# 47 Ronin: Good, Bad, or Ugly?



## TarionzCousin (Dec 24, 2013)

I will most likely be seeing the movie "47 Ronin" soon. So is it going to be fun, interesting, boring, or horrible?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 24, 2013)

I'm not sure about the quality of the FXs, which should be the minimum in this sort of flick. 

Acting? Keanu. Nough said.

Dialogues? Trailers do not suggest anything more than clichés.

Plot? Didn't see any in the trailers and ads. Not a good sign.

Action? Depends on your standards, I'm not sure there is a wow factor. Just a bunch of jump cuts and shacky cam.

Costumes? Looks good.


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2013)

Couldn't pretty much all that have been said about "The Matrix", though?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 24, 2013)

Not the FX part. They were pretty cool in the trailers.


----------



## Janx (Dec 24, 2013)

delericho said:


> Couldn't pretty much all that have been said about "The Matrix", though?




Which is why I skipped the rest of the Matrix series.

Keanu sucks at acting.  I see no point in encouraging him by paying to see his films.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 24, 2013)

Janx said:


> Keanu sucks at acting.



He seems to do okay at stoic/numb/emotionless--which is why this movie might work.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 24, 2013)

TarionzCousin said:


> I will most likely be seeing the movie "47 Ronin" soon. So is it going to be fun, interesting, boring, or horrible?



Like any other movie, your enjoyment will be influenced by your expectations. It looks entertaining. A couple of hours spent watching stuff being killed could be fun.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 24, 2013)

There is strong evidence of a plot in the trailer, just not a complex one. It seems the basic story of invading army that is resisted by a small band of heroes not unlike 300. I expect it to be about as good as 300 as well which is to say entertaining to watch once but forgettable after that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2013)

The movie also suffers from being based on a traditional Japanese tale - with a role added in for a star who isn't Japanese.

I would not have minded a fantasized version of the tale, but the addition smacks a bit of racism, on top of the film's other weaknesses.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 25, 2013)

A guy on reddit claimed to have worked on the movie, and says that originally Keanu Reeves wasn't the main hero, just a POV character. But the studio balked and recut the movie, adding extra scenes to make it more, you know, sh***y.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 26, 2013)

The person in charge of our movie outing today balked at making other people watch after she saw the low percentage on Rotten Tomatoes.



RangerWickett said:


> A guy on reddit claimed to have worked on the movie, and says that originally Keanu Reeves wasn't the main hero, just a POV character. But the studio balked and recut the movie, adding extra scenes to make it more, you know, sh***y.



Thank you, Hollywood!

When will the movie studios realize that making a good movie will get more people to watch it than making a crappy movie with a big star?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 26, 2013)

Well that was waste of my time.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2013)

TarionzCousin said:


> When will the movie studios realize that making a good movie will get more people to watch it than making a crappy movie with a big star?




When making a good movie actually gets more people to watch than making a crappy one with a big star?

Or, perhaps less cynically, when we can actually agree on what qualifies as a good movie?  That's the problem with entertainment - the subjectivity gets in the way.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 26, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Well that was waste of my time.



How so?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 26, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How so?



It has nothing going for it. 

Where to beging? The action scenes are subpar, nothing exciting with them. Badly thought out and choreographed. I was half a sleep during the final battle. The FX were ok in some scenes (the tengus), but looked fake in others (the fox, eating sushi with chop stick hair). 

The story is thorn between Keanu's character who is just a supporting character and the leader of the ronin. Who do we follow and identify with? Keanu story just breaks any momentum the story of the ronins trying to avenge their master could build up. 

The acting is campy and full of lines we saw coming a mile away. Like the witch, in a quasi lesbian sedution scene, informing the princess that Japan is the next step in her master's plan... It doesn't help that the Japanese actors often sound like they are reciting their lines, probably because they do not know English.

Some elements are not clear. Like what are the beliefs that got the tengus exiled? Keanu knows the true nature of the witch, but we are not informed of that. Where was the Shogun before he popped up at the end?

The whole thing felt cheap and directionless. You will not believe it cost 225$ million dollars to make.


----------



## Scorpio616 (Dec 26, 2013)

goldomark said:


> The whole thing felt cheap and directionless. You will not believe it cost 225$ million dollars to make.



Because it didn't. The numbers in Hollywood accounting are bogus, money goes round-robin through companies all owned by parent companies with bulked up bills to inflate supposed costs.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 26, 2013)

It's all a conspiracy.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 26, 2013)

The sad thing is that the actual Japanese folk tale of the 47 Ronin is a pretty cool story. It makes sense that someone would try to make a movie out of it. But then apparently someone else decided that it needed lots of special FX and kung-fu (which is NOT what the story is about at all). And then someone else decided that it also needed to star a white guy. Remember, you can only make a movie about another culture if an outcast white guy is actually the hero!

