Does Inside Kung Fu really have David Carradine writing a column for them??? [Archive]

logic

03-06-2003, 07:27 PM

TRUTH IS
On a documentary on the Entertainment Network

He was a desperate alcholic tring to make it in the acting bussiness

While filming the series Kung Fu David did NOT know any sort of Kung Fu at all.
In fack he had to go over each move in front of the camera and then Hollywood put the pieces together.

He tried to get away from the Kung Fu Image in the late 70's by doing a couple Cowboy flicks, but they never really panned out.

He went back to alcholism and got hopelessly in dept.
He did a few special apperances and comericals here and there set up by his agent.

He ended up HAVEING to go back to the Martial Arts image to pay off all his depts.

He took up Tai Chi for a few month,- Put on a gi,- and made some Tai Chi Videos,- Bought some air time and he was on his way again to fame and fortune.

Landed a roll in Kung Fu the legend continues (the image he was tring to get away from) he was on his way again.

To find out more about his life go to ww.w.who givesash!t.com

Serpent

03-06-2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by logic
To find out more about his life go to ww.w.who givesash!t.com

I would but, really, who gives a ****?

logic

03-06-2003, 07:40 PM

:D :D :D :D

Serpent

03-06-2003, 07:43 PM

;) :eek: :p :confused:

Serpent

03-06-2003, 07:43 PM

logic

03-06-2003, 07:48 PM

I agree
Thats cool;) :p :D

Serpent

03-06-2003, 07:53 PM

:cool:

Gold Horse Dragon

03-06-2003, 08:48 PM

Truth is David Carradine did a superb job at portraying the character Kwai Chang Caine, he had one of the top rated and most popular shows - Kung Fu- in the 70's, a series that initiated and kept the 'kung fu craze' for years to come. His series 'Kung Fu' came before Lee Siu Lung (Bruce Lee) was even known for his movies in North America. Many people became interested in and started and continued in Chinese martial arts due to the 70's series Kung Fu. On the whole most of the people who became interested in Chinese Martial arts due to the Kung Fu series were attracted for more than just the fighting, but also for the spiritual side as portrayed in the series. On the whole, most of the people who became interested in Chinese martial arts due to Bruce Lee's movies were attracted to mostly if not completely to just the fighting aspects...which is only half of the art without the spiritual side. DC had another popular series in the 90's Kung Fu the legend continues. He has never claimed to be a master, but just a martial artist - and that is true as he started northern praying manits in cirrca 1973 with his master and choreographer for the series Kam Yuen. As for the alcohol problem...many masters in Chinese martial arts have had or had that problem.
I do not see any problem with DC writing a column. There are other columns in IKF such as the one on asian martial art movies by a person who is not a master or may not even have any to little training in kung fu. No one seems to complain about this. For the record...IKF has just as good articles as KQ...in fact Gene Ching has written articles for IKF in the past before his present incarnation as Associate Publisher for KQ.
People should focus on the many and great positives the 70's Kung Fu series did for Chinese Martial arts...and this was in large part for the way DC played the character KCC...and of course to superb writing and direction. I think his present column in IKF is well written.

GHD

Serpent

03-06-2003, 09:04 PM

Geez, why don't you marry him then?

logic

03-06-2003, 09:15 PM

OH my God Gold Horse Dragon.

You do know that Bruce Lee Wrote the series Kung Fu don't you.

He couldn't star in it him self because Hollywood didn't want to take a gamble on an asin actor at the time. but DC was only Half asian,, So Bruce Lee decided if he couldn't come through the front door of Hollywood, he would go around to the side and have David play the roll. Even though he didn't know anything about martial arts at the time. he was the only asian/american around at the time.
Everything else is true. He was an alcholic who didn't give a rats a$$ about Kung Fu.

HE WAS AN ACTOR.

Serpent

03-06-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by logic
HE WAS AN ACTOR.

Barely...

yuanfen

03-06-2003, 09:18 PM

good points GHD and a proper perspective.

Inside Kung Fu was the pioneer mag- others including KF followed.

Laughing Cow

03-06-2003, 09:18 PM

Regardless if he is good at MA or not, I guess they could get worse people writing for them.

A few names pop to the mind immediately, and I shudder at the thought of those Guys doing a column.

DC is part of the KF legacy in the west, regardless if you think he is good or not.
So is "Pat" Morita aka Mr. Miyagi.

Cheers.

