MovieChat Forums > Kawada_Kira > Replies
Kawada_Kira's Replies
It probably wasn't the first one I saw, but the first one I REMEMBER seeing was in Titanic. I wanted to see the movie for the cool-looking ship, but in the end what I remembered most vividly about it was Kate Winslet in that one scene. That scene made quite an impression on 8-year-old me.
I was on the other side of it; I never found porn in the woods, but I was one of the kids who left porn in the woods which was found by someone else. I didn't have enough privacy at home, so I stored my supply of certain types of magazines in the woods near my house. Then one day it disappeared.
Knowing more about Japanese history is one thing, writing a better story is another. Clavell had his shortcomings, but I think his version of the story was, on balance, far better than this one. And the pheasant scene definitely made more logical sense (even if it was arguably a bit of a stretch in any version) in the novel and 1980 series than in the 2024 series. There's no country where saying explicitly "if you touch this, you die", and then being all surprised when someone dies after touching it, makes any sense at all.
I don't agree that Japan is necessarily better fit to manage the Kurils than Russia. Japan was a latecomer to the islands just as much as Russia was, they originally belonged to the local indigenous inhabitants, who haven't done much better as part of Japan than as part of Russia. The Ainu culture is almost entirely destroyed. The Soviet Union captured the islands from the fascist Japanese Empire in World War II. The dismantling of Japan's empire was a good thing, and part of the consequence for the Japanese Empire's aggressive wars. The islands' closer proximity to Tokyo than to Moscow is irrelevant in my opinion. For the Soviet Union, and then Russia, the Kurils are something of a security concern. If the islands were to go to Japan, then there will be US military bases on them, and Russia's access to the Pacific would be seriously threatened. Japan already has plenty of access to the Pacific. And I think the US has far too many overseas military bases already. Japan lost World War II fair and square, and the USSR earned the Kurils by helping defeat Japanese fascism. I say let Russia have the Kurils. Japan has no more inherent right to them than Russia does, and I dislike the right-wing Japanese revanchists who continually try to undo everything about the postwar order.
Whoever I get along with best. I can support myself financially just fine, and beauty will fade over time. I would want to marry someone I can stand to be around and who can stand to be around me, someone I have good personal compatibility with. I don't much care what they look like or how much money they have or don't have.
I was just shaking my head in dismay. This 2024 adaptation mishandled the whole pheasant thing just like it mishandled everything else. This version actually has Blackthorne give the command "Sawattara, shinu". "If you touch it, you die". Then have him be all surprised and upset when the inevitable happens. It's so fucking stupid. In the novel and the 1980 series, Blackthorne just told everybody not to touch it. The reason he told them not to touch it was because all the Japanese people around him had an aversion to his meat-eating habits and he didn't want anyone throwing away his bird. But he didn't mean to get anyone killed. When the gardener threw the bird away, he got executed for it because he defied his lord's explicit command. When Blackthorne realized this, he was horrified. And he had a right to be horrified. The Blackthorne of 2024 has no right to be upset at all. He told them that to touch it is to die. And he's seen enough death in Japan to know that such an order would be taken seriously. Whoever decided to have 2024 Blackthorne say "sawattara, shinu", when originally all he was supposed to say was "leave it alone", is a moron. Sadly this whole adaptation has made Blackthorne a moron as well.
I don't think she was right for the part at all. Her acting really isn't that good. And she's too Westernized for the role. And I'm 99% sure she didn't bother to read the book before playing this role. But most of the problem isn't even her, it's the writing they gave her. The way they wrote her wasn't Mariko's personality at all. This depiction of Mariko was gonna suck no matter who they cast. But yeah they could have cast better in addition to giving her better material. And of course costuming, I don't know why they let her have the modern hairstyle instead of making her look period-accurate. It's not like she would even need to cut her hair or anything, she'd just have to spend a bit of time getting her hair prepped before each filming. Just laziness all around.
"One thing that bothered me about this new series is that it was constantly raining in Japan. Is that true? Does it really rain so much in Japan?"
Yes and no. I mean, Japan can be pretty rainy at certain times of the year, but even then, the sun does actually shine sometimes. The constant rain in this series feels to me, not like anything to do with Japan's actual climate, but with the fact that in these American productions anything with a historical setting has to be portrayed as gloomily as humanly possible. Always dark, always drab, always muted colors, always muddy and rainy, because "the past was bleak" and it has to look "gritty". It is so overdone and so tiresome. I hate those blue filters. In the 1980 Shogun miniseries (which, unlike this one, was actually filmed in Japan, though I concede that there are difficulties with that due to the sheer level of urban development in Japan today), Japan was depicted as a bright and vibrant place with rich colors. Some rain, some clouds, some sunshine. Not all rain all the time.
Of course, gotta milk even more money out of it. Ugh.
