I liked the movie but didn't understand the portrayal of Lee.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/30/bruce-lee-daughter-father-portrayal-quentin-tarantino-film-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood
Perhaps that is the sort of person Bruce Lee was? I have zero idea, having never met him or read very much about him, but presumably Tarantino has talked to many people who knew and worked with him. Bruce Lee absolutely strikes me as the type of guy who'd have been yapping away about how great he is, but this is mere conjecture on my part.
Or, it may be a reflection on how Lee is viewed today. He's made up to be a larger-than-life badass who could take on anyone, when in reality, yeah, Muhammad Ali would almost certainly have beaten him to a pulp, as would someone like Cliff Booth.
If I had to guess, I'd say it is a combination of those things, along with a way to demonstrate how capable Booth is. Lee had an enrapt audience, and only Booth was tough enough to laugh at his boasting, and only Booth was tough enough to hold his own against him in a fight.
Bruce Lee absolutely strikes me as the type of guy who'd have been yapping away about how great he is
In other words, we don't really know. Made for a great scene in the movie, and that's what matters.
shareNope. Lee was a real person, not a fantasy character. You just can't portray a real person as an arrogant brat because that 'makes for a great scene in the movie'. I think Tarantino made a mistake there.
As a said, Lee could be considered the father of MMA, and because of it, he's probably the most important figure in the development of Martial Arts in the second half of XXth century. He was the one who started to mix different Martial Arts styles and to combine them with boxing techniques. Lee actually admired Muhammad Ali technique to the point of studying his footwork to integrate it as a part of his own style. And this person would be bratting about beating Ali easily? it doesn't fit his character.
Tarantino has a huge knowledge of old movies. But here, I think he confused the character Bruce Lee created in movies with the real person behind that movie character. And they're not the same, as Charlie Chaplin and Charlot were not the same.
I agree about Tarantino's mistake. It was also a big mistake for him to have allowed Sharon's sister to read the script. She didn't know Sharon nor did she really know Sharon. Sharon walked in a different world than Debra Tate. It should also be noted that Debra Tate is not the official family spokesperson for the Tate Family and has absolutely no say in the parole hearings, that she frequently grandstands in. The official spokesperson for Sharon is her widow, Roman Polanski. But since Tarantino has a grudge against Polanski, don't see that happening any time soon.
It should be noted that Debra Tate was disinherited by both of her parents due to her own behaviour before the murders as well as afterward. I've seen a copy of both Doris and Paul Tate's wills and they both state she was disinherited due to her own actions. Paul Tate before his death in 2005 wrote a letter to the Board of Prison Terms and Pardons stating that Debra had no say at the hearings and that his letter in the file stands as the permanent statement from the Tate family with regards to Sharon's killers and their hopes for parole.
It gets me how Tarantino can be so narcissistic as to believe he can write what he wants about both Sharon and Bruce and no one will call him out on it. And when they do he's very dismissive. I mean all he does is have Sharon dancing. I see he really didn't do any "depthy" research on her and only watched the many movie reels on her showing her dancing. Nice work there QT.
So you completely missed the massive clue in the title of Once Upon A Time then...
It was not supposed to be a bloody documentary.
I disagree. Even if a few overly sensitive folks object, or if the entire world objects, I believe it is the artist's right to do what's necessary to fulfill his vision. Besides that, the scene is remarkable, and it is a necessary component of the film, not just some throwaway comedic bit.
Why does it matter that Lee was integral to MMA? I've always heard that Royce Gracie is the seminal figure of the "sport." As an aside, it's something of a joke of a sport, no? It's boxing for those not good enough to be boxers, and is a "sport" designed to appeal to the dumbest degenerates. That aside, even if Lee invented it, why does that make him immune to parody and/or a role in a reimagining of history?
We don't know what Bruce Lee was like in his day-to-day life, and we also don't know that he was a perfect, humble, gentleman 24/7. I'm sure even Mother Teresa lost her patience and snapped at a nun now and then. But assuming he was perfect, I still think it's okay to imagine him otherwise in a film.
