Jimmy Wang Yu - "Worst guy I've ever worked with"

[The Dragon]

More on Count Dante:

http://www.kungfucinema.com/the-deadliest-man-alive-searching-for-count-dante-9211

[GOLDEN DRAGON YIN-YANG]

Life always creates rumors and jealously takes its hold.

No matter how you slice it Mr.Jimmy Wang Yu will always be held in high esteem in my book. Many of his movies are how I was initiated in to kung fu movie fandom.

He IS one of the immortals of our beloved genre.

Enough said!

GD Y-Y

[Guest HongKongMaster]

yup bruce lee cheat his wife and in my book its far worse than be a dick on set or to be involved in some brawl...

[Guest Markgway]

That's between Bruce and his wife. We don't know what went on in their marriage. Not that I'm defending affairs in principle. The problem with Wang Yu was how he unjustly treated coleagues.

[dionbrother]

Wang Yu is hardly the first or last action star to treat co-workers like dirt. I've heard the same thing about everybody from Clint Eastwood to Wesley Snipes or Jim Kelly, Van Damme, Seagal, Jackie Chan, and even Stephen Chow. If more of us could read Chinese gossip magazines, we'd probably know of more in Hong Kong. Jerks are part of the film business.

[yuen13]

Wang Yu is hardly the first or last action star to treat co-workers like dirt. I've heard the same thing about everybody from Clint Eastwood to Wesley Snipes or Jim Kelly, Van Damme, Seagal, Jackie Chan, and even Stephen Chow. If more of us could read Chinese gossip magazines, we'd probably know of more in Hong Kong. Jerks are part of the film business.

Jackie Chan ain't no jerk, he is possibly the nicest celebrity ever! damn, he's "MR. NICE GUY"!!!

[dionbrother]

The only reason I enjoy HIGH RISK is to see the jabs at Jackie Chan that are damn true.

[The Running Man]

If more of us could read Chinese gossip magazines, we'd probably know of more in Hong Kong.

Yes sirree bob! Cause we all know that when we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...gossip magazines are where it's at!

[dionbrother]

Yes, because we all know Bruce Lee didn't die in Betty Ting Pei's bedroom like the gossip mags reported, he died at the Lee family estate like Raymond Chow told the media.

[The Running Man]

Yeah, for just about every other BS and nonsense in trash mags there's bound to be one piece of accurate information. Like when two actors are said to be dating when they say they aren't but then have paparazzi pics to prove it. That hardly makes gossip magazines the beckon of truth.

And as far as, "Jerks are part of the film business"..."jerks" are everywhere. The film business isn't exclusive to this. But what a trash magazines says I'd hardly take it as truth since a lot of times those editors have their own agendas they want to push forth. They don't even have to name or prove their sources for any story. A simple, "a source says" is enough to get published in a magazine.

[dionbrother]

Fred Dannen had no problem taking info from those gossip magazines about the triad's terrorizing the film industry in Hong Kong Babylon. That's where most of the stories about the triads broke in the 1990s. You'll never read anything negative about anybody if you just listen to studio pr (unless you burn bridges like Wang Yu). The gossip rags have their purpose, and I trust them for information over most gweilos that post on the web.

[The Running Man]

I don't particularly care for the going ons in people's lives that I have no involvement with. I watch movies for the movies themselves.

The things in a trash mags are mostly junk, no matter the country. Sure, there might be info here and there that is truth or has some truth in it but it's mostly junk. For all the time and effort one would take to muckrake I could take to watch another movie or do something else more constructive.

[dionbrother]

Most of what's in any publication is junk. I don't care if its Time Magazine or the National Enquirer. I've read inexcusably sloppy journalism in the New York Times. Gossip rags are no worse than their mainstream, "respectable" counterparts, except that they are upfront about what they are about.

And if you don't "particularly care" about the behind-the-scenes stuff, why are you reading this thread? The headline should tell you it isn't worth your time.

[The Running Man]

No, I said I don't particularly care for the going ons in people's lives that I have no involvement with. That means I don't go out of my way to muckrake, like caring for what junk mags print.