Serpent

03-06-2003, 09:21 PM

Yeah, but "Pat" Morita is obviously a real karate master.

logic

03-06-2003, 09:52 PM

Laughing Cow
I don't know if your kidding.
Quote:
"DC is part of the KF legacy in the west"
By who's account?
All of my martial arts friends here in small town west do not think that at all. quite the oppisit.

I like when Ortiz gives the FINGERS to the Shamrock crew.
Now that's in YOU FACE west.

Laughing Cow

03-07-2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by logic
Laughing Cow
I don't know if your kidding.
Quote:
"DC is part of the KF legacy in the west"
By who's account?

It was a little tongue in cheek, but I guess whoever played that role would have become famous because of it.

To be honest I am not sure if BL would have done that well in that particular role.

Cheers.

GeneChing

03-07-2003, 10:31 AM

In regards to Carridine being a columnist for IKF, this is my reaction:
:eek: :rolleyes: :p :D :cool:

Gold Horse Dragon

03-07-2003, 01:00 PM

Facts are facts and fairness is fairness...the 70's series did a tremendous amount to promote Chinese martial arts. I am not speaking of the actor, but rather of the character and series. As for the actor and writer DC...his column in IKF is not bad...again just being fair and objective as a writer myself and from my point of view.

Yuanfen...thanks

Oh My God!...Logic...where did you get your info...Dragon the Bruce Lee Story...that was a bunch of fiction. Lee had nothing to do with writing the 'Kung Fu' story...check Kung Fu's movie credits for creator and writers of the story and charater or check Kung fu the Book of Caine. As for who got the part...thats the Casting person(s). Bruce would not have been credible in that part...too violent and aggressive and smart A.. For casting there are usually a number of choices of actors for a given part...DC was the best actor to portray the part...evidenced by the popularity of the 70's series. As far as racism being a factor...I do not think so...they wanted to have the character portrayed in a certain way...full Chinese blood would not do, full Caucasian blood would not do...they need someone who looked part Asian and part Non-Asian...DC looked it and portrayed the character as the director and creator of the character wanted. Also, the series gave jobs to many Chinese and Asian actors and choreographers...racist..No.

Xie...I am not DC...just GHD....but I wouldn't mind having his ranch!

Serpent..same sex marriages...perhaps you swing that way :D ...I do not.

GHD

apoweyn

03-07-2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by carly
A shameless non-expert with a famous (now devalued) Hollywood name teams up with a shameless non-expert in mantis and creates a new "martial art" with the word mantis in it.
Why not just make up a name without the word mantis in it and call it that?
Is it that mantis is a good marketing word for the "art"?

First off, I think Carradine is absolutely, irredeemably awful. So don't take what I'm about to say as support for the guy. But his sifu (and the primary technical consultant on the old Kung Fu series) was Kam Yuen. As I understand it, Kam Yuen was a mantis teacher. So it kinda makes sense that Carradine would name his bent version 'mantis.'

That said, Carradine has no place creating a style, period. (Awful!)

Stuart B.

apoweyn

03-07-2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
Yeah, but "Pat" Morita is obviously a real karate master.

Please say you're joking.

...

SAY IT!!

(In case you aren't, Pat Morita was doubled by Fumio Demura throughout the series.)

Stuart B.

apoweyn

03-07-2003, 01:52 PM

GHD

Originally posted by Gold Horse Dragon
Facts are facts and fairness is fairness...the 70's series did a tremendous amount to promote Chinese martial arts. I am not speaking of the actor, but rather of the character and series. As for the actor and writer DC...his column in IKF is not bad...again just being fair and objective as a writer myself and from my point of view.

Hmm... That's an opinion question, really. No question that the series brought kung fu into the public consciousness. But whether or not that's a promotion, I'm not sure. There's an awful lot of over-mystified nonsense present in CMA today, largely because of that show.

Oh My God!...Logic...where did you get your info...Dragon the Bruce Lee Story...that was a bunch of fiction. Lee had nothing to do with writing the 'Kung Fu' story...check Kung Fu's movie credits for creator and writers of the story and charater or check Kung fu the Book of Caine. As for who got the part...thats the Casting person(s). Bruce would not have been credible in that part...too violent and aggressive and smart A.. For casting there are usually a number of choices of actors for a given part...DC was the best actor to portray the part...evidenced by the popularity of the 70's series. As far as racism being a factor...I do not think so...they wanted to have the character portrayed in a certain way...full Chinese blood would not do, full Caucasian blood would not do...they need someone who looked part Asian and part Non-Asian...DC looked it and portrayed the character as the director and creator of the character wanted. Also, the series gave jobs to many Chinese and Asian actors and choreographers...racist..No.

