Crime Story Thread

[Guest Yakuza954]

Your comment is so general here I don't even know what you talking about. Are you talking about the film in general or the subplot?

You said the psychiatric part of the story could have been made up by Kirk Wong, and I was responding to that.

Your point in saying that it's not out of place in a film like this is contradictory to your own point because it essentially proves my point and that's that Jackie did not turn this into "his movie" or "tone it down".

My point was that that kind of scene is normal for a genre that usually has scenes a lot more gruesome, many of which can be seen in Kirk Wong's other films and which I felt were apparent in the first half of Crime Story but not in the second.

And that's why I argue your point is superficial because all you are concentrating on is the use of guns period. I argue that it is consistent because of the film style and the reality of the scenes are kept even for a Kirk Wong movie. To concentrate it solely just on the use of guns is moot since Kirk Wong has made non-gun action scenes and guns are still used in all of the action scenes in Crime Story. What their usage or importance in the scenes will vary, but they still exist versus your assessment that the second half of the film is Police Story when not once was there a gun fired in the entire last fight of that film.

Concentrating on the guns vs the hand to hand choreography is not moot because Kirk Wong has used more guns in his movies while Jackie has not. Thats something that can not be simply ignored. You say the action is still filmed the same, but thats to be expected if Kirk Wong was the only one who left the movie and not the rest of the camera or production crew. Using the same camera angles would also be in Jackie's best interest so as to not make the movie look like a cheap D production that was filmed by two different crews. The reality though is that Crime Story is still, at its core, 2 different films made by 2 different people. Kirk Wong had painted a world where Jackie was an anti-hero (different from his underdog roles) with no martial arts to speak of and with his own psychological problems to worry about. The cops and Triads also engaged in fights with guns in the streets. That all goes down the scrapper once JC takes over.

Right. I believe you don't posses that ability. To describe the second half as Police Story-like is just wrong. It's not even close. The only way someone could say that is if they concentrate solely that the fights are hand to hand and not guns. Everything is totally different in it's action design of that film.

I used Police Story because its another example of JC's choreography in a contemporary setting. Sure, they're not exactly the same, but if Police Story and City on Fire represent polar opposites of action choreography, then Kirk Wong's half of Crime Story is a lot closer to City on Fire, while JC's half is a lot closer to Police Story.

However, I will agree that yes, when Jackie did take over there where changes to where the direction of the film was going, but not it's tone. Obviously the psychiatrist subplot was scrapped and who knows what else maybe. The focus became on Jackie's character and I don't think Kirk Wong's version would have been so centered on him throughout most of the movie. But it's tone and style are consistent with the film.

Once you scrap a psychiatrist subplot that involves the main characters own mental problems and an affair he has with the psychiatrist, then thats going to change the tone of the film whether you like it or not. Same goes for changing the action from gunplay to JC's choreography style because a lot less people are going to die when you use the latter. Jackie said he thought Kirk Wong's vision was too dark, and these are two things he explicity changed in order to lighten the tone.

[Guest The Running Man]

You said the psychiatric part of the story could have been made up by Kirk Wong, and I was responding to that.

I never said it could have been made up. I suggested and what if it was. Then what?

My point was that that kind of scene is normal for a genre that usually has scenes a lot more gruesome, many of which can be seen in Kirk Wong's other films and which I felt were apparent in the first half of Crime Story but not in the second.

We're going in circles here. How gruesome a scene is has nothing to do with anything. Point is what happens in the example I gave is a messed up act regardless (shooting a burning man dead). I don't understand how that is important since the context of the scene is what matters and that is what is messed up. I don't know why you feel it's necessary to have continual gruesome acts in order for it to be a film of a certain genre. If there is no reason for it, then there is no reason to do it. Gruesome acts don't define Kirk Wong or any acclaimed director of the genre. Putting such scenes over and over like that would just turn it into cheap exploitation and that's not what they are about.

Concentrating on the guns vs the hand to hand choreography is not moot because Kirk Wong has used more guns in his movies while Jackie has not. Thats something that can not be simply ignored.

You saying this proves my point that you are concentrating too much on what is being used rather than how it is being presented. That does make it moot because such a thing is superficial. It's all how it is shot and done and that is consistent with the rest of the film.

The reality though is that Crime Story is still, at its core, 2 different films made by 2 different people. Kirk Wong had painted a world where Jackie was an anti-hero (different from his underdog roles) with no martial arts to speak of and with his own psychological problems to worry about. The cops and Triads also engaged in fights with guns in the streets. That all goes down the scrapper once JC takes over.

No, it all doesn't go down the "scrapper". First of all, the triads versus the cops in the streets with guns is ONE scene in the movie. The entire movie was not centered on this. And while the subplot of the psychiatrist was thrown out, the main point and plot of the movie still remained and that was about the kidnapping of the business man.

Sure, they're not exactly the same, but if Police Story and City on Fire represent polar opposites of action choreography, then Kirk Wong's half of Crime Story is a lot closer to City on Fire, while JC's half is a lot closer to Police Story.

It still remains a bad example because Crime Story and City on Fire are very comparable to each other in their style whereas Police Story and the "second half" of Crime Story are simply not.

Once you scrap a psychiatrist subplot that involves the main characters own mental problems and an affair he has with the psychiatrist, then thats going to change the tone of the film whether you like it or not.

Incorrect. The focus of the movie changes, not the tone.

Same goes for changing the action from gunplay to JC's choreography style because a lot less people are going to die when you use the latter.

Crime Story's action in the "second half" is not JC's choreography style. It isn't similar to his style in any sense.

Jackie said he thought Kirk Wong's vision was too dark, and these are two things he explicity changed in order to lighten the tone.

Are you getting this from Bey Logan? Because I never heard such a thing. I already said before Jackie knew full well what kind of director Kirk Wong was and that's what interested him in the project. What bothered him to the point of removing Kirk Wong from his own film was the sex scene and only the sex scene.

And if he wanted to "lighten the tone" why didn't Jackie just go all the way and reshoot scenes earlier in the movie? He could have, but he didn't. Instead, he kept scenes that were filmed by Kirk and simply decided to follow the tone and style of the film. This idea of lighten to the tone of the film is simply incorrect.

[Guest sea kelp]

if anyone still remembers the topic of the thread i'd appreciate some recommendations for the genre as well.

[Guest Chen Zhen]

this fight scene definetely has jackie's signature on it. nobody else's fight choreography looks quite like jackies, as far as the composition and flow of the fight. i will say that the fight is shot in a way which jackie has never shot his fights before...felt like Sammo Hung was holding the camera..jackie used some different lenses/camera angles in this than anything else ive seen. but based strictly on the fight choreography, its very reminiscent of jackie's other work. however, i strongly believe that how a fight is shot is just as important on how the fight actually is.

credit to portlykicker for the clip.

[Guest theportlykicker]

Haha! I knew this clip would turn up in this thread eventually.

[Guest Chen Zhen]

its a great fight scene...thanx for uploadin it portly

[Guest Chinatown Kid]

I agree with Chen, Jackie definately has a distinct style in his fights that is apparent in that clip.

[Guest Yakuza954]

I never said it could have been made up. I suggested and what if it was. Then what?

