Talk:Fearless (2006 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Grandchildren?

If he didn't have any offspring how can he have any grandchildren?

(warning spoilers!) he apparently had several children in real life. The movie takes liberty a bit by not showing them (and yet not specifically stating he didn't father any children between when he returns to shanghai and when the movie ends).

Also one only needs to look at Fist of Legend to see he had a son!

Well for one thing, Fist of Legend, as well as Fist of Fury are highly fictionalized accounts. Fearless, while less fictionalized than those two earlier films (that weren't even set in the same era), is still a dramatization of Huo's life. Some corners were cut. Obviously, in his wanderings throughout China, he managed to father some children. It's a controversy that only adds to the legend of this folk hero.Wisekwai 19:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] am i right

has anyone see once apon a time in china i think its number 2... the fight sceans and ending are taken from that not a remake but a direct copy

[edit] Judo Team

I think it did say he defeated 10 members of a Judo team.

[edit] Not his final movie

i changed ot to reflect that the movie is nto his last just his most important according to pr.

It should be noted he was said to make this his last epic. Not his last movie CharlieP216

[edit] awkward

"However, he plans to his career in other film genres;" eh?

changed -- mh 12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou Jet Li

I will miss Jet Li and his contributions to martial arts films.

Yes it seems the era of having great martial arts experts (he was one in real life) such as Jet Lei, Jackie Chan, Sammo Heung, and Bruce Lee is ending, with newer generations being increasingly more uninterested in the study of martial arts. Though these great figures brought the martial arts from Asia and introduced them to the world. Wongdai 11:05 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not dead! He can make more movies. (and is doing so) --70.142.49.24 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians read this and perhaps add to the controversy section

The movie merges these two into one boxer who is neither Russian or British but American surprise surprise.

It was a 1901 match with a Russian wrestler in Xiyuan Park, Tianjin that first made Huo famous. The wrestler had openly insulted the Chinese, calling them "Asian weaklings" or "Sick Man Of the East" because no one would accept his challenge to a fight. Huo either defeated the wrestler or the wrestler forefeited the match, which was widely publicized by news papers.

In 1909, Huo, accompanied by his apprentice Liu Zhensheng, traveled to Shanghai to accept an open challenge posed by a British boxer named Hercules O'Brien. The match was preceded by disagreement over what rules it would be governed by. O'Brien insisted on Western boxing rules limiting attacks to punches above the waist. Huo, on the other hand, was more accustomed to the rules of Chinese leitai challenge matches, which lacked such restrictions. They finally agreed that the first person to knock down his opponent would be considered the winner; however, the match never took place and Hercules O'Brien fled the area before the date of the match.

I don't think there is much "controversy" in this... the film is not so much based on the real life of Huo Yuanjia, in fact I will estimate that only 25% of the film has some relation with his real life. This more stuff is more suited in the article Huo Yuanjia. -- mh 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- what is the controversy? I guess the OP takes offense to the fact that a couple of Europeans were genericized into an American. Because, you know, western film *never* genericizes Asians, right? It's a movie, get over it. 24.6.99.30 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's a Chinese film, rather than an American film, it can hardly be said to be a case of Hollywood altering history to make Americans more prominent. Blue Order 22:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The last fight

"The third time was the last moment when Huo decides not to land his fatal punch, though it could be seen that he had simply lost too much strength from the poison to deliver the punch with the same effect he had against Qin."

I thought they both AGREED that it wouldn't be a fight to the death. -Raijinili 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched the Chinese version, and I don't think this is the case. When they both arrive on stage, Tanaka says to Huo that he understands that the matches have been unfair and will not object if Huo chooses another opponent. Huo refuses to do this, and then Tanaka says that he will not hold back. Huo replies by saying that he will be honored (by Tanaka's not holding back). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waterchan (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the depicted Huo was both too weak,(as in the film he collapsed and died only a few minutes later) and that in the end he learnt the true meaning of mercy and therefore gaining redemption for past sins. Wongdai 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The poison

When the japanese diplomat replaced huo's tea with the poisoned one, did Anno Tanaka realise at the end of the movie? To me, it is strongly implied as a yes. There is evidence that supports it, and is strongly shown when the japanese diplomat said "Who say?, Who saw it?" after Tanaka gave the victory to Huo when they were walking out of the arena. Anno Tanaka replied "I saw myself" and then went on telling him that he was a disgrace to the japanese people. Also right after Huo collapsed from his final blow, he said "wait" and held him, observing his face and it looks like he realised or must have seen. This also shows that he must have realised that he was poisoned.

I am pretty sure that Anno Tanaka did know at the end.

Um, yes? I thought it was fairly obvious, what with Jet Li barfing blood all over the guy. Kind of hard to pass over that. 24.6.99.30 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It mightnt have been her, if they were certain they would have made it ore obvious. Techo (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler outside spoiler section

The Connections to Other Films section contains a spoiler (that he dies) yet is not marked by a spoilers template. Is this a significant enough spoiler to warrant such a template?

