# Talk:13 Assassins (2010 film)

Can someone please replace the plot with a sypnosis of what actually occured in the movie?              Ora Stendar 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Naritsugu based on any historical character? At the end of the film it gives the year of his death- 1844? That would indicate which Shogun was in power. Akashi is a real domain, which Naritsugu is lord of in the film. Yorkist (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the events and characters are not clearly historical. I am not sure how reliable this interview is, but in it, Miike doesn't cite any historical figures- http://www.blogomatic3000.com/2011/05/12/interview-takashi-miike-talks-13-assassins/#.TqYLk96ImU9 
I also can't find any specific event that the film could be based on.
Maybe it would be better to call 13 Assassins a period film rather than one based on actual events?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtn23b (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC) 

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i5c6f976cbed5f4a9415f9c5c37983f00
In 13 Assassins on 2011-05-23 02:57:59, 404 Not Found
In 13 Assassins on 2011-06-01 14:59:45, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we actually sure that the merits of the film's executive producer deserve a lengthy description in the article's lead? Goochelaar (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is what it seems an original work about the character Kiga without any verifiable source. --Voj 2005 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

His dark skin is also an obvious cultural reference implying that he is a demon. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
He had a deformed right ear, but I couldn't see clearly. I thought the dark skin was mostly because he lived in the forest and he didn't get much of an opportunity to wash; whereas for the samurai it was a vital part of etiquette to be ready for battle at all times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.135.249 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Miike remake sticks fairly close to the 1963 original in broad terms, but it is interesting to have some specific comparisons.  The rather lurid bit with the woman who has had her arms and legs chopped off does not appear in the original, although the other rapes and murders do.  Also, the arduous trip across the mountains where the protagonists encounter Kiga is Miike's invention --- in the original, Kiga is a dweller in the town of Ochiai, and the demonic overtones are not present.  The ending is also quite different... in the original, Naritsugu is killed by Shinzaemon in a fairly straightforward way (no heads rolling around..), leaving Shinzaemon to battle Hanbei to the death; it is in fact Hanbei he allows to stab him (not Naritsugu, as in the Miike). 
In general terms, the Miike film focuses somewhat more on the pathological nature of Naritsugu, whilst the Kudo film focuses more on the character of Hanbei and his moral dilemma, duty-bound to defend a bad man. -- 猫に小判 09:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a request on the feedback for this page about how closely it is based on a historical story:

Plus "sad face". JoshuSasori (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 13 Assassins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105215412/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_2011.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/12/the_best_films_of_2011.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:13 Assassins (2010 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Starting assessment of this film which may take a couple of days. It would be useful to know if you have seen both versions of this film. Also, my understanding is that both the original and the remake were films in the bushido category and not the jidaigeki category mentioned in the lead section if you could clarify in the meantime. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not seen the 1963 version. I do think this is classified as a jidaigeki since the plot is set in 1844, when the Tokugawa Shogunate still ruled Japan. Update: how about chanbara (samurai film)? The director has classified it as such in a piece from The Guardian [1] Slightlymad (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
My assessment will still take a day or two to post here. I like your idea of just calling it a 'samurai film' in English in the lead section. You can also drop the extra adjective 'eponymous' in the lead section which does not add much. Also it might be informative to look at the bushido article if time lets you get to it. It would be helpful to speed this assessment process if your local library has a copy of the dvd for the 1963 version of this film for you to look at since I could then make direct comparisons to both films, not necessary but it would speed things along. If you have secure international high-speed internet you might try this temporary link here: [2]. There are no subtitles on the link, though if you have seen the new 2010 version then it should all make visual sense. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I tried so hard looking for a copy of the original film but none of which I was able to find (not even a bootleg for Pete's sakes). That link you gave me is not letting me in for some reason, saying it's "private". I think that might have been due to the network configuration set by our Internet operator.
Here is another temporary link to try though only with foreign subtitles: [3]. Its might be useful when you start to rework the plot section according to previous discussion (see below). JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you try this new link? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish dude... Slightlymad (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The first two thirds of the two films are nearly scene-by-scene remakes and if you have seen the full remake then you should be able to visually track the scenes in the original film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Suppose I have seen the original (with Eng. subs), what do I do then? Slightlymad (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a bona fide suggestion, why don't you amend the plot yourself based on what you've seen from the original? You must have seen the 1963 version and I think it'll make this nomination run smoothly if you attempt to work collegiately on this; it'd be a good thing for this article. Compromise is the key.
Its general policy at Wikipedia for nominators to do their own editing in response to review comments made during GAN. And yes, I have given thought to expanding the start article for the original version once this GAN is completed. Regarding you previous question above about the benefits of viewing the original film, it's not clear what you mean. Of all the reviews in newspapers I have seen of this film, all of the reviewers saw the original and the remake and then wrote their reviews. Its just considered basic research for reviewing a film which is a remake of an original according to the standards of most newspapers and magazines. If you can get a copy of it with English subtitles then it would be useful in getting an understanding of the directions taken in the remake film which were not taken in the original film. Seeing the English subtitle version would be better than your not seeing the original at all. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Initiate assessment of sections.