I actually enjoy a good, cheesy kung-fu flick but this film is just a travesty.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 26, 2013)

*Learning all the wrong lessons*



Umbran said:


> When making a good movie actually gets more people to watch than making a crappy one with a big star?




They do, actually. But it's amazing how seldom Hollywood is willing to step outside it's usual formulas.

For instance, good action films with strong female leads tend to do very well (see: Hunger Games). Yet Hollywood still balks at letting a female superhero have her own film. You might point to failures like Elektra and Catwoman as the reason why not, but those films were crap. They would have been bad no matter who was starring in them. 

Besides, when a superhero movie with a male lead flops, Hollywood just shrugs, gets back on their horse and tries again.

There IS a formula. Mainstream movies seldom venture outside it. But somehow they are surprised on the rare occasion when they actually do and they make a crap-load of money.

I'm sure if 47 Ronin flops at the box office it will be held up as evidence that movies based on Japanese folk tales don't sell. When in reality it's only evidence that BAD movies based on Japanese folk tales don't sell.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> They do, actually.




Not reliably.  There are any number of supposedly "good" movies that bomb at the box office.  And people will go to see crap in droves in many instances.



> But it's amazing how seldom Hollywood is willing to step outside it's usual formulas.




The problem is that there is no formula for "good movie".  There is a formula for "movie that generally sells a lot of tickets".  If you *aren't* working by formula, then you don't know if the result will be crap or not before you make it. 

Let us compare two movies, in roughly the same genre.  According to Box Office Mojo, they were in theaters for about the same amount of time (18-19 weeks), within about a year of each other, so there's not a lot of inflation or economic change between them

Movie A ran at 78% on the Tomatometer.  So, generally, we can say it was an okay film.  It cost $200 million to make, and grossed $1,200 million at the box office.  That means $1 billion in profit, and a 5x return on investment!

Movie B ran at 85% on the Tomatometer.  So, we could say that it is at least as good, if not better, than Movie A.  It ran in about half the theaters, though, so we should expect half the gross.  But, instead, it only made $126 million at the box office - half the theaters, but only 10% of the gross!  

So, clearly, how good the movie is by no means determines ticket sales!

In reality, the saving grace of Movie B was it's low production costs:  Movie B only took $12 Million to make, and so made nearly a 10x return on investment!  You'd think that the rational choice is for the studio to make a whole lot of things like Movie B, and skip on Movie A.  But Movie A was pretty clearly a sure thing to do well, while Movie B was not nearly so close to formula.  If you made Movie B2, and it flopped, maybe the combination would only be a 5x.  If they kept at it, and made a B3, and it flopped, the return ratio for the trio might be even lower.  It is not irrational to take a 5x sure thing over a several 10x risks.  

For the curious:  Movie A is Iron Man 3.  Movie B is Chronicle.


----------



## gamerprinter (Dec 26, 2013)

Additionally, I don't see the value in including tengu and other Japanese folklore beings, since the tale of the 47 Ronin is a true story. There is no need to add fantastical elements. Despite being a fan of Japanese folklore, adding that to a true story has _fail_ written all over it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> There is no need to add fantastical elements.




What's needed depends upon the goal, now doesn't it?

How many non-fantastic, non-genre dramas make a billion dollars at the box office?  How many *true* stories really sell?


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Not reliably.  There are any number of supposedly "good" movies that bomb at the box office.  And people will go to see crap in droves in many instances.




You're talking in generalities here. Which 'good' movies that bombed are you talking about? As far as your second point, bad movies do occasionally make good at the box office (Transformers series, anyone?), but I'd say these are the exception, not the rule. In the past couple years alone we've seen films like 'Lone Ranger' and 'Battleship' get treated by audiences as the garbage they are. By your logic 'Battleship' should have been a runaway blockbuster.




> The problem is that there is no formula for "good movie".




This is true.



> There is a formula for "movie that generally sells a lot of tickets".




People THINK this is true, but it's not.



> Let us compare two movies, in roughly the same genre.  According to Box Office Mojo, they were in theaters for about the same amount of time (18-19 weeks), within about a year of each other, so there's not a lot of inflation or economic change between them
> 
> Movie A ran at 78% on the Tomatometer.  So, generally, we can say it was an okay film.  It cost $200 million to make, and grossed $1,200 million at the box office.  That means $1 billion in profit, and a 5x return on investment!
> 
> ...