This thread is about comments made about Jimmy Wang Yu in a documentary by several people that worked in the production of "Man From Hong Kong". Quite different from a gossip mag with their "sources" and the "who said what" and "maybe it is or maybe it isn't" patterns of such articles.

[dionbrother]

Muckraking is the grand tradition of journalism. It was once a compliment in the field to be labeled a muckraker. The National Enquirer busted Democratic candidate Jon Edwards with his mistress, more impressive journalism than anything in Newsweek this year. The Hong Kong tabloids were honest about the triads terrorizing the industry. Nobody else wanted to mention it. Doesn't matter to you, of course. Unless the triad was led by Harvey Weinstein.

I simply stated that if we could read those "rags" we'd know about more jerks in the industry. We don't know because most information about Hong Kong films in the West is filtered down and second-hand, even in the internet age. Knowing what goes on behind the scenes can help in understanding the movie's quality. A BETTER TOMORROW 2 is a disjointed mess because the triads were breathing down Woo and Tsui's necks and telling them what to put in the movie. That's why it has none of the tightness or clarity of the first film. But you'll never get that info from Tsui or Woo in their english language interviews. Sure, there is always nonsense about who's dating who and who's gay, but I don't pay attention to THOSE stories, just as I don't care about such things stateside. But the triad influence on the business (which is very tied in with Wang Yu's career, as well as Stephen Chow's) which may lead to jerky behavior on the film set is of interest to me. And I don't get that info from the New Yorker.

You seem to be on the up-and-up on Harvey Weinstein gossip, which seems to be a sticking point on any discussion of Dragon Dynasty you chime in on. Wouldn't such time be better spent watching a new movie, rather than measuring the cropping and pixelization on the SUPERCOP dvd or bitching because an English dub is optional?

Knowledge of what gossip mags published about Wang Yu three decades before that documentary was produced backs up some of what was stated in the documentary. Brian Trenchard-Smith contradicts many of the statements on the MAN FROM HONG KONG dvd, as does Grant Page. There are two or three sides to this story, and to accept only what was in the documentary as the gospel truth is ignorant.

[Jesse Smooth]

Yes, because we all know Bruce Lee didn't die in Betty Ting Pei's bedroom like the gossip mags reported, he died at the Lee family estate like Raymond Chow told the media.

Also, based on what Linda Lee, Bob Wall and others say, Bruce was the perfect loving husband and would never look at another woman.

[The Running Man]

Your comment here about being interesting in triad influences on Hong Kong films have nothing to do with the comment I originally replied to. You were talking about how certain people in the film business were supposed jerks according to third parties and that we can get more truth from gossip magazines.

My replies to you have been quite simple in motive. I've said gossip magazines are junk as most of what's written in them are crap for reasons I have mentioned and more. If you like gossip, and it certainly seems you do seeing how antsy your replies to me have been getting, more power to you man.

As far as the Dragon Dynasty goes, that hardly has any relevance here and is sadly a cheap ploy on your part to somehow bad-mouth me because you've taken this personal. Especially since I've never done the exgerrated things you mention ("measuring the cropping and pixelization on the SUPERCOP dvd or bitching because an English dub is optional").

Those comments I made were relevant to the discussions on hand. Discussions on video, sound and subtitle quality are indeed productive because there are those that are interested in how they turned out and whether or not they will spend money on that DVD and/or consider another option. My comments on Bey Logan's stance of how Hong Kong films should be treated weren't gossip since they came directly from the horse's mouth in commentaries and interviews.

The thread here is about a segment in a documentary which is different to a gossip magazine because it's the very people who made the movie accounting their experiences years later prior speaking on camera about it. It's an interesting perspective and serves as a ironic footnote to the film.

[The Dragon]

Also, based on what Linda Lee, Bob Wall and others say, Bruce was the perfect loving husband and would never look at another woman.

[Jesse Smooth]

Wha....No! this can't be!! Bob Wall said Linda was very sexual with Bruce!! I can never look at him the same way!

[dionbrother]

RM

I don't like gossip, I like information. "Gossip rags" by HK standards are not necessarily bad sources of such info. You are classifying them by the western standards of tabloids, when it is a very different thing overseas. I think you need to learn a bit more about the genre and culture you write about. But you often seem to be gleefully ignorant. Were you the one who argued that Kungfu movies weren't big with white people in the 70s because they were dubbed and if they had been subtitled they would have been huge in the burbs? Or was that Ningen?

