Why did QT disrespect Bruce Lee - Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Bruce Lee is an easy target nowadays.

Woke people won't defend him. In general, Asian males are kind of second category special group, far behind blacks, Muslims, women and Hispanic. But Bruce Lee was able to succeed during the 70s, without any special help or quotas, which makes him even more disposable in their eyes. In a nutshell, don't count on woke westerners to protect his name.

Anti-woke people won't defend him neither (with exceptions) since he's Asian, and he's supposed to be part of the special groups.

The truth is that Lee lies in a nowhere land, which makes him a very easy target in this modern polarized world. Tarantino is a very smart guy, and he knew he could take on him and use him as a clown without risking backlash. I mean, the Chinese government banned the movie, that's true, but there was no real backlash in western countries.

reply

[–] BurningSun (717) 5 years ago

Wow, this response is the cringiest thing I’ve seen all week. I’m not even a leftist but it’s hilarious to see some of you guys blame anything and everything on SJW’s but then belittle them for blaming us for everything. Like, lol.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

some of you guys blame anything and everything on SJW’s but then belittle them for blaming us for everything. Like, lol.

What's the relation with my comment? Why are you so obsessed with blame and guilt? Like, wtf.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7111) 5 years ago

Says the dude blaming everything on woke and anti-woke people. Your rant makes no fucking sense. Bruce Lee is a respected person.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

It seems he's not respected enough by SJW's. I haven't seen them defending his image and legacy in this forum. Actually, it was the evil-nazi-incel-racist-evil-fascist white males the ones defending them. Just saying.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7111) 5 years ago

Defending someone who was made to look like an asshole in a movie is not a hill worth dying on. Bigger causes out there.

But you don't care about any of this stuff. You're just looking for a reaction, really.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Sure. If we were talking about a bunch a worthless black thugs, that would be a 'bigger cause'. However, a guy who highly contributed to the development of both martial arts and action cinematography? Fuck him!

Wokeness is not only about reverse racism. It's about reverse meritocracy too.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7111) 5 years ago

"worthless black thugs"

Yeah, you're just another right wing white supremacist complaining about double standards that exist only in your troll head. Should have known not to waste time interacting with you.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3080) 5 years ago

I don't even bother with blatant white supremacist trolls who occasionally forget to "hide" their anti black racist vitriol behind plausible deniability which is what they usually do, being the low life, lying cowards that they all are .

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yeah, you're just another right wing white supremacist complaining about double standards

Sure. Because not praising a bunch of black thugs is white supremacism! Of course!

Thugs that are black must be praised! who cares they're thugs! they're black, and they must be praised no matter they're a bunch of worthless ones! because, you know, they're black!! Amen!!!

And whoever doesn't agree, he must be a white supremacist!! How do you dare not to praise and defend them!!

So that's it. Diversity is about praising thugs because they have the sacred dark skin color, and disqualifying people like Bruce Lee no matter he highly contributed to every field where he worked, or better said, because of how much he contributed. As I said, diversity is as much as glorifying felony and reverse meritocracy and it is reverse racism. And let me say: if disagreeing with that bullshit and defending Lee's legacy if is the new standard to define white supremacism, then sign me in.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2412) 5 years ago

Dude, you're a psycho. Woke and anti-woke? These are categories of people now? Shut the hell up.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Of course it’s a category. The Woke have totally hijacked Hollywood, the media, academia, and significant areas of political power, and have launched an attack on the once liberal cultures of the West with their racist, sexist agenda.

Kuku makes a good point. You won’t see woke drones defending Asians because they’re hard working and successful, and therefore won’t vote Left, and therefore are in the crosshairs of Woke Nazis.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

Accuracy can be cringey yes. Historical facts can sometimes be cringey. Loud mouth children with irresponsible parents can be cringey.

reply

[–] Forget (21) 5 years ago

WTF?

reply

[–] pbt (113) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 5 years ago

An excellent response, kuku!

😎

reply

[–] BurningSun (717) 5 years ago

It wasn’t necessarily disrespect. The whole point of having Brad Pitt‘s character decimate him in a sparring match was to build up Brad Pitt‘s character for the fight scene at the end. We see how he can hold his own against a martial arts legend, so how will he do against three teenagers? Tarantino is an outspoken fan of Bruce Lee and credits his films for helping him get into his passion for cinema, so I doubt this was some sort of middle finger.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

It was clearly disrespect. They portrayed him as an useless clown.