What's the point of even bringing this up if you don't have any proof to back it up?

We're going in circles here. How gruesome a scene is has nothing to do with anything. Point is what happens in the example I gave is a messed up act regardless (shooting a burning man dead). I don't understand how that is important since the context of the scene is what matters and that is what is messed up. I don't know why you feel it's necessary to have continual gruesome acts in order for it to be a film of a certain genre. If there is no reason for it, then there is no reason to do it. Gruesome acts don't define Kirk Wong or any acclaimed director of the genre. Putting such scenes over and over like that would just turn it into cheap exploitation and that's not what they are about.

I never said continual gruesome acts define the Triad genre or Kirk Wong, but both entities have had more messed up scenes than that, so JC could have still toned Crime Story down even with including that scene.

You saying this proves my point that you are concentrating too much on what is being used rather than how it is being presented. That does make it moot because such a thing is superficial. It's all how it is shot and done and that is consistent with the rest of the film.

It's done differently because the action scenes in the first half of Crime Story are nowhere as long as the ones in the second half, and they place more emphasis on the short and brutal nature of gunfights, while the second half has more drawn out, one vs many group fights that are a staple of Jackie's films.

No, it all doesn't go down the "scrapper". First of all, the triads versus the cops in the streets with guns is ONE scene in the movie. The entire movie was not centered on this. And while the subplot of the psychiatrist was thrown out, the main point and plot of the movie still remained and that was about the kidnapping of the business man.

There were at least two scenes between Triads and cops with guns in the first half. Bey Logan also said Jackie had a problem with how Kirk Wong was shooting the action. The kidnapping of the business man also loses importance as there's more emphasis on Jackie chan's character and Kent Cheng.

It still remains a bad example because Crime Story and City on Fire are very comparable to each other in their style whereas Police Story and the "second half" of Crime Story are simply not.

I don't see anything comparable between the second half of Crime Story and City on Fire other than being a part of the same genre. The second half of Crime Story and Police Story at least both share similarities in Jackie's choreography style.

Incorrect. The focus of the movie changes, not the tone.

I feel like I just got a question wrong on a math quiz.

Crime Story's action in the "second half" is not JC's choreography style. It isn't similar to his style in any sense.

Jackie Chan is the only person in the world who choreographs fights that way, and even a couple people in this thread agree that it has aspects of JC's trademark choreography.

Are you getting this from Bey Logan? Because I never heard such a thing. I already said before Jackie knew full well what kind of director Kirk Wong was and that's what interested him in the project. What bothered him to the point of removing Kirk Wong from his own film was the sex scene and only the sex scene.

I don't know who to believe, as you've descredited everything Bey Logan has said about Crime Story so far, and I don't know how trustful your sources are either.

And if he wanted to "lighten the tone" why didn't Jackie just go all the way and reshoot scenes earlier in the movie? He could have, but he didn't. Instead, he kept scenes that were filmed by Kirk and simply decided to follow the tone and style of the film. This idea of lighten to the tone of the film is simply incorrect.

Probably because of time and budget constraints. He wasn't happy with the Protector either but he didn't go and re-shoot that completely.

[Guest The Running Man]

this fight scene definetely has jackie's signature on it. nobody else's fight choreography looks quite like jackies, as far as the composition and flow of the fight.

You are correct that Jackie has a certain signature to his fights but that's where you are wrong about that fight in particular having that signature. Two things in particular make Jackie's action stand out. The way he shoots them (i.e., wide angles with long takes and cameras that almost never move from their position) and the choreography with himself or objects that are done in a perfect fashion. Notice, any time that Jackie picks up any object or thing (or even if someone else picks something up), either the object is used perfectly in the intended manner (i.e., Jackie balancing swords while fighting, throwing something in the air and then perfectly catching it to launch it at someone, etc...) or it flubs up in an intended manner (i.e. while Jackie balances swords one almost cuts him, when Jackie goes to catch a vase it lands on his head blocking his view, etc...).

That fight in Crime Story has none of that. The camera angles and editing are all different. Gone are the wide angles in exchange for tighter shots. Instead of the camera remaining still it actually moves at times. The choreography is also totally different. People are roughhousing (look at Ken Lo, none of the kicks he does are anything like he did in Drunken Master 2 where he did perfect attacks with his legs) and there are struggles. At one point Jackie wants a gun from another guy. In a typical Jackie Chan film he would do some things like spin kick the gun in the air, punch the guy in the face, catch the gun on it's way down and then hold him up. In this, he does nothing more than just struggle with the man for control of the gun and gains the upper hand by simply pushing him around and then placing his hand in the friar so it can burn.

And notice that when objects are introduced in the scene they are used in a raw manner and not in the visually pleasing manner Jackie always does. Someone picks up a pot and just hurls it, someone picks up a shovel and just thrusts it, someone picks up a chair and just pushes with it, etc...

There's no mistake. Crime Story's action is a different beast.

[Guest The Running Man]

What's the point of even bringing this up if you don't have any proof to back it up?

Backing what up? Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that I suggested it for the sake of argument. But it's long gone since you missed the point the first time. So forget it.

I never said continual gruesome acts define the Triad genre or Kirk Wong, but both entities have had more messed up scenes than that, so JC could have still toned Crime Story down even with including that scene.

Again, how gruesome an act is does not equal it's weight in context. Jackie didn't have to even include the scene in question in the "second half". Had he been doing what you say (lighting the tone of the film) he would have filmed that scene as him saving the burning guy like he would do in all of his films. He doesn't, instead he shoots him dead.

It's done differently because the action scenes in the first half of Crime Story are nowhere as long as the ones in the second half, and they place more emphasis on the short and brutal nature of gunfights, while the second half has more drawn out, one vs many group fights that are a staple of Jackie's films.

Now it's about length? None of the fights in the "second half" of Crime Story are long either. In fact that fight in the last act of the movie last at most 2 minutes and a half and that's mostly made up of struggles and roughhousing. That's hardly the length of a typical Jackie Chan fight. And the about the "one vs group" thing, I believe that was the same thing in the shoot out at the start of the film.

And in the hand to hand fights, far more emphasis was on brutality and rawness of the fights rather than the fluidity of the moves of a normal Jackie Chan fight. Again, keeping with the tone set.

There were at least two scenes between Triads and cops with guns in the first half. Bey Logan also said Jackie had a problem with how Kirk Wong was shooting the action. The kidnapping of the business man also loses importance as there's more emphasis on Jackie chan's character and Kent Cheng.

You are being influenced by the wrong people. Bey Logan never filmed the movie and wasn't part of the production. Bey's better for bios on people and what movies they have done. He's "inside" info on things have been quite inaccurate a number of times (i.e. Bullet in the Head commentary) and it seems that his thoughts on this have influenced your judgement. I don't know how you think that the importance of the kidnapping was lost because an emphasis was placed on Jackie and Kent Cheng? That makes no sense since Kent is the bad guy who is heading the whole kidnapping plot and Jackie is trying to save them from being kidnapped. What else would it have been?

I don't see anything comparable between the second half of Crime Story and City on Fire other than being a part of the same genre. The second half of Crime Story and Police Story at least both share similarities in Jackie's choreography style.