I have proven you can sometimes get valuable info from the HK tabloids. You have not proven anything other than you don't like such magazines. That's nice, I don't care for eating beets, but nobody asked. Move on.

NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD also explicitly refers to MAD MAX as an exploitation movie. I recall you had some silly argument with me years ago, claiming MAD MAX was some sort of art movie or mainstream film. The documentary backs up my argument. Perhaps age has wised you up on film history, perhaps not.

[The Running Man]

I don't know what you talking about. You are all over the place here.

You picking isolated incidents of papers talking about some triad connections doesn't prove that gossip mags in Hong Kong have any more credibility than papers on the other side of the ocean do. Didn't I already write several times that they might be some truth here or there but they are mostly junk? How do these comments you wrote disprove my statement there?

I think you need to learn a bit more about the genre and culture you write about. But you often seem to be gleefully ignorant.

Why? Because I don't care for trash mags? That's a pretty weak link there.

Were you the one who argued that Kungfu movies weren't big with white people in the 70s because they were dubbed and if they had been subtitled they would have been huge in the burbs? Or was that Ningen?

Weren't big with white people?! I don't know what in the hell you are talking about there. What I remember that I said about this was that the majority of English dubs for Chinese martial arts movies like Shaw Brothers and other studios were very poor and have helped give a negative impact on the genre in the eyes of the general public. You and some other forum member disagreed with me which I believe lead to that forum member at one point saying something about tough black guys in the neighborhood liking those movies which he felt made him seem cool or something. I thought that was pretty funny since it's a strange thing to feel pride over.

NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD also explicitly refers to MAD MAX as an exploitation movie. I recall you had some silly argument with me years ago, claiming MAD MAX was some sort of art movie or mainstream film. The documentary backs up my argument. Perhaps age has wised you up on film history, perhaps not.

Or perhaps you are imagining things in your favor. Thinking back, we had some sort of discussion I recall about Running Scared, which I don't remember the details so much so I am surprised you even have this in recollection at all. Mad Max came into the discussion because I think you used at as an example of an exploitation film that was good while I was saying it wasn't the run of the mill sort.

In any case, you again are delving into more desperation territory here. You are bringing very foggy memories of small passes we had that have no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. This only makes you look bad. Why attempt to bring my character into question when all I did was give my opinion on "trash mags"? Why are you taking this personally? Do you cherish gossip magazines that much that you need to try belittle a person that doesn't share your fondness for them?

[dionbrother]

How do your comments disprove anything I wrote? Sure tabloids are mostly junk, but so are newspapers, blogs and messageboards. Valuable info is what it is. What is your point? That you made a smarmy comment that contributed nothing to the thread other than "Running Man is too good for them Hong Kong gossip mags."

You ARE the one I argued with. You are completely misquoting the other poster. What he said was black audiences connected with these movies, most whites did not. The dubbing had nothing to do with it. The format and culture of the genre was the reason. He was right, you are wrong. He was around back in the day, you were not. Informed experience beats uninformed lack of experience any day of the week. I think Sevenhooks, who was also around during the glory days of 42nd Street, also chimed in. I don't think either posts here anymore, and I often wonder why I bother. New Jack Know-it-alls have infested Hong Kong movie boards since PRINCESS MONONOKE was released in the US. Anime fans, tired of their jihad on Carl Macek, turned their attention to the Weinsteins. Most kungfu fans who already owned import copies of these movies didn't care.

I'm also fairly sure you claimed MAD MAX was not exploitation at all. Which ran against what I remember with the movie's 1979 release in the US and what this documentary confirms. To say it wasn't "run of the mill" does not disprove what I stated nor is it worthy of debate.

I haven't been personal at all, just going by what you tend to post here. That's not personal, that's what you put out in this public forum. You have a tendency to write checks your butt can't cash, as Darry Pestilence often put it.

I've always noticed that posters who engage in meaningless arguments with me tend to play games of mockingbird. They can't state any facts or valued information, just take things out of context and try to change the direction of the argument. They offer nothing new nor do they have any insight or historical fact to back anything up. That's some weak tea, kid. Real weak.

