I thought it was a day dream or fantasy but I guess it was Brad Pitt's character reminiscing about something that "really" happened - in the movie universe, of course.
Kind of puts a different angle on the scene. I still don't have a problem with it, I guess. People need to keep in mind that this movie wasn't exactly going for historical accuracy. And as Tarantino has pointed out, Bruce Lee could be arrogant at times.
I know there are some stupid people out there hating on the scene.. and some people saying it was disrespecting Shannon tate, what did they want?? just the same story where she is killed?? then we hear all about how QT has issues with females??
saying Burce Lee scene is Offensive is like saying Brad Pitts character was offensive to Stuntman, or Leo character was offensive to western actors
It's not offensive. It's defamatory, which a different thing.
If you introduce a character representing a real person in a movie, you're free to create some fantasy scenario and make up dialogues and events, but the character should be a legit depiction of that person.
What if he would have portrayed Sharon Tate as some drunk vulgar slut who opened her legs every time a guy was in nearby. Would that be OK too?
Wasn't that already done with the Haunting of Shannon Tate?
It was a known Fact Bruce Lee was actually quite cocky?? let's just call every movie based on someone Defamatory then, you know Rocketman and Freddy mercury. seeing most of those movies had lots of Fiction in it too.
the thing is people and SJW are on their high horse because it happened to be a Asian actor, so lets bring out the race cards.. if it was based on a white actor no one would give a crap.
Her name was Sharon Tate btw.
share• «the thing is people and SJW are on their high horse because it happened to be a Asian actor, so lets bring out the race cards»
Sure? How many SJWs have you seen here defending Lee?
Tarantino knows what he's doing. He wouldn't do the same to a black person, but... Asian males? well, that's a kind of a nowhere land.
• «It was a known Fact Bruce Lee was actually quite cocky»
Yeap, he was cocky. But he was clever, and very good. He was ahead of his time and he was aware of it. That's still being arrogant, but there's a BIG difference between that kind of arrogance and being some retarded brat asshole.
I got a really good laugh at the way you distinguished between 'people' and 'SJWs'. How true!
shareIts not defamatory because OUATIH is appropriately advertised as fiction. The film never makes the claim that this happened. In fact it seems to go out of its way to let the audience know this is indeed all made up. If OUATIH is defamatory then pretty much every joke written by South Park is defamatory.
share• «If OUATIH is defamatory then pretty much every joke written by South Park is defamatory»
That's exactly why it's not defamatory.
For example, when they portray Spielberg and Lucas raping a guy, you don't consider that the series is really portraying them as rapists, because the whole series is filled with over-exaggerated and surrealist jokes.
However, you make a movie set in the 80s, and every character representing a a real person behaves quite like the real one... and then you decide to portray the character that represents Spielberg stalking and sexually harassing young guys. Well, that's a different story.
Maybe in your hypothetical movie. But OUATIH is even further away from reality as it doesn't seem to depict any real-life characters accurately. It depicts some of them nicely, like Sharon Tate, but not accurately.
shareI think there is a massive clue in the title as to the level of reality you should expect...
shareWhere did you find that rule? As far as I know, artists are free to depict anyone in any way they wish. Tarantino took the same liberties with the Nazi high command in Inglourious Basterds, though I suppose since he was mocking Goebbels and Hitler no one took issue. Nonetheless, it happens all the time. Amadeus, Ed Wood, That's My Bush, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter... plenty of films exist that show real people in unflