47 Ronin: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[gamerprinter]

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]

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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."