Shaolin Martial Arts..blah!

[Guest Markgway]

Yeah, but Chang's Films was still Shaw Bros.

That's the key point.

He never really "left" as it's two branches of the same tree.

The money belonged to Shaw Bros, they owned everything.

All Chang's did was give the director a certain autonomy on stories and casting, and the reason for that was to use up Taiwanese profits, as you said.

He did nothing without Shaws approval as they were the ones who had to pay for it all and distribute the end product under their own name.

[Guest venomchamber]

...but in response to an original inquiry in the first place, the budget was smaller than the usual full-blown Shaw Brothers epic of that time as less was spent on details and ornamentation, such as 'authentic' monks attire, etc. These were on a lower budget than the films produced at the HK studio under the SB banner such as Chu Yuan's INTIMATE CIONFESSIONS OF A CHINESE COURTESAN or Li Han-Hsiang's ILLICIT DESIRE for example.

You'll also notice several of these films are credited to Lin Hsiang Fan as the executive producer and that neither of the Shaw Brothers themselves nor Mona Fong are credited as producer (although it is common knowledge that Runme Shaw handled the distribution throughout Southeast Asia himself via his offices in Singapore). What's more, the opening logo was not the SB fanfare, but Chang's, featuring a pre-MEN FROM THE MONASTERY Chi Kuan-Chun in an archer's stance. The original movie posters were also void of the familiar SB logo, but the archer's bow was clearly present.

And again, several outdoor location shots were indeed filmed in Taiwan as well as in the New Territories throughout the Shaolin series, as well as the military epics and Na-Cha The Great.

Upon further investigation, I've discovered he commuted back and forth between Taiwan & HK to do an SB film such as FRIENDS, then back over to Taiwan for SHAOLIN MARTIAL-ARTS, then back to HK for FANTASTIC MAGIC BABY, then Taiwan for 5 SHAOLIN MASTERS, and so on, all while overseeing his proteges directorial debuts (DRUG ADDICTS, YOUNG REBEL, YOUNG LOVERS ON FLYING WHEELS, MAD WORLD OF FOOLS, etc) which Chang presented himself. Chang would have several projects up and running at the same time, resulting in mis-mashes like HEAVEN AND HELL.

The Shaws owned Chang's much like Disney owns Buena Vista.

Same owner, different technical staff.

The same thing applies to Betty Ting Pei's Company for BRUCE LEE AND I.

[Guest teako170]

Thanks for that = puts paid to the story that Sun Chian was a Korean who spoke little Chinese

Huhh????

[Guest killer meteor]

I think that was one of those Ric Meyers blunders that becomes gospel. I've seen several sources call Sun Chien Korean

[Guest teako170]

What's more, here's a scoop from the issue #226 of SOUTHERN SCREEN dated JAN 1977:

This is the article that VC is referring to:

(Props to 7 for uploading that originally.)

Tom, do you have a scanner? Love to see some scans of your HKMN/SS articles.

[Guest Iron Boat]

I love this film, nothing wrong with it being slow, I like the fact the film took its time, in my opinion it has some of the best early 70s choreography in it.

[Guest bjv]

HTML Comments are not allowed

[Guest Chinatown Kid]

Yes Sun Chien 's art of Taekwondo was Korean but he is from Taiwan. I have heard Meyers refer to Sun Chien as a Korean kicker, Ric should have clarfied it more by saying Sun's art is a Korean kicking style but he is actually Taiwanese.

[Guest Markgway]

...but in response to an original inquiry in the first place, the budget was smaller than the usual full-blown Shaw Brothers epic of that time as less was spent on details and ornamentation, such as 'authentic' monks attire, etc. These were on a lower budget than the films produced at the HK studio under the SB banner such as Chu Yuan's INTIMATE CIONFESSIONS OF A CHINESE COURTESAN or Li Han-Hsiang's ILLICIT DESIRE for example.

