DanaL

He's not obsessing with Ming. He wants Ming's power, especially Ming's money.

You're just ridiculous. You're like those little chihuahuas barking and trying to bite, thinking they are big like bulldogs. Thinking you can decide who has skills in acting and who's hasn't... Look where the greatest drama critic was and we didn't know! loool
27th of April 2024 you say? Are you sure?

To stand-in for yourself.

You're using the term "fallacy" - I can congratulate you: you've learnt something at least. Now you know what "presentism" is. "Fallacy" is a word used in the explanation of the concept of presentism, you want now to teach me the things I have informed you that exist. I have to say that you have got some nerve.

You are against the Western countries and especially UK - it's obvious. It's widespread there, I can see the same mentality in many comments here.

I am not falling in any trap - I am originally from a place close to the Ukrainian border. When the war it's only some hundreds of kilometers from your place of birth, your own mother and family, you think in a very different way, I can assure you. Don't teach me what to think about a war. Keep your "spade" for yourself.
I was born and raised in communism, saw the Berlin Wall falling as a student and the dictator of my country put up against a wall and executed. And now you're aberrating about me falling into a trap bla bla... After half of life spent under the Russian boot, you want to teach me how the Russian-Ukrainian war is. Lool... And how the governments bla bla... I've also lived in Scandinavia for decades now, I can say I saw and recognized a lot of "spades". And also I've seen lots of people like you. Tragically.

I don't defend the series - it doesn't even need that. It's about you mixing things up, turning a movie about 1600 into politics and morals of 2024. Your rating is your right and I don't even care.

Don't bother to answer. I won't waste more of my time. You don't want to understand.

"What is the danger of presentism?
Presentism is one of the most common errors of historical reconstruction, using the values of the present to judge the motivation of the people of the past. It fails to appreciate both the context in which those people acted, and their intentions."

"What is the difference between historicism and presentism?
The real tension is between a historicism trying to be pure research and a presentism aiming for applied re- search. The historicist wants to understand the world, the presentist to change it. There are different goals: the historicist wants knowledge, the presentist justice."

A spade is a different spade in 1600 than the 2024's spade. The 1600 spade is in the past, cannot be changed. Take it as it is or leave it.
If you don't understand this or DON'T WANT to understand, it's your own problem.
Don't mix the Russia-Ukraine war, a present war, with 1600. There we go again.

England was at war with Spain and its allies. They were doing all possible to weaken their power and cut off Spanish and Portuguese sources of funding. Catholic Church had the biggest influence in that period, wanting to Cristianize to catholicism South America and Asia. England and its allies were not anymore under the Vatican's influence. That war was not only in Europe now, it moved on seas and oceans and on other continents. That was the situation in 1600. Every plundering of Spanish and Portuguese colonies had a justification in the eyes of the English and their allies.
That pilot was not a mercenary, he was paid by Dutch Republic, he was sent to Japan with letters of marque issued by The Dutch Republic. He was a soldier, an explorer, a tradesman, an ambassador. In those letters of marque he was empowered to attack and rob any enemy ship or base. His "salary" was 10% of his prey he took back with him to Amsterdam, those were the rules in those times.
England's fleet was made by "privateers", called in Spain "The Sea Dogs" - basically those "privateers" were pirates.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1576/the-sea-dogs---queen-elizabeths-privateers/

You still think in 2024 terms.

It made you laugh because you think in the present day way. This kind og judgement is called "presentism" - to look at history events with judgements and ideas of the present. Put yourself in 1600 not in 2024. Blackthorne also believed that taking baths and opening windows are unhealthy at such a level that it put life in danger. Maybe this is laughable now but at that time they really believed that.

No wonder indeed. Dumas' books were my childhood's fav books, together with "Winnetou" by Karl May.

It was the easiest to use them for my explanation. Everybody knows "The Three Musketeers" and it fits in the context. And if some didn't read the books, maybe saw one of the many different adaptations for the screen, so that's why I chose it. I can't know anything about your background, education, location, etc. But "The Three Musketeers" are universal known. I am European so the French history and literature are common things.

I know that whatever argument I would give, you would go on and on with your comments. I saw a lot of people like you. I stop here. My advice is "Read Shogun, it's worth it!" And maybe after you read it, you understand the series at their fair value.

Clavell used his own imagination to write a novel inspired by real historical facts. Why do you compare the real history to a literary work only you can say.
Think "The Three Musketeers" by Alexandre Dumas and you have it: all historical characters, the queen, the king, the cardinal and the musketeers existed in history but Dumas used them to write an adventure novel. D'Artagnan existed also under another name and he was a very disagreeable person. Athos, Porthos and Aramis existed too, but not the same like their characters in Dumas' books.
I don't understand how you can criticise something you didn't read. You doubt about something you don't know for sure. You take other people's words for granted instead to make your own opinion.
If you watched "Shogun" only to find its flaws, I feel sorry for you. There is no joy neither pleasure in looking intoThe Sistine Chapel (forced comparision) and see only the cracks.

I think you're funny. And ridiculous in your desperate attempt to destroy this series. You even try to downplay the book: "written in the '70s" lool
What has to do the year of the literary work with its quality?
You used time and energy for belittle a great series.

If Oscars were only for one genre it would have been a disaster... Have you given a second thought before you wrote this comment? A movie is a piece of art, whatever genre it would be. It's a story put on the big screen and it counts how it's told, the craftmanship of that person who tells the story (the director) through the actors, the screenplay, the camera master (cinematography), costumes, music, make-up, etc.
A film like "The Boy and the Heron", an animated film can win an Oscar, a BAFTA and a Golden Globe if it is made with exceptional mastership. Animated movies have their own category...

MDL has really shitty ratings. If a movie like "The Seven Samurai" (1954) , "one of the greatest and most influential films in cinema history", was to be in here now it had very low ratings.
The most annoying and stupid argument is "I don't care, everybody has the right to like or dislike". That tells a lot about the level of the viewers. You may not like Beethoven or Shakespeare, but you must admit their value.

P.S. I have checked on MDL and "The Seven Samurai" exists. I cannot rate it unfortunatelly. But if you read the comments, you'll see that some can rate and see the rating: 8.5/8.8. And that concludes my words. Some comments there are extremely stupid. But no wonder lool

I think a lot of scenes were cut out at editing table.
1. That dream was his most precious, he travelled to Japan with that purpose: to
become rich, famous. respected, even knighted by Queen Elisabeth and to die old and in his own bed, in England, surrounded by his grandchildren. This is why he lived that extremely risky life on ships and seas, fighting storms and hurricanes and even fighting with a sword the Spanish and Portuguese after boarding their ships. It is a little confusing but if you watch the movie very carefully, all the scenes and dialogues, you can understand very well what's going on with those dreams. They come after trauma (explosion and Mariko's death) and in a moment when he literally tries to make Toranaga to kill him because his ship is gone and that dream of his heart is destroyed, never being able to sail back to England.
2. This is a human reaction, actually. The instinct of self preservation. He is not Japanese, he is English and Christian. Not born samurai, his life had another value.
3. Yes, they used the tea ceremony to solve some issues somehow between Mariko and Buntaro, in a different way than the book.
4. The way they portraited Kiku in the series, there were no chances to make her marry Blackthorne. The same with Fujiko - in the series she is much prettier and likeable than in the book. After John chose to live and found a new purpose for his life, they didn't want to make him be alone. So they kept Fujiko for him.
I think it was a western idea, but for viewers it had sense.

Same here.
And in my opinion, this Blackthorne is not fit to such a hot love story with Mariko and neither the giant, handsome, polyglot, semi-savant Blackthorne (almost Superman) like the book. This Blackthorne is more human, imperfect, lonely stranger on a completely unknown different planet Japan was for him :)
Great production. To be able to put on screen such a huge and dense book in only 10 episodes is an accomplishment in itself.

Her son was to be married in Kiyama family, which was a great honor. Mariko was the daughter of the infamous Akechi Jinsai, who was a great daimyo, very respected, from a very noble and old family, but he killed his Lord. That Lord was a tyrant and he took a lot of wrong decisions only to fortify his power, without thinking about the good of the Realm. Mariko was married for only 2 months and pregnant with her son when that killing took place and Buntaro sent her away to North Japan to protect her and their family. After the boy was born he was taken away so Mariko didn't raise her son. The boy was told every day what his grandfather did and that shame was like a permanent black cloud above his head. Mariko lived in shame and wanted to die every single day of her life.
The boy was greatly influenced by Kiyama, forced to become Christian and brainwashed by Kiyama against Toranaga. The boy was only 15 yo.
In the book, the boy has a handicap, was born with a twisted right arm, never being able to hold a sword or a bow. But very sweet and loving, never speaking like that to his mother, very intelligent and well educated. Mariko was very proud of him.

Toranaga knows he will become shogun, because Ishido marched with his samurai out of Osaka Castle. That castle was impregnable, but Toranaga lured him out and Toranaga never lost a direct battle. On the battlefield, all Ishido's allies will desert him, especially Ochiba (like in the series), who made a secret agreement with Toranaga. Ishido will die very slowly, in agony and huge humiliation.
Blackthorne will never leave Japan, he will become Toranaga's best friend.
Fujiko dies, wanting to be reunited with her husband and child. That was her agreement with Toranaga, that she will be Blackthorne's concubine for 6 months and then he will allow her to kill herself. Toranaga tried to make her change her mind but he couldn't. The only compromise she made was to make her death look like accident.
Blackthorne will marry Kiku, which in the book is a very sweet and a good hearted beautiful woman. She will be happy to marry a samurai and to give birth to samurai kids. Toranaga buys her contract from her mama-san and gives her to Blackthorne to marry her. She is the inspiration for the future geishas.

I think I will drop this, it's annoying and I can't understand how a person can come inside your house without your permission and then doesn't want to go away. I would have kicked his ass out, threw his things in the street.
2 weirdos, each in his own way. Can't see any cuteness in all this.

Those dreams John had when unconscious, were those he dreamt all his life. To die in his bed, at old ages, rich and knighted by the queen Elisabeth I, surrounded by family and living enough to see his grandsons.
Thinking of how he spent his life on ships, in danger, in storms and fighting the Portuguese and Spanish, sometimes directly using a sword after boarding enemy vessels, those dreams were his most precious. And likely hard to achieve, almost impossible.

After he saw his ship burnt, he had to give up on them, understanding he would never sail again to England. He wanted to die there, trying to provoke Toranaga to kill him. He said to his dream "Fuck it" and to his immortal soul and to the chance to meet Mariko again in Heaven, looking at her cross.
He was in a very special state of mind in those moments: first Mariko and now his ship. He lost his motivation to live.
And then, when Toranaga told him to built a ship and a fleet for him, he came to life again, finding a purpose to reach that dream again.

They had only 1 ep to put on place all "pieces". Kiku - as she was shown in this series it was not the right wife for John. Ochiba and Zataki - it would have taken time and they found a shorter solution but very valid. But I have the feeling they used Ochiba-Zataki thing in filming but was cut out. Time was a very serious issue in making this wonderful series.
On the other hand, Fujiko was so much more likeable in the series than in the book, they created that beautiful moment in the boat when she's reconciling with her past/loss choosing life and John saying "Good bye" to Mariko.
The last 50-100 pages of the book are so dense with Toranaga's thoughts and plans for the future, it would be impossible to make it in 1 ep.

He's only studying the wind :)

No.