Talk:The Last Samurai

message: "The Last Samurai" is also an unrelated book by Helen DeWitt published in 2000.
:There's an article about the above now. Point of interest: The movie's name was apparently translated into Finnish under the assumption that the word "Samurai" is in the singular. --Kizor 20:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: I added in a setting section.--KevinKao 07:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting

message: I fixed up the main article and chucked the last bit about being filmed in NZ into a trivia section. --Woogums 13:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed

message: Anyone else notice that no matter which side Tom Cruise was on, he always played the underdog? People always root for the underdog JayKeaton 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underdog 

message: In the U.S., some audiences, "particularly among Asian-Americans and Japanese," were unimpressed or even insulted, by the seemingly "racist, naïve" notion of a "white man teaching the rapidly modernizing Japanese how to honor their past," and ultimately become The Last Samurai.
We need specific people saying those things. See: [] or []. The Yahoo Groups link just says that there were negative reviews. That means the Yahoo Groups link is a secondary source, not a primary source. The quotes from Tom Long and Tomomi Katsuta are primary sources - they are not summaries / generalizations about reviews, they are reviews. Also, the Yahoo Groups link doesn't support the idea that Japanese and Asian-American audiences held those specific views about this film - that they were "unimpressed or often insulted" - it merely says that there was heated debate over whether the several films mentioned were good or bad. You need to find a primary source, which would be people engaging in that actual debate, and quote it. (Tom Long, for the record, is neither Japanese nor Asian-American: see .) Gorilla Jones 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: May someone add the main character, Nathan Algren, is a fictional free inspiration of the French officer Jules Brunet? This is not the first time that Hollywood obfuscates or exploits facts (remember U571). Thanks !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.197.225 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Ok, the end of the film does insinuate that Nathan survived the battle. But shouldn't the possibility of him dying(as stated in the narration at the end of the film that some said he had died) be noted in the article?
--
Why? The film shows him finding his way back to Taka and nothing in the presentation of that ending is straight-forward and un-stylised, which to me is a clear indication that the intention of the film makers was to say that he did survive his wounds and found Taka and lived happily until the timely end of his days. (Instead of dying in the battle like he should've, but that's just personal opinion.) Magnulus 80.202.255.8 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan's Fate 

message: Did anyone else see the comparisons to this movie?  I found an interesting imdb forum post on this. 
Choice bits:
When I watched the Last Samurai my first thought was, wow this is just like Dances with Wolves. That movie is about an american who is captured by a foreign force of traditionalists in a country with a different culture, and who later acculturates so strongly into that culture that he abandons his old values and fights the injustices in his own country. There may be other simularities. Maybe the creators of the Last Samurai ripped ideas from Dances with Wolves?
I thought the same thing. Although I love both movies, I call The Last Samurai .... "Dances with Samurai" 
I felt like it was more similar to Lawrance of the Arabia. A man who is in love with another culture and becomes in some way an inspiration and a leader to them.
:Interesting observation.... Except that Laurence of Arabia is actually a true story, unlike this dross. 1812ahill (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons to Dances With Wolves

message: I changed the line from "Bagley flees the field", to "Bagley withdraws from the field". I wouldn't exactly call it fleeing. He was in the right, and Algren was in the wrong, as the US Servicemembers were there strictly as noncombatants advising the army. However, as the Japanese General himself refused to fight, Captain Algren and Sergeant Gant, through a sense of loyalty to "their men", remained behind to fight, in direct defiance of US and international law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Change 

message: Contrary to the article's assertions, Last Samurai actually received quite favorable reviews in the US.  The film holds a 66% "fresh" rating at critic aggregator Rottentomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_samurai/) and a 7.8 rating at IMDB.com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/).  It was also hailed by several critics as "one of 2003's best [films]."  The article should be amended to reflect that the film actually received, on the whole, a positive reception from US critics. -PassionoftheDamon 08:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Critical Reception is Misrepresented

message: It's very important to the film and it has to be included in the "plot" section. Capt Algren pointed out that there is a chance, just like the Spartans, can win against overwhelming odds. The tactics & the use of terrain were also demonstrated in the movie. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algren's reference to [[Battle of Thermopylae]] 

message: Around the edges of the promotional picture are the kanji for "Bushidō, "武士道". I don't see a way to incorporate this into it, but I think it would be helpful for anyone who didn't know what the kanji means. モーモー?talk to moo 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promo Picture 

message: In the "cast" section of the article, we can find the following:
"Shun Sugata as Nakao, a tall judo and naginata-skilled samurai"
There seems to be a problem with it, namely the "judo" part. As Kano Jigoro, at the time the movie takes place, hadn't even begun his jujutsu training, to say nothing of creating his own martial art of judo, Nakao obviously can't be skilled in judo. I didn't edit the article, however, because I'm not sure if it's an error in the article or merely an anachronism in the movie itself. If the former is the case, it should be corrected. If the latter - I think it would make sense to add a comment that Nakao's being skilled in judo is an anachronism. Oddtail (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judo? 