Not that it matters, but we know that Tarantino has a massive amount of respect for Lee, and I seriously doubt he confused Lee the character with Lee the actor. I'd be amazed if there is a film, interview, or any existing piece of footage of Lee that Tarantino hasn't seen, and he's probably seen them all multiple times. He's spent a lifetime absorbing that stuff.
Sure you can portray real people anyway you want, just look at Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter... but the problem is that in this movie he has done anything to indicate that his version of Bruce Lee is made up he is presenting it as being accurate where in Vampire Hunter you know its all BS.
shareWhat??? The movie title is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood... Sharon Tate doesn't die in this movie... Everything in this movie screams that it is all made up...
shareMy point was in Vampire Hunter you know the whole thing is BS because there aren't any vampires, in this movie if you know the history of the time then you know its made up, but if you are clueless to the history which I'm willing to bet a large chunk of the audience will be, then the movie doesn't scream BS. In another 20 or 30 years you'll probably have people thinking it was all true.
shareOf course there is always a possibility that people will leave the teater thinking they have seen a true story... but I believe if that is the case then they are probably not very bright to begin with... the phrase: 'Once Upon a Time' is a classic way to start a fairy tale so this should really tell the viewer this is a made up story...
And I sincerely hope that no one bases their knowledge of past events on movies even if it states based on true events... even those kind of stories often take some many liberties from the actual events that if cannot be considered factual.
Sadly, not only are there millions that base history on what they saw in a movie, but I've even had my kids come home and tell me they were supposed to watch _____ for their history class... and the fill in the blanks has not be for documentaries. My favorite was the daughter that was supposed to watch The cheesy Mel Gibson movie The Patriot for her American History class. So while anyone with half a brain know that movies are more fiction than fact there are a lot of teachers out there that seem to be trying to convince kids that they are pretty accurate snippets of history.
shareThat is indeed sad:-(
shareYou can't fashion your movie making to accommodate ignoramusies.
shareYou CAN portray a real person any way you want in a fictitious or satirical manner.....it happens all the time.
shareYou're correct that you have zero idea (AKA knowledge) of Bruce Lee, but yet you opine on the type of guy he was. He was humble and modest, A stunt man would have no chance against him.
QT made a movie full of fiction
I haven't said anything about the type of guy he was. I said we don't really know. We also don't know how he would have fared in a fight against anyone, especially a fictional character. Tarantino did indeed create a work of fiction, and in his film Booth, a former military man and trained fighter was able to go toe to toe with Lee. We don't know who won, because the fight was not finished, but it made for an excellent scene, and helped further the plot.
shareYour words: "Bruce Lee absolutely strikes me as the type of guy who'd have been yapping away about how great he is, but this is mere conjecture on my part."
So you did opine on the type of guy Lee was. That you admitted you didn't know what you were talking about doesn't change that you made an uninformed claim.
You seem like you want to make a point despite the facts, so go for it. I believe my words to be quite clear, and I've said nothing about the type of guy Lee was, because, as I pointed out several times, I never met him, don't know anyone who met him, and have not read any biographies about him.
Tarantino created a great scene, one that will likely be remembered as one of the many classic scenes in films that are referenced over and over. Did he take artistic license with the character who is meant to be Bruce Lee (thought he was only ever called Kato in the film)? He did. Just as he, and many other filmmakers, have taken license with other real-life figures placed into films.
Enjoy the scene for the amazing piece of film that it is and quit getting so hung up on meaningless details.
I agree with everything you are saying, and I think there are a couple of Lee fans who just want to be offended. Although I'm pretty sure one of the other characters did refer to him as Bruce
shareI don't have a dog in this fight, but he was called Bruce several times in that scene.
But Tarantino probably should have used made up names for everyone. Just a whole lot easier of a solution.
Loved the movie though!
