Damn it, why can't Americans enjoy a great story without infantilizing it by adding magic and dragons?
As I understand it, the 47 Ronin is not a 'legend', it's a historical fact which needed no embellishment to be a GREAT story for a movie. It's like 300, but much worse. I had hoped the success of Lincoln might have taught Hollywood that at least attempting historical accuracy can be applauded if your subject is worthy, but it seems this lesson was lost.
And Keanu is apparently going to be Oishi, the leader of the ronin? Why not Ken Watanabe? I'm disappointed this is the treatment this great story gets from us, and I've been awaiting a good English telling of this story for decades.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the original story.

Yeah, at first glance it does look like a Zack Snyder film doesn't it. I would disagree that the presence of the supernatural automatically makes everything infantile though.

Ugh. Way to go, Hollywood. Fuck up what could have been an awesome period piece based on historical fact. Instead, we get this shite. Couldn't even make it through the trailer.

Time for a dump in a bag in a theatre.

Once again Keanu is the only hope.

Well, I guess we disagree. To me, the supernatural and magic are for those without the experience or intelligence to comprehend that they don't exist, or those that wish to live in a fantasy. To me, that mindset is infantile.
I feel that adding magic to a great historical story is like putting sugar on broccoli, it's done to make something good palatable to non-adults, but it ruins it for adults and destroys what was good about it in the first place. This is an adult story with adult themes and adult actions, it didn't need magic, dragons, or 'The One', and the additions only degrade and confuse the amazing facts.
Would you have liked to see a Muslim dragon guarding Osama in Dark Thirty? (I know, not a historically accurate film, I'm just making a point). Wouldn't you have found it out of place in a movie about our (recent) 'history'? How about if Lincoln had to fight a confederate dragon in Lincoln (not Lincoln vampire hunter)? I feel like that would have infantilized those stories, as it does to any factual story.

Sheesh, I dunno, it might be ok, but the thing that will piss me off is seeing Keanu swing his sword around like a spaz. Where is Toshiro Mifune when you need him?

Keanu must know something cause he sure can't act.

Yeah, apparently I'm not the only one who wants to puke all over this movie.

And I'm nerdcore for a good chop'em movie.

or better yet Tomisaburo Wakayama

whoa...

You realize that this is a movie, right?
Granted, I don't know the story of the real 47 ronin, or that there even was a real story, so I had no expectations before I watched the trailer. Movies are supposed to be entertaining. While I personally would love to see a historically accurate version of this story (now that I know there is one), it probably wouldn't sell as many tickets. Be glad they didn't throw in some giant robots.

I understand why they did it, I'm just sad it's necessary in order to sell tickets when you have such a compelling, action packed historical story to tell. I fear the lessons of the Bushido code, loyalty beyond death, patience, sacrifice, and even well thought out vengeance may be lost in this flashy version in favor of fighting dragons with gaijen. I guess I'll watch Cushingura again.

And disagreement is cool with me, I often disagree with people who like musicals but I can do so without being a jerk about it, I'm just not into them. An active imagination is often considered a sign of intelligence and higher thinking. I'm pretty sure creative minds like Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, just to name a few, are not lacking in the intelligence or comprehension departments. Gene Roddenberry could be responsible for god knows how many people going into the sciences, inspired to make the future, he imagined a reality.
Lincoln was great movie and I'd be all for seeing a movie based on the 47 Ronin that was more historically accurate, but that doesn't mean I can't also enjoy movies like Pacific Rim. As for 300, the movie was actually based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which I doubt was ever intended to be a factual account of the event anyhow. Movies like this one are, for better or worse a product of market forces and the society we live in.

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

More of a misunderstanding then, it could have been worded better but I suspect you were in rant mode at the time, and there's plenty to rant about there.
I do agree that historical accuracy is always preferable to fabrication, as long as it serves the story and fits with the theme of the film, the presence of dragons would not have served the movie Lincoln in any way, and therefore, do not belong. The very title of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter however pretty much tells us all we need to know about this film and it's treatment of history. So to me I guess, complaining about the historical accuracy of a film like 300 or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire hunter is a bit like going to a French film festival and then complaining that all the movies are in French.
I like history and learning more about history and having more historically accurate films would never be a bad thing in my book, but they do tend to be a harder sell.
Also there should be no shame in going to see Pacific Rim, write it off as a guilty pleasure if it helps.(sorta like coke and whores on my taxes

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Required in all Keanu based threads - glad you did it so I didn't have to.

Am I the only one disgusted by hollywood white-washing yet another eastern tale? First Tom Cruise learns all the secrets there are to know about swordplay, swooning japanese women, and saving their entire culture all by his little 'ol self, and now Keanu is their only hope. At least he is a fraction of the somewhat-correct geographical ethnicity, but that's stretching a long ways.

It does amaze me that Keanu has been involved with theater and film nearly his entire life, and he still has one of the most difficult walls between his acting and the audience. I don't think I've ever seen him in a role where it wasn't totally, obviously him and his bad acting.

Agreed, I could have been clearer. Me a culpa.

To answer artician: read the comments and you'll see you are not the only one.