What if Iron Man 3 had flopped? The studio would have been out $200 million on their 'sure thing'. Which is exactly what is about to happen to 47 Ronin.

In fact, making lots of cheaper movies makes a bunch more sense than counting on a handful of $200 million tent-poles to deliver. If Small Movie B flops it's not as big of a hit financially. But occasionally a small movie can break out and make many times its production costs. And even better, because a small movie isn't a make-it-or-break-it proposition, the filmmakers can try new things and not stick to a CGI-infused formula.

I view the current Hollywood 'mega-hit' model as not logical and not sustainable. It isn't something audiences asked for. Instead, the studio system has somehow gotten stuck on this financial treadmill where they respond to diminishing returns at the box office by pumping more and more money into films in hopes of creating blockbusters. 

A system where every film needs to make half a billion dollars to turn a profit is broken. Worse, it churns out crap like '47 Ronin'.

Excellent review of the film here. Key quote: _Possibly the second-worst thing to happen to Japan so far this century._


----------



## gamerprinter (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What's needed depends upon the goal, now doesn't it?
> 
> How many non-fantastic, non-genre dramas make a billion dollars at the box office?  How many *true* stories really sell?




So why no tengu in The Last Samurai or Shogun - the original television series. Both had an American or Englishman in the story, but neither had tengu. Of course neither made a billion dollars (nor most other movies in existence.) Fantasy elements can certainly bring more to the box office, but you wouldn't include Godzilla in a movie about the Battle of Midway, would you? I am all about creativity, but retelling a true story that is not set in ancient times belies the need to turn it into a fantasy.

Will 47 Ronin, the movie, earn a billion dollars in revenue? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> So why no tengu in The Last Samurai or Shogun - the original television series.   Both had an American or Englishman in the story, but neither had tengu.




On Shogun:  1) It was a TV series, not a movie, so it is a different medium, and apples and oranges come into play.  2) It was in 1980, and 30 years makes a difference in what audiences want.

On Last Samurai:  In domestic ticket sales, it didn't make back it's production costs, so it probably counts as a bomb for our discussion. 



> but you wouldn't include Godzilla in a movie about the Battle of Midway, would you?




*shrug*.  "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".  

Or, how about we go to Harry Turtledove - much of his work is based on real-world history, all much more recent than 47 Ronin, and it generally has some fantastic elements added - aliens in WWII, magical analog to the Revolutionary War, time travellers bringing automatic weapons to the Civil War, or what have you. 

If the point was to present history, of course you don't want to introduce such elements.  But not all re-tellings of tales with historical basis have elucidation of history as their main goal!

Oh, and by the way, 47 Ronin was made into an opera.  I'm guessing the original Ronin didn't do much singing....



> I am all about creativity, but retelling a true story that is not set in ancient times belies the need to turn it into a fantasy.




That the story has historical basis does not make it sacrosanct, either.  The 47 Ronin tale has slipped from history into legend, and I suspect that if we look around Japan, we'd probably find versions of the tale that include supernatural elements.  Do you wish to claim otherwise?



> Will 47 Ronin, the movie, earn a billion dollars in revenue? I seriously doubt it.




Irrelevant.  The question is, did the makers want and design it to try to make a billion dollars?  This is separate from the question of whether or not they succeeded.


----------



## gamerprinter (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> That the story has historical basis does not make it sacrosanct, either.  The 47 Ronin tale has slipped from history into legend, and I suspect that if we look around Japan, we'd probably find versions of the tale that include supernatural elements.  Do you wish to claim otherwise?




Essentially the tale as told by Lafcadio Hearn (Kiozumi Yagumo) in the 1890's is a direct translation of the only written version of the 47 ronin from the early 1700's. While the tale may have been told in different oratory versions, there is only a single written version. There is a Kabuki play version, however, that is recognized as a kabuki play and not the original historical written version (and also does not contain any fantastical elements), which there is only one known to exist. So, yes, I do claim otherwise. Adding tengu and other folklore inclusions in the story is an invention of the movie producers, and not in any previously written version of the story.

Regarding the point of Shogun as a TV series (I did clarify that it was a television show and not a movie in my original post). Really what does a different medium have to do with anything? There are plenty of television only fantasy sagas. Nothing about doing a story through television versus the movie industry prevents the inclusion of fantasy elements in a historical event. I don't see the media difference having any altering factor that would prevent the creation of an historical fantasy.