I like Bruce Lee a lot, but hate discussions about him.
He was an actor FIRST and he was promoting himself to be impressive as his character in the movies. It's the same as a guy playing James Bond, he's not going to be in public or in interviews acting like a pussy or a fool because he wants to sell you that he''s James Bond.
It doesn't matter if Lee could fight as he did in movies because life is not a movie and it doesn't matter if an actor can do what his characters do. However, in the 60s they would tend to promote actors as cool, suave, tough, etc when in actuality actors pretend for a living, wear makeup, are nervous about their image, and not very manly.
Bruce Lee was the greatest fighter in the world in the same way that Yma Sumac was a direct descendant of an Incan princess. That's how they hyped things, back in that era.
shareAnd I should add, I love him too but I am loathe to discuss him because he's considered such an untouchable larger-than-life figure.
shareI think QT intentionally portrayed Bruce Lee as a caricature of himself. Movies are usually larger than life--especially QT movies. And that scene was GREAT based on how it was written. (Seriously...did ANYONE not like that scene?). And it was an intentional scene....to establish Cliff as an alpha--a skilled and confident man.
It reminded me of a similar scene in The Natural. Roy Hobbs accepts a challenge from a character portrayed as "The Bopper"....which we are to assume is Babe Ruth. (Mind you, Bruce Lee's name is never mentioned either....it's only implied he is Bruce Lee, based on mannerisms...and Cliff calling him "Kato").
The portrayal of Ruth is exaggerated....a larger than life caricature of the man's myth, designed to show the triumph of the Everyman against the legend, in order to establish the Everyman's own alpha qualities.
In the movies...you have creative license, especially when you don't name someone by name. It was a fun wink by QT....to NOT specifically mention Bruce Lee's name. By doing this....he could take some creative license....in order to further the Cliff character's prouise.
Seriously....did anyone NOT love that scene?? (And that is the point. It was a great scene. Period).
This endeth the lesson.
The problem is that QT didn't make an exaggerated version of the real person. It seems that QT has based his portrayal of Lee in the character Lee built in his early movies, as another user has posted below.
shareActually, IMO, it was indeed an exaggerated caricature of Lee. Not an overly satirical or silly one, but rather....a portrayal similar to my example of "The Bopper" in the movie The Natural.
And because they never outright used his name and addressed that he was indeed Bruce Lee in the movie, that gave QT a bit more wink-and-a-nod creative license to exaggerate "Kato" as he saw fit. He was having fun with it. (And so were we, the audience, BTW).
Examples, the exaggerated speech patterns. Sure, the real Bruce Lee spoke with that kind of inflection....but in this movie, it was way exaggerated. Also, his high-pitched "wooo woooa!" noises he made when he fought Cliff. Anyone who has ever done a Bruce Lee impression has made those silly sounds. But they were done for parody here, IMO. I couldn't imagine he'd really do that in a real street fight.
Also, when he went to snap his shirt off really fast (like he's been known to do in movie scenes)....and his shirt got all caught-up on his arms. That kinda played for subtle laughs. Again, he was trying to be the legend, but the legend is much different than the actual man.
You can't show the real Bruce Lee going up against Cliff and getting tossed around. THAT would be way too much suspension of disbelief. However, you CAN have fun with Cliff going up against a parody of the legend....the same way Roy Hobbs went up against a parody of Ruth ("The Bopper"). Let our imaginations fill some of it in the way we see fit. And, just enjoy the scene.
The way QT plays it out, nobody loses. Bruce Lee's legend is intact...(because this Bruce Lee-like character was simply a fun homage). We get to see how much of a bad-ass Cliff is. And we get to enjoy probably the best scene in the movie. Well done, QT.
• «Also, when he went to snap his shirt off really fast (like he's been known to do in movie scenes) [...] Also, his high-pitched "wooo woooa!" noises he made when he fought Cliff»
Character built for movies != Actor
• «Examples, the exaggerated speech patterns. Sure, the real Bruce Lee spoke with that kind of inflection....but in this movie, it was way exaggerated»
Nope.