Yeah, Omi in this 2024 version had almost no presence at all. In the 1980 series he was a strong presence. A couple of characters were arguably improved in the 2024 series, Ishido for example, I think they gave him far more screentime than was warranted but I think his portrayal was very good. Fujiko was handled well for the most part, at least the actress did a great job. Yabu as well, I like Yabu in the 1980 version but Asano really brought him to life here. But the vast majority of characters suffered from this adaptation. I don't mean in the way incel types bitch about ("waaaah feminism"). But Blackthorne was made a clown. Mariko was made cold and bratty. The two of them had no chemistry whatsoever and their romance was dead in the water. Rodrigues, oh man... I miss my boy Rodrigues and his friendship with Blackthorne. Nobody was going to top John Rhys-Davies, that's just a fact, but they didn't even try; this show's Rodrigues was half-assed and then disappeared entirely. Alvito had none of his old strength, cunning and screen presence. And Toranaga... I mean, Sanada could have been a good Toranaga, but the way this one was written, it just didn't happen. This just wasn't Toranaga.
I just really don't like this adaptation. It had some positive aspects but it just wasn't Shogun and it wasn't that good.
People need to learn how to broaden their horizons and think outside of their own narrow experiences of life. I'm not religious but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a religious story. If it's a good story, then why not? I think this is a good story.
This whole thread is an utter shitshow. I know all these posts are from the old IMDb, so I can't interact with the posters, but damn.
Lol at the bit about the movie not being of interest to millennials. I'm a millennial and I found it very interesting. I'm not a religious person, but as someone with an interest in history and someone who can appreciate the story of the struggles of the characters in the movie, I liked it.
With some reservations of course. As one of the few halfway intelligent comments on this thread pointed out, the Jesuits had played a rather destructive role in Japan before they were kicked out. It's unfortunate that the movie (and the book it's based on, which I read some years ago) failed to address this. Inoue's arguments against the priest were silly and didn't talk about the real issues. I can appreciate the personal struggles of the priests, but considering their organization was essentially the vanguard of Catholic reaction and an ideological arm of colonialism, I can't sympathize with the cause they objectively serve. To be a bit hyperbolic just to illustrate my point, it's like watching Das Boot; the plight of the German sailors can be sympathized with, but the simple fact is that they were making Hitler's goals possible, so you can't hope they win.
I think comparing the bakufu's anti-Christian policy with Trump's racist anti-immigration laws is apples and oranges at best. US anti-immigration sentiment is targeted against poor and working-class people who are just seeking a better life in a country richer than their own (largely because that country plunders their countries economically). The bakufu's prohibition of Christianity was directed against a church that was a worldwide instrument of colonialism at the time. Japan was well aware of what Spain and Portugal had been doing in the Americas, Africa, the Philippines, India and elsewhere. They feared the church because with the church came the conquistadors. Japan was trying to avoid being conquered and turned into an exploited colony of European powers. While Japan was itself quite racist and xenophobic, this doesn't change the fact that the core of the anti-Christian policy was very different from the Trumpites' America-first racism. The US is under no colonial threat; the Trump movement is just white people hating brown people. The racism is the core of the policy. Japan's racism was incidental; the core of its policy was fear of being subjected to worldwide colonial empires.
Personally, I think the bakufu was probably correct to ban Christianity, because Japan was in very real danger of being colonized, and the expulsion of the church enabled Japan to have another two centuries of independence. This is not to say that I think the treatment of Christians was good, or that Japan's own racism and empire-building down the road was any better than that of Europe. I simply believe the expulsion of Christians was the lesser of two evils in a time where there were only evils to choose from.
As a side note, I think the arguments by the anti-Christians in the movie about Japan being a swamp where Christianity couldn't take root is nonsense. The fact is, if that were the case, there would be no need to stamp Christianity out with such violence.
R.I.P. I'll always be grateful to him for giving me such a good childhood. Dragon Ball Z was my life when I was a kid.
Life has been rough. Complicated. I'm hanging in there though. Good to see you hownos.
Hi! I wouldn't say I ever actually left, as such. Never made a conscious decision to leave or anything. Just, life has been difficult and I haven't been online much. But yeah I'm here. Might be some long gaps between me posting but I don't intend to leave permanently.
I'm watching Youtube videos right now without any problem. Youtube has been trying to stop ublock, so I guess there have been periods of time where it hasn't worked before ublock gets updated to counter it, but it's working for me right now.
It's possible it might stop working entirely, but hopefully not. At this point I'm going to refuse to pay Youtube just out of spite. I really dislike how corporate the internet has been becoming over time, and I feel like a line needs to be drawn in the sand. So hopefully Youtube's efforts to crush ad-blockers will fail.
I'd consider it. I don't care for nonsense like "social conservatism". I just have an interest in history and would like to see the world as it was centuries and millennia ago. How people lived. Ancient China, medieval Europe, the Roman Empire and so on. If I managed to fit in well enough and enjoy it, I'd probably stay. Though I might take brief trips back to the future (heh) to enjoy the benefits of things like modern dentistry.
Musk is an incompetent moron who's not only destroyed Twitter but also in the process managed to destroy his own ridiculous media-driven personality cult that made him out to be some kind of genius. All he is is an egomaniacal parasite who takes credit for the things actual intelligent people who work for him have done.
I don't have a partner, but if I did, this would be an easy choice; quit my job. It's easier to find another job than to find a person you connect well with. And even if you find crappy jobs before you get a good one, that's a lot less painful than going through the heartbreak of failed relationships. If I find someone that I can be happy with and can be happy with me, that's better than any job will ever be.