"On your own, at the age of 15. <proceeds to list all qualities which marketing research has shown to appeal to target audience>."

Looks like a SciFi channel movie to me.

"Automatically ok"? Not necessarily. But in cases where it makes sense, at a stretch even "plot sense" for the character to be there; yeah, I think that is OK.

The Last Samurai isn't a documentary. But, the general historical justification for Tom Cruise's character being in Japan is pretty much valid. Meiji was interested in the West -- clothes, technology, weapons, and military. He actually did hire Westerners to train his army, although from what I read it sounds like they were German, French, and Italian rather than American. Still, the movie portrays the general situation/setting with at least *decent* broad-strokes historical accuracy. LOADS of movies deviate from even this degree of historical accuracy *way* more without drawing complaints; particularly if their main purpose is entertainment and not education / documentary.


Your hypothetical reverse movie makes some valid criticisms. Even though it would have been historically possible for a Westerner to be in Japan at the time -- even to be involved with training a Western-style military -- it would be unlikely for such a person to get captured, run into a Shogun that speaks English, become a badass (or at least passable) samurai warrior, and end up playing a major role in politics and significantly influencing Emperor Meiji.

My defense against those criticisms is that, for me at least, the movie is entertaining; which is kinda the point. Your "Union Samurai" movie might be equally entertaining and therefore given an equal pass on historical inaccuracies by me.

The whole characters as a "lens through which the audience can appreciate a culture/history outside their own" issue is (slightly) more weighty to me. I don't think those are often necessary, but I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted if the movie maker feels that they are in order to sell tickets.

I love the Chinese historical novel "Three Kingdoms". A few years ago, John Wu made the movie "Red Cliff", mostly about one particular battle in the historical period portrayed in that book. For the Chinese audience, Wu made the movie in two parts, summed up about four and a half hours long. For the US / West, he made a version trimmed to just over two hours. Why? Because he (and a team of market researchers, I'm sure) knew that very few Westerners would go to see a 4+ hour long movie, entirely in Mandarin Chinese (with subtitles), about a piece of Chinese history from ~1800 years ago that very few in the West have ever heard of or know anything about.

I think the full 4+ hour long movie is great. In my personal top 10 favorite movies of all time, ahead of most Hollywood stuff. But I also understand that there's no way that movie would appeal to all but a tiny, tiny fraction of Western viewers in that full-on 4+ hour format. But, even though I personally think the cut-down 2 hour "US" version is drastically inferior to the full cut, I am glad that he made it because it gives a suitably accurate introduction to the subject matter to more people in the West (just like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Dynasty Warriors" videogames do), and makes that tiny, tiny fraction of Western people that know anything about it a little less tiny. While being entertaining along the way.

For other movies, sometimes the best way that a filmmaker can sell a movie to an audience that otherwise might not accept it (at least in large enough numbers to justify the production costs) may be to insert one of these "lens" characters for the audience to identify with. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with that. It might not work for movies that are taking a more hardline approach to historical / contextual accuracy (ie., if Tom Cruise showed up in "Red Cliff" in circa 200AD China), but outside of those situations, if that is what the studio thinks it will take to sell tickets... Cool.

The Last Samurai is, like @ChaosEngine said, a movie primarily about an outsider learning a new culture (and accepting his own past). He serves as that lens character, but actually the hows and whys of his character arc are the main points of interest in the movie, at least to me.

I'm sure that an awesome, historically accurate movie could be made dealing with young Emperor Meiji, Takamori (who Katsumoto seems to be based on in The Last Samurai), and the influence of modernization on Japanese culture at the time. It could be made with no Western "lens" character, no overt influence by any particular individual Westerner, and be entirely in Japanese. But that movie wouldn't be The Last Samurai, wouldn't be attempting to serve the same purpose as The Last Samurai, and very likely wouldn't sell as many tickets (in the US) as The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise!) did. That wouldn't make it a worse movie, just an apple instead of an orange.

Religious doctrine? Cults? Market research? Corporate policy? Economic policy by banks, hedge funds, Wall St.? Big Pharma? Big Agro? Big Oil?

These are all excellent points, and in my zeal I have to admit that it was rather hyperbolic to say government is the “only” institution that creates the “I was following orders” mentality. In that I stand corrected. However, I stand by the substance of the idea that government is the primary violator, and that history’s most egregious examples are government created.

If you are down on government save us all the time and just denounce humanity and go live in a cave somewhere.