This is the real Bruce Lee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk1lzkH-e4U
This is Tarantino's Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnQmD6dbaMw
I'm not saying that Lee's inflection couldn't have been used with comedic intentions. Actually, Lee had that odd way of speaking that could have been used for comedy. Don't forget that real life Lee was highly praised by every person who knew him or worked with him, which means he was an extremely charismatic and socially skilled person in real life.
So... you wanna make an exaggerated version? Portray him as some kind of Kung Fu new age guru speaking with his speech inflection. That'd be comedy.
However, what Tarantino portrayed wasn't an exaggerated version of the real Lee. Instead, he portrayed some kind of retarded pimp. He portrayed a thug, he portrayed a different persona.
I think we're both saying essentially the same thing, in different ways. The character in QT's movie isn't a 100% accurate portrayal of Bruce Lee. It's....a caricature. That's probably why he isn't called out as "Bruce Lee" in the movie. It's only hinted at....so that QT could create a facsimile of the real man.
shareNope, we're not saying the same thing. Anyway, I'm not gonna explain it again.
shareThis is good, because I doubt anyone wants or needs to have you "explain" anything to them--especially not an opinion.
shareThis is good, because I doubt anyone wants or needs to have you "explain" anything to them--especially not an opinion.
Also, I hate QT sometimes. He thinks he's smart but he's not.
You will not go to jail for killing someone in self-defense.
However, it used to be the case, and may be still, that a boxer, etc will be seen as a killer if he fights and kills someone no matter what. That's because they are seen as a person trained in how to severely harm someone. So, that scene is stupid.
Also, I hate QT sometimes. He thinks he's smart but he's not.
You will not go to jail for killing someone in self-defense.
I enjoyed the interview link.
I can tell he was a very smart and interesting guy. If he had moments of human weakness it's understandable as he was one of the only people like that in a society that wasn't too cool with Asian peple after all the wars.
Even now we have no Asian celebrities, at all, who are anywhere near as famous.
You wrote quite the post here, but it was all based on incorrect information. The character was called Bruce several times in that scene. Just watched the movie earlier.
shareAs a fun side note, Lee said that making those noises is a form of psychological warfare because it gets your enemy caught up in the weirdness and distracts them. I work in a profession where I have had to confront crazy people physically and I learned that from Lee. However, my technique is to say something really weird or ask a strange question.
It works!
It was a mistake for QT to use Bruce Lee in such a manner. He should have just made up a fictional character "like" Bruce Lee. It's just not fair to make a dead person seem like such an asshole.
In the case of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring for that matter, they come across as very sweet and sympathetic. The audience feels a sense of panic and urgency for what we know is going to happen to them. When it doesn't happen-- we feel elated and happy. We know it's a fairy tale-- that's why at the end we finally see the title "once upon a time."
The title at the end applies to Bruce Lee as well.
shareI disagree. The scene would be mediocre were it not Bruce Lee. Instead, as it is, it's going to join the pantheon of great scenes on film, and will be remembered decades from now.
shareDid you see The Natural? There's a scene where a guy (referred to only as "The Bopper") challenges Roy Hobbs to pitch to him, and guarantees he can get a hit off one of those pitches. He plays a larger than life figure, and a bit of a blowhard. He is meant to be a parody of Babe Ruth. A fictionalized...caricature of Ruth. And because he is never directly referred to as Babe Ruth....the director can have some creative license with him....exaggerate some of his characteristics. THAT......is what is happening as well in OUATIH, with the "Kato" scene. There's a very...VERY specific reason why he is never referred to as Bruce Lee. He's a parody....an homage....a caricature.....a close facsimile to the legend of Bruce Lee.
And as someone else already mentioned.....since this movie is a bit of a fairytale, they have every right to twist characters and events around as they see fit. It's not a documentary. It's a twisted, fictional retelling of some real events. That's part of the brilliance of QT. He's breaking the rules, and people aren't quite sure how to deal with it.