Stay with what I said. First half of Crime Story...City on Fire...comparable. "Second Half of Crime Story"...Police Story...not comparable.

Jackie Chan is the only person in the world who choreographs fights that way, and even a couple people in this thread agree that it has aspects of JC's trademark choreography.

I don't believe that Chen Zen writing his opinion makes it a fact considering I have disagreed with him wildly on things in topics of action like him complaining on the close ups in the alley way fight in SPL and others have disagreed with him also so there's no real point in bringing that up.

I don't know who to believe, as you've descredited everything Bey Logan has said about Crime Story so far, and I don't know how trustful your sources are either.

My source on why Kirk Wong was removed from his own film by Jackie Chan is Jackie Chan himself. Listen to his commentary on Gorgeous. He doesn't mention the film by name but he at one point he obviously is referring to it.

Probably because of time and budget constraints. He wasn't happy with the Protector either but he didn't go and re-shoot that completely.

No, but he reshot scenes that were already in the American version and he could have easily have done that for Crime Story. Time and budget constraints wouldn't be a problem since when he took over he could have made it into his film and Jackie wields tons of influence in the HK movie industry.

[Guest Chen Zhen]

There's no mistake. Crime Story's action is a different beast.

im not debating that the action is different than anything jackie's done. i even mentioned that in my original post. what im saying is that u can easily tell that its a JC choreographed scene, even if u ignore jackies precense in the film. obviously the things u mentioned about balancing swords and doing all those 'perfect' routines wouldnt fit the movie, but that doesnt mean it looks nothing like jackies stuff. like i sed before, the choreography was in the same vein as jackies stuff, with the biggest difference being how it was shot and edited. but at its heart, the scene has jackie written all over it. like i sed b4, nobody else couldve choreographed that fight the way it was aside from jackie. he gave the fights a more realistic/grittier feel than his other work, but it felt more like JC choreography, with sammo actually shooting it.

my observations at least.

[Guest Yakuza954]

Again, how gruesome an act is does not equal it's weight in context. Jackie didn't have to even include the scene in question in the "second half". Had he been doing what you say (lighting the tone of the film) he would have filmed that scene as him saving the burning guy like he would do in all of his films. He doesn't, instead he shoots him dead.

Wasn't it some random bad guy too? Not much remorse for a random character like that getting shot dead. Even though they weren't shot dead, when Jackie went loose on the bad guys in Police Story it felt more painful. As for Kirk Wong's half of Crime Story, you get to actually see the psychological impact the deaths have on Jackie Chan's character that add an extra depth. Like that scene with Jackie running around in a hospital with a dying body, screaming for help and eventually passing out himself. None of that in the 2nd half.

Now it's about length? None of the fights in the "second half" of Crime Story are long either. In fact that fight in the last act of the movie last at most 2 minutes and a half and that's mostly made up of struggles and roughhousing. That's hardly the length of a typical Jackie Chan fight. And the about the "one vs group" thing, I believe that was the same thing in the shoot out at the start of the film.

And in the hand to hand fights, far more emphasis was on brutality and rawness of the fights rather than the fluidity of the moves of a normal Jackie Chan fight. Again, keeping with the tone set.

But the one vs group fight in the beginning resulted in more deaths than any of the later fights and did not involve struggling, roughhousing, or throwing objects like the later fights. I also felt that Police Story had more emphasis on brutality and rawness rather than the fluidity, another reason why Jackie Chan's fights in Crime Story are more similar to his fights in other films than anything in a Triad film.

You are being influenced by the wrong people. Bey Logan never filmed the movie and wasn't part of the production. Bey's better for bios on people and what movies they have done. He's "inside" info on things have been quite inaccurate a number of times (i.e. Bullet in the Head commentary) and it seems that his thoughts on this have influenced your judgement. I don't know how you think that the importance of the kidnapping was lost because an emphasis was placed on Jackie and Kent Cheng? That makes no sense since Kent is the bad guy who is heading the whole kidnapping plot and Jackie is trying to save them from being kidnapped. What else would it have been?

I could tell there was a big difference between certain parts of Crime Story before I even knew what Bey Logan said. But what he says correlates with what I see on screen, while what you say dosen't. Jackie says he dosen't like Kirk Wong's action choreography, so Jackie changes it once Kirk Wong leaves. If he was only worred about a single sex scene he could have stayed with the gunplay. And that was the original way the film was heading, with purely gunfights, ala the Killer or City on Fire. The camera stays the same later on, which can easily be attributed to still having the same production crew and wanting to achieve some sense of continuity in the film, but the action is clearly different. And like I said before, he also could have kept the based-on-real-events psychiatrist subplot if he was just angry at a sex scene Kirk Wong filmed. Everything points to Kirk Wong and Jackie chan having fundamental differences on set that weren't just limited to a single sex scene.

I don't believe that Chen Zen writing his opinion makes it a fact considering I have disagreed with him wildly on things in topics of action like him complaining on the close ups in the alley way fight in SPL and others have disagreed with him also so there's no real point in bringing that up.

I brought it up because you keep on saying that Crime Story's action bears no resemblance to Jackie Chan's other movies while I can plainly see it does, and others can too. If you placed some random guy in place of Jackie Chan in those Crime Story Fights and showed it to someone who had never seen Crime Story they would tell you it looks like a Jackie Chan fight. That's how much Jackie's action choreography stands out.

My source on why Kirk Wong was removed from his own film by Jackie Chan is Jackie Chan himself. Listen to his commentary on Gorgeous. He doesn't mention the film by name but he at one point he obviously is referring to it.

There could be more to the story then what Jackie Chan said, and Jackie is notorious for lying or stretching the truth. I've never really cared about it, but I know there are people who have found lies in his interviews and even in that book he wrote.

No, but he reshot scenes that were already in the American version and he could have easily have done that for Crime Story. Time and budget constraints wouldn't be a problem since when he took over he could have made it into his film and Jackie wields tons of influence in the HK movie industry.

I don't buy that at all. Jackie Chan still has problems with film budgets and time constraints to this day and it was even worse back in his HK days. Just by the nature of the Hong Kong film industry, I extremely doubt even a guy like Jackie Chan can go back and re-shoot a film that has gone that far in production. He couldn't do it with the Protector, and he couldn't do it with Crime Story. The best he could do was cut his losses and re-shoot a few action scenes in the Protector. In Crime Story's case he removed a sex scene, changed the action choreography from gun play to hand combat and continued the film along a path he preferred. It made the film a poorer one in my opinion, but it was his decision, and it was the best he could do since he couldn't re-shoot it completely.

[Guest Chen Zhen]

I don't believe that Chen Zen writing his opinion makes it a fact considering I have disagreed with him wildly on things in topics of action like him complaining on the close ups in the alley way fight in SPL and others have disagreed with him also so there's no real point in bringing that up.

sorry that my opinion bears no relevance...

[Guest The Running Man]

what im saying is that u can easily tell that its a JC choreographed scene, even if u ignore jackies precense in the film. obviously the things u mentioned about balancing swords and doing all those 'perfect' routines wouldnt fit the movie, but that doesnt mean it looks nothing like jackies stuff.

No offense, but this isn't really much of a discussion here then. I am naming and describing specific things that point to such as to why it is not like a Jackie Chan fight and all I see you doing is saying, "Yeah, but still..."

If that's your way of agreeing with me then I suppose I'll take it but...I'll reiterate that it isn't like any of his stuff and his "signatures" are nowhere to be found and the biggest differences are not just the cameras.

sorry that my opinion bears no relevance...

I never said it bears no relevance. I said that someone saying that you, like anyone else, agrees with them doesn't make it hard evidence like exhibit A.

Geez....why do people love putting words into other's mouths on forums?

[Guest The Running Man]

Wasn't it some random bad guy too? Not much remorse for a random character like that getting shot dead. Even though they weren't shot dead, when Jackie went loose on the bad guys in Police Story it felt more painful.

The majority of the people that Jackie, or any other person in an action movie, are fighting are "random" guys. And I suppose it would be more painful in Police Story since they are being beaten up rather than shot dead but then again they weren't burning alive before then. Anyway, the point wasn't on it being gruesome like I said before.

As for Kirk Wong's half of Crime Story, you get to actually see the psychological impact the deaths have on Jackie Chan's character that add an extra depth. Like that scene with Jackie running around in a hospital with a dying body, screaming for help and eventually passing out himself. None of that in the 2nd half.

He was running around and screaming for help in the second half as well. Look at the entire part where the building starts blowing up. That's the same character from the first half. In fact, it makes it's point to the first half of the film since Jackie is trying to save lives even at the cost of his own which was him from the "first half".

But the one vs group fight in the beginning resulted in more deaths than any of the later fights and did not involve struggling, roughhousing, or throwing objects like the later fights.

You sure? In the first shootout, Jackie shoots three of the four gunmen dead. In the climax of the movie, Jackie shoots two of the bad guys dead (one of them being the man burning alive) and kills Ken Lo by throwing him into some big light bulbs and getting electrocuted. That's the same exact body count for both scenes that represent " both halves".

I also felt that Police Story had more emphasis on brutality and rawness rather than the fluidity, another reason why Jackie Chan's fights in Crime Story are more similar to his fights in other films than anything in a Triad film.

The only thing that makes the last fight in Police Story "brutal" and "raw" is people hitting all that glass. Other than that, you have Jackie performing brilliant spin kicks, jumping on racks while doing perfect spins on them, executing excellent long hand to hand exchanges, launching the bad guys into excellent 360 spin summersaults only to fall perfectly into their intended targets, etc... None of that is present in Crime Story's "second half".

I could tell there was a big difference between certain parts of Crime Story before I even knew what Bey Logan said. But what he says correlates with what I see on screen, while what you say dosen't. Jackie says he dosen't like Kirk Wong's action choreography, so Jackie changes it once Kirk Wong leaves. If he was only worred about a single sex scene he could have stayed with the gunplay.

If Jackie didn't like his action, he could have reshot that scene like he did on The Protector's action. And there's no reason it wouldn't have been reshot if Jackie wanted. The men that played the gunmen were all from his stunt team, that street wasn't that important for it to be closed again, and that scene was hardly that complicated for it to be redone. But he didn't.

And that was the original way the film was heading, with purely gunfights, ala the Killer or City on Fire. The camera stays the same later on, which can easily be attributed to still having the same production crew and wanting to achieve some sense of continuity in the film, but the action is clearly different.

The only thing you keep going back to on this is that it's guns and then it isn't guns. That's it. Nothing on the style it was filmed and how it's consistent. Sorry, but you keep failing to rise beyond this into deeper ground other than this superficial fact. The style, the tone, the fights themselves remain true to what was set before. In fact, you contradict yourself again by pointing out that the same production crew Kirk Wong was using was used by Jackie to finish the film. If Jackie really didn't like the way the film was going at all like you say, then why did he keep the same crew on board to help him finish the film?

The only thing really missing from where Kirk Wong was going was the subplot with the psychiatrist which honestly was weak and poorly done if you look at the footage that Jackie removed. I wouldn't blame Jackie from removing it since they are really laughably bad.

I brought it up because you keep on saying that Crime Story's action bears no resemblance to Jackie Chan's other movies while I can plainly see it does, and others can too.

Well if you want to use that as a point, then Chen has pointed out that he agrees with me that it is different to anything that Jackie has done before, it's just that he feels he can tell that it's Jackie doing the action (which I don't think he can if it wasn't Jackie in that scene).

If you placed some random guy in place of Jackie Chan in those Crime Story Fights and showed it to someone who had never seen Crime Story they would tell you it looks like a Jackie Chan fight. That's how much Jackie's action choreography stands out.

No. I have written a reply to Chen explaining my stance on this. So just read that as I am not going to re-write it.

There could be more to the story then what Jackie Chan said, and Jackie is notorious for lying or stretching the truth. I've never really cared about it, but I know there are people who have found lies in his interviews and even in that book he wrote.

That's kinda silly if you think about what you are arguing here. You are arguing that Jackie removed Kirk cause of the tone of the movie and cause of his image. Why would he have to lie about that to anyone when he always talks about him trying to keep a good profile with the public and so forth? If it was really his image at stake, he would have said it no problem like he has always done. I see no grounds of possible cover up. What Jackie was pissed at was simply the sex scene Kirk shot and that was it.

And as far as the book "he wrote", Jackie didn't any of that autobiography. Jeff Yang did. What Jackie mostly contributed to was some interviews with Yang that involved his early life in the orphanage. The rest of it was filled in by Jeff Yang using Ric Meyers' "info". That's why there is so much errors in the book. Yang and Meyers are friends and can even be heard doing the commentary together on the US disc of Drunken Master.

I don't buy that at all. Jackie Chan still has problems with film budgets and time constraints to this day and it was even worse back in his HK days.

Then you don't know Jackie's history. Jackie could do what he wanted in HK at the time. His movies went far over budget and no one at Golden Harvest would doubt him even if GH knew they couldn't make their money back at HK alone with the budgets he was going for. If he really wanted to change Crime Story totally, he would have had no problem to do so. But he didn't because the tone and style of the movie are what interested him in the first place. With Crime Story, Jackie knew what he was getting into with Kirk Wong (save for the sex scene). At that point in Jackie's career, he wanted to branch out and get experience working with other film makers to broaden his spectrum. That's why he was working with people as diverse as Lau Kar Leung to even Wong Jing at that time.

As far as The Protector goes, he couldn't reshoot the whole movie because he didn't have access to all the actors, such as Danny Aiello. Plus, he was already going into pre-production on Police Story (notice he sports his Police Story hairdo in the HK shot scenes for The Protector).

[Guest Chen Zhen]

Well if you want to use that as a point, then Chen has pointed out that he agrees with me that it is different to anything that Jackie has done before, it's just that he feels he can tell that it's Jackie doing the action (which I don't think he can if it wasn't Jackie in that scene).

i could still tell it was a jackie chan choreographed scene even if some other guy was in its place. that is because out of all the choreographers, nobody utilizes the environment and surroundings like jackie does. u never see someone picking up items and throwing them at enemies in a Yuen Woo Ping movie for example. most other choreographers wouldve done a straight up kickboxing fight with little environment interaction, aside from stuntmen falling into items. so please, spare me, i can tell a JC scene when i see one. its just like how u can tell its JC choreography in a movie like angry ranger..which jackie is NOT present in. just because u may not be able to link the similarities in that Crime Story fight to jackies other work, doesnt mean I, and ultimately other ppl cant.