Hi, Pot? This is kettle. You're black.

You're joking, right? You're going to accuse logic of getting his information from less-than-credible sources. Then you're going to turn around and cite 1) the credits of the very series out of which Bruce Lee might have been, essentially, screwed and 2) Kung Fu: The Book of Caine, which surely won't be biased.

Tell you what: Read Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew, by Linda Lee Cadwell. It's no less biased. But it's in print, so it must be true. Right?

Better yet, read David Carradine's own book. Spirit of Shaolin. Unless I'm very much mistaken, even he says that Hollywood wasn't ready for an asian lead actor. And that that's why David, a former dancer, got the role.

As far as racism being a factor...I do not think so...they wanted to have the character portrayed in a certain way...full Chinese blood would not do, full Caucasian blood would not do.

Right. Because that makes so much sense. David Carradine is Caucasian. And he looks about as chinese as I do. His best approximation of appearing asian is to talk really slowly, as if he's being 'contemplative.' Sweet deal, really. Most people that talk like that are just considered 'slow.'

Stuart B.

David Jamieson

03-07-2003, 04:04 PM

disparaging remarks are a waste of freaking time.

Carradine can write about Kungfu if he wants.
He did make the arts quite popular with the mainstream.

Bruce Lee was involved in the concept of the show but really had nothing to do with it.

The movie "Dragon" is a complete show of the perspective of his wife Linda.

Carradine did learn some Kungfu from Kam Yuen, who is a master and was the third season MA choeographer on the series.

Carradine has been active in the promotion of Chinese Martial arts ever since the series. That's longer than quite a few of you have even breathed air.

It's all in the perspective and one's ability to put down their prejudice based on hearsay.

Do any of you know anything about Carradine other than what you read in magazines and tabloids or see on TV?

I would have to say no you don't.

So, your disparaging remarks are wholly uncalled for. If the man can wax eloquent about the arts, then let him.

Ask yourself what you contribute to the promotion of Chinese martial arts that makes you think he is bad and you are better?

He deserves the recognition that he has participated in Chinese Martial arts for a long time.

He can very likely write about it as well as anybody here on this board, perhaps even better than some.

Casting judgement on Carradine based on shallow opinion gleaned from even shallower sources is tantamount to hearsay and is not worth the pixels it's printed on.

Good for DC!

Nothing personal Gene, i really do prefer KFQG to IKF on any given day. Probably because KFQG has deeper inroads to the cultural idioms associated with CMA and therefore has more to offer on the subject IMHO. :D

cheers

yenhoi

03-07-2003, 04:09 PM

He is no worse then many of the other authors found over the years in Inside Kung Fu, and Kung Fu Qigong, he just has a more famous name.

Both magazines are full of random mckwoon randomness, with a bunch of hippie non-sense thrown in. Sometimes either one of them has a couple gems.

The world is 99% bull****.............

:eek:

Gold Horse Dragon

03-07-2003, 05:58 PM

Apo you sure think you know it all :rolleyes:
Credits on a movie or anywhere else for that matter have to be legit...otherwise, they could be sued. The book I refer to was not witten by DC, but by Herbie Pilato with a section by the creator of the character....this is one heck of a lot more credible than Dragon the Bruce lee story...you really believed what was in the movie?!, Dragon the BL story, as I have said had total fictional parts and other parts that are so changed that they only hold a shred of truth...ie. how BL hurt his back is but one of many examples. ..It should have been called Dragon the BS story. However besides all the glaring fiction and 10% truths, it was a good movie. Opinion question Ha...just look at all the commercials and present day movies that still reference in some way the 70's series.

The series was the total concept of the creator who was not BL
BL did come up with the story line to the 'Silent Flute' (Circle of Iron), which one can see from the story line, really was the philosophy of BL.

GHD

greendragon

03-07-2003, 06:21 PM

I was ready to see something positive here, but after checking out their new style I view it as simplistic and weak. I don't think it would work in reality at all. In fact it looks stupid. I don't see any health benefits either unless it would be common stretching or something.

David Jamieson

03-07-2003, 07:43 PM

Well xie, I happen to personally know GHD and I can tell you he isn't David Carradine.