I took it that this scene happened only in Booth's head (while he was fixing the TV antenna), it was how he imaging a fight between him and Lee could start and why he was winning it.
shareNo, I think it was a flashback, Kurt Russell character was telling Dillon that Cliff brought a 'bad element' to the set.
Just like Cliff and his wife on the boat.
If you youtube some of his interviews, he comesacross as somewhat over confident for a short guy.
While obviously a skilled karate expert. You can't teach physcis. A punch from a 120 pound guy is much different than a punch from a 250 pounder... That is why they have weight classes in boxing.
Bullshit. Weight classes for a sport. Weight alone is going to be stronger. Also bruce lee is a straight martial artists. He can kick anyone ass regardless of size.
shareNope. No martial artist can beat a trained heavyweight, Martial Arts are not a magic silver bullet. You wanna beat a trained heavyweight? Shoot him. If you don't have weapons, you better run, though he probably will outrun you. Heavyweights being slow is just another myth.
That's one of the problems of modern movies portraying chicks making some fantasy katas and knocking down big dudes. People start to think that weight doesn't matter. Well, weight (muscles) matters. A lot.
Wtf? Wat drugs are you smokin’ every heavyweight has routinely said they gotten their ass whopped in a street fight. Mike tyson many times, George Foreman, even Mohomeed Ali. Heavyweights are slow. Its heavier to move and many of them have a lot fat. You cant beat the speed of a flyweight. That’s known.
Goes to show how much you know. Weight isnt muscle and if we go by weight then we do have a fight at all if the heavier guy is going to win. Tyson, Mayweather routinely fought fighters heavier and still won. There is countless videos in youtube and around the web about smaller guys beating bigger guys. Size doesnt equal victory. Skill does. A lot of highly trained women can break any guy in secs.
every heavyweight has routinely said they gotten their ass whopped in a street fight.
https://nymag.com/news/features/mike-tyson-2013-10/index2.html
shareSo I asked which was the source of your statement about how professional heavyweight boxers as Mike Tyson, Foreman or Ali were, your literal words, 'routinely gotten their ass whopped in a street fight'.
And you provide a link about how Mike Tyson got his ass routinely whopped in street fights... when he was 11 years old.
Aha.
Just an example. My actual sources are interviews.
You think mike @ 11 was a push over. He routinely did the beating and was universally known as huge by then. It’s no surprise he is the youngest Heavyweight ever.
It’s no surprise he is the youngest Heavyweight ever.
Yea but I at least gave you a source and can provide more. What have you proven to your baloney claims?
sharedude if a big guy comes for you, like kuku said: run. Either that or be really aggressive and try to knock him out fast. If you try that and fail he will beat you up tho, so go buy some jogging shoes lmao
shareIf you go buy this in every competition ever the big guy should win so why have competition at all?
shareIf a big guy comes for you, you should run? What a stupid comment. Most big guys are all muscle with no technique or fighting experience. Especially gyms rat who don't even know how to throw a punch and have zero stamina.
The weight advantage only comes into play if both fighters are trained, otherwise the experienced fighter will have the advantage even if they're smaller.
Alright dude, gl, try one of those cool moves you have seen in a movie, it will probably work
share"A lot of highly trained women can break any guy in secs."
"Any" guy? You're an idiot. There's not a single chick on the planet who can break "any" guy at all, let alone in "secs." Put the best female fighter in existence into any men's fighting circuit and she'd never win a fight again; she'd be ranked dead last.
"Weight isnt muscle"
So muscle weighs nothing? Again, you're an idiot. In reality, muscle is about 15% denser than fat, which means it weighs 15% more than fat for any given volume.
You obviously watch too much entertainment and dont know about combat woman. If you ever entered combat training and tried your hand at a professional woman I’m sure she’d take you down. If it was a given that men can kick women’s asses there wouldnt be so many men in the hospital by women.
Muscle can be lean and light compared to flab.
"You obviously watch too much entertainment and dont know about combat woman."
That's comically ironic, considering it's modern entertainment (movies and such) that gave your feminized brain the laughable idea that chicks are tough.
"If you ever entered combat training and tried your hand at a professional woman I’m sure she’d take you down. If it was a given that men can kick women’s asses there wouldnt be so many men in the hospital by women."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, simp. You said any guy (does the "bolding" help?). Of course there are chicks that can beat up some "guys," "guys" like you, for example. There's not a chick on Earth that can beat up a top-ranked male fighter, nor even a low-ranked male fighter. As I already said, "Put the best female fighter in existence into any men's fighting circuit and she'd never win a fight again; she'd be ranked dead last." Chicks can't compete with men in ANY physical sport. Hell, they can't even compete with men in mental "sports" such as chess.
"Muscle can be lean and light compared to flab."
You're an idiot and you fail Biology 101 forever. It's not a case of "muscle 'can' be lean," muscle IS lean by definition (for example, ground beef labeled as 90% lean means it is comprised of 90% muscle tissue and 10% fat tissue), and it's never "light" compared to fat. For a given volume, muscle is always heavier than fat, because it is denser than fat (about 15% denser). In other words, e.g., one cubic foot of muscle is always about 15% heavier than one cubic foot of fat. Do you even know what density means? Apparently not.
You mean the "combat women" they keep lowering the physical standards for? You should be man enough to admit when you've lost an argument.
shareDude, you obviously don't watch boxing. Just look at the KO rates among heavyweights vs lightweights. If you are trying to convince people that George Forman's punch is the same as Bruce Lee's...(Lee is a Hollywood constuct that appeals to short men) Forman never entered the ring with a lightweight because boxing officials KNOW that size matters and death is a real possibility.
shareOne detail: Lee wasn't a Hollywood construct. He was one of the most important figures in the development of modern martial arts.
And besides that, he made movies.
(Heavyweight vs lightweight stuff, completely agree)
He was a martial artist first and foremost. Through and Through.
I’d bet on Lee vs George.
Key word is "artist"... martial arts looks great when you have one guy beating back an attack by 10 others.. until you realize that those 10 attackers are attacking in a scripted fight in a predetermined order to insure the one guy wins. Sorry but martial arts is not nearly as effective as you think in a real world confrontation.
shareThose are movies. Check a real fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teSDNrYvJeI
No, I'm talking about the hokey demos where some "grand master" goes into a room and is attacked by 10 different students that he magically beats back. What you linked to is nothing but a MMA fight, nothing to do with what I mentioned.
shareWhat you linked to is nothing but a MMA fight, nothing to do with what I mentioned.
Two problems... 1) you missed what I said was bullshit to begin with, the one master that stands in a ring and is attacked by 10 student he easily subdues... That was the main point to begin with.. it is total bullshit. I don't care if you stick the best fighter in any category into a situation where they are attacked by 10 people at the same time, they aren't going to easily subdue all 10 people... that crap happens because the 10 students are told before they even stand up which one will attack when and how, worse that WWF.
and 2) MMA didn't exist until almost 20 years after Bruce Lee died. The only reason anyone squawk that he was the father of MMA is because they were trying to legitimize MMA by associating it with his name.... pretty much as pathetic as Tarantino trying to use Bruce Lee to sell tickets to his movie. Using various forms of fighting together isn't something new it has been going on for centuries. It was only recently that they coined the term MMA again, about 20 years after Bruce had already died and it just sounded better than street fighting which is really all it is since you can use whatever style you want within the constraint of what is allowed.
• «you missed what I said was bullshit to begin with, the one master that stands in a ring and is attacked by 10 student he easily subdues»
Then you must decide whether you wanna talk about Lee or about those "masters". What you can't do is to mix them as you were talking about the same thing, because it's not.