message: ^ http://www.variety.com/ac2004_review/VE1117922542?nav=reviews&categoryid=1657&cs=1 
This link goes to a suddenlink search engine so it can not be used. If someone can find the actual source, then they can put it in.Thesniperremix (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: I've made some changes. Using a source describing receipts to show the Japanese public really loved it isn't proper - receipts prove receipt figures. Also it's really bad to say that American reviews were less positive than Japanese ones (again uncited) when the comment on Japanese reviews is that they were generally positive. So US reviews were less than generally positive. No, that doesn't work. Start again.
Metacritic and RT scores can't be disputed and are just stated as fact.
It still has some problems including the generalisation that critical reception in Japan was "generally positive" - I think we need a source for that and then to attribute the comment to that source. Otherwise that comment should be pulled too. John Smith's (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Reception section 

message: I'm writing a report on The Last Samurai that depicts the accuracies and the inaccuracies of the movie compared to the actual Meiji era. If someone could sort out a page showing those, I'd be glad to help them with anything they need here at Wikipedia. Thanks. Qotsa37 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: "Before they can be adequately trained, Algren is ordered to take them into battle against a group of samurai rebels led by samurai daimyo Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) to protect Omura's investment in a new railway." Fixed that. Katsumoto is leading the samurai rebellion but he's not the daimyo. The daimyo (master) of those samurai is the Emperor of Japan (the Mikado).Kuky88 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katsumoto is not the daimyo 

message: 'Although Commodore Perry is credited with opening Japan to foreign contacts in 1854,', you are kidding me right? The English & Portuguese had opened up Japan to Western involvement back in the 1600's!
:Far too US-centric and deliberately hiding the historical facts.Twobells (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indented line
As of the 1980's, american school books usually spoke of Commodore Perry in regards to 'gunboat diplomacy' in which the USA apparently sent diplomatic and commercial offers to the japanese, backed up by the looming threat of american warships. Text books make it sound like the other nations had not gotten very far with the japanese in regards to getting them to open their ports to forgieners. It was recounted in one I read how during a party in which a small steam powered train was put on demonstration to impress the japanese one of the japanese diplomats became so overwhelmed with either joy or amazement at the device that he started hugging all over one of the america officials. So it seems we credit Commodore Perry for truely getting the japanese to open up to trade agreements and the like with a combination of intimidation and bribery of a sort. If that holds true or not currrently in american school books I am uncertain. - 2s1m  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Suns One Moon (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military modernization and Western involvement section = nonsense 

message: I would like to know why User:TheOldJacobite keeps reverting my rewrite of this article's plot summary. He reverted my first revision due to length. After I cut the summary down to 700 words, he reverted it for the second time citing that it was a "completely unnecessary" change. Another user undid his revision, and he has now reverted it for the third time, stating "No attempt was even made to justify that much longer and overlinked version." I am relatively new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the intricacies of the policies, so I would like to ask whether this user's reversions are justified, or whether my revision is violating some sort of policy. --Guest206125 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FILMPLOT says that film plot summaries should be 400-700 words long, and longer entries are only justified if the film itself is particularly long or complex.  That is not the case here.  I trimmed the plot to an acceptable length and was reverted with no explanation.  You should also read the entry at WP:OVERLINKING. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My summary is 700 words, which is within WP:FILMPLOT's stated limit. Your summary of the plot has numerous issues with prose, and gives attention to elements that are not especially critical to the film's story, such as the ninja attack, the characters of Simon Graham and Zebulon Gant, and Nobutada's death. Also, it barely touches on Algren's initial captivity in the village and the way in which his adoption of the way of the samurai allowed him to heal his emotional pain, which is important for understanding why he chooses to ally with the samurai in the film's climax. I feel that my revision addresses these issues and describes the elements that are the most important. It is assuredly not perfect, but I feel that it's a better foundation. Too, with regards to WP:OVERLINKING, please answer me two questions: Considering that my revision has what seems to be a small number of wikilinks, several of which are to the articles of the major characters' actors, how is it in violation of the policy? And if my revision does violate the policy on links, why is it better to revert it entirely rather than to edit it and change wikilinks as necessary? --Guest206125 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version was too long.  The 700 word limit is designed, as I already said, for longer or more complicated films, which does not apply here.  The summary should mention all the characters, but there need not be links to the actors because we already have those in the cast section.  The summary should discuss, in brief, the major events of the film, without commentary or discussion of motives, and without excess detail. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing summary is, really, not very good, and Guest's summary is much better to read. I'm not sure why there seems to be a number of random excuses thrown out to avoid using some or all of their content. Wikipedia is about collaboration, so damn well collaborate. Nick (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What "random excuses" are you referring to?  He has not addressed any of the substantive criticisms I have made, which are based on policy.  If there are factual errors, they can be fixed without dramatically expanding the length of the article or introducing unnecessary links. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? "Dramatically expanding?" Your version is 681 words and mine is 700. How does that constitute a dramatic expansion? And for the second time, how does an alleged problem with formatting constitute a valid reason to revert the entire content of my edit? I suggest you address my points. --Guest206125 (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Could I get you two to write something together on the talk page here, agree to it and then one of you stick it into the article ? Quoting policy about length, or overlinking, when the major difference is the actual text isn't an acceptable reason for rollbacking edits. I would suggest if you think 700 words is too long and you want the plot summary reduced to 681 words, you edit Guest's text by 19 words, likewise if you think it's overlinked, I suggest you remove excess links. Reverting without answering questions here is absolutely out of order and it will get you blocked. This is a collaborative project, as I said before, bloody well collaborate. Nick (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's all he has to say on the subject, then I'm shortly going to resubmit my version with a few minor changes to links and such. --Guest206125 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy with the current revision of the article.  I apologize for my testiness. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot rewrite 

