Why do I prefer Shaw Brothers over todays big budget epics?

[Iron_Leopard]

I really cant answer this question. But I much prefer Shaw Brothers over todays martial arts movies. For example the other night I watched Kid With The Golden Arm for the tenth time. Then last night I watched The Warlords with Jet Li for the first time and was just not all that impressed. Warlords was more a historical epic than a martial arts movie but I was mostly comparing the sets. Warlords had a great look to it and the cinemetography was gorgeous like all flims these days. So why do I prefer the fake ass sets of Shaw Brothers? The comic book characters of the Venoms? The half hour fight scenes of Five Shaolin Masters? Ive only been a kung fu fan for ten years now so its not nostalgia.

Im sure others feel this way to. Whats your reasons for taking Shaw Brothers over todays movies?

[Blood Sword]

I think fight choreography is better in good old days.Todays edited and wired too much.Storylines often interesting also.And then there was CKT,Ti Lung and Ku Feng who are great actors too.

While venom boys were not great actors they have charisma many others lack.

I grew watching fullscreen dubbed shaws from vhs and I`m just not into flicks made today.

Many of them look very pretty but offer very little beneath surface for me and f.e. hero,house of flying dagger,curse of golden flower were OK to watch one time but there is absolutely nothing to make me return to them.

[Omni Dragon]

Many of todays films use dark light, lot of camera movement I think to myself that the Drunken style films didn't have so Drunk like camera man i'm on about the shake like camera, heavy cutting, short action length, plot heavy action less I like an action to story balance.

[Yu_Xihong]

The only later movie I really dig is Red Cliff. I've seen others that are good (Donnie Yen movies), but I just don't have the connecction. I connect with Red Cliff because I'm a fan of The 3 Kingdoms. We are mentally invested beyond just watching a good movie.

[The Silver Fox]

My take on it is that while the sets on old Shaw Venoms films are fake looking, the action is alot more real than today's films.You have these insanley long takes of multiple combatants doing intricate weapons work-something that is simply not done today. Alot more was expected of the actors back then and they had to have the physical talent to pull it off.

Today is all quick editing and CGI which just robs hand to hand combat of it's impact. CGI has it's place I guess, but as far as martial arts films, it looks cheap,lazy,overused-awful. That CGI blood is garbage, give me red paint or karo syrup any day!.

[Knockabout]

I think it comes down to the fact, that todays actors are chosen because of looks. In the old movies actors were chosen because of skills.. I mean how many starring roles would a guy like Cliff Lok have gotten today???

In the old kung fu movies the sets were fake, but the fights were performed with style. Todays movies have beautiful and realistic sets, but the fights are fake...

[Iron_Leopard]

Also when watching these newer movies I feel like im watching it from the outside. When watching Shaw Brothers I feel like im in the movie with the characters. That may sound weird but thats what I always feel like.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

10x, wow that is a lot, I'd probably do the same with The 36th Chamber of Shaolin.. I would say that Shaw brothers is one of the most important studios ever to come out of Asia, alongside Toei studios to name a few. It's full of historic story-telling and innovative fighting sequence you've never seen outside of a WB studio film at that time...

Nothing will ever come close or duplicated..

[Morgoth Bauglir]

10x isn't that much. I've seen Avenging Eagle, Killer Constable and 5 Element Ninjas at least 30x each. Same goes for Legend of a Fighter, The Sword, Killer in White, and so many others. That's one thing that makes the oldschool movies so great. The rewatchability factor.

[TripMasterMunky]

I have troubles answering this as well too.

Besides the obvious of just diggin' the raw kung fu, no wires or anything, I also really enjoy the "lore". The classic martial arts universe. As silly as it sounds. I just love a world where just about everyone knows kung fu and epic battles are constantly going on. It's fun to think of the entire Shaw Brothers filmography as taking place in a single universe. Like all these different stories going on around the same time.

[xianzai]

I agree with TripMasterMunky; also, the SB movies seem to have more time devoted to the story and less to fancy camerawork and characters standing around, watching CGI.

While they may be stiffly filmed, with fake sets and bad sfx, I love the look of the (however imperfectly) restored 60's-70's SB films.

I think they were also aimed at an audience familiar with the original wuxia stories and who probably appreciated martial arts more than the audiences of today.

[HAZ]

Old actors had more charisma. Ti Lung was pretty bad ass. David Chiang was cool as heck. How many new young actors have that kind of intensity or charisma? It's the same with films all over the work - why would I rather watch Death Wish or Fistful of Dollars over many of the films of the day.

[Blood Sword]

Also in SB movies most of time characters seem to be more down to earth, not superheroes who are invincible like in modern movies.

I have to say I have not seen huge amount of new wave martial art movies but what I recall extremely rarely heroes die.Or need to train they are often complete fighters from beginning.

Jet Li`s tai chi master(good movie btw) is only which immediately pops into mind where hero need to learn new style for beating superior opponent.

[John]

I'll tell you why. The Shaw Bros. were operating in a golden age of cinema; a literal and figurative explosion of resources and energy. Out of that supernova of filmmaking we got the precious metals of HK cinema. Nowadays film is much more established. It's less dynamic. Now that people have got film "figured out", there's little room for the creativity and passion that characterised those films. Not to mention the sheer Shaw output in the day; when you take that kind of shotgun approach to creating something, you're bound to wind up with a few successes even if you have no idea what you're doing. And it's well established that the Shaws were rather adept in that department, so the sky was the limit.

[mistertpitydafoo]

why would I rather watch Death Wish or Fistful of Dollars over many of the films of the day.

Same here I love the Death Wish series along with many other Bronson films, and the whole dollars series (fistful, few dollars more, and good bad ugly) are so awesome. I don't know why they don't make movies like that anymore, i feel american movies especially peaked out in the 80s early early 90s at the latest. The late 90s and 2000s just don't have as many cool films and it's all just super fast camera work, quick cuts shaky cam, etc.

[Fang Shih-yu]

We can safely guess if we take a typical Shaw's movie budget and convert it into US dollars (allowing for inflation), the cost would be lower than that of today's prospective "blockbusters"! That says a lot for how money is blatantly being wasted on many current movies where "bigger is better" and it's "style over substance"!

Add to that the fact these writers, directors, actors, etc. knew their audiences' tastes, and it's too easy to figure why we get a special charge out of these movies more than a lot of the recent product coming from out of Hollywood and elsewhere!

[Tosh]

Pretty much agree with everyone, it's not just the Shaw movies, but movies from the 70's-80's were raw, had meaning, the actors were picked on there ability, charisma and looks. Most of the newer movie I've seen I have no interest in watching again(with the exceptions of course).

And not all of the Shaw sets are fake, they had real teahouses built, real bridges, real buildings and whole towns built for their movies, sure they reused them. Never again will we see film so "in house":squigglemouth:

[kungfusamurai]

I don't mind both Shaws and today's Big Budget epics. I just have lowered expectations when it comes to the fight scenes in today's films. You can't compare quick cuts, wires, excessive CGI and camera trickery to the old school long takes, multiple arm and leg movements, and in the case of the venoms and Sammo's fight team, the acrobatics.

KFS

[Cognoscente]

On 10/24/2010 at 5:25 AM, John said:

I'll tell you why. The Shaw Bros. were operating in a golden age of cinema; a literal and figurative explosion of resources and energy. Out of that supernova of filmmaking we got the precious metals of HK cinema. Nowadays film is much more established. It's less dynamic. Now that people have got film "figured out", there's little room for the creativity and passion that characterised those films. Not to mention the sheer Shaw output in the day; when you take that kind of shotgun approach to creating something, you're bound to wind up with a few successes even if you have no idea what you're doing. And it's well established that the Shaws were rather adept in that department, so the sky was the limit.

Despite the films being made as part of a studio system, the Shaw stuff were probably more experimental than a lot of the output coming out today. Also, Chinese filmmakers back then had more inspired influences to choose from whereas a lot of the newer filmmakers tend to rely too much on the tried and true.