I’m down on big central governments. Limited, small government at the municipal, county, and state level which are held to a high standard of culpability and performance by voters is fine. Big federal government that implements one-size policies on nations for social engineering are lousy. Federal government is for national defense and some intra/inter state trade regulations. That’s it. The constitution was designed to keep federal powers limited. It is no surprise that one of our man-child president’s great irritations with the country he runs is that the constitution doesn’t allow him to do more “TO” the public.

Build your own running water system, police, and fire dept. while you're at it.

Feds don’t do those things. Those are city, state, and county functions.

Maybe instead of bitching about the TSA you could suggest an alternative?

I have. Profile the likely offenders and stop hassling people who are low statistical risks. It will decrease the workload, reduce costs, and speed up the process a hundred-fold.

I'm not going to sit here and scream… even though I don't like them either. … The kid will be just fine. He'll get over it. … It's a brave new world.

Brave New World. Oh, what fools these mortals be. I’d suggest brushing up on your Huxley and Shakespeare. I doubt Huxley would be applauding your, “bend over and take it” sentiment. You might think it is admirable. History suggests that such a docile attitude towards central government is profoundly unwise. Government is meant to be questioned, held to account, challenged, and regarded with suspicion.

The problem, of course, is that the TSA procedures do not work, and using them to only inconvenience a demographic that does not happen to include you, will not make them any more effective.

Well – very true – this is a good point. What the TSA is doing is security theatre. It is not effective at preventing terrorist acts from succeeding. So why are we doing this? If the object is increased SECURITY then the procedure needs to change radically. But if we aren’t willing to do the things that will actually provide security then we’d be better off just abandoning the whole effort as a fruitless exercise.

Allan stole a loaf of bread. Allan is a thief. Allan is black. All blacks are thieves.

Except that’s not what I said or even anything remotely close to it. I’m saying…

“Over 95% of all air travel terrorism has been committed by foreign-born Muslim males between 17-40. The TSA should focus its efforts on this population to increase efficiency.” That isn’t saying “all Muslims are terrorists”. It is only saying, “This population sector is the highest risk”. Correlation does not equal causation but it does tell you where to weight your cases and analysis. Right now, even a basic statistical model would heavily weight the probability of a terrorist act towards foreign-born Muslim males.

Umm... Religious doctrine? Cults? Market research? Corporate policy? Economic policy by banks, hedge funds, Wall St.? Big Pharma? Big Agro? Big Oil? People who blame government for everything don't understand government. Government fails because of people, not because of intention. If you are down on government save us all the time and just denounce humanity and go live in a cave somewhere. Build your own running water system, police, and fire dept. while you're at it.

Also, if you don't like it, don't fly. Maybe instead of bitching about the TSA you could suggest an alternative? Do something constructive? I'm not going to sit here and scream "GROPING" and "PORNO" for these measures, even though I don't like them either. Call a spade a spade. The kid will be just fine. He'll get over it. Check your rhetoric. It's a brave new world. Educate yourself about it before you turn into the very type of radical that gets everyone into trouble.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Ever notice how the only thing in human history that EVER creates that kind of mindset is government policy?

So do they have in the works "Hispanic Family Feud? They must have done market research to pinpoint their main demograph. I watched Family Feud as a child, and Steve Harvey is no Tricky Dick Dawson.

Interesting. Talking about it openly like that seems like an honorable thing for Jay to do.

I have had a feeling for a long time that networks are way, way, way too tied to short term ratings when they make long-term decisions. Couple of examples, remember these are just my opinions:

Seinfeld is probably on the top of the list of my favorite shows I have watched during my life. However, the first season sucked. It definitely sucked in comparison to later seasons, and honestly I think that it wasn't really even good in comparison to standard TV dreck/fare that first season. It didn't get particularly good ratings, but it got picked up for a 2nd season. It then started to get better. Not extremely rapidly, but pretty quickly. It rose fast enough to get the slot after "Cheers", which introduced it to enough more of an audience that it exploded. One of the few examples of a network being nice and patient with a show that was struggling to a certain extent, and it payed off *huge*.

Lets go with Firefly specifically, but basically anything Joss Whedon has ever done fits to a certain extent. Firely comes out, and it isn't advertised very much. Fox thinks it is too cerebral and deep, it needs more things blowing up and less talky-talky. So, they cut his original pilot, rearrange episodes, and don't even provide the show with a stable timeslot, let alone a good one. It gets less than a full season to try the waters and build an audience before it is canceled. In the meantime, we've got umpteen versions of Law and Order, CSI, etc., and a very conservative guess of 2 hours of "reality" TV on in primetime per day per network. They had a show that was great and different, and at the very least could have captured a niche market of people who wanted something else beyond watching vacuous morons kick each other onto/off of "the island" etc.