I can also say that meeting someone once, twice or even a few times is no real measure of understanding who they are.

I'm not saying I understand Carradine by any measure, I'm just saying I don't know.

I don't think that he is any worse off for writing about and promoting Chinese martial arts than anyone.

As for the style creation thing, well, all styles were created somewhere and forged through time.

cheers

carly

03-07-2003, 07:48 PM

Yes, styles were all created by someone, by someone who was unquestionably superb in his authentic kung fu, that is.

David Jamieson

03-07-2003, 07:52 PM

carly-

so, you've been alive through all the ages?

how do you know that when some styles were created they didn't suck? That they weren't just a fantasy of some monastic freak who never really developed the art until he took a couple of beatings for being a freak?

It's just as plausible isn't it?

Aristotle said, "that which we are taught, we learn by doing"

Do you honestly think that complete styles were born once and never changed over time, adapted and came to the state they are in now over long periods of trial by fire?

Do you think Shaolin Kungfu today is the same as it was 1000 years ago? Or do you think it has been improved, changed, transformed and developed?

Food for thought.

cheers

carly

03-07-2003, 08:31 PM

I haven't been alive through all the ages, but I an make a likely and rationale supposition about this subject.

Gold Horse Dragon

03-07-2003, 08:51 PM

I believe this thread was originally about DC writing a column and that it was crazy that he was, since he is not a 'real' martial artist and that IKF was not a good publication because of it and not having good writers...well, DC is a martial artist having studied under Kam Yuen, Sifu, he is a writer and writes well and IKF has had aritcles by many authors that have also witten for KQ...so I guess you are also saying KQ is not good, since these same authors also have had articles in KQ - including Ol Gene the man himself. Then the thread went to how DC did not contribute anything but bad stuff to the Chinese marial arts. I pointed out the 70's series was the first to make chinese martial arts known in the west and that the series and in particular how DC portrayed Kwai Chang made Chinese martial arts very popular and thus contributed to the promotion of CMA along with a spiritual element (not to confuse this with a mystical element, which the 3rd season of the series focused on in several episodes). Any which way you cut it the series and the character that ony DC could have portrayed proper according to the concept of the creator, contributed much to the popularity and promotion of CMA...along with ethics, honor, integrity, kindness and lots of other spiritual stuff and philosophy....in short - a lot of the good stuff was contributed to society.
As for him being a co-creator of this new style...cannot comment, other than he has stated that he actually had very little to do with it and he has stated he is not a master. So are you saying you only can be a master to write general articles...which he is doing. He is not getting all technical and saying do this do not do that. Re: the new style, one would have a in depth understanding of CMA to know if a style is good or not. And what may be good for one person may not be good for another. I have seen old traditional styles, that I see a number of flaws in from my standpoint. Styles do develop over time, but they have to be well grounded in technique and logic for them to survive to begin with.
I do not know DC personally and sure I imagine he has some flaws (as we all do). Maybe he has been an a.. or was an a.. or he was and is now a nice guy....all this is unimportant to his writing a column. Also unimportant to writing this type of column is how far he has gone in a given art.
If someone here thinks they can do better, then do so. I would bet that most of you have never writen an article...so by your logic, you should not comment since you do not know anything about writing articles.

GHD

FatherDog

03-08-2003, 01:59 AM

Presumably, articles in a martial arts magazine are meant to discuss

A) fine points of technique

B) general MA principles and ways to work on them

C) history of martial arts.

Pray tell, which of these is David Carradine competent to write about?

Gold Horse Dragon

03-08-2003, 07:24 AM

MA magzines have much more than just those three areas. As I said before, DC's column is not about the first two and he may not be the best candidate at the first two areas you mention, but he could very well write on the 3 rd area. As I said, his column is more about general stuff, rather than technical. Even so, he is a martial artist and could write about the first two...heck posters on this board do it all the time...and a number of them don't know what the heck they are talking about.

GHD

logic

03-08-2003, 08:10 AM

This bio really doesn't mention anything about DC alcholism which did consume a large portion of his life. (I know, it really doesn't matter about his struggle with alchol) It just goes to show how some info can be left out in a documentary or article.

It also doesn't mention anything about his martial arts experiance thats probabily because he didn't have much if any at all.