• «MMA didn't exist until almost 20 years after Bruce Lee died. The only reason anyone squawk that he was the father of MMA is because they were trying to legitimize MMA by associating it with his name»
Nope. The reason is because Lee's Jet Kun Do was the first draft of what MMA would be. Lee developed his own style combining different martial techniques based on their effectiveness in each particular situation. And combining them with boxing footwork and control of space (he studied Ali), and grappling techniques (he learnt from LeBell). That's exactly what MMA would be.
Go look up "pankration" which can be dated back to ancient Greece. It was MMA only it wasn't called MMA. You've fallen for the current MMA hype about how this type of fighting is some new invention, it isn't. In fact the current MMA is pretty far removed from what Bruce Lee was combining. Most MMA relies more on boxing and Jiu Jitsu than anything else, Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do is more of a combination of boxing and kung fu than Jiu Jitsu... but if you want to believe the marketing hype feel free. Some people still believe in the Easter Bunny.
share• «Most MMA relies more on boxing and Jiu Jitsu than anything else, Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do is more of a combination of boxing and kung fu than Jiu Jitsu»
I didn't say that Lee developed MMA. I said he made the first draft of what MMA would be. Mixing different martial arts and combining them with Western martial arts can seem something obvious now, but it was taboo back then. He was extremely criticized by the Chinese community because of it.
And yeap, it's true that he based it more in kung-fu instead of jiu-jitsu. But that's not strange: wrestling was very underrated back then, by everybody. And while it's true that he didn't give enough importance to it, he still included it as part of the JKD, which was a step in the right direction. Again, it can seem something obvious now, but it wasn't that obvious back then.
• «Go look up "pankration" which can be dated back to ancient Greece. It was MMA only it wasn't called MMA»
Yeap, you're right, it's very similar to modern MMA. So... could MMA have been born by bringing back pankration and incorporating other martial art techniques to it? Absolutely. Indeed, it would have been easier than using Asian martial arts as a starting point.
But it didn't.
You know, modern Greeks don't give a shit about their cultural heritage unless it's something where you can charge a fee to tourists. Even modern Olympic Games had to be brought back by an English guy.
Artist doesnt mean fake. You can say mma which is essentially mixed martial arts and say real, the same thing with boxing. The same thing is with self defence. It’s just referring to the sweet science of it. Makes me thing you’ve never entered a dojo.
I wanna see any guy go up to Bas Rutten, Dempsey, Marciano, Sugar, Mayweather, Pacquaio, Hopkins, DC and just bull rush them just because they know “arts”.
Indeed, 'art' used to mean skill centuries ago. And it can still be used that way, specially when you're talking about pre-technological skills. You can say 'martial arts' the same way you can say 'art of sailing' ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/673.The_Complete_Sailor ).
shareI know. To me its self explanatory. Especially if you’ve entered martial arts before or have excellent awareness. Noway you can go in there and just stomp your foot in any one’s ass in there. No way.
shareIf your going by this why didnt george kill ali the lighter hitter? Your also going to dismiss all the great ko artist in their lower divisions or the fact that boxing didnt used to have such shit as a five pound class, ppv celebrity clashes, or three weight titles.
I can convince that Lee had a stronger punch.
George Forman's was at his prime 6'4"and 240 lbs.
Ali 6'3" and 230 lbs.
Bruce Lee 5'8"and 128 lbs.
Punching power is a combination of mass behind the punch(most important), speed in which it it thrown, and skill in which the punch is delivered.
Now we can both agree that Bruce Lee was faster than Forman. But to throw a punch to make up for the 120 pounds in mass that he is giving up, Lee's punch would have to be 4 X's as fast.
Your missing an important element that you yourself said skill.
Now if your going by the nonsense of science? Why do we have fights? Sizes? Differences in weights at all? If the biggest man should automatically win.