I don't think the size of budget is a factor on deciding whether a film is legitimately Shaws or not (if that's what you're suggesting?) Shaw Bros produced many HK studio movies that were low budget with no big stars.

You'll also notice several of these films are credited to Lin Hsiang Fan as the executive producer and that neither of the Shaw Brothers themselves nor Mona Fong are credited as producer (although it is common knowledge that Runme Shaw handled the distribution throughout Southeast Asia himself via his offices in Singapore). What's more, the opening logo was not the SB fanfare, but Chang's, featuring a pre-MEN FROM THE MONASTERY Chi Kuan-Chun in an archer's stance. The original movie posters were also void of the familiar SB logo, but the archer's bow was clearly present.

All true, but they are still Shaw Bros, that's all I'm saying. Technically speaking, you're right about them being branded Chang's productions, but the money and distribution was Shaws, and Chang could do little without their approval. You can't seperate the two companies. Like the analogy I used earlier, Jackie Chan produced numerous films for Golden Way, but that's still Golden Harvest.

The Shaws owned Chang's much like Disney owns Buena Vista. Same owner, different technical staff.

Yeah, but it's the same company when all is said and done. Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures would be further examples. They ARE Disney in all but name.

The same thing applies to Betty Ting Pei's Company for BRUCE LEE AND I.

B&B Films; AFAIK this was the only film she/it produced. I admit I wasn't sure if Shaws put up the cash or bought the distribution rights after the fact.

[Guest bjv]

(This message was left blank)

[Guest oldeschool17]

oh christ, the way you type is a headache.:lol

[Guest VonHumboldtFleischer]

It's complicated, but bjv has actually cleared that up pretty well, I think.

Just two thoughts: First, I'd always assumed that Betty Ting Pei's production company credit was just some baloney thing they'd cooked up so she could profit-share. Presumably they wouldn't have been able to make the movie without her input (and what a tragic loss that would have been).

Secondly, although I think it's very helpful in these discussions when sources are cited (instead of, oh, I don't know, just making @#%$ up), I don't know how great a source of information Southern Screen really is. Aren't their "articles" just heavily illustrated SB press releases? They're always along the lines of "Hot New Star!" "Exciting Newcomer!" Not the highest standards of journalistic rigour, I'd say.

[Guest venomchamber]

Firstly, I do not appreciate the sarcasm...

-- Did you have a large glass of Wine in your hand during these investigations?

I do not drink wine, thank you very much.

So he made the movie in 1 day and put it out the next day??? He was fast, but he wasn't THAT fast.

I never said he was. I assumed the company got things rolling a year prior and publicly made its debut with the release of the inaugural and subsequent films.

You think he could shoot 8 films from Jan 1st, 1974 to April 1974 ?

Oh, look !! - The release date for Men from Monastery - 1974/04/03

Yes, I know...I have the book too.

Feel free to correct me, no need to belittle me.

This was just him directing (No Robert Tai lies or him falling asleep) and even WITH help, he wouldn't have cleared 8 films in (4) months!!!

I never said he cleared 8 films in 4 months.

In the early 70s he always had assistant directors like Wu Ma, Pao Hsueh-Li and Wu Yu-Sen (John Woo) on second-unit helping him with his workload and became 'joint-directors'. They were so good they became top directors in their own right.

(Ti Lung discusses this in an English language interview on cinemasie.com!) In the later era it was Chao Kang-Sheng (Chiang Sheng). I've suspected this is how and why Chang would have an output of a half-dozen pictures a year as opposed to Liu Chia-Liang or Sun Chung with only one or two.

--- While, the story may have had th "element" of a "School-boy" coming to America; this film wasn't about HIM.

Hey, I just report what I see and read. I along with everyone else knows all about The Chinatown Kid. This article was probably written during preproduction and saw print a few months later and I'm sure the translator garbled the info anyways. I am smart enough to read between the lines in most cases. The artice was scanned and posted by teako170 above for all to enjoy seeing!)