Had that been the general tone of the movie and the way to portray fictional and real characters, well, then that'd be a different story. But Lee was the only real character to be portrayed that way.

reply

[–] maul (1642) 5 years ago

It was absolutely disrespect. This whole concept that in order to boost up one character you have to shit on another (in this case, a real, deceased person who did not act the way portrayed), is nonsense and bad/lazy writing. And disrespectful of who Bruce was.

Basically portraying him as an arrogant, silly fraud. It's similar to what the new "SW" films have been doing - beating down old characters to try and bolster new, shittier ones. As bad as that is, at least those characters are fictional.

Also, Tarantino couldn't even bother to do the most basic of research. He stated that "If people are saying, ‘Well he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read…. She absolutely said it."

When in reality, it was the opposite, as seen in an excerpt from her book: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4ce8d93d68d555940a76a1517221f51f

reply

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

Mostly it was to show Brad Pitt's character was fearless and an agile, crafty fighter who could take a fall. But it was clearly disrespecting Bruce Lee, making him look like a big talker. And that was after they called him "that guy from Green Hornet" when everyone knew he was a legend.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

I don't think he was a legend yet in this country at the time he was playing a side kick on The Green Hornet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yeah- he was in his Kato uniform.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

Yes, that is what I said. I don't think he was a legend yet at that time.

reply

[–] SageMaster33 (877) 5 years ago

Absolute disrespect... There's no justification

reply

[–] Batty67 (358) 5 years ago

I think the scene was meant to be funny (and it was very much to me) and yes, it involved "dissing" Bruce Lee's legend. But...I see it as mild disrespect and much humorous irreverence.

reply

[–] SageMaster33 (877) 5 years ago

"black face" is also meant to be funny

reply

[–] Batty67 (358) 5 years ago

Well, let’s absolutely agree to disagree.

reply

[–] SageMaster33 (877) 5 years ago

Said the racist..

reply

[–] Batty67 (358) 5 years ago

Wow. So that’s why folks don’t respond to trolls like you. Go back to your sad world and look to right imaginary wrongs and correct perceived injustices. Or don’t.

reply

[–] SageMaster33 (877) 5 years ago

Wow!, So you actually think racism is imaginary..?

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21544) 5 years ago

Are you trying to say the Bruce Lee scene was racist?

reply

[–] gantz8596 (203) 5 years ago

No, he said that Batty67 is a racist when he stops argumenting when showed that his argument is ridiculous using racism analogy.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21544) 5 years ago

Understood.

reply

[–] BlowDriedMaggot (32) 5 years ago

If Bruce Lee had instagram, he would be unstoppable.

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3689) 5 years ago

Let's face it, Bruce Lee was over the top and had an out of control lifestyle. Quentin simply picked up on this and portrayed Bruce perfectly.

reply

[–] bobbynynex (1505) 5 years ago

bruce lee would never claim he could beat muhammad ali in a fight. also he was very anti-traditional MA.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1614) 5 years ago

Some of you need to go back and look at the title of this movie again..."Once Upon A Time" etc.

Its fantasy...its not real...its 'What if?'

It's not rewriting history or claiming this is how certain people were.

reply

[–] bobbynynex (1505) 5 years ago

ya but still, this will influence a whole generation of how people think of bruce lee...the point is why do it?

reply

[–] Roguemail (1614) 5 years ago

Oh please...if people want to know about any person portrayed in a movie they can read a book or do some research.

I said before that in this movie the clue in the title...its not real and it's not presented as such.

reply

[–] gantz8596 (203) 5 years ago

If reading books and research is a prevalent culture in America, there wouldn't be any anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, holocaust denier, etc.

The fact is most children can easily recognize Katty Perry without any idea who Mahatma Gandhi is.

Everything in the movie happened just like how it happened in history. The only difference is the existence of the two protagonists. So, that's how historical Bruce Lee is in the eye QT.

reply

[–] sslssg (34334) 5 years ago

Do you think that this will also confuse the same generation on The true story of the Manson family murders?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38427) 4 years ago

So this isn’t a documentary then?

reply

[–] sslssg (34334) 4 years ago

Hmmm....Tarantino did do a great one on WWII, so it's possible.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38427) 4 years ago

“this will influence a whole generation of how people think of bruce lee.”

You don’t think this is a teensy bit hyperbolic?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38427) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Martoto (5049) 4 years ago

So? Prior generations were split between Lee's persona seeming cool as fuck or took itself way too seriously.