In the end, I don't believe adding fantastical elements to any movie automatically increases it's revenues. While it's certainly true more movies have been created recently that adds fantasy to historical periods (mostly comic book influenced stories), I don't see including such is a guarantee of profit. There are plenty of fantasy based movies (John Carter, anyone) that are financial failures.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 26, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> So why no tengu in The Last Samurai or Shogun - the original television series. Both had an American or Englishman in the story, but neither had tengu. Of course neither made a billion dollars (nor most other movies in existence.) Fantasy elements can certainly bring more to the box office, but you wouldn't include *Godzilla in a movie about the Battle of Midway*, would you?



I… I would watch that. That actually sounds like it could be epically awesome.


> Will 47 Ronin, the movie, earn a billion dollars in revenue? I seriously doubt it.



It's funny, but a lot of these movies which "flop" in theaters do pretty good with DVDs and cable PPV.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 26, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> . So, yes, I do claim otherwise. Adding tengu and other folklore inclusions in the story is an invention of the movie producers, and not in any previously written version of the story.




The Japanese have a word for retellings of the 47 Ronin story:  Chūshingura.

You know the Power Rangers?  The action sequences for Power Rangers are taken from the Japanese "Super Sentai" franchise.

Juken Sentai Gekiranger is the 31st entry of that franchise.  It includes an episode that features its own spin on the Chūshingura, with the main heroes being sent back in time and Kira having been possessed by a Rin Jyu Ken user, whom they defeat before the Akō incident starts, and thus not interfering with it.

If the Power Rangers can get into the story, it is not nearly so sacrosanct in that culture as you make it out to be.



> Regarding the point of Shogun as a TV series (I did clarify that it was a television show and not a movie in my original post). Really what does a different medium have to do with anything?




What does the medium have to do with anything??

Well, let me take the example I already gave - the story of the 47 Ronin has been made into an opera.  To do so successfully, they had to add music and lyrics, did they not?  The historical Ronin didn't actually sing quite so much did they? And neither did the puppets in the original play, nor the kabuki actors in those versions, correct?  So, in general, we accept that some adjustments must be made to fit a new medium.

Each medium comes with its own set of tropes, restrictions, additional features, and audience expectations.  Making a successful (and by that I mean widely viewed and critically acclaimed) presentation in any particular medium calls for manipulating the story into the medium.  



> In the end, I don't believe adding fantastical elements to any movie automatically increases it's revenues.




Who said automatically?  I didn't.  Fantastic elements are not sufficient to reach the goal, but in some sense it may be required for the modern American movie audience.

Take a look at the top grossing movies of 2013:  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013 

In the Top 10 are *no* straight up drama films.  None.  The closest to it is "Fast And Furious 6", which has fantastic levels of action.

We don't see a historical drama until we get down to #24, with "Lee Daniels' The Butler", with a gross of $116 million.  I don't think we see a single other historical drama in the top 50.  If historical dramas sold well to the US film market, the one entry would have done better, would it not?  Would we not have seen more such entries?  The Butler has relevance to US history, and speaks to a large chunk of the US audience in a way that the 47 Ronin don't.  The 47 Ronin aren't part of US history or culture.  The vast bulk of the audience just doesn't care about them a whit.  If you presented them, as-is, the US audience just wouldn't care.  Historical dramas are a very hard sell to begin with - an irrelevant one is basically asking to fail.

It is easy to claim that something is unnecessary when you don't have to make a profit at doing it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> n
> That the story has historical basis does not make it sacrosanct, either.
> 
> 
> .




This. Just this. 

I majored in history in college. I adore history. I continue to read to primarily read history books over other forms. However movies generally make for lousy history. And nothing is more dull in my opinion than a movie that adheres to history for its own sake at the expense of an entertaining story. There is both room for dignified historical epics that cleave to the facts and films that inject supernatural elements into them. Some of the best historical movies i have seen have come out of Hong Kong and mainland China, and many of them deviate wildly from the real history and liberally fill them with supernatural elements. Not as familiar with Japanese cinema, but this movies seems to be drawinyda lot on the wuxia genra anyways. What i have seen of the clips, frankly the only thing holding my interest is the supernatural components.

the bigger problem with this film for me is it seems to be taking the path of the last samurai, where they are affraid without an american actor in the lead role, viewers wont be interested. Keannu Reeves feels less out of place than Tom Cruise, but still.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 26, 2013)

So, looking back there appears to have been TWO plays based on the 47..the above mention kabuki and then the most successful  bunraku puppet play. Then there was the opera along with one film in 194 ( released one week before Pearl Harbor)  followed by another film in  1962. 

As for TV well...to quote wiki "Many Japanese television shows, including single programs, short series, single seasons, and even year-long series such as Daichūshingura and the more recent NHK Taiga drama Genroku Ryōran, recount the events of the Forty-seven Ronin. Among both films and television programs, some are quite faithful to the Chūshingura, while others incorporate unrelated material or alter details."