[Guest Yakuza954]

Not responding to the first few points because I'm looking to end this argument soon and I don't think I can add anything new concerning those, but as for the rest:

If Jackie didn't like his action, he could have reshot that scene like he did on The Protector's action. And there's no reason it wouldn't have been reshot if Jackie wanted. The men that played the gunmen were all from his stunt team, that street wasn't that important for it to be closed again, and that scene was hardly that complicated for it to be redone. But he didn't.

I don't think Jackie re-shot all the action scenes for the Protector but correct me if I'm wrong. And in Crime Story, there is more then just that one scene that has a heavy emphasis on guns in the first half, so he would have to go back and re-shoot more then that. Jackie has also never shown the ability nor desire to film action scenes like that in his career, which gives me more reason to believe he had a problem with the action.

The only thing you keep going back to on this is that it's guns and then it isn't guns. That's it. Nothing on the style it was filmed and how it's consistent. Sorry, but you keep failing to rise beyond this into deeper ground other than this superficial fact. The style, the tone, the fights themselves remain true to what was set before. In fact, you contradict yourself again by pointing out that the same production crew Kirk Wong was using was used by Jackie to finish the film. If Jackie really didn't like the way the film was going at all like you say, then why did he keep the same crew on board to help him finish the film?

The only thing really missing from where Kirk Wong was going was the subplot with the psychiatrist which honestly was weak and poorly done if you look at the footage that Jackie removed. I wouldn't blame Jackie from removing it since they are really laughably bad.

Focusing on the guns is not superficial. Choreography involving guns and hand to hand choreography is different no matter what. Each one has different intricacies and techniques involved and a person can spend their entire lives mastering one but still end up a total novice at the other. In Crime Story's case in specific, I dont find any of the gun choreography and hand to hand choreography alike other than Jackie Chan being on-screen during both and the camera angles being similar. The action in the first half still has a more emotional and brutal tone imo and the camera angles can be attributed to using the same production crew. I'm not contradicting myself because there's no reason for the production crew to get kicked off along with Kirk Wong since they were most likely they were just following orders, and even continued doing so. Only later on it was under a different person with a different motive in Jackie Chan.

That's kinda silly if you think about what you are arguing here. You are arguing that Jackie removed Kirk cause of the tone of the movie and cause of his image. Why would he have to lie about that to anyone when he always talks about him trying to keep a good profile with the public and so forth? If it was really his image at stake, he would have said it no problem like he has always done. I see no grounds of possible cover up. What Jackie was pissed at was simply the sex scene Kirk shot and that was it.

I never said Jackie Chan lied here, but he has done so in the past, so its a possibility. Another possibility is that he didn't tell the entire story about Crime Story. Personally I don't expect him to talk completely about what really happened on the set in Crime Story during a Gorgeous commentary. And he WAS worried about his international image--choosing Police Story 3 over Crime Story was a choice directly resulting from being worried about his image during that time period.

And as far as the book "he wrote", Jackie didn't any of that autobiography. Jeff Yang did. What Jackie mostly contributed to was some interviews with Yang that involved his early life in the orphanage. The rest of it was filled in by Jeff Yang using Ric Meyers' "info". That's why there is so much errors in the book. Yang and Meyers are friends and can even be heard doing the commentary together on the US disc of Drunken Master.

So if Jackie didn't write it then it's not an autobiography, but a biography, right? Either way, there are still other examples of Jackie lying, and I get the impression he is more tempted to lie when he's talking to more gullible, and less knowledgable foreign audiences. This is, after all, the same Jackie Chan who came onto a concert set drunk a month ago and started insulting the audience, so I wouldn't put it past him.

Then you don't know Jackie's history. Jackie could do what he wanted in HK at the time. His movies went far over budget and no one at Golden Harvest would doubt him even if GH knew they couldn't make their money back at HK alone with the budgets he was going for. If he really wanted to change Crime Story totally, he would have had no problem to do so. But he didn't because the tone and style of the movie are what interested him in the first place. With Crime Story, Jackie knew what he was getting into with Kirk Wong (save for the sex scene). At that point in Jackie's career, he wanted to branch out and get experience working with other film makers to broaden his spectrum. That's why he was working with people as diverse as Lau Kar Leung to even Wong Jing at that time.

I don't need to know Jackie Chan's history because I can't even think of any HK films that have had entire thirds or large parts of a film re-shot. I'm making a commentary on HK cinema in general, and from what i've seen it just isn't feasible. Keeping the entire footage in the new film or splicing it together somehow is feasible though and is always the preferred option. Even with someone like Jackie Chan involved. Lau Kar Leung's also not a good example of Jackie Chan "branching out" because he's another guy who left during production and had disagreements with Jackie about the action choreography. It even sounds very familar to Kirk Wong and Jackie Chan's situation in Crime Story and gives more credence to the idea that they actually did argue about the action. Jackie Chan, especially in the 80's and 90's, has always struck me as having a "my way or the highway" line of thinking when it comes to action. It's not really his fault, as most of the top action choreographers share that attitude and he's definitely a very good choreographer. And about Wong Jing.. I find it crazy to believe anyone would want to work with that man in order to broaden their "spectrum", unless that spectrum somehow included a lesson on "how to make bad films". People seem to work with Wong Jing for only 2 reasons 1) Blackmail by the Triads or 2) Money.

As far as The Protector goes, he couldn't reshoot the whole movie because he didn't have access to all the actors, such as Danny Aiello. Plus, he was already going into pre-production on Police Story (notice he sports his Police Story hairdo in the HK shot scenes for The Protector).

From what I know about that project, he wanted it canned while it was still filming, but couldn't do it because of contract reasons. After it was finished I don't think re-shooting completely was ever part of the equation, and I doubt it's ever been realistic for any of his films, including the first half of Crime Story.

[Linn1]

please try to not take over threads of people looking for help with this stuff. If you want to discuss something more in-depth, make a new thread and link to it in the old one.

[Guest Markgway]

It's funny... I just wrote an article on Crime Story and was completely oblivious to the fact that this debate was going on behind my back the whole time, lol.

[Guest The Running Man]

Chen,

so please, spare me, i can tell a JC scene when i see one.

I've already explained this. You can describe over and over again on this and plan and simple it just doesn't count because barely any of his trademarks apply in that movie. I've had people tell me after they saw the film that they didn't like the fights because of how different they were from a Jackie Chan movie. I've even come across a review or two that have complained about the action as well for similar reasons. So yeah, I sit firmly behind what I say about the film's action.

And finally, please spare me your negative tone on that above reply.

Yakuza,

Not responding to the first few points because I'm looking to end this argument soon and I don't think I can add anything new concerning those,

Was this an "argument"? I didn't know it was.

I don't think Jackie re-shot all the action scenes for the Protector but correct me if I'm wrong. And in Crime Story, there is more then just that one scene that has a heavy emphasis on guns in the first half, so he would have to go back and re-shoot more then that.

No he didn't reshoot all the action in the Protector. And there wouldn't have been much action to re-shoot in Crime Story if he truly wanted to turn it into a regular movie of his. It was just what, that one shootout at the start of the film and maybe the one where he is on the roof later in the film?

Jackie has also never shown the ability nor desire to film action scenes like that in his career, which gives me more reason to believe he had a problem with the action.

Actually, that tells me the opposite and goes back to my points on why Jackie was interested in the project (it was a different film) and the different style of action he himself applied to the film when he continued it himself.

In Crime Story's case in specific, I dont find any of the gun choreography and hand to hand choreography alike other than Jackie Chan being on-screen during both and the camera angles being similar.

Of course you don't. Because one has mostly guns and one doesn't. You are not looking pass this.

I'm not contradicting myself because there's no reason for the production crew to get kicked off along with Kirk Wong since they were most likely they were just following orders, and even continued doing so.

Actually it does because the intention that Jackie wanted was to finish the film in the tone and style set by Kirk Wong. That's why he had people like Author Wong on set to help him keep the film consistent as if it were still Kirk Wong doing the film.

I never said Jackie Chan lied here, but he has done so in the past, so its a possibility. Another possibility is that he didn't tell the entire story about Crime Story. Personally I don't expect him to talk completely about what really happened on the set in Crime Story during a Gorgeous commentary.

There's nothing long to talk about Crime Story. You say he kicked him off cause of his image. All he would have needed to say was, "I was worried about my image, so I kicked this director of his movie". But all he mentioned was it was cause of a sex scene. If you think about it, if he was gonna lie about it, he would have just said it was cause of his image since it would go with what he has always talked about but instead he brings it up cause of a sex scene and just a sex scene.

And he WAS worried about his international image--choosing Police Story 3 over Crime Story was a choice directly resulting from being worried about his image during that time period.

You are confusing intentions here. He wasn't worried about his image per say, but if he really did tell them to release Police Story 3 instead of Crime Story (and this is all heresy and it's coming from just Logan) it was simply him wanting the US public to get a better taste of what most of his movies are like. Crime Story is a departure for Jackie and not something at all for an intro. Even I, who enjoys the film, wouldn't show it to people with the intention of a proper introduction to Jackie Chan.

So if Jackie didn't write it then it's not an autobiography, but a biography, right? Either way, there are still other examples of Jackie lying, and I get the impression he is more tempted to lie when he's talking to more gullible, and less knowledgable foreign audiences.

Well, the book was sold as an autobiography. Anyway, whatever other cases you know of Jackie lying this one would have nothing to do with it. He would have nothing to hide since he was the one that kicked Wong off his own film. If it was his image he was solely worried about he wouldn't have needed to lie about that since it's a well known fact he is and also, if there were the case on this movie, he wouldn't have been involved with it in the first place because of the director that Kirk Wong is. So sorry, but that just isn't the case here.

This is, after all, the same Jackie Chan who came onto a concert set drunk a month ago and started insulting the audience, so I wouldn't put it past him.

What does that have to do with anything?

Even with someone like Jackie Chan involved. Lau Kar Leung's also not a good example of Jackie Chan "branching out" because he's another guy who left during production and had disagreements with Jackie about the action choreography. It even sounds very familar to Kirk Wong and Jackie Chan's situation in Crime Story and gives more credence to the idea that they actually did argue about the action. Jackie Chan, especially in the 80's and 90's, has always struck me as having a "my way or the highway" line of thinking when it comes to action.

Actually yes, Lau Kar Leung is a good example of Jackie branching out at that time because around that period Jackie had stayed away from doing long sequences of martial arts and hadn't done a pure martial arts movies in at least a decade. And "pure martial arts action" was something Jackie moved totally away from after Young Master. So yeah, him hooking up with Lau Kar Leung was him branching out.

And think about what you just said right here. If Jackie has had that attitude of his way or no way and it was well known that Jackie was not happy with the direction that Lau Kar Leung was doing the action, then why the heck would he have to hide about, or change it according to you, on Crime Story? There's a perfect example of two different movies in one right there. Look at the action in the first half compared with the second and it's totally different. Different angles, choreography, etc... With Crime Story, even though Jackie did hand to hand stuff, it was all in the tone and style of what was set previously. If you continue to not see this then there is nothing more that anyone can do despite how obvious it is that the action in Crime Story is totally different from what else he has done.

From what I know about that project, he wanted it canned while it was still filming, but couldn't do it because of contract reasons. After it was finished I don't think re-shooting completely was ever part of the equation, and I doubt it's ever been realistic for any of his films, including the first half of Crime Story.

He didn't need to re-shoot the whole movie has that was what Police Story was for. You also can't compare those two films that way since The Protector was finished while Crime Story was not. If he wanted to re-shoot stuff, there wouldn't have been a need to re-shoot certain things. Also remember, if Jackie wanted to change the tone of the film like you said, he could have easily created a "lighter" cut of the film out of what Wong already shot and continue that tone for whatever else he wanted to shoot after it. Again, he didn't and he kept the tone and kept on with what Wong established unlike what he did with Lau Kar Leung's movie.

Linn,

please try to not take over threads of people looking for help with this stuff. If you want to discuss something more in-depth, make a new thread and link to it in the old one.

Hey man, things like this happen all the time right? No harm meant at all. If the dude who started the thread still wants more stuff in the subject of what he asked he can feel free to ask again (which he did already).

Markgway,

It's funny... I just wrote an article on Crime Story and was completely oblivious to the fact that this debate was going on behind my back the whole time, lol.

Enjoying the show Mark?

[Guest Chen Zhen]

I've already explained this. You can describe over and over again on this and plan and simple it just doesn't count because barely any of his trademarks apply in that movie. I've had people tell me after they saw the film that they didn't like the fights because of how different they were from a Jackie Chan movie. I've even come across a review or two that have complained about the action as well for similar reasons. So yeah, I sit firmly behind what I say about the film's action.

And finally, please spare me your negative tone on that above reply.

what do u mean "it doesnt count"? the issue on hand is not "how many" of jackie's trademark elements can be found in the fight, its more an issue of whether the fight (ignoring the fact that jackie is in it) looks like JC choreography, and i say YES, because NOBODY ELSE's fightscenes look like that..or the rest of his work for that matter. ive already admitted the action is a little different from 'typical' jackie, due to the seriousness of the film itself, obviously. but that doesnt mean the fight doesnt retain ANY elements from jackies style. the truth "plain and simple" is that there are some elements from jackies style, and nobody elses. and i can pick up on them. well, if some ppl hated the action cuz it was different from jackies normal style, more power to them. and like i sed b4, if u think the action doesnt resemble jackes normal action whatsoever, more power to u. but that doesnt mean that my opinion is the same. if u took my comment as 'negative', sorry, but when u challenge my ability to properly analyse a fight scene, u can expect a somewhat defensive response. i dont see anything negative in my response at all, if u must, please point out that 'negative tone'. and i still stand by my comment.

[Guest Markgway]

Enjoying the show Mark?

I've just sat down with my popcorn and large soda.

Please continue... 8)

[Guest Yakuza954]

Was this an "argument"? I didn't know it was.

definition of argument- a discussion involving differing points of view; debate.

No he didn't reshoot all the action in the Protector. And there wouldn't have been much action to re-shoot in Crime Story if he truly wanted to turn it into a regular movie of his. It was just what, that one shootout at the start of the film and maybe the one where he is on the roof later in the film?

There was also the scene in the highway.

Of course you don't. Because one has mostly guns and one doesn't. You are not looking pass this.

If you plan to incorporate both guns and martial arts in a movie, then start it right from the beginning. In the Tiger Cage movies YWP does that so when the movie switches back and forth between gunplay and martial arts later in the movie it isn't out of place. YWP had already set the rules for his movie. Kirk Wong started out setting the rules in the first half of Crime story--there was NO martial arts, no hand to hand combat, nothing of the sort. So when the guns miraculously start to dissapear, in fact almost become a non-factor, and Jackie starts fighting the gangsters emptyhanded, it becomes obvious that there was a drastic change on set that caused there to be that kind of a switch-over in action. And there was, Kirk Wong had been fired from the movie.

Actually it does because the intention that Jackie wanted was to finish the film in the tone and style set by Kirk Wong. That's why he had people like Author Wong on set to help him keep the film consistent as if it were still Kirk Wong doing the film.

When you remove a director, it dosen't matter who you keep around the set, the movie's still going to end up very different. Arthur Wong is a cinematographer so he would have nothing in common with Kirk Wong when it comes to the plot or action. He'd only be good at keeping the camera similar to how it was used earlier, which dosen't really require much skill, and which I already mentioned as being in Jackie's best interest in order to make the film look the same. The stuff thats really important though, what's portrayed in the camera angles, still ends up being very different because there's a different person in charge with a different style of filmmaking.

Actually yes, Lau Kar Leung is a good example of Jackie branching out at that time because around that period Jackie had stayed away from doing long sequences of martial arts and hadn't done a pure martial arts movies in at least a decade. And "pure martial arts action" was something Jackie moved totally away from after Young Master. So yeah, him hooking up with Lau Kar Leung was him branching out.

Lau Kar Leung would have been a good example of Jackie Chan branching out had they actually finished the film together. But in 2 of your examples of Jackie "branching out", he ended up arguing with them over something and finishing the film alone. That speaks more of Jackie being unable to adapt to the styles of others than of being able to branch out. And the other guy you mentioned, well he's probably busy filming another sequel to Kung fu Mahjong right now.

And think about what you just said right here. If Jackie has had that attitude of his way or no way and it was well known that Jackie was not happy with the direction that Lau Kar Leung was doing the action, then why the heck would he have to hide about, or change it according to you, on Crime Story? There's a perfect example of two different movies in one right there. Look at the action in the first half compared with the second and it's totally different. Different angles, choreography, etc... With Crime Story, even though Jackie did hand to hand stuff, it was all in the tone and style of what was set previously. If you continue to not see this then there is nothing more that anyone can do despite how obvious it is that the action in Crime Story is totally different from what else he has done.

How is it totally obvious that the action is totally different in Crime Story from anything else he's done when 3 people in this thread have disagreed?

You are confusing intentions here. He wasn't worried about his image per say, but if he really did tell them to release Police Story 3 instead of Crime Story (and this is all heresy and it's coming from just Logan) it was simply him wanting the US public to get a better taste of what most of his movies are like. Crime Story is a departure for Jackie and not something at all for an intro. Even I, who enjoys the film, wouldn't show it to people with the intention of a proper introduction to Jackie Chan.

I don't even know if Bey Logan said it, I got it from a different source. But Jackie Chan was trying to breakthrough into the US market and choosing Police Story 3 over Crime Story does have a large part to do about his international image. That just makes it more likely that he removed Kirk Wong because of the same reason. Personally, I wouldn't show it because its a disjointed film that could have been better, and maybe thats the same reason why Jackie Chan didn't choose it either.

There's nothing long to talk about Crime Story. You say he kicked him off cause of his image. All he would have needed to say was, "I was worried about my image, so I kicked this director of his movie". But all he mentioned was it was cause of a sex scene. If you think about it, if he was gonna lie about it, he would have just said it was cause of his image since it would go with what he has always talked about but instead he brings it up cause of a sex scene and just a sex scene.

Kicking someone off because of a sex scene is still looking out for his image, isn't it? Bey Logan says there was more to it then that, and I keep bringing him up because nothing he's said about Crime Story has been disproven yet and because of Jackie's shady history when it comes to talking about his film projects.

He didn't need to re-shoot the whole movie has that was what Police Story was for. You also can't compare those two films that way since The Protector was finished while Crime Story was not. If he wanted to re-shoot stuff, there wouldn't have been a need to re-shoot certain things. Also remember, if Jackie wanted to change the tone of the film like you said, he could have easily created a "lighter" cut of the film out of what Wong already shot and continue that tone for whatever else he wanted to shoot after it. Again, he didn't and he kept the tone and kept on with what Wong established unlike what he did with Lau Kar Leung's movie.

I just don't see how you can say Jackie Chan could so easily re-shoot Crime Story when there are no examples of him ever significantly reshooting like that before, nor are there in HK cinema. I don't think he could have made a lighter version of the first half either. If he could have, then why was the scene with him the psychiatrist still there? Or the other scenes that showed his character wrestling with his poor state of mind? They only make the movie feel disjointed since they are never fleshed out later in the film.

And if you're correct, and he wanted to make the second half of Crime Story as dark and in the same tone as the first, then he failed. I believed the choreography and themes used in the second half of Crime Story are re-hashed from a lot of his previous work. It's like after kicking Kirk Wong off the film, he was out of his confort zone in the film and world Kirk Wong had been making, and had to resort to using a lot of his old tricks. For example, In one of the scenes in the second half when he's in the police office, he starts to confront one of the cops and suddenly mouths off about how he hates the HK Police force or something.. He had never shown any prior disdain toward the HK Police force before that and it sorta came out of nowhere, feeling more like that scene from Police Story with his chief than anything else. Also, it has not been mentioned yet, but the action scene with him fighting those Triads on what I think was bamboo scaffolds, is a classic example of Jackie Chan choreography. And the other action scenes you mention as some of his best, must original, and most realistic in his career, I just consider to be Jackie hopelessly imposing his choreography on a film that didn't warrant it and hadn't planned for it. Most importantly, Jackie, after being an anti-hero character in the first half of the film that was dealing with personal trauma and nervous breakdowns, becomes your run of-the-mill Jackie Chan underdog character that has no such problems to speak of and can win a fight by making the right move at the right time and oh yeah.. taking a couple hard stunts in the process. The only problem is, I liked more when it was done in Police Story.

