NEW: List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

[purbeast0]

Shogun on FX 10 of 10

I know precious little about Japan's history. But the general parameters seem plausible --- Portuguese, Spanish traders. Xtian proselytization of the locals, etc.

The sets, acting, faithful representation of the culture --- it's all wonderful. There's even a brief reference to Pureland Buddhism. Mahayana Buddism was my primary area of study in college so that was a treat.

The plot is a bit intricate so you need to pay close attention.

I'm liking it through the first 3 episodes as well. I find it a bit confusing though to keep track of everything and everyone, partially due to it being subtitled, and also because I find a lot of the characters look similar (not trying to be racist or anything lol) when they are in their gear and they all dress the same, and their names are all not "normal" names in the sense of John, Mike, etc. They are Japanese names I have never heard before so it's just hard to keep track. I had similar problems with the names of characters in Game of Thrones.

I also found the whole "English is Portuguese" thing going on a bit strange, but I get why they did it so the entire show wasn't subtitled. Initially I was like wtf is going on, they keep saying they are speaking Portuguese but they are talking in English lol. But the after they reminded me that for like the 3rd time I was like "OOOooooh okay now I get it - they are doing the whole Avatar thing". That is really my only complaint about the show thus far.

 

[DigDog]

I also found the whole "English is Portuguese" thing going on a bit strange, but I get why they did it so the entire show wasn't subtitled.

yep, i'm with you on this one.

FYI Toranaga is actually Tokugawa Ieyasu (the first unifier of Japan); i dont understand why - when they are going for a historically-realistic show - they haven't just reverted back to the actual names. John Blackthorne is William Adams, which is a factual, historical character. When the book Shogun was written, people had no idea wtf even sushi was, but today maybe they could have updated it to match actual historical events. Or, you know, a mixture of the two, if it otherwise gets boring.

still, great show.

 

[purbeast0]

yep, i'm with you on this one.

FYI Toranaga is actually Tokugawa Ieyasu (the first unifier of Japan); i dont understand why - when they are going for a historically-realistic show - they haven't just reverted back to the actual names. John Blackthorne is William Adams, which is a factual, historical character. When the book Shogun was written, people had no idea wtf even sushi was, but today maybe they could have updated it to match actual historical events. Or, you know, a mixture of the two, if it otherwise gets boring.

still, great show.

I didn't even know it was supposed to be based on real history.

 

[DigDog]

I didn't even know it was supposed to be based on real history.

well, both the story of Adams, and of Tokugawa, are very very interesting. The book is kinda of a mishmash, it's not *completely* accurate, but it draws from things that actually happened on both sides (the truth is that the writer wasn't a scholar, he was just a weeb, in a good way). And obviously it's written to sell as entertainment, rather than trying to be a "documentary".
Hell, even The Last Samurai has a smidgen of truth in the story.

 

[Charmonium]

find a lot of the characters look similar (not trying to be racist or anything lol) when they are in their gear and they all dress the same, and their names are all not "normal" names . . .

It's possible that you might have a mild case of prosopagnosia. Mine is closer to being "pathological."

 

[igor_kavinski]

even The Last Samurai has a smidgen of truth in the story.

Why do the Japanese act like A-holes throughout history? And why are their women so submissive yet no one complains about it, not even the feminists and it is just accepted as part of their culture? I feel like every time I see something live action Japanese, I kinda get scarred. In fact, almost all oriental "entertainment" is full of emotional crap that will hit you hard. What is it with them?

 

[DigDog]

Why do the Japanese act like A-holes throughout history? And why are their women so submissive yet no one complains about it, not even the feminists and it is just accepted as part of their culture? I feel like every time I see something live action Japanese, I kinda get scarred. In fact, almost all oriental "entertainment" is full of emotional crap that will hit you hard. What is it with them?

i can't really answer that.

i mean, OBVIOUSLY i can. But i don't want to sound too much like a nerd.

Keep in mind that what image that we have of medieval Japan is
1. mostly propaganda and other distortions of the truth
2. almost exclusively relating to the upper class.

