|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| |
 |
 |
|
Journ-O-LST-3
|
|
| Joined: 07 Feb 2006 |
| Posts: 8 |
| Location: Chico, CSU sector |
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: B-Kung-Fu |
 |
So I was watching some movies the other day and was wondering how the Hong Kong movies rate as B-Movies or not. Partly this is because I am in the states and don't know really who's a big actor and who's not in the East, which is the West to me.
It seems like most of the Cat III movies would be and a few of the others as well though, Encounters of the Spooky Kind comes to mind.
Any thoughts? |
  |
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
Well, it's kind of difficult to fit Hongkong movies neatly into the A/B-movie categories used in the West (resp. East  )...The biggest stars of Hongkong cinema, the likes of Jackie Chan, John Woo, Chow Yun Fat, Sammo Hung or Michelle Yeoh, get to spend around 10 - 20 million US$ on a movie. So those would be the yardstick for A-movies, even if those budgets are still small compared to Hollywood. An average Hongkong movie costs around 5 million US$ to produce (the cheapest ones below 1 million), but that doesn't necessarily make it a B-movie...
Another aspect is that Hongkong has more of a copyism problem than even Hollywood. In Hollywood, a successful movie will get a sequel, and producers will try to extract a 'formula' from it...in Hongkong, in the eighties, a successful movie could spawn two sequels and a dozen cheap rip-offs within a year. On top of that, many of the classical Hongkong movie genres, like the martial arts movies (wuxia), have pretty one-dimensional premises to begin with...
So I guess there are a handful of Hongkong movies considered 'A' both in the West as well as Asia, a sizable group firmly considered 'B' in both markets, and a split jury on the rest. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
| Jesu Christi, you forgot Bruce Lee!! What's the matter with you?! Anyway, for me, I think one of the big deciding factors for the label of B movie is time. Like the most excellent author once said, many of the movies we call B were the summer blockbusters of their time. Let's take enter the dragon for instance, one of my favorite flicks. Nowadays, it's considered to be part of the "chop saki" kung foo genre, which are nominally considered B. At the time, this movie was huge! Lot's of well paid actors, awesome visual effects, especially the big mirror room fight scene at the end, it had it all. But now it's considered a B or cult movie. Now take something more recent, like Hero. It's considered an A movie. So yeah. There you go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
Time is a big factor, although it affects different movies to different degrees...a movie that relies mostly on plot and acting might hardly lose any of its appeal through decades. On the other hand, if a movie relies heavily on aspects which are subject to evolution, like special effects or fight choreography, it might appear dated after a few years.
When King Kong came out in 1933, it's stop-motion effects were, quite literally, breathtaking - nowadays, most people would describe them as 'quaint'. (Still a great movie, though) The same holds true for fight scenes in Hongkong movies...they have become more and more elaborate and well-choreographed over the decades, off lately fortified with CG effects, and even the best such segments from the 60ies and 70ies look a bit pale in comparison.
Success is another 'threat' in this regard. The first movies Bruce Lee made after moving to Hongkong quite literally revolutionized film-making there, mostly because he embodied a new and different type of hero - grittier, more emotional and more life-like than the sterile mythical heroes of earlier Hongkong films. Within less than two years, though, *all* studios in Hongkong started to copy this formula, so it's now considered the most cliché of clichés.
And, lastly, some films might age badly just because their characters follow 'unspoken laws of society' that might be completely unkown to people born a decade or two later. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
Have you ever noticed that Jackie Chan is the Kung Fu equivalent of Bela Lugosi? Both were excellent actors in their field, both started out doing one or two very solid movies, and both kind of sunk into mediocrity. I've watched more Jackie Chan movies than I care to mention, and it saddens me how such a good performer and genuinly nice dude gets saddled with such boring run off the mill, painfully average stuff.
_________________
SOULS!!! NEED MORE SOULS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
Yeah, that's true - and I guess it goes to show another major difference between Hollywood and Hongkong. Bela Lugosi was suffering from being typecast - producers and directors could imagine him only in a certain type of role, even when he would have actually been able to play a much wider range (although one has to admit that his strong accent *did* limit his range considerably).
Jackie Chan, however, has for a long time now been his own producer, director and occasional screenwriter - so he is, in effect, typecasting *himself*. I don't know whether he is doing it for financial reasons, in order not to disappoint his fans, or because he just prefers doing the things he knows he can do best - but while Bela would have been delighted to play more varied characters, if given the chance, Jackie has all the chances he'd need, he just prefers not to use them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
Speaking of which, it turns out that Mistah Chan's come out with a new Rush Hour movie. Your thoughts, beautiful forum public?
_________________
SOULS!!! NEED MORE SOULS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
JohnEightSix
|
|
| Joined: 18 Oct 2006 |
| Posts: 208 |
| Location: Houston, Texas |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
I am surprised he has still lasted this long and hasn't retired. I think he may well go on into zombiehood! 
_________________
What's a signature? DERP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
The last few years haven't been easy for HK movies, in general...Golden Harvest, the company for which Jackie made most of his films, has practically shut down it's production branch. What few movies they still produce they contract out to independent producers...
Since Jackie himself has admitted that he starts feeling his age, I think he'll be mostly doing things like 'Rush Hour' in the future, where he can let others do most of the stunts and focus more on doing comedy. It's sad, in a way, because these movies are much more sterile than his earlier work, IMHO, but that's just the way it goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
Yeah, but you know how it is, age takes everything, and it hits action stars the hardest. And it isn't like Jackie hasn't had a good run, he's been doing his own stunts for what, thirty or forty years?
_________________
SOULS!!! NEED MORE SOULS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
Jackie's first part in a movie was in '66 at the age of twelve, and he started doing stunts in 1971 - 36 years ago. And, yeah, action movie stars seldom get better with age - some quip that "Walker, Texas Ranger" was named that way because a walk was the fastest speed Chuck Norris could keep up for any amount of time.  (But Chuck is a lot older than Jackie.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
Or Clint Eastwood. Old Stoneface looks positively docile nowadays. Say, would you consider Honkytonk Man a B movie?
_________________
SOULS!!! NEED MORE SOULS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
Well, if you're referring to the wrestler...
I'd say "B" is still a category or two higher than appropriate. 
Seriously, though...No, 'Honkytonk Man' isn't a B-movie, strictly speaking. It was certainly aimed at a niche audience, but it had a full budget behind it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tomai
|
|
| Joined: 09 Aug 2006 |
| Posts: 27 |
| Location: IN YOUR HEAD!!! |
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
Okay, so accounting for time, do you think it could "mature" into a B movie, like the better kung fu flicks and flash gordonesque blockbusters?
_________________
SOULS!!! NEED MORE SOULS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Author
|
|
| Joined: 24 Sep 2005 |
| Posts: 998 |
| Location: too close to the monitor |
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
| Well, it's from the 80ies, so there's every chance of it having 'cult' status one day...I think that's the fate of nearly all the strange and wondrous products from that legendary decade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