It seems to me that a network that was willing to take some risks, go with their actual opinions instead of instantaneous market research ratings, and give any new show at least 1-2 seasons to catch its balance would quite possibly make for some great shows with dedicated audiences.

"more likely" raises the question "when is it more likely?" or "is it more likely in some markets and less in others?" and those questions are constantly trying to be discovered by market researchers, who are always one step behind consumer opinion ... also they have the problem that people lie in market research tests, consciously and subconsciously.

i remain suspicious that however much you refine a model of economic activity, humans by their nature have this thing called (i guess) "fashion", which constantly fucks up the rules of what is and isn't economically viable. I think if you managed to somehow model fashion and use that model to sell stuff, the very nature of fashion would change, and your model would be broken.

it's like the uncertainty principle... you can know what a consumer wants but not when he wants it, or you can know when he wants it but not what it is

>> ^quantumushroom:
I ask all of you: of all the stuff you own, what percentage is stuff you keep for five years or more? I bet it's sentimental stuff, handmade stuff, stuff you made yourself or got as gifts, or larger investments like your car, big appliances, furniture. A lot of what you call "crap" are necessary items that are cheaper to replace.


OK, I'm sorry but I have to speak up here.
If we could own anything longer than 5 years, we would. The problem is everything is made so cheaply, it breaks! I got my first microwave oven in 1989 (20 years - $200) and I still have it. It is dark brown and my wife hates the colour, (she want's white), the problem is, my original (steel parts and all) still works!

I went to Wal-mart and looked at what they had, everything was made of cheap plastic. I refuse to buy a new crappy one to replace my old good one. Once I do, I know I'll be replacing it every five years.($89x4=$356 plus tax)

This goes the same with everything we buy at Wal-Mart. I have bought and replaced so much stuff over and over because it doesn't last. Buy it twice, and you might as well have bought the more expensive one in the first place.
I bought a new rake at Wal-Mart for $14, It lasted 2 weeks before It was bent out of shape and useless. I had to go back to Canadian Tire and buy a $30 rake to replace it and have had it ever since... (total cost = $44 plus tax).

My point is... Wal-Mart wants you to re-buy everything over and over, that's why they sell you the cheep one. They make a higher profit by flooding the world with disposable crap. It is their marketing strategy.

Don't buy in to Wal-Mart marketing! (do some marketing research on this stuff).

^oh, that's an interesting point, but as a television viewer/customer/target I would prefer if you wouldn't explain how or why. Could you just spend $50,000 animating some swirly graphics and writing some dramatic music instead? Because market research are telling us that the average american wants 1.2 facts per year and more background music to pass the time in between facts. Can you make a whhhooooOOOSH sound also? use it every time you cut.

/sarcasm

CNW Marketing Research's Hummer advert/report has some pretty ridiculous distortions and assumptions in it. It assumes that 85% of "total lifetime energy use" of a vehicle is in manufacturing when scientific studies show 85% is in driving. It lies and says hybrid batteries aren't recycled when they are (some even have phone numbers on them to call for recycling instructions). Two models of Scion with nearly identical stats are in the report and are shown as drastically different. It assumes a Hummer H1 lasts 35 years and a Prius lasts 12 years without backing up their claim.

Also, this seems like a recycled talking point. Oil company "marketing research" groups had a similar argument against electric cars: Because you plug your electric car in at home, you're just moving the CO2 production to the powerplant with no benefit to the environment. But a large powerplant producing electricity wholesale is far more efficient then each car's engine. Plus the power source for your home could eventually be something non-pollutive like solar panels. And then there's the CO2 produced transporting the gas to each gas station.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bbc, retards, retardation, brain turning to cheese, market research, retards' to 'bbc, retards, retardation, brain turning to cheese, market research, retards, retards' - edited by sbchapm

I'm no market researcher or anything, but I wonder if you folks have realized that all beauty issues aside, Dove is pretty much saying; "this is bad, but we're not... we love your children" which sounds like a marketing ploy to me.
Just my opinion though.

I like this scene but I remember my first job in high school, calling people for market research (bad, I know, but I didn't know any better), literally one out of every five people I'd call would repeat this as if they'd thought it up themselves. A few times I said, "sure! Give me a call around 9 - my number is xxx-xxxx" and they wouldn't know what to say next.

Am sure 'American Idiot' will become one of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame greatest classics.

/Sarcasm

I believe you are giving a corporate marketed, researched, and strategized album release too much credit.