Take for example the submissiveness of the women. Women of any class worthy of being remembered by history, were not expected to work. They were expected to dance, sing, and maybe suck dick. They had all their needs catered for, and were constantly around people who were essentially above the law and extremely violent. Being submissive was just a normal way to cope with the situation, but the same wouldn't happen in a relationship between a husband and wife farmers - or at least, no more than it happened anywhere else. And then the "submissive" just means that you're a female living with a male who is stronger than you, and there's nobody around to help you if he wants to beat the shit out of you.

i remember a (joke) proverb. Not an actual historical proverb, but a joke passed as a real proverb to make fun of japanese culture.

A man beats his wife.
And as he beats her, he says:
"Wife, i do not know why i beat you. But YOU know".

(ha hahahahaha laugh please)

Until the unification of Japan by the aforementioned Tokugawa, Japan has practically NO LAW. Each province was owned by a Daimyo, a feudal lord, and those who served him were his "servants", AKA "Samurai". (which also means that Samurai isn't necessarily one who fights with a sword)
And these guys had about as much law as a mafia family did. A Samurai could kill anyone he well pleased and as long as the Daimyo didn't say anything, then no law was broken. Obviously in this situation of lawlessness death was always a split second away and being an asshole was just a survival technique.
Note that Romans were also massive pieces of shit, not unlike the Japanese. I mean, the *could* be nice, but then at the same time they could be horrible. And it was considered ok to prey on the weak and the fools because theirs was a society for the strong. The American Natives were fucking horrible as well, if a white man begged for its life they would *always* kill it because they found weakness disgusting.

 

[mikeymikec]

correct. *science*

Before you even get to "science" (despite you involving ignoring the basic counterpoints I've already made), your argument is internally inconsistent. Arguing both 1 & 2 as correct yet only exclusively correct scenarios makes absolutely no freaking sense. Furthermore your "why they can be white" argument conflicts with your "why they should be black" argument. I'm surprised you didn't notice this yourself. I can continue to rip your argument to shreds (this was going to be a longer response but I didn't want to continue boring other people on this thread to tears) if you like but if you really want to discuss it then I'd suggest PMs or for you to create a forum thread for it (is there a Dune thread already? I don't remember, if so, feel free to respond there and tag me).

Dune is full of this warrior machismo.... And Timothee Chalamet is, physically, someone who i could probably murder with my bare hands. Just leaving out the emo acting he's been given, he just does not look the part of someone who has the means to kick the ass of a fremen. He couldn't kick the ass of a granny, much less of adult Fremen.

And this guy does, according to you:

That's what he looks like in the finale of Dune '84. IMO he could be a boy grown older and nothing more; I don't think Kyle Maclachan brought any remarkably badass machismo to the role but I don't think Alec Newman did either particularly nor Timothée Chalamet so far (I've only see the first film), but from what I've seen none of them have done a bad job with what they were told to do.

Why do you think i like DLD, because .. "i like it"?

As you said, there's no accounting for (bad) taste. I wouldn't trash Dune '84 quite so much as sactoking just did, there are some nice bits about it, but so much of it is thoroughly forgettable. I'd file it in the same category as many other big-budget "Star Wars" wannabes from that era, stuff like Flash Gordon.

 

[AlexanderSalazar]

I recently watched "Golden Glove" movie, it's a really strange German movie, but I actually liked it to give it a rate it would be a 7/10. It's a Jeffrey Dahmer analogue film.

 

[MrSquished]

Before you even get to "science" (despite you involving ignoring the basic counterpoints I've already made), your argument is internally inconsistent. Arguing both 1 & 2 as correct yet only exclusively correct scenarios makes absolutely no freaking sense. Furthermore your "why they can be white" argument conflicts with your "why they should be black" argument. I'm surprised you didn't notice this yourself. I can continue to rip your argument to shreds (this was going to be a longer response but I didn't want to continue boring other people on this thread to tears) if you like but if you really want to discuss it then I'd suggest PMs or for you to create a forum thread for it (is there a Dune thread already? I don't remember, if so, feel free to respond there and tag me).




And this guy does, according to you:

That's what he looks like in the finale of Dune '84. IMO he could be a boy grown older and nothing more; I don't think Kyle Maclachan brought any remarkably badass machismo to the role but I don't think Alec Newman did either particularly nor Timothée Chalamet so far (I've only see the first film), but from what I've seen none of them have done a bad job with what they were told to do.