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 26, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> This. Just this.
> 
> I majored in history in college. I adore history. I continue to read to primarily read history books over other forms. However movies generally make for lousy history. And nothing is more dull in my opinion than a movie that adheres to history for its own sake at the expense of an entertaining story. There is both room for dignified historical epics that cleave to the facts and films that inject supernatural elements into them. Some of the best historical movies i have seen have come out of Hong Kong and mainland China, and many of them deviate wildly from the real history and liberally fill them with supernatural elements. Not as familiar with Japanese cinema, but this movies seems to be drawinyda lot on the wuxia genra anyways. What i have seen of the clips, frankly the only thing holding my interest is the supernatural components.
> 
> the bigger problem with this film for me is it seems to be taking the path of the last samurai, where they are affraid without an american actor in the lead role, viewers wont be interested. Keannu Reeves feels less out of place than Tom Cruise, but still.




There's also the occasionally perfectly done historical movie like We Were Soldiers or Flags of Our Fathers or Letters From Iwo.  Had they sensationalised that stuff it would have sucked.  Hard.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The Japanese have a word for retellings of the 47 Ronin story:  Chūshingura.
> 
> You know the Power Rangers?  The action sequences for Power Rangers are taken from the Japanese "Super Sentai" franchise.
> 
> ...



Yeah, there's no doubt that there have been re-tellings of 47 Ronin which include supernatural elements.

But this particular movie is a bit different. First, it is introducing the story to the Western world, where people are not familiar with the original story. The story of the 47 ronin is really a story illustrating the uniquely Japanese bushido code. It's not a story about witches and CGI dragons. So I think that having those things in this particular re-telling is going to be confusing for Western audiences.

Second, as non-Japanese people retelling a very traditional Japanese legend, it behooves us to be perhaps a little more respectful of the story than perhaps the Japanese themselves would feel the need to be. If nothing else it says "Hey, Japanese people, we respect your cultural heritage! Thanks for allowing us to make a movie out of it!" Or it would say that if we did...

As I said before, I enjoy a high-flying wire-fu flick as much as the next person. If this were an original story and it happened to involve Keanu Reeves I would happily pay money for a ticket and munch my popcorn for a half hour! But the fact that it's not just another popcorn flick, it's supposed to be the story of the 47 ronin annoys me. Because they've managed to disrespect the story and whitewash the cast all at the same time. Bleh.

I'm curious if anyone could recommend a good Japanese Chūshingura. I don't mind subtitles and enjoy discovering interesting foreign films.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 26, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> There's also the occasionally perfectly done historical movie like We Were Soldiers or Flags of Our Fathers or Letters From Iwo.  Had they sensationalised that stuff it would have sucked.  Hard.




Sure. Like i said, there is room for both. And these are more recent periods you are dealing with which usually calls for greater sensitivity because living people experienced them. 47 Ronin however is clearly not atriving for anything like Flags of our Fathers.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 26, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure. Like i said, there is room for both. And these are more recent periods you are dealing with which usually calls for greater sensitivity because living people experienced them. 47 Ronin however is clearly not atriving for anything like Flags of our Fathers.




True enough.  Time does make a difference.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 26, 2013)

If the movie had been well-done... entertaining... had some redeeming value (and even the CGI was intrusive at many points) then sins of disrespect of the original story would have been largely overlooked.  Not ENTIRELY overlooked, but success has many fathers and failure is an orphan.  The movie is NOT particularly well done.  The plot is disjointed.  The story is meandering, badly paced and confused.  The characters are two-dimensional, unlikeable, and formulaic.  The battles are uninteresting and badly choreographed.  EVERYBODY in the movie sounds as if English is a second language (which, oddly enough, is a downside for an English-language film) but even without that the acting is universally subpar.

The only real crime here is that they took an interesting story with great potential and made a SURPRISINGLY bad movie of it.  All else is irrelevant by comparison.

On the_ merely adequate _side the costumes were okay I suppose; production design was competently done; and the score was not intrusive.  On a 5-star scale I give it a 2.


----------



## gamerprinter (Dec 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Stuff...




When I jumped in this conversation, I was discussing the origin of the story, which the kabuki play and bunraku play (which I didn't mention) counts as part of the origin of the tale and its first retellings. I was not referring to any of it's film derivatives throughout the 20th century and beyond (which there are many) - just the origins. If the movie in question is based on one of those derivatives, then my point is misplaced. I was comparing the movie with the original works only. So now I will just drift out of the conversation, as it's going into territory I have little interest in.


----------