[The Running Man]

How do your comments disprove anything I wrote? Sure tabloids are mostly junk, but so are newspapers, blogs and messageboards.

And yet, I also don't bother much with blogs and don't really spend a lot of times on message boards anymore other than making the comment here and there. Your point?

You ARE the one I argued with. You are completely misquoting the other poster. What he said was black audiences connected with these movies, most whites did not.

I'm not quoting him at all actually since I don't recall the exact wording of what he said. But I remember he made mention in that they were toughguys and also they were black and alluded to how this shared interest in these films made him feel cool in a way or that it vouched his interest in these films in a way. To me, it was funny. It would be like saying that I like eating ham and cheese sandwiches and so did local Italian toughguys. What do those details have to do with each other? It was an unintentional funny connection that he made.

The dubbing had nothing to do with it. The format and culture of the genre was the reason. He was right, you are wrong. He was around back in the day, you were not. Informed experience beats uninformed lack of experience any day of the week.

Your assumption of me has no relevance to what I wrote. I wrote that the dubbing was terrible and that it helped give a bad impression of the genre which still stands to this day. You have not disproved that other than stress that you and other people who were "there" enjoyed these movies. Of course many found enjoyment in those films despite the dubbing. But when people talk about bad dubbing, don't they bring up martial arts films?

Arguing that the terrible dubbing had no effect whatsoever at all on the view of these movies is as erroneous as saying that the terrible subtitles did not limit the audience of Hong Kong cinema. In fact, there are whole people that found enjoyment in those nonsensical sentences. That does not disprove anything about the quality of those subs and how much it limited the cinema in the Western world.

New Jack Know-it-alls have infested Hong Kong movie boards since PRINCESS MONONOKE was released in the US. Anime fans, tired of their jihad on Carl Macek, turned their attention to the Weinsteins. Most kungfu fans who already owned import copies of these movies didn't care.

Again, more assumptions (but this time getting even sillier) and more topics that have no relevance to the original issue that I replied to in this thread. I never had any hate on Carl Macek. I've actually been an Asian film fan many moons before Princess Mononoke. So not only are your comments here now sounding like poor rhetoric, they are getting senseless.

I'm also fairly sure you claimed MAD MAX was not exploitation at all. Which ran against what I remember with the movie's 1979 release in the US and what this documentary confirms. To say it wasn't "run of the mill" does not disprove what I stated nor is it worthy of debate.

It was not about disproving that statement because Mad Max wasn't the focus of that discussion. It was Wayne Kramer's Running Scared.

I haven't been personal at all, just going by what you tend to post here. That's not personal, that's what you put out in this public forum. You have a tendency to write checks your butt can't cash, as Darry Pestilence often put it.

Actually, that isn't the issue here at all. I made a statement about how I feel about gossip magazines. You are now at the point where you are bringing up moments you didn't even remember that well as ammo against me to debunk a statement I made that has nothing to do with any of the incidents you mention. What other kind of a person would do this other than someone who is not only taking this issue personally but also clearly desperate because he ran out of ways to argue his issue?

You even wrote this very statement on your reply here to me:

Running Man is too good for them Hong Kong gossip mags.

That sure sounds like to me like something that has taken offense to something.

Speaking of tendencies, the one I see of you is irrelevancy. You throw the name of "Darry Pestilence" as if you are trying to impress someone. Not only does the slightly altered cliche you used have no connection to what's going on here, but who cares about "Darry Pestilence"?

It wouldn't surprise me either that you would launch into another non sequitur rant about how people who aren't as old as you know nothing, weren't around then, have no business saying anything at all and many other things that make you sound like nothing more than a cranky old whiner if someone were to just ask you who "Darry Pestilence" is.

I've always noticed that posters who engage in meaningless arguments with me tend to play games of mockingbird. They can't state any facts or valued information, just take things out of context and try to change the direction of the argument.

If you are trying to be funny by making an ironic statement, then you have just won the gold medal. It was each reply of yours that has moved this further and further away from my comment about how I feel about gossip magazines. In fact, this entire last post of yours has nothing to do with that subject anymore. And I was the one that changed the direction of the argument??

