Talk:13 Assassins (2010 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could you try this new link? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish dude... Slightlymad (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suppose I have seen the original (with Eng. subs), what do I do then? Slightlymad (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK if you insist, it's done. Slightlymad (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Longer list of film awards as not all covered (click to review)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Siches Film Festival [4] Audience award Best art direction Award ( Lin Tian Yu to ) 23rd daily journal Sports Film Awards Director ( Takashi Miike )[5] Best supporting actor Award ( Inagaki Goro )[6] The 32nd Yokohama Film Festival Top ten 1th 2010 Japanese movie [7] 2010 Japanese film awards [8] Award Director (Takashi Miike) Screenplay ( days ) 34th Japan film awards [9] Outstanding award Award for Best Director (Takashi Miike) Best screenplay (days) Best Actor Award ( service the wide Division ) Award for outstanding sound sketch ( Endo Endo ) Best photography and best cinematography ( North syscontrol ) Good lighting Award and the award for the best lighting ( Watanabe ) Fine Arts Award and the best art award (Lin Tian Yu to) Excellent recording tour Prize award for best sound-Lu ( Atsushi Nakamura ) Excellent edit tours ( Kenji Yamashita ) 65th every day movie awards [10][11][12] Director (Takashi Miike) Actor (Goro Inagaki) Recording Awards (Atsushi Nakamura) Script writers Association of Japan " Chrysanthemum Island Ryuzo Award"[13] Days between Osaka Film Festival [14] Supervision and rewards (Takashi Miike) Actress tours ( Mitsuki Tanimura ) 15th Japan network film awards [15] Actor (Koji Yakusho) Actor (Goro Inagaki) Top ten award 3rd place 65th back Japan's film arts awards [16] The best supporting actor Award (Goro Inagaki) The fine arts award (Lin Tian Yu to) Award for the most outstanding recordings (Atsushi Nakamura) The best makeup Award ( zhe Zhi Yi Zuofu , and Tomoko Chiba ) Outstanding award Award for Best Director (Takashi Miike) Award for best actor (Koji Yakusho) Best cinematography (North syscontrol) Best music award (endo endo) Good lighting Award (Watanabe) Best editing award (Kenji Yamashita) Award for outstanding costume design (zhe planting Yi Zuofu, zetianshi and Kuan ) Best visual effects ( walls Kaori Shimamura Ohta ) 5th Asian Film Awards [17] Best art direction Award (Lin Tian Yu to) International fantasy film festival Best Asian movie first audience award sector [18] Movie critic Yu Wan (RHYMESTER) Awards 2010 full movie first [19] 53rd back to Blue Ribbon Award [20] Award Actor (Koji Yakusho) Actor (Goro Inagaki) 84th Kine Jun film top ten top ten Award "2010 years in Japan" 4th place [21] Za Zhi " cinematography " award "the 2010 Japanese film top ten" 8th

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Last FM is not a reliable source. It appears to be a venue for self-publishing. Slightlymad (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]