[edit] The first part of the final fight

"In the first round, they fight with weapons. The fight is extraordinarily close and ends in a draw." I thought that Huo won, because he was using one stick to block the sword and the other to attack. Then again, why would they do a second fight if that was the case? Comment? --Raijinili 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought at first that it was a draw, but when I watched again, I noticed that one of Huo's staff sections was at Tanaka's neck, and the other had blocked Tanaka's sword. I have no idea why it was called a draw. Perhaps unfair judging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Order (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2007

Whether it was counted as a draw or not, I don't know. But there are plenty of reasons why they would continue to fight -- the fight may have been scheduled for multiple rounds (i.e. best of 3), or it may have been a timed round (such as in modern boxing) where nobody "wins" the round per se, just gives the fighters a break. 24.6.99.30 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But the rules of the match were that the loser would be the first person to be knocked down, or to submit. Multiple rounds weren't part of the rules, at least as far as determining who wins the match. Also, the ringmaster announces that it's a draw. It's possible that the rules called for a weapons round, and an unarmed round to determine the winner in the event of a draw. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the "draw" was the result of unfair judging, because it's obvious that Huo blocked Tanaka's strike, while Huo's own strike was unblocked. Another point-- there are interesting parallels between this match and the match between Huo Endi and Zhou. In that match, Endi makes the winning strike, but Zhou dishonorably strikes back, resulting in a "win" for Zhou; in the match between Yuanjia and Tanaka, Tanaka is an honorable opponent, and acknowledges Yuanjia's win, even when it would be easy, and when he is under pressure, to make a dishonorable win, as Zhou did years before. Blue Order 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the situation they ended up in, Tanaka's final strike is not really blocked. He would've had to make an akward wrist movement to make the cut on Huo's throat, but it certainly would have been possible. Add that to the fact that a bladed weapon held to the throat is more dangerous than a blunt one, and a draw is a reasonable decision. -Toptomcat 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's what I inferred the director wanted from the dramatic movement of the camera. Also, if I remember correctly, Tanaka would've had to push in, while Huo would've had to push out, which is a more advantageous position (I think). --Raijinili 06:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Techo 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) I loved and laughed at the bit where tanaka hits himself in the back of the head! LOL

[edit] Tanaka's words

In the English sub-titles, Tanaka tells the diplomat (after the match) "He (Huo) won. You better get that through your head." And yet some versions of this article have Tanaka saying "You are a disgrace to the Japanese people." Is this due to a difference between what Tanaka is saying in Japanese, and what the sub-titles translate that as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Order (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2007

No, because the "you are a disgrace" line also appears in the subtitles. However, the subtitles may (and probably did) get revised between the original Chinese release and the American re-release. I saw the Chinese version, which is where the "you are a disgrace" line appears, and it's noteworthy that some of the subtitles in that version are incomplete. Some of the translations were enclosed in parentheses and punctuated with question marks as if they forgot to finalize it. Naturally that wouldn't seem professional in the official American release, so the subtitles were probably revised. Would be helpful if a Japanese-speaker cared to make a direct translation for us. 24.6.99.30 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That "you are a disgrace" line is not in the sub-titles in the American release. Instead, Tanaka first says "He won" and the diplomat (Mita) says "Who said he won"? to which Tanaka replies "I said it!" Then Mita says Tanaka threw the match; Tanaka responds by shoving Mita up against the column and saying "He (Huo) won. You better get that through your head." Maybe there's a different set of subtitles in other releases, but that's what the subtitles say in the American release. Blue Order 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a translation difference. What motivated it is not something I will bother speculating about as it will either be made up fiction or tantamount to original research. What I will say is that the difference in script between the original dialogue and the english dub when released in America is quite baffling. Usually what happens is culturally esoteric lines are changed, but something like 'you are a disgrace to [your people]' isn't something americans can understand? Oh well. Piepants 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Piepants

In the Japanese print, Nakamura Shido says "Omae wa nippon no haji da" which does translate literally as "You have shamed Japan." Doceirias 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Before he does that, when he is walking out of the building, I think he also says in Japanese "Make da" to the diplomat, which means "I lost". (I watched the Chinese version with English subtitles.)--Waterchan 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Speculation

There are too many changes being made to this ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE based on the personal speculation and interpretation of the individual editor. For example, one person may speculate that Qin's widow poisoned Huo, while another person may speculate that Qin's widow was cheering for Huo. While there may be evidence to support either interpretation, the plot summary shouldn't be used to advance personal interpretations of the film. It should be factual, not speculative, because it's an encyclopedia article. If people have a personal interpretation they want to advance, they should write a film essay elsewhere, and not hijack this article to advance their own views about what the film may or may not be implying. Alternatively, if personal interpretations are going to be discussed in this article, they should be identified as interpretations, or speculation, and NOT as fact, and opposing interpretations should be discussed. My own view is that speculative discussion shouldn't be included in the plot summary; if it is included, it should be in a separate section, and should include discussion of multiple perspectives. Blue Order

[edit] Wushu

Shouldn't the article make some reference to wushu, since thats what a ton of the movie is about? Unfortunately, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to make such a contribution. -- Kevin ^(TALK) 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If every article about a Chinese martial arts film had to discuss the background of Wushu, that would be a lot of redundant text in this wiki. You can add a See also section with a link to Wushu if you believe the history of martial arts is especially relevant to this film. Ham Pastrami 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fearless dccover.jpg

Image:Fearless dccover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOS check

Someone check that these changes follow the manual of style, please. --Raijinili 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fearless film.jpg

Image:Fearless film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)