[deleted]
Lee is a Hollywood constuct that appeals to short men
Napoleon complex.
shareI liked this movie but as a Bruce fan didn't care for his portrayal in this. "Birth of the Dragon"(2016) is more respectful.
shareI agree. I don't get the point QT was trying to make.
shareI think Tarantino was conveying that Cliff Booth is the ultimate tough guy. He has the balls, and the wit, to laugh at Bruce Lee, one of the most skilled and respected fighters of all time, and the skills to hold his own in a fight with Lee. Had Booth picked a fight, he would not have come across the same as he did by standing up to a braggart.
Also, recall that we're seeing Booth's memory of the incident, not the actual incident, so it could also be meant to tell us that Booth is even cooler in his head than he is in real life. I don't like this theory very much because one of the main plots of the film is that Booth constantly succeeds in confrontations, and embodies the John Wayne archetype, which wouldn't be as true if he misremembered the event.
Also, this particular incident shows why it may have been hard for Booth to find any stunt work at all. It's a small community and once you have been alienated, it's hard to get back into the fold.
Booth came across as the ultimate Gary Cooper-type. Reserved and caring, but very strong and tough when needed. True bravery exists in the quiet moments where you see that someone has to make a decision to do what is right-- regardless of the cost. That scene with the Manson family on the ranch was chilling. I don't think many people would have had the guts to pursue seeing George to be sure he was okay.
I think that scene was supposed to be a daydream fantasy by Pitt's character. While he was on the rooftop fixing the antenna.
shareThere is a lot of stuff that Tarantino likes to do with rewriting history. Sharon Tate's survival, Hitler burned alive, Bruce Lee mutually getting his ass kicked after knocking down Cliff Booth, etc.
He mentions this a lot in his interviews so I just take it as it is.
'Bruce wasn’t like this and Tarantino knows that which is why it’s being told from the perspective of Cliff and not an actual flashback it’s showing what Cliff thought about Bruce Lee and what he thinks their fight was like when in reality cliff got owned but if we saw Bruce kick Cliff's ass he wouldn’t be established as a badass for the finale only a true badass could go toe to toe with Bruce Lee which is why Tarantino leaves the contest between them as a draw theres no clear winner and at the end of cliffs perspective flashback he even acknowledges that he got owned and instigated things'
I understand what the daughter was saying, and can only add, despite her criticism and yours, that Mike Moh's portrayal of Lee, his look and especially his speech patterns, were, to me, eerily reminiscent of the Bruce Lee I've seen in movies.
shareTarantino has a huge cinematographic knowledge. This time, though, I think he lost sight of that the character in the movies isn't the real person behind.
shareYou could say that about almost every QT movie though.
He's a story teller, who in these past couple of decades has decided to utilize historical figures for his character arcs. I think Lee's daughter's reaction was overboard and if she really wanted to make her point she should have prefaced it by stating that she knew Tarantino wasn't making a historical movie.
There was a corny movie a few years ago that featured Abraham Lincoln as a vampire hunter. I don't recall any historical Lincoln societies raging over that.
People need to chill out and stop pretending that their feewings were hurt when they really weren't.
(1) Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter was a complete fantasy movie. It's clear that you're not trying to portray the real historical person. However, when your movie is a quite accurate portrait of that historical period, like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or Forrest Gump, or Apollo 13, or any movie like that, you should be much more careful when it comes to portraying real people, because it's much more difficult to tell apart between what's historical and what's fantasy.
(2) Besides that, the portrayal of Abraham Lincoln was quite positive. Fantasy, true, but at least positive. Bruce Lee, on the other hand, was portrayed as a retarded jerk. It was close to defamation.
In a nutshell, you're making a movie that it's a quite accurate portrait of some historical period, and you're unfairly portraying some real person as a retarded jerk (or any other unfair negative portrayal), well, that's MISERABLE.
Jesus, the entire movie was a fictional account of history. The title itself illudes to a goddamn fairytale. People just love to bitch, and my guess is this is her one and only opportunity to have her voice heard by a lot of people, so she had to get her 15 minutes.
share