It does mention his acting career.
I also saw how he really wanted to be a western hero in Hollywood, but it's not on this bio.

http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/bio/celeb/1677900

SevenStar

03-08-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by carly
A shameless non-expert with a famous (now devalued) Hollywood name teams up with a shameless non-expert in mantis and creates a new "martial art" with the word mantis in it.
Why not just make up a name without the word mantis in it and call it that?
Is it that mantis is a good marketing word for the "art"?

because it sounds good. I've talked to several non MA about MA, and the ones that do at least know the names of a few kung fu systems say that they'd like to train either tiger, snake or preying mantis - I think it's "ferocity" with the animal name. monkey doesn't carry that same "ferocity" so people don't say that. I bet alot of people would say leopard and dragon also, if they knew about them.

carly

03-09-2003, 12:59 PM

So we are supposed to smile and eat the bull**** when it is offered up to us as real kung fu? No thanks.
Good kung fu is refuge from that 90%.

yenhoi

03-09-2003, 03:25 PM

Actually 99% is bull****.

The other 1% is you doing your own thing not giving a **** about all the bull.

What does the bull mean to you? Why do you care to ***** about it? More noise doesnt make **** smell like roses.

:eek:

Laughing Cow

03-09-2003, 04:12 PM

Simple solution.

If you think his column is the pits, than don't read it.

Obviously the magazine reckons that DC got something worthwhile to say or they wouldn't feature him.

Every MA mag I pickup has some articles I skip or simply skim briefly to see if it contains anything worthwhile.

There are a few recognised MA "Masters" that I don't agree with, this neither makes their skill and knowledge inferior or lessens what they got to say.

Everybody at times comes up with some true pearls of knowledge and wisdom, the skill is to seperate the wheat from the chaff and get the good bits out of each article.
And this might only be one sentence or a phrase.

Cheers.

carly

03-09-2003, 04:17 PM

They think DC sells magazines, that's all.
Says something about their discerning readership.

Laughing Cow

03-09-2003, 04:20 PM

carly.

If he does good for them, OTOH maybe he is simply a filler till they can get somebody else to run a column??

ZIM

03-09-2003, 04:51 PM

They think DC sells magazines, that's all.

This thread has gone on for four pages. What do YOU think? :p

Serpent

03-09-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by apoweyn

Please say you're joking.

...

SAY IT!!

(In case you aren't, Pat Morita was doubled by Fumio Demura throughout the series.)

Stuart B.

Yes, Stu, of course I'm joking. Take a deep breath and relax. Maybe I should have bracketed the comment with ;)

Laughing Cow

03-09-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by carly
They think DC sells magazines, that's all.
Says something about their discerning readership.

DC sells Mags, Jet Li does, Bruce Lee does as do many other names and things in the MA scene.

Actually who here has ever seen Jet Li's true MA skill.

Hold on with the flames:
All I have seen of him so far has been featured in movies, where he displays his skill of looking good on film while doing some choreographed and assisted (wire) moves.
The same can be said for most MA actors.

How many people look at Jet Li and see the moves he shows in movies as his REAL MA skill.

Seeya.

Serpent

03-09-2003, 05:21 PM

Actually, on the net you can find some old clips of him training and practising as a young guy. Sure, he was practising for wushu events, but he certainly put in the hard work.

Laughing Cow

03-09-2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
Actually, on the net you can find some old clips of him training and practising as a young guy. Sure, he was practising for wushu events, but he certainly put in the hard work.

I was only using JL as an example as he is in the media a lot at the moment.

I know he put in a lot of hard work to get where he is today(kudos for that), again I am not sure on how it reflects on his actual MA fighting skills or in-depth knowledge.

Said that, I had a friend who was a devastating fighter with no formal training, he simply used the moves that his daily physical work required of him to beat his opponents.

But than he did those movements hundreds of times every day.
;) ;)

Hmmm, Carpenter-Fu.

yenhoi

03-09-2003, 06:40 PM

Pretty funny that people get bent about what hippies they put in hippie magazines...

Serpent

03-09-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by yenhoi
Pretty funny that people get bent about what hippies they put in hippie magazines...

Oh man, is Gene gonna drown you in patchouli oil for that comment!

apoweyn

03-10-2003, 08:05 AM

Kung Lek,

Originally posted by Kung Lek
disparaging remarks are a waste of freaking time.

So is it somehow inappropriate to express a negative opinion of David Carradine? Because it's very difficult to do that without disparaging remarks. If those remarks are backed up with something substantial, what's the problem? People debate here all the time.

