

And if it was a Latin-based word. grinbig.gif

For those who don't know: A "tanka" is a form of Japanese poetry. I, of course, did not know this when I originally came up with the nickname six years ago. I think I found out what it was four years ago.
gknoy
QUOTE (Sokei)
just to clear it up , the white guy isnt the last samurai , but the white guy helps the last samurai in his rebellion.


Or, conversely ... the "last samurai" can be viewed (in my opinion) as represented by all the samurai in the movie -- from the general in the initial battle, to Lord Katsumoto (who, if there must be ONE "last samurai", is the one IMO), to all of Katsumoto's men. As much as I enjoyed Cruise's performance, I think that Katsumoto and his men stole the show for me.

[ Spoiler ]


On a side note, I /really/ liked this movie. The swordplay in the mid-movie was very entertaining, but most importantly I really liked the way it did the character development. I may joke that it's "Shogun" meets "Dances with Wolves", but bearing in mind that I loved both of those movies that can actually be consided a compliment from me. smile.gif (Not to mention that such a short description of the movie doesn't do its merits justice.)
Seville
Am I the only one who wasn't really wild about this movie? The voice-overs sounded contrived, many of the characters were under-developed, and Tom Cruise just isn't strong enough as an actor to carry a movie with limited dialogue and subtle emotion (like Tom Hanks can). The theme was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator with "good guy" Samurai fighting against "bad guy" capitalists (because the Japan of modern day, our close allies in trade, are far more henious than the warriors of the past who we fought in World War II.) The movie looked great, with very good camera work and well-choreographed fight scenes, but I really can't believe that that there's still buzz about a best picture nomination.
CanvasBack
Cruise definitely confuses intense with just plain tense.
Dende
All below is personal opinion...I don't get why more people don't see Tom Hanks the way I do...but:

Seville, please please never use the name Tom Hanks when trying to prove a point about an actor. Just because he bought himself some oscars doesn't mean he is worth a shit. As far as famous over-sung actors go, he is their king. He has no skill whatsoever, he has no emotion and plays the name character in every movie he has ever been in(expect for Forest Gump, which of course he was type cast for the part) And there is no way a single actor could fix all the problems you mentioned...provided they are real indeed.

Tom Cruise is not the best actor ever, but he is certainly good. As I have yet to see the movie, I will not say one way or the other about nominations for anything.

In terms of its application to shawdowrun though, it is set about 200 years too early. Beyond that it is also supposed to be a "saga" style movie, meaning it is destined to be a classic if it is worth a damn in any way.
Tanka
I wonder if this is comparable to "Shogun," the TV miniseries from way back.
CanvasBack
QUOTE (tanka @ Dec 15 2003, 10:03 PM)
I wonder if this is comparable to "Shogun," the TV miniseries from way back.

No, it's not that bad.

The movie takes some liberties and has a definite political message but the cinematography was great and the fight scenes were well choreographed. The movie is getting a manufactured push for Oscars though, which is kinda repugnant in a way but I don't think they are eligiible for the next Oscars, since they came out so late in the year. Which is why the studio may be fronting some propaganda for next time early on...
Seville
I'm not saying that the movie is the next "Musketeer" (screw the seven bucks wasted on that movie, I want the two hours of my life back), just that it has, like Canvasback said, great cinematography and fight scenes and little else.

As far as the Tom Hanks-Tom Cruise debate, like Dende said personal opinion but I assert that Tom Hanks is in a different league from Tom Cruise. Hanks takes risks and plays widely different characters (his first Oscar was for Philadephia, his second was for Forrest Gump, and he has been nominated for Apollo 13, Castaway, and Big (I think, it might have been Punchline)). He has made movies ranging from The Road to Perdition to Joe vs the Volcano (not his best work, but I believe it shows a decent amount of range). To argue his characters are similar ignore the great level of detail and nuance he puts in. He is one of the few actors who always appears comfortable in almost whatever role he is in without the "Pacino Effect" where all character take on the same type of energy in every film he's in.

Now I like Tom Cruise. But if anyone can be accused of trying to buy an Oscar, its him (although all Oscars are bought with studio publicity and politics, unless you believe that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a real "foriegn film"). Tom Cruise has always had the reputation and box office appeal, along with good judgement, to work with good producers and directors. He does an excellent job of "being there" for lack of a better word: Cruise has all the reactions and energy required for every part. But every time Cruise has been in a movie that is to showcase his acting, it is overshadowed by another aspect. The cinematography in the Last Samurai, or his supporting cast in Jerry McGuire, or Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. No one can come away from Forrest Gump without taking about Tom Hanks, or Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, or Denzel Washington in Glory or Russell Crow in the Insider. Even actors who have not been recognized by the Academy still have the "It" factor to carry movies based only on their performance, like John Cusack, Johnny Deep or even someone like Hugh Jackman. Cruise made it big on his action star charisma, not his pure acting ability.

One final word: before he made the leap to dramatic leading man, Tom Hanks was the Jim Carrey of the eighties, right there with Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy in terms of big screen comedians. Now, the powers that be put him in an Oscar contender every year. If that's not range, I don't know what is.

Oh yeah. And there's no crying in baseball.
Tanka
*smacks forehead*

I forgot that you could have an "n" as the last letter in a Japanese word. Shogun, Ronin, etc.

Duh.

This is the fourth time I've needed a "smack forehead" emoticon today! Somebody make one already!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012