[Guest The Running Man]

what do u mean "it doesnt count"? the issue on hand is not "how many" of jackie's trademark elements can be found in the fight, its more an issue of whether the fight (ignoring the fact that jackie is in it) looks like JC choreography, and i say YES, because NOBODY ELSE's fightscenes look like that

I can't believe I have to reiterate this. Jackie's trademarks that I pointed out are what makes his stuff different than Sammo Hung's, than Yuen Wo Ping's, than Corey Yuen's. All of what I said are what separates him from them. None of them do what Jackie specifically incorporates into his fights. The fact that the fights in Crime Story don't have those elements typical in Jackie Chan's fights are key to this entire subject and what points to an obvious decision on Jackie's part on the making of this film as to why the fights are not what he has done. They are not a "little different" they are totally different.

The fact that others, who don't look into fights like I do, have pointed out they are nothing like a Jackie Chan film and comments I have seen online that have called them crap because they are not like Jackie Chan's fights says something. And what I am saying that it is not like a typical Jackie Chan fight.

sorry, but when u challenge my ability to properly analyse a fight scene, u can expect a somewhat defensive response.

Well, you are most certainly right that I am challenging you sir. I have wrote a detailed reply that is a specific breakdown of the action film aesthetics of a Jackie Chan fight scene versus what he has done in Crime Story. You, on the other hand, have yet to say something more profound then, "No one does fights like that! You can tell it's Jackie!"

And as far as the negative tone is concerned, it's the sentence I quoted before.

[Guest The Running Man]

definition of argument- a discussion involving differing points of view; debate.

Right you are, but in I thought you meant it in a negative context. Pardon if that's not what you mean.

There was also the scene in the highway.

The kidnapping? That wasn't a shoot out.

If you plan to incorporate both guns and martial arts in a movie, then start it right from the beginning.

I've never heard of such a rule.

In the Tiger Cage movies YWP does that so when the movie switches back and forth between gunplay and martial arts later in the movie it isn't out of place.

Only the first Tiger Cage had an amount of gun action that can be mentioned. Part 2 has barely any gun action (unless you count that dude sliding down the pipes at the end in slow motion shooting guns) and in part 3 I can barely remember any from my head. If there is such in three then please mention it cause I forgot. And btw, I mean more than just pick up a gun and shoot it once.

So when the guns miraculously start to dissapear, in fact almost become a non-factor, and Jackie starts fighting the gangsters emptyhanded, it becomes obvious that there was a drastic change on set that caused there to be that kind of a switch-over in action. And there was, Kirk Wong had been fired from the movie.

Guns did not disappear from the movie. If they did, then how did Jackie kill those two people at the end of the fight scene at the climax of the film? Which that reminds me, I find it interesting that when I pointed it out before (in response to your reply about how there were more deaths in one scene than in the other when it wasn't true) but you didn't bring that reply up at all in your last response. Interesting...

When you remove a director, it dosen't matter who you keep around the set, the movie's still going to end up very different.

That's obvious. Jackie didn't want any sex in his movie and he most likely found the subplot unnecessary (I wouldn't blame him, the extra footage of the subplot is silly). However, the tone and style did not change and that is what I argue.

Lau Kar Leung would have been a good example of Jackie Chan branching out had they actually finished the film together. But in 2 of your examples of Jackie "branching out", he ended up arguing with them over something and finishing the film alone.

I don't think there is any argument on that. When I wrote he was "branching out" I meant that's what he initially wanted to do at that point in his career. His intent was to make films with people with different visions. Obviously the man can't completely do that and since he wields such a power and influence in HK, he can remove a director like Kirk Wong from his very own project.

How is it totally obvious that the action is totally different in Crime Story from anything else he's done when 3 people in this thread have disagreed?

Excuse me...is this a debate or a game of numbers? Sad that you fall into this, "No one agrees with you territory" rather than take my point on for yourself.

But Jackie Chan was trying to breakthrough into the US market and choosing Police Story 3 over Crime Story does have a large part to do about his international image. That just makes it more likely that he removed Kirk Wong because of the same reason.

No. Stay with me here. Police Story 3 is more of a film that is closer to Jackie's style than Crime Story is it not? We agree on this. Therefore a decision to pick a film for an introduction into Jackie Chan for a market that does not know him would obviously go to Police Story 3 between the two. If such a incident took place, then that's obviously the reason why. You're just adding the fact that you don't like the film into that equation.

Kicking someone off because of a sex scene is still looking out for his image, isn't it?

Yes, and I would even admit that Jackie is not very smart since he doesn't look past sex in a movie and doesn't try to understand it's context. But stay with what you are arguing. You argue that Jackie changed the tone and style of the movie entirely and essentially made the second half into "Police Story" and that includes his action. I argue he did not and the action, while still mostly hand to hand, is in the spirit and tone established by Wong. That is why the film aesthetics of the fights are so different from what Jackie has done before and since. That says something and is why I stand by that.

Bey Logan says there was more to it then that, and I keep bringing him up because nothing he's said about Crime Story has been disproven yet and because of Jackie's shady history when it comes to talking about his film projects.

Right. Because some over zealous nerdy commentator, who only looks out for himself by supporting the likes of Harvey Weinstein on his commentaries only to further his own career, is more right than the actual man who filmed the movie in question. I also find it interesting how you color Jackie by painting his history as "shady". And such a clean history Bey Logan has. This is the same man who was in a commentary track with Roy Horan on Tower of Death where he was corrected numerous times on his "facts" by someone who actually made the movie. This is also a man who has virtually ever major point on his commentary for Bullet in the Head debunked on the second disc of the HKL DVD by the people who actually made the movie. But what do those people who made the movie know about the own movie they made right? Their names aren't "Bey Logan" and Bey Logan is a god just cause he talks a lot during his commentaries.

I just don't see how you can say Jackie Chan could so easily re-shoot Crime Story when there are no examples of him ever significantly reshooting like that before, nor are there in HK cinema.

This is Jackie Chan. He can make stuff like that happen if he wanted to. Do you know of another action film that has totally different cuts and versions of the action scenes other than The Protector? Also, no other HK film cost as much as they did when Jackie started doing films like Miracles and Armor of God 2. Re-shooting scenes that was barely half a movie wouldn't have cost peanuts on the account of Jackie.

I don't think he could have made a lighter version of the first half either. If he could have, then why was the scene with him the psychiatrist still there? Or the other scenes that showed his character wrestling with his poor state of mind? They only make the movie feel disjointed since they are never fleshed out later in the film.

Both Kirk Wong and Jackie have noted that Jackie was very interested in the project because of it's drama, crime elements, and dark nature. If Jackie didn't want any of that he could have cut them out and just re-shot stuff. But like I said, Jackie didn't want to create a light version of the film. If he did he wouldn't have been involved with the project from the get go.

As far as the scenes are concerned, in the context of Jackie's version the scene with the psychiatrist is just to establish his character. What Kirk Wong wanted was to take that and turn into a romance subplot. There was no further footage of Jackie "wrestling with his mind" with them from what Wong shot unless you count a really silly scene in a tennis court where Jackie hits tennis balls with fury and then says thanks and runs away. And Jackie's character is still obsessed with the case throughout and the final scene completes his arc when the woman goes back to thank him.

The only thing that seems to be missing is some scenes with Kent Chung that develop him more which means that Jackie probably decided to center the movie more on him.