Carradine can write about Kungfu if he wants.
He did make the arts quite popular with the mainstream.

Of course he can. If the publishers want him to. But, again, what's the problem with people expressing a negative opinion of that choice?

Bruce Lee was involved in the concept of the show but really had nothing to do with it.

Does that sentence make sense to you?

The movie "Dragon" is a complete show of the perspective of his wife Linda.

Carradine did learn some Kungfu from Kam Yuen, who is a master and was the third season MA choeographer on the series.

If this is addressed at me, I'd point out that I acknowledged the bias of Dragon and of the book on which its based (Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew). And that the source for most of my comments on David Carradine was Carradine himself, in his book Spirit of Shaolin.

If that's not an adequate source from which to base judgments on the man, what is?

Carradine has been active in the promotion of Chinese Martial arts ever since the series. That's longer than quite a few of you have even breathed air.

Personally, I don't view Carradine's work as a 'promotion.' Particularly his later work (That 'next generation' kung fu). I think he overly mystified the subject, essentially performing a parody of the real thing.

It's all in the perspective and one's ability to put down their prejudice based on hearsay.

You've managed to do the same thing with MMA on numerous occassions. And as much as I've disagreed with you, I've never argued your right to an opinion.

Do any of you know anything about Carradine other than what you read in magazines and tabloids or see on TV?

His own book. And interviews.

I would have to say no you don't.

Then you'd have to be wrong.

So, your disparaging remarks are wholly uncalled for. If the man can wax eloquent about the arts, then let him.

That's the whole point, isn't it. People are debating his ability to wax eloquent about the arts. People have observed his lack of skill and technical knowledge. (Some people have observed this first hand.) So why is he being asked to write this? I've read a great deal of his writing on martial arts. And, at best, I found it not particularly insightful.

Ask yourself what you contribute to the promotion of Chinese martial arts that makes you think he is bad and you are better?

If people feel that he lacks the technical and historical background to do justice to the topic in writing, then those people will likely not view his column as a contribution at all. And they have every right to believe that.

Ask yourself this: If you saw a longtime practitioner of kung fu who wasn't a celebrity, and you watched him perform what was a less than inspiring demonstration of skill, would you then be in a terrible rush to read what he had to say about kung fu?

He deserves the recognition that he has participated in Chinese Martial arts for a long time.

He can very likely write about it as well as anybody here on this board, perhaps even better than some.

And that's fine. But part of getting recognition is being accountable. And if people don't feel he's the right man for the job, they have the right to express as much.

Casting judgement on Carradine based on shallow opinion gleaned from even shallower sources is tantamount to hearsay and is not worth the pixels it's printed on.

Are your sources for your admirable somehow deeper? Aren't they also based on hearsay? Are they more reliable than the man's own book?

Stuart B.

apoweyn

03-10-2003, 08:25 AM

GHD,

Originally posted by Gold Horse Dragon
Apo you sure think you know it all :rolleyes:

Right, chief. You can wax on about David Carradine all freaking day, and it's like golden eggs out of a goose's arse. But I express a well-supported opinion to the contrary and I'm being a know it all.

Credits on a movie or anywhere else for that matter have to be legit...otherwise, they could be sued.

And those credits were legit. As far as they went. Omission of something like that doesn't really constitute fraud, as I understand it.

The book I refer to was not witten by DC, but by Herbie Pilato with a section by the creator of the character....this is one heck of a lot more credible than Dragon the Bruce lee story...you really believed what was in the movie?!

Well, rocket scientist, did I say that I believed the movie? Did I mention the movie at all?

To save you rereading my first post, I cited the book on which Dragon was very loosely based. And I said that it was also biased. I also cited Carradine's own book. Have you read it?

And, again, if you'd read my post closely enough the first time, you' d have noticed that I didn't say Carradine wrote the book you cited (Herbie Pilato's book). I said that it was biased. A section contributed by the creator of the character could probably have contained at least mention of the generally recognized fact that Bruce Lee 'contributed' to that concept.

Dragon the BL story, as I have said had total fictional parts and other parts that are so changed that they only hold a shred of truth...ie. how BL hurt his back is but one of many examples.

Yep. That was nonsense. In the book, Linda Lee Cadwell states that Bruce injured his back lifting weights. You know the book. The one I actually cited.

..It should have been called Dragon the BS story. However besides all the glaring fiction and 10% truths, it was a good movie.

Opinions vary.