As you said, there's no accounting for (bad) taste. I wouldn't trash Dune '84 quite so much as sactoking just did, there are some nice bits about it, but so much of it is thoroughly forgettable. I'd file it in the same category as many other big-budget "Star Wars" wannabes from that era, stuff like Flash Gordon.

Paul, in the book, is not some machismo character either. He's a very thoughtful and introspective young man, who happens to be trained by some of the best fighters in the universe, and, happens to have a Bene Gesserit mother who trains him in other more mystical things which make him even more powerful. His power is not in machismo.

I think we are at a point where it's all about hating the new Dune for some people. Even the harsher critics of the first appreciated the visuals. The second was not only even more visually stunning, it was better plot-wise. The first one felt a bit too disjointed with all the cutting of crucial character and plot development scenes, but it was still fun to look at.

 

[DigDog]

"why they should be black"

stuff like Flash Gordon.

ok first of all, Flash Gordon is fucking awesome.

To summarize what i wrote before, you can have a world where the Fremen are white, you can have a world where the Fremen are black. Them being white is more in line with .. well pretty much everything, from the Dune lore to actual.fucking.reality but hey, let's pretend the fremen have no stillsuits and they need to use their skin to shield themselves from the sun. Then ALL the fremen would be thus.
Or maybe they have some third-world fremen on arrakis that never got the technology and therefore are black. Like, african.

Don't try to paint me as some kind of redneck, immigrant hating, white power guy. It don't work. I'm just as happy to have sex with a woman of color as i am with a white one.
Hey, you know what happens if you move to Jamaica and you spend the day without a shirt on? You become black.
And when some guy doesn't die of cancer because his skin produces more melanin that the next guy, that gene goes into the gene pool. Keep doing that for a thousand years and your white, Aryan superman becomes black as black is black.
It also works in reverse.

Paul, in the book, is not some machismo character either. He's a very thoughtful and introspective young man, who happens to be trained by some of the best fighters in the universe, and, happens to have a Bene Gesserit mother who trains him in other more mystical things which make him even more powerful. His power is not in machismo.

I think we are at a point where it's all about hating the new Dune for some people. Even the harsher critics of the first appreciated the visuals. The second was not only even more visually stunning, it was better plot-wise. The first one felt a bit too disjointed with all the cutting of crucial character and plot development scenes, but it was still fun to look at.

Paul is not. But many other things are, and i'm thinking in primis the Fremen combat lore (because it clearly states "these guys are such amazing fighters that one of their kids is equal in power to a sardaukar", something that everyone else in the Dune world - let's say, The Emperor - does not know and/or think possible) and the fact that Shaddam IV is emperor mostly because his house owns Salusa Secundus, the "prison planet" (again here in the book Herbert didn't think things through) that generates these vicious murderers that make up his Sardaukar terror troops. Like, the book says "THIS IS WHY HE IS EMPEROR - BECAUSE HE KICK ASS".

As per the visuals, i mean, to each their own (i think *I* should also be included in that group) but to me this:

is shit.
This is not what we worked for 50 years for. This is lazy, stupid, and bad. Feel free to think otherwise.

 

[mikeymikec]

ok first of all, Flash Gordon is fucking awesome.

ok.

Don't try to paint me as some kind of redneck, immigrant hating, white power guy. It don't work. I'm just as happy to have sex with a woman of color as i am with a white one.

At this point, your still unexplained SJW comment is just a part of the rich tapestry that is your opinion which makes very little sense. But I do feel it should be pointed out that "I'd have sex with them" is not quite the egalitarian sound bite you were (probably) trying to aim for.

 

[IronWing]

As per the visuals, i mean, to each their own (i think *I* should also be included in that group) but to me this:

is shit.
This is not what we worked for 50 years for. This is lazy, stupid, and bad. Feel free to think otherwise.

Oh dear, that does suck.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Is the rule of thumb that every thread on Anandtech has to go to shit eventually when "woke" or SJW or POC or something inevitably gets brought up?

 

[Thump553]

The Good Thief (2002) Nick Nolte, Ralph Fiennes (uncredited), Nutza Kukhianidze) - 8/10

A remake of Bob La Flambeur, a 1955 French noir movie which is apparently very respected (I haven't seen it). This is a heist movie set in the south of France and Monaco, Nolte is a heroin addict, gambler and former thief who hits rock bottom and goes for one more big score. The movie really amps up when the planning starts-at one point three different jobs were being planned simultaneously. Nutza Kukhianidze (despite her horrible haircut) is stunning and her rather minor part ends up being a major focus of the movie. Except for Nolte and Fiennes everyone else in the movie is pretty much unknown but all are compelling roles. Nolte was probably the best I've ever seen him.

Definitely worth watching if you can find it-I don't think it is streaming anywhere right now but I found the DVD at my local library.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Was thinking of going to check Cabrini about a nun setting who set up orphanages for Italian kids in NYC in the late 1800s since it gets good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Watched the preview and looked kind of interesting until I saw an endorsement from Glenn Beck in it. WTF so it's one of those kind of movies chasing the right wing horse pills crowd? There's no way they're chasing any other viewer with Glenn Beck quotes in the preview.

 

[DigDog]

Was thinking of going to check Cabrini about a nun setting who set up orphanages for Italian kids in NYC in the late 1800s since it gets good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Watched the preview and looked kind of interesting until I saw an endorsement from Glenn Beck in it. WTF so it's one of those kind of movies chasing the right wing horse pills crowd? There's no way they're chasing any other viewer with Glenn Beck quotes in the preview.

explain?
glen beck bad man?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

explain?
glen beck bad man?

Beck is a right wing radio nutjob who used to have a show on Fox News too

 

[snoopy7548]

I watched both Dunes (1 and 1) for the first time a couple of weeks ago.

IMO, Dune was OK. It did sort of drag on a bit, and I fell asleep towards the end, but there were some good moments and the characters largely looked as I imagined them from the book.

Dune, on the other hand, was pretty dang good. Better pacing and lots of other stuff.

I felt like after watching Dune I was pretty much done with it. But after watching Dune I feel like I could watch it again and still enjoy it.

I'd probably give Dune a 4/10. And I'd give Dune an 8/10. At least comparing Dunes to Dunes.

 

[MrSquished]

I watched both Dunes (1 and 1) for the first time a couple of weeks ago.

IMO, Dune was OK. It did sort of drag on a bit, and I fell asleep towards the end, but there were some good moments and the characters largely looked as I imagined them from the book.

Dune, on the other hand, was pretty dang good. Better pacing and lots of other stuff.

I felt like after watching Dune I was pretty much done with it. But after watching Dune I feel like I could watch it again and still enjoy it.

I'd probably give Dune a 4/10. And I'd give Dune an 8/10. At least comparing Dunes to Dunes.

Excellent write up. My only question to you then is, how do you feel about digdog's synopsis?

 

[igor_kavinski]

I'd probably give Dune a 4/10. And I'd give Dune an 8/10. At least comparing Dunes to Dunes.

Yes, in terms of stuff happening on screen, the newer Dune is watchable. But the whole story makes no sense to me so I doubt I'll ever watch the original Dune.The newer Dune should've been an episodic series instead of a movie.

 

[snoopy7548]

Excellent write up. My only question to you then is, how do you feel about digdog's synopsis?

I liked it about as much as I liked Dune. Not Dune, but Dune.

 

[JujuFish]

Yes, in terms of stuff happening on screen, the newer Dune is watchable. But the whole story makes no sense to me so I doubt I'll ever watch the original Dune.The newer Dune should've been an episodic series instead of a movie.

If 700 page books don't scare you, you should read the book.

 

[igor_kavinski]

If 700 page books don't scare you, you should read the book.

They don't but not gonna buy the book. I have a terrible habit of chewing on words while reading them so it takes a very long time for me to read a book and that time would be better spent on ATOT.

 

[DigDog]

I watched both Dunes (1 and 1) for the first time a couple of weeks ago.

IMO, Dune was OK. It did sort of drag on a bit, and I fell asleep towards the end, but there were some good moments and the characters largely looked as I imagined them from the book.

Dune, on the other hand, was pretty dang good. Better pacing and lots of other stuff.

I felt like after watching Dune I was pretty much done with it. But after watching Dune I feel like I could watch it again and still enjoy it.

I'd probably give Dune a 4/10. And I'd give Dune an 8/10. At least comparing Dunes to Dunes.

you need to get into politics