Bruce Lee has been an object of both worship and of ridicule since forever.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76345) 5 years ago

BRUCE WAS ARROGANT AND CHILDISH,READ A BOOK OR SOMETHING...

reply

[–] bobbynynex (1505) 5 years ago

have you read 101 dalmnations?

reply

[–] Kowalski (76345) 5 years ago

I HAVE READ 101 DALMATIANS...ARE THEY SIMILAR?

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

BRUCE WAS ARROGANT AND CHILDISH

Arrogant? Yeap, he was. Childish? Not at all.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76345) 5 years ago

BASED ON BRUCE'S BIOGRAPHY AND THE GLIMPSES INTO HIS PERSONALITY GLEAMED FROM EXCERPTS FROM STEVE MCQUEEN'S BIO AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH BRUCE...BRUCE WAS INDEED ARROGANT AND CHILDISH,NOT IN A BAD WAY...PLAYFUL,SILLY,JOKEFUL...ALL BRUCE.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Well, that's possible. But you should be more specific. The main meaning of 'childish' is somebody who lacks maturity and doesn't know how to behave. Of course, you could use it as a synonym for 'playful' too, but you should indicate someway that you're referring to that concept.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76345) 5 years ago

CHILDISH---of, like, or appropriate to a child. OR silly and immature. ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY.

reply

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

He stayed in his house for 4 days. It was a convenient place to stay.
It was DEFINITELY the wrong thing to do.

reply

[–] Shooter (112) 5 years ago

I saw it as Brad day dreaming. Thinking "yea I could kick Bruce Lee's ass". I don't think the fight ever took place. He was just working on the roof letting his mind wand er.

reply

[–] jgm4661 (83) 5 years ago

Good observation. I saw it that way too. He actually said something aloud too like' Oh well' and then went back to work.

In the movie he really got fired or banned as a stunt man for allegedly killing his wife.

reply

[–] Druff (1805) 5 years ago

He was obviously remembering one the of the reasons why Randy and Janet don't like him and don't want to work with him. But there's no law that says you guys aren't entitled to interpret it any cockamamie way you want, cheers.

reply

[–] jgm4661 (83) 5 years ago

Maybe . If that is the case, I'm with all the others here w their concern for the stupidity in having the scene. Bruce Lee was a fan of boxing in fact and boxers like Ali and Joe Louis in particular according to documentaries. His stance is even a boxing stance. He never challenged any boxers and vice versa.

Only someone like Tarantino would miscast him like this just for shock or schlock value.

reply

[–] Druff (1805) 5 years ago

I honestly have to wonder if he did it merely as a troll to get a reaction out of Bruce Lee fanboys.

reply

[–] jgm4661 (83) 5 years ago

Tarantino is an idiot. Bruce Lee was a cultural icon whether you like it or not so he likely offended millions w his foolishness - he is a shock value fool so it maybe his aim. Maybe Cliff should have beat up Steve McQueen too for more cheap shock value lol.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Well, its two out of three and...Lee wins the first one, Cliff wins the second, and it is broken up before the deciding fall.

I think it is worth analyzing the scene as it illustrates a few things about Cliff Booth:

One is that he has a calm, mellow exterior which belies a capacity for sudden violence. We will see it later when he beats up the goony guy at Spahnn Ranch, and later still when he takes on more Manson family members.

In addition to the rumor that "he killed his wife and got away with it," Cliff can't help but get himself in trouble...as he does here with Bruce Lee.

But there is also this. Rick says to Kurt Russell's stunt boss about Cliff: "He's an f'in war hero," and really pushes on Kurt's guilt. So Cliff gets hired for the day.

A war hero. Figure Cliff Booth for about age 50 in 1969 and he's likely a World War II hero(and maybe a Korean War hero, too) and that means: he likely fought against Asians. Japanese or Koreans.

Now Bruce Lee was Chinese, but....

reply

[–] Druff (1805) 5 years ago

"I don't think the fight ever took place. He was just working on the roof letting his mind wander."

This is completely wrong. I just re-watched the movie last night on blu-ray-

Rick tells Cliff something like, "You can forget about working with me on this new show I'm doing, because the stunt coordinator is friends with Randy and Janet... and after what happened with you and Bruce Lee on that one show a while back... there's just no way." This triggers Cliff to remember the Bruce Lee incident. He is clearly remembering something that actually happened. When the flashback ends it comes back to Cliff in the present, he says, "Fair enough." He's obviously not imagining some bullshit that never happened outside of a daydream in his own mind, because Rick mentioned it himself.

reply