Opinion question Ha...just look at all the commercials and present day movies that still reference in some way the 70's series.

And you think that these present day movies and COMMERCIALS somehow prove that the series provided a positive influence? I think that the series, and particularly the later series (which also has to be credited to Carradine), caked the martial arts in a layer of quasi-mysticism that has been detrimental. And if I think that, and you don't, then clearly it's an opinion question. As I stated.

Exhibit A: In one of the Kung Fu movies (the one starring Brandon Lee), Caine is depicted in meditation. Floating and glowing. And while I'll be the first to say that entertainment owes us very little in terms of realism, I'm also hard pushed to regard that as a 'promotion' or 'contribution.' I said that Carradine brought martial arts into the public eye. And part of that is a good thing. But part of it resulted in a great many misconceptions. Many of which we on this forum complain about regularly.

The series was the total concept of the creator who was not BL

Cite me a source that's not the creator. And if you say, "Herbie Pilato", I'm going to ask where he got that information. And if the answer is to that is "the creator", then we're right back at square one. That doesn't mean you're wrong. But it doesn't mean you're right either.

BL did come up with the story line to the 'Silent Flute' (Circle of Iron), which one can see from the story line, really was the philosophy of BL.

Agreed.

Stuart B.

apoweyn

03-10-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Serpent

Yes, Stu, of course I'm joking. Take a deep breath and relax. Maybe I should have bracketed the comment with ;)

No mate. I figured you were joking. But I was on a tear. Besides, it's not often I get to dip into The Big Book of Fumio Demura Trivia.

:)

CD Lee

03-10-2003, 08:29 AM

I loved the series Kung Fu when I was young. Loved it. I do remember quite well, thinking at the age of 9, "how do these people know he is Chinese, he looks like white guy to me'? Funny, but I still loved the show.

I read his book with interest last year. The first part of the book pretty much states the whole matter of his skills. He states that he wrote the book to 'save' kung fu, that kung fu 'needed' this book. Then the book is all about HIM, not kung fu! I thought the thing was dis-jointed myself.

He actually quoted Chuck's comment in his book. Remember....

"David Carradine is as great a martial artist as I am an actor."

The hilarious part is that Carradine actually takes this comment as a compliment! He did not even get that Chuck was insulting him.

Objectively, he did a lot for Kung Fu, and he also added a lot of BS to kung fu today. In the end, it is probably good for kung fu, as any publicity is good publicity.

His new style...please.

yenhoi

03-10-2003, 09:49 AM

The Movie "Dragon" did Bruce Lee the film-maker great justice.

It obviously wasent intended by anyone really to be a true-to-life documentary. There are thousands of those. The Dragon is a kung-fu-flick concerning the legendary Bruce Lee.

Wong-fai-hung is larger then life in the movies, books, myths, etc, and no one complains that his story is fake....

wtf?

:eek:

Nevermind

03-10-2003, 10:50 AM

I don't know about the older Wong Fei Hung series, but if you watch the beginning of the Once Upon a Time In China series, it states in the beginning that although the characters really existed, the film is in no way depicting actual historic events. As long as that disclaimer is made in the beginning of a film, its all good. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing such a disclaimer in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. As a result, you would not believe how many people I have met who actually think the events in the film actually happened! IMO, the film did more damage to his legacy than good. In an interview, the director justified his "creative license" by saying that the actual story was too "boring" for the big screen. I say, if the true story is boring, maybe its not worthy of being put on screen.

yenhoi

03-10-2003, 11:08 AM

I also dont see that disclaimer at the beggining of any of Will Smith's movies specifically saying that whats going on is exaggerated or fake.... didnt people learn this lesson back when radio was the big hit? At least in America, Id think.......

Firstly, its a movie, so people should use their knoggins and think, "Whoa, this is a movie, made by people!"

Nearly any documentary you watch or read is very specific and usally proud to tell you many times how accurate it is, and that it is real and authorized etc.

you would not believe how many people I have met who actually think the events in the film actually happened!

I dont take responsibility for educating the masses. I dont care what other people think about anything. You are responsible to filter to world for yourself. Does it really matter anyways? Whats wrong with the film besides nothing in it really happened the way the film shows things as happening? its got lots of neat fighting, and some cool lines, and any film with nunchaku is badass in my book, specially when they are neon orange.

None of it changes the fact that BL was a badass mofo from Hong Kong who came to the United States and kicked some ass, then made some cool movies.

:eek: