Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice. Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads. Join freeLog in Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
So that they can concentrate on giving each of the characters their own spin-off show, as well as a bunch of ancillary shows with all new characters, where they can continue to prove the point that they've already exhaustively mined the good ideas from the franchise, and explored every avenue worth exploring - because what we really need is an origin story, and a bunch of alternative views of the same thing...
I gave up on TWD about the time Glen was bludgeoned. An origin story that makes some kind of sense (OK, I know it's zombies) could be something I'd watch.
I gave up on TWD about the time Glen was bludgeoned. An origin story that makes some kind of sense (OK, I know it's zombies) could be something I'd watch.
Was just talking about Tarantino yesterday with friend's/bandmates. Neither of them like Once Upon a Time, but I loved it, I thought it was hilarious, especially the actual attack.
QT should have cut the Bruce Lee fight scene. It was unnecessary and incredibly disrespectful, IMO.
There's no way I'll believe that Bruce Lee would have let a trash-talking stuntman goad him into a fight, then Bruce's first move would be a telegraphed flying kick - then he would allow himself to be baited into doing the exact same move again?!?!
That scene was totally unworthy and not representative of the creator of Jeet Kune Do (The Way of the INTERCEPTING Fist).
There was an origin show called "Fear The Walking Dead".
It got off to an interesting start, but kind of got a bit bogged down in kids doing dumb stuff, and we're supposed to just ignore it because they're the main characters, and the writers just excuse all their dumbassery
(much like the way they just totally let Daryl off the hook for getting Glen bludgeoned)
.
I couldn't decide if it was deliberately pushing audience boundaries, by having a self important monster as it's lead character, or if it was more of the writers excusing anything the main character did, because they've invested in them being the main character.
Anyway, it suddenly became great in the 3rd season - right at the point I was about to give up - and I kept meaning to check out who was writing it, but forgetting to look it up, until I half glanced the show runners name a couple of times...
That was a shocking surprise : turned out it was one of my best friends kid sisters, who I hadn't seen since she was about 13, and had no idea she became a playwright, and screen writer.
Later, it took some radical shifts - so there were some engaging stories, and decent new characters. But it also jumped the shark a few times, and by the end it felt like you'd watched four or five completely unrelated shows, with crossover characters shoehorned in to give it a sense of continuity.
A mixed bag.
The other major spin-off show "World Beyond" was a seriously un-rewarding slot to get through the first season - just utterly stupid, and annoying.
Enough time passes that I forgot the trauma, and gave the second season a try - I think it took me about a week to nibble my way through the first two episodes, before I gave up completely (needles to say the show got cancelled).
I've yet to try the three new spin-off shows - but I'll give each one a go, just because they're partnered up several of the more iconic characters (the star crossed lovers, the will they / won't they friends, and the odd couple).
QT should have cut the Bruce Lee fight scene. It was unnecessary and incredibly disrespectful, IMO.
There's no way I'll believe that Bruce Lee would have let a trash-talking stuntman goad him into a fight, then Bruce's first move would be a telegraphed flying kick - then he would allow himself to be baited into doing the exact same move again?!?!
That scene was totally unworthy and not representative of the creator of Jeet Kune Do (The Way of the INTERCEPTING Fist).
The whole point of that scene was to both condition the audience that this film is playing fast and loose with established historical facts, and that if a stuntman can beat Bruce Lee,
he can kick the Manson Family's ass, and the pregnant Sharon Tate can have a pleasant evening
.
I don't know if you saw Inglourious Basterds, but that (along with Dajango Unchained) was more interested in crowd pleasing revenge fantasy, than historical accuracy.
The whole point of that scene was to both condition the audience that this film is playing fast and loose with established historical facts, and that if a stuntman can beat Bruce Lee,
he can kick the Manson Family's ass, and the pregnant Sharon Tate can have a pleasant evening
.
I don't know if you saw Inglourious Basterds, but that (along with Dajango Unchained) was more interested in crowd pleasing revenge fantasy, than historical accuracy.
I get all that, but Bruce Lee is one of the most beloved and iconic figures in entertainment and martial arts history. It was the way QT had Bruce Lee reacting to the stuntman that was the biggest problem for me. The other examples you cited are clearly meant to be fantasy, but using the very real Bruce Lee in this matter didn't do the movie any favors. What's next - having Muhammad Ali in his prime get outboxed by some club bouncer? It was just too much for me, and not in a good, over-the-top movie kind of way.
I get all that, but Bruce Lee is one of the most beloved and iconic figures in entertainment and martial arts history. It was the way QT had Bruce Lee reacting to the stuntman that was the biggest problem for me. The other examples you cited are clearly meant to be fantasy, but using the very real Bruce Lee in this matter didn't do the movie any favors. What's next - having Muhammad Ali in his prime get outboxed by some club bouncer? It was just too much for me, and not in a good, over-the-top movie kind of way.
what about the very real Sharon Tate, her very real house guests, and the very real Manson Family members? All of them had their very real fates rewritten, in a satisfyingly cathartic "what if" alternate reality - as did Hitler in Inglourious Basterds
The Tarantino representation of "Bruce Lee" is clearly inspired by the near identical scenario in the movie Marlowe, where James Garner goads Lee into making his attack whilst on a balcony. Lee launches that same flying kick, and Garner simply steps to the side - Lee misses his target, going clear over the balcony and falling (presumably) to his death.
Tarantino is a huge Lee fan, with an encyclopedic knowledge of cinema, and tv.. He also has a great sense of humour, irreverence, and the understanding of how to condition audiences expectations
(ask yourself what the point of the introduction of Michael Fassbender's character is in Inglourious Basterds, or cellar meeting)
Bruce Lee suffered far greater disrespect in real life Hollywood, thanks to the dumbing down of Green Hornet, and his demotion to sidekick status, after his lead role in a larger project was cancelled, than he did in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
what about the very real Sharon Tate, her very real house guests, and the very real Manson Family members? All of them had their very real fates rewritten, in a satisfyingly cathartic "what if" alternate reality - as did Hitler in Inglourious Basterds
The Tarantino representation of "Bruce Lee" is clearly inspired by the near identical scenario in the movie Marlowe, where James Garner goads Lee into making his attack whilst on a balcony. Lee launches that same flying kick, and Garner simply steps to the side - Lee misses his target, going clear over the balcony and falling (presumably) to his death.
Tarantino is a huge Lee fan, with an encyclopedic knowledge of cinema, and tv.. He also has a great sense of humour, irreverence, and the understanding of how to condition audiences expectations
(ask yourself what the point of the introduction of Michael Fassbender's character is in Inglourious Basterds, or cellar meeting)
Bruce Lee suffered far greater disrespect in real life Hollywood, thanks to the dumbing down of Green Hornet, and his demotion to sidekick status, after his lead role in a larger project was cancelled, than he did in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
The "Marlowe" example is Bruce Lee playing a character; "Once..." is supposedly depicting the real Bruce Lee. It's one thing to have the alternate reality of the fate of Sharon Tate and the Manson family members (or the alternate reality in "Inglourious Basterds"), and it's quite another to pointedly cast Bruce Lee in this unfavorable light just to make a stuntman character look tough. It wasn't necessary. I agree with Bruce Lee's own family members on this point.
And as far as how Hollywood treated Lee over 50 years ago (I'm well aware of that, too), I would certainly hope a movie made in 2019 could do better in terms of respect. I still consider the way Lee was portrayed in "Once.." to be disrespectful and unnecessary, and whether or not it was more or less disrespectful than things that happened decades ago is not relevant to me.
This has been a good argument, but we're clearly not going to agree, so I'm done.
The "Marlowe" example is Bruce Lee playing a character; "Once..." is supposedly depicting the real Bruce Lee. It's one thing to have the alternate reality of the fate of Sharon Tate and the Manson family members (or the alternate reality in "Inglourious Basterds"), and it's quite another to pointedly cast Bruce Lee in this unfavorable light just to make a stuntman character look tough. It wasn't necessary. I agree with Bruce Lee's own family members on this point.
And as far as how Hollywood treated Lee over 50 years ago (I'm well aware of that, too), I would certainly hope a movie made in 2019 could do better in terms of respect. I still consider the way Lee was portrayed in "Once.." to be disrespectful and unnecessary, and whether or not it was more or less disrespectful than things that happened decades ago is not relevant to me.
This has been a good argument, but we're clearly not going to agree, so I'm done.
I've yet to try the three new spin-off shows - but I'll give each one a go, just because they're partnered up several of the more iconic characters (the star crossed lovers, the will they / won't they friends, and the odd couple).
Finally saw Alien: Romulus now that it’s on Hulu. Meh. Little more than a retread of the original, plot-wise. I’m not sure what else can be done with that franchise, but I am curious about the TV series premiering next year.
Finally saw Alien: Romulus now that it’s on Hulu. Meh. Little more than a retread of the original, plot-wise. I’m not sure what else can be done with that franchise, but I am curious about the TV series premiering next year.