Talk:The Hidden Fortress

Tone...
This article has a serious problem: if it weren's a 50-year-old, black-and-white Japanese period drama, I would call some of this article (particularly "Analysis") fancruft. elvenscout742 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I seriously disagree.--24.215.147.153 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the Analysis is somewhat opinionated, but it's difficult to analyze art without an opinion. Other than that I see nothing amiss. -Xastic 06:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has a proper formal, if positive, critical tone. This is KUROSAWA, not a comic book, so this film's and his excellence should not be questioned. Oh, this is not a period drama. It is a story of people, which could be set in any time or background, as Star Wars shows.


 * Whether or not you, I or the world at large think Kurosawa is a genius is not the issue, whether or not you, I or the world at large think 'The Hidden Fortress' is a work of genius is not the issue. The issue is who can we quote saying saying that it is?  To add a bald statement that it is a work of genius is to violate NPOV, to say George Lucas (for example) has been quoted as saying it is a work of genius is not.  Also please sign your posts.  Shimbo 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shimbo. Whether the piece is by KUROSAWA or a comic, it doesn't alter wikipedia policies of No Original Research and WP:NPOV.


 * The orginal research on lucas's influence by kurosawa is from the interview on the criterion edition of the DVD, I will remove the no orginal research and cite the interview --Survivestyle5 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On another point, isn't the big fight with with a spear, not a quarterstaff? Ashmoo 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just finished watching it and that is one sharp quarterstaff. Changing it. Highlandlord 13:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the inconsistency of naming conventions in the article. Before, it used both "Rokurota Makabe" and "Makabe Rokurota," and both "Princess Yuki" and "Yukihime." I corrected them so they are all consistent with the names as written in the film's English subtitles. I also deleted the explanation of the meaning and usage of "-hime," which is no more relevant to this film than "uma" (horse), "kin" (gold), or any other Japanese word spoken by the actors of this film and translated into English in the subtitles. spacecat2 12:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be extraordinarily blunt for a moment, the entire Analysis section is a complete Akira Kurosawa blowjob, and completely uncited, at that. It should either get some citations quickly or be deleted. I'll give it a week. --Pathogen 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the trademark Star Wars horizontal wipe transition is also a prominent feature of Hidden Fortress and an obvious influence on the former. --Mpk138 20:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed odd claim
I removed the following. It says it's describing an unusual narrative structure. But it's actually describing utterly conventional storytelling ('character development follows introduction...' well obviously!). Maybe I'm missing something?
 * The Hidden Fortress uses a non-traditional narrative structure in which the audience is only gradually introduced to each character, and is often misdirected about the nature of those characters. This is an idea that becomes a recurring theme in the script, as character development follows introduction and characters strip away their disguises to reveal unexpected aspects of themselves.

Cop 633 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Influence
The influence section which details the extent of how much Hidden Fortress influenced George Lucas and Star Wars is unnecessary and further, does not cite it's references. This section should NOT be longer than the actual text that describes the subject of the main article. I am a Star Wars fan myself but this main article should not be used as a Star Wars fan article. I am shortening it unless there is contention to this. --Hokgwai 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It has a bad influence on readers Siyabonga Nhlangwini (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Title
In the introduction the title is translated as "The Three Villains of the Hidden Fortress". Shouldn't it be "scoundrels" instead of "villains"?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the plot
Let's discuss the plot here. JoshuSasori (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP and new editor from Texas has missed something in their reading of the subtitles. Tahei and Matashichi were not fighting for the enemy. Soldiers on the same side rarely take each other as prisoner. Another point is that, if they had fought for the enemy, then they would not need to avoid them to return to their home province. Finally they were being made to bury their own soldiers by the enemy just before we meet them. Having said that the plot could use an overhaul as it is confusing in a couple places and makes a leap or two over certain events. Per WP:BRD the article should stay in its original form until consensus to change it occurs. MarnetteD | Talk 00:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From the edit summaries it looks as though this person has confused the opening sequence of the film and the later scene where Matashichi is mistakenly herded together with the line of prisoners. MarnetteD | Talk 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All I can see from watching the first part of the film is that the two intended to fight for Yamana, turned up late, were mistaken for Akizuki soldiers, then were forced to bury the Akizuki dead. But nowhere did they mention fighting in any battle. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I apologize for violating editing policy and obfuscating the edit history section with posts and messages. It was pretty cavalier, and stupid, and I'll be more respectful in the future.

I will watch it again tonight to make absolutely sure of my stance before I continue this, but my understanding, based on a comment from Tahei in the opening scene, is that they showed up late for war, were mistaken for enemy soldiers, captured and forced to bury the dead, and hadn't had anything but water for two days. They then, split, Matashichi left for home, and Tahei continued looking for fortune. They were then recaptured, etc.

Regarding MarnetteD's comment, "Another point is that, if they had fought for the enemy, then they would not need to avoid them to return to their home province." If they had fought for the Akizuki, they would not need to cross the border to return home. They'd already be there. As I understood, this was the driving point of the plot. They absolutely would need to sneak across the border, even it was their home. This was a protected border preventing defeated denizens from entering the invader's territory. There was no way for them to identify themselves as allies, or citizens, or anything. They were simply on the wrong side of the border.

After I watch it again tonight, I will reaffirm, or admit error, with some transcriptions from the dialogue.

Finally, I absolutely agree with MarnetteD regarding an overhaul. Some of the sections are too succinct to be clear-- like the plot. Rdmcelligott (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This may be a POV semantics problem. The Akizuki - in the persons of Rokoruta and the Princess - are portrayed as the protagonists throughout the film. Thus, IMO they should not be termed "the enemy" at any point in the plot description. Both the watchers of the film and the readers of this article will see the clan that defeated the Akizuki and that Hyoe is aligned with as "the enemy". I would say that if Rdmcelligott wants to have a go at reworking the plot after rewatching the film that would be okay - as long as you read WP:FILMPLOT first and realize that these should be kept short and don't get bogged down in detail - an easy thing to do with a film that you really admire. The article could also use a cast list especially since Susumu Fujita is not currently mentioned at all. As he had been Kurosawa's first lead actor it is somewhat interesting - to me anyway and yes I know that is POV - that he returned to work for AK again after several years. MarnetteD | Talk 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The two peasants initially seem to have intended to fight for the Yamana clan. I've just watched the first 1/3 of the film right now, the beginning part twice, and I can't think how this is a misinterpretation. I've edited the article as far as I saw it. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks for clearing things up and my apologies to you both for my errors. I hope that you are enjoying seeing the film again. The scene of the prisoners revolting against their captors and cascading down the castle stairway is one of the most stunning and epic in all of film for me. Mifune's ride on the horse controlled only by his legs that leads him into Hyoe's encampment and the subsequent duel between the two is another great sequence. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Link Rot
The source regarding the inspiration on Star Wars no longer works. Klayman55 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Klayman55

Contemporaneous reviews
The current article only has one review from the time of its release, and it’s f the 90-minute U.S. edit. We need some reviews from the Japanese press, as well as a review of the uncut version that played in English-language theaters in the late 1950s. Morganfitzp (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)