Lead section
This film and its original version are both bushido films which deal with the code of honor by which samurai are expected to devote their lives and service. The correct genre or simply 'samurai film' should be used in the lead section. The word 'eponymous' is not useful here and if you have not seen the original film, this adjective should be dropped. The term 'ruthless leader' which you use, I think does not match the character described as well as 'morally reprobate' or 'nihilistic' or 'dishonorable' or 'dissolute'; you can select an alternate term which you are comfortable with other than 'ruthless'.
Comment: Would you prefer 'barbaric or 'savage' as an alternative?
Try them both together. Both the original and the remake portray him as a sociopathic villain. You can change your closing sentence in the lead section from "...on 29 April 2011, in both countries to critical acclaim", to the shorter version "...on 29 April 2011 to critical acclaim". JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done
1 Plot
For both the original film and this remake, the plot is usually summarized from the standpoint of the code of honor of the samurai being disgraced by Matsudaira. His reprobate, egotistical, and feckless lifestyle is disgusting to those who come into close contact with him. After receiving reports, Sir Doi is convinced that Matsudaira represents such a severe threat to the entire code of honor, bushido, for the samurai tradition that Sir Doi decides to take a blood oath to assassinate the reprobate Lord Matsudaira. He enlists a troop of assassins to swear a similar blood oath to do away with Matsudaira in order to restore his country's well being and code of honor. The plot summary you give here seems quite different, and since the original and the remake are nearly scene-by-scene remakes for over half of their content, the plot should reflect the summary I just made a little more closely than it does at present. Can you amend the wording so that the plot summary you have now could come closer to having the two plot lines for the original and the remake come closer.
After you check the new link added above, some plot revisions can be started. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: not that I object to this proposal but why couldn't we just leave the plot for how it is written? Why not just write a plot summary for the 1963 version and let readers see for themselves how they differ with one another?
The last three paragraphs in this plot summary seem to read better than the first half of the plot section. For example, the current version repeats the single word "in" three times in the first ten words of the first sentence which looks grammatically odd. This section could be helped with some rewriting of the first 2-3 paragraphs here of the 6 paragraph plot summary. Please leave me with a precise word count of this section when you are done with this plot section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The plot section (and the entire article) has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and it is presumed to be well-written. Furthermore, it has 598 word count versus the 700-word maximum limit as per WP:FILMPLOT. So it's essentially good enough a plot summary and revamping those paragraphs would be unnecessary.
GOCE editors provide a good faith editing of various articles at Wikipedia for spelling, wording, grammar, etc. There is no requirement that a GOCE editor to have seen the film or even have an interest in this genre of film in order to provide the very useful general effort of editing as provided by GOCE. For example, the current version of the plot summary here repeats the single word "in" three times in the first ten words of the first sentence which looks grammatically odd. It still looks odd as I read it a second time and should be rewritten. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
OK if you insist, it's done. Slightlymad (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
My opening comment in this comment section for plot already gave what I thought was a fair 3 sentence summary of the beginning of the plot based on my having seen both the original and the remake. I think you write sufficiently well to do a serious second draft of the first 2-3 paragraphs of the plot section based on this input from someone who has seen both versions of this film. The benefit in the end is meant for general readers of the article and not individual editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
2 Cast
Cast section appears adequate to article. Your emphasis on Matsudaira as the source of atrocities is good here.
Yay! :D
3 Production
Is there any way of adding some sections within this production section. For example, a writing section in line with your interest in screenplays might be interesting if you have some reliable sources. Also a separate filming section might be useful here under production since you already have some sentences which discuss photography and filming with citations.
Comment: I couldn't find any reliable source where the screenwriter discusses in-depth his work on the script as well as his work experience with Miike at that point. However, I have reorganized this section into two subsections as per your request.
Its not only a writing section that could be developed further here and any of the five phases of filmmaking in production could be elaborated. A music section mentioning the composer(s) used in the film's soundtrack might be interesting here if you can develop your music link below further. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: I'm afraid the coverage of this movie's production is rather infertile since not enough sources had been published about it across the web. I've solemnly gathered all there is about the production.
4 Release
Normally a release section is separate from the reception section for most film articles I have seen at Wikipedia. This article currently does not have a stand alone reception section.
 Done
4.1 Theatrical run and box office
Usually under release you would have two separate sections in general, one to discuss the premiere, distribution and marketing; while a second section would discuss home media and dvds. The other material currently discussed in your section here like box office would go into a stand alone reception section below the release section, and not a part of the release section. Separating a box office section for the reception section would be useful. The opening date in Japan was 25 September 2010 which should be mentioned
 Done
4.2 Critical reception
Just call this "Reception" and make it a stand alone section. It would be useful if you could find one or two reviews that dealt with the question of comparing the original to the remake and include them here. Which one did better on Rotten Tomatoes? Which one did audiences prefer? Although you mention 'universal acclaim', it seems odd that there was not even one negative review, or perhaps you could find a review in which someone might have loved the original and not liked the remake, or vice versa. Could you confirm if there was not one single negative review of this film. I need to add that your 'universal acclaim' comment, without there being an Oscar nod at the Academy, might need a word or two of explanation.
This is partially done so I'm still working on this.
Keep at it since what you have done so far looks good. Since you mention him in your see also section, any further references you can add here to Kurosawa tie-ins beyond the Miike quote you have already would be nice. Outcome of the Venice nomination is useful. JohnWickTwo(talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any of those things you asked me to. The 'universal acclaim' is an indication of how Metacritic weighed on the reviews they collected so there's no need to expound on this, really. With regard to the audience reception, I would add the rating provided by CinemaScore but they don't have a database about the movie on their website. Lastly, it'd be unwise to compare the Rotten Tomatoes consensus of the remake to the original since the latter does not have a critics' approval rating (Tomatometer) due to insufficient reviews. (Not many really knew about the 1963 version until it was remade in 2010).
4.3 Home media
This would go into the release section, and not the reception section.
 Done
4.4 Accolades
A separate main article for the Accolades for this film might be useful. You could keep the opening two or three sentences in this article and move the table of accolades to a separate accolades article, with a link to it from this section to the new main article which you can create for it. See the film Deadpool for an example of how this is done in other film articles.
Comment: Absolutely not. The table does not even overwhelm the rest of the article so splitting it won't be necessary.
There appear to be more awards and accolades for you to look at here below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