I'm going to guess that these are just early signs of alzheimer's disease. After all, you are old right?

[dionbrother]

Your assumption of me has no relevance to what I wrote. I wrote that the dubbing was terrible and that it helped give a bad impression of the genre which still stands to this day. You have not disproved that other than stress that you and other people who were "there" enjoyed these movies. Of course many found enjoyment in those films despite the dubbing. But when people talk about bad dubbing, don't they bring up martial arts films?

Your thinking that dubbing is terrible is your opinion. FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH was a monster hit in '73 for Warner Brothers. The Bruce Lee movies were constant moneymakers for Columbia long after National General went out of business. Shaw imports always did well for World Northal on the grindhouse circuit. Hell, English dubbed imports SAVED Hollywood's ass in the early 70s. The dubbing is only criticized by phony, posturing, latee-sucking film fans who don't make a dime's bit of difference for a film's box office and weren't around back then. On the old SNEAK PREVIEWS, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel picked on these films for their content and action, far more often than dubbing. They hated these movies because they were chinese movies. What is good dubbing? What is bad dubbing? The dubs on the Shaw films sound fine to me, but the dubs on many of the indy gungfu flicks at the time are often bad, but can add to the fun if the movie is mediocre anyway(Bruce Lee clone movies, IFD films, etc.). One of the most profitable films of the 50s was HERCULES, starring Steve Reeves. And the dub on it was fairly bad. But it didn't keep it from being a smash hit. It was even played on NBC's Sunday Night at the Movies as late as the mid-1970s. Dubbing did not limit the genre in America. Subtitles, however, did limit the appeal of some recent releases...ONG BAK tanked at the box office. As did CJ7. They would have done better in theaters in dubbed versions marketed to a more general crowd.

I'm not quoting him at all actually since I don't recall the exact wording of what he said. But I remember he made mention in that they were toughguys and also they were black and alluded to how this shared interest in these films made him feel cool in a way or that it vouched his interest in these films in a way. To me, it was funny. It would be like saying that I like eating ham and cheese sandwiches and so did local Italian toughguys. What do those details have to do with each other? It was an unintentional funny connection that he made.

That's not what I remember in the thread at all. Until it is dug up, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It was not about disproving that statement because Mad Max wasn't the focus of that discussion. It was Wayne Kramer's Running Scared.

MAD MAX became a point of discussion. Dig the thread up and we'll see.

Actually, that isn't the issue here at all. I made a statement about how I feel about gossip magazines. You are now at the point where you are bringing up moments you didn't even remember that well as ammo against me to debunk a statement I made that has nothing to do with any of the incidents you mention. What other kind of a person would do this other than someone who is not only taking this issue personally but also clearly desperate because he ran out of ways to argue his issue?

Did I run out of ways to argue this issue? I proved you wrong right away. In your world, Bruce Lee died at home with Linda, the mob never hassled HK studios, Woo and Hark made A BETTER TOMORROW 2 because they had a heartfelt story to tell, Stephen Chow couldn't get a Canadian citizenship because he didn't file the application in time, Jimmy Wang Yu never got into a fight with anybody unless an Australian documentary states it, Jackie Chan never married and had a kid and Leslie Cheung could never meet the right girl.

Again, more assumptions (but this time getting even sillier) and more topics that have no relevance to the original issue that I replied to in this thread. I never had any hate on Carl Macek. I've actually been an Asian film fan many moons before Princess Mononoke. So not only are your comments here now sounding like poor rhetoric, they are getting senseless.

Funny, you write like you got into these movies because of MULAN.

Speaking of tendencies, the one I see of you is irrelevancy. You throw the name of "Darry Pestilence" as if you are trying to impress someone. Not only does the slightly altered cliche you used have no connection to what's going on here, but who cares about "Darry Pestilence"?

It is a baiting statement to test your knowledge and age, and it proved exactly what I needed to know.

I'm going to guess that these are just early signs of alzheimer's disease. After all, you are old right?

Old enough to know more than you and still young enough to kick your ass. Maybe you can impress your sister with what you know about movies, but you've stated very little real info on this board as long as I've been here.

[The Running Man]

Alright brother, calm down. The derailment of the thread has gone far enough.