message: The horde of men Omura sent, that night time ambush during the NOH performance, is not mentioned here.....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.74.199 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of assanation attempt? 

message: By the way, kabuki, especially of the time context cannot be confused with anything other than a play and in fact that is the connotation of the word.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about.  Please provide proof if you are going to make accusations. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not take much more effort with this reference for a start--do you want to continue?:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=836465872 2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, what is your response? You asked for proof; it was given. Should I accept the silence as a form of apology for forgetting? I have absolutely any reason for making these things up and it is very disturbing to see this type of action on the part of someone that portrays themselves within the WP community as as authority. You make changes and they go unchallenged. Others make changes and the author has to justify them on the talk page. This type of action is what gives WP a bad taste with others that want to more fully enjoy participating?2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your apology is accepted.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  OldJacobite, the last time discussions were taken to the talk page you attempted to thwart and erase the discussion by deleting it. 

message: Earlier efforts were made to reduce the size of the plot only to be met with reversions an cautions to bring those edits to the y=talk page. It seems only responsible for all parties involved to bring any subsequent reductions in plot size to the talk page so that a consensus can be reached. That is the WP way. Please provide WP with your reasonings as to why certain portions are to be amended so that we can understand what is the process involved. Again, that is the WP way. I am certain that you agree with this process? It seems to be used to hold all others accountable. Your comments are most heartfeltedly awaited during this process of consensus.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear IP: (1) Your edits to the plot were not an improvement, and they were reverted. Please do not attempt to reinstate them without consensus on this talkpage. (2) Your English is garbled and hard to understand. With that in mind, it is likely that the way that the plot read beforehand was better and clearer English, and more clearly represented the events of the story. Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot editing 

message: I guess it's going in a wrong direction. First off, it should be written as a period war drama, but then we all know war movies are normally period pieces and are high on drama. It can be only war.
But then, let's not forget that it's actually an action movie with many battle sequences and it is based on no real war. I'm not saying a film should be exactly based on facts to qualify as a war movie, but here in this film, what we can call "war" happens only near the end. Before that, it's in the martial arts zone. It's an epic action drama as the official source also claims it to be one. 
But if we have to sum it up all, I guess we can write it as an epic martial arts movie. Because even though MA is not used in every single sequence, it still forms the basis of the film as it's about a samurai. And samurai films are normally in the martial arts sub-category which further comes under action.
More sources for you to see for yourself (not saying we should cite these but just for your own reference):
https://www.warnerbros.com/last-samurai?fbclid=IwAR1TBrT6Pzjlcw0hkWeAIgz-1tb43XZXhqKX0g5wrnG4Du1NALREwlr1Xxg
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700003406/Last-Samurai-The.html
http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/screen/mcclure_lastsamurai.aspx?mobile=false&u=1
https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheLastSamuraiFilm/about/
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/301109/The-Last-Samurai
https://screenrant.com/jack-reacher-2-sequel-director-tom-cruise/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/last-samurai-review-2003-movie-1153330
https://gy.hbomax.tv/movie/WBI083530/The-Last-Samurai
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-last-samurai
https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/The-Last-Samurai/10965
https://www.inverse.com/article/15869-why-tom-cruise-s-the-last-samurai-is-totally-underrated
https://www.radiotimes.com/film/fj5kbb/the-last-samurai/
And yes, don't bring your personal genre definitions in here. Wikipedia is for everyone so let's be true to facts and not personal opinions.  (77Survivor (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Period drama war"? 

message: There is also a Japanese film called "The Last Samurai" (Okami yo Rakujitsu o Kire), directed by Kenji Misumi and released in 1974.  A DVD of it was released in the U. S. by Neptune Media, I believe in 2011.  There should be at least a disclaimer about it, if not a link to an article.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1974 Misumi Film