We only add the notable awards, which has their own article in the mainspace.
That should give some indications for things to look at. I am a little concerned that there is no music section or soundtrack section, was this deliberate? When you are done addressing these comments, then just ping me to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Well Soundtrack.net, which is one of the recognized reliable sources by WP:FILM/R for the soundtrack, has a track listing of the film score used in the movie. Should I add this? Slightlymad (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a comment for a possible music section in production mentioned above. A track list would normally go into a separate main article for the film soundtrack. Try the alternate link above for the original version above which I added, since it might be useful in reworking parts of the plot section which remains to be done in this article. The Venice nom should be added to your accolades list and you might mention who won Venice that year somewhere in the article. Ping me when ready to continue with this GAN. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Another bad news: I won't be able to put the track listing in the article since the source does not have the track time on each and every music used in the movie. Can't find any sources about the music either. :(
Pleasant news on the soundtrack listing which is available from last.fm here [4]. After you  make the link, you then need to click on the 13 Assassins tab to see the track list with individual track times to get this part started. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Last FM is not a reliable source. It appears to be a venue for self-publishing.  Slightlymad (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is another link for the soundtrack list with the individual times from discogs if you prefer it: [5]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Discogs.com just takes in user submissions. It's not considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Slightlymad (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright time to end this review. It appears that I won't be able to address that plot-related issue you raised (which I personally think is unnecessary). You are forcing me to watch a movie whose subtitles I don't understand. If that keeps me from getting this GAR promoted, so be it. Unwatching, but thanks for your time. Slightlymad (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


### Closing Comments
This GAN is quick closed at the request of the nominator, and it is recommended that any nomination of this article in the future for peer review be made only by an editor who has seen both the original version of this film along its remake. It is standard practice in journalism and film studies that anyone assigned to reviewing a remake of a film be required to watch the original version for purposes of basic research. In this case, the same principle should apply at Wikipedia, and this comment is to recommend that any future nominator of this article for good article promotion see both the original version of the film and its remake. The current article in its present condition has had useful edits made to its structural outline though not sufficient for promotion; the current article still does not sufficiently address the soundtrack and music for the film, the plot section could be improved, and the lead section could be expanded to include a small summary of the production and filming of this remake. Good wishes to future editors for this well-directed film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:13 Assassins (2010 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is in good shape to become a GA but there are somethings I would like to improved if you ever plan to make it into a FA. Nevertheless, I think this would be nitpicking for GA review, so I'll pass. Great work.Tintor2 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: This is still listed as a nominee because you have not completed the passing instructions. Before you do so, can you please provide some commentary on how this article meets the Good article criteria? Otherwise, I'm not sure how legitimate some jaded Wikipedians will see this as. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the prose seems to be in good shape after its copyedit. Most references are archived and are also reliable sources. Free images are available while the only nonfree image has a a good rationale. The only comments against it would be too nitpick as if this article was nominated to FA like the lead needing expansion such as why the critics liked the movie and Theatrical run using small paragraphs. Other than that, maybe the wikilinks in Date of ceremony could be removed.Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: If you really believe that the article has passed the GA review, you must do items 1 and 6 in the passing instructions, just like what Ribbet said. Slightlymad (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Date is linked to the article about the awards held that year, wherever possible. Btw, I hope you don't mind, but I did those items aforementioned on your behalf; it seemed that you have problems with them. In any case, thank you for this review. I don't intend to submit it for a FAR, though as I don't feel it's comprehensive enough an article. Cheers, Slightlymad (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)