I guess I must have just been reading Shaw's press propaganda all these years.

I enjoy contributing information whenever possible as a resource to newer and/or unknowledgeable fans.

I always appreciate corrections and I enjoy learning all there is to know about the Shaw Brothers and especially Chang Cheh. I will admit you have some very good insightful notes, that if they were made readily accessable ages ago would be common knowledge today. It is the studio politics and other behind the scenes information I have always been seeking rather than the tabloid gossip and press propaganda.

If you are such a know-it-all, then why aren't you contributing more? You should be the one doing commntaries and such so as to correct the people who have been misinforming the public for years!

If you have somehing to share, then please share it, but just do it without the snobbery, thank you.

All this because I said I liked SHAOLIN MARTIAL-ARTS,

and the proper order was HEROES TWO, MEN FROM THE MONASTERY, SHAOLIN MARTIAL-ARTS, FIVE SHAOLIN MASTERS and SHAOLIN TEMPLE.

As soon as I said SHAOLIN TEMPLE was the last in Chang's Shaolin cycle and the first at Shaws I get all this debate.

...and why did I state the first at Shaws? Because they said so! Shaws never publicly said they produced the Chang's Film Co. pictures and were very boastful about having him back in '76 for SHAOLIN TEMPLE (aka DEATH CHAMBER).

Every filmography lists them as two seperate entities (SB/CFC) but clearly you've shown otherwise.

I still love these films and would still highly recommend them.

My apologies if any of my supposedly erroneous technical jargon has put any of you off. I will refrain from doing so in the future.

Cheers and Good Afternoon.

[Guest venomchamber]

This is the article that VC is referring to:

Yes, it is. Thanks for sharing it.

Tom, do you have a scanner? Love to see some scans of your HKMN/SS articles.

Sorry, currently I do not have a scanner at this time...but when I do, I will share many things with this forum, so stay tuned.

[Guest bjv]

(This message was left blank)

[Guest vengeanceofhumanlanterns]

He's films seemed to reflect,

bjv, is english your first language?

And>>>

>>>i agree with oldschool >>> your typing>>>

>>>is headache >>>

>>>material.>>>

>>>period.<<<

WTF!

Just jivin with ya brother.

[Guest oldeschool17]

thats funny you mention gay, cause your name contains "bj" in it. Im assuming you are glorifying your love for fellatio? sorry i think the way you type is 10x gayer than my avatar. At least I can grasp simple mechanics of the written english language. [joke]]]]]]]]]

ok////////

just for+++++

that>>>>

I will>>>>

<<<<Keep

this======

avatar****

for another<<<

7 years.&&&&&&&

,,,,,,in the meantime>>>>>>

######learn how<<<<<<<<

[[[[[[[[to type ]]]]]]]]]

\\\\\\like a normal---------

^^^^human^^^^^^^

!@#$&@%#%@%being*&^*&*(&(&(*

[Guest morgoth]

That is an awesome avatar. I wish I knew how to do avatars. And what is up with that guy trying to take up a whole page with his post?

[Guest VonHumboldtFleischer]

Oh come on, fellas. Eccentric formatting aside, I think bjv's contributions have been really helpful. If they've been long, it's only because he had a lot of stuff to correct.

[Guest oldeschool17]

no hard feelings. just takin the piss aint we all:lol

[Guest morgoth]

Well I would be happy to read his post f I could get a shortened version or something.

[Guest stormybman]

Btw...Oldeschool, your avatar is cool as hell...! I crack up everytime I see it and read one of your funny comments.

:smokin

"Will you tell me what Teacher died of..?"

[Guest oldeschool17]

thank you kind sir8)

[Guest teako170]

(This message was left blank)

Sir Ralph has spoken. 8o

[Guest venomchamber]

hmmm...why did bjv delete all of his posts? :eek

Doesn't he want the viewing public to gain from his insightful information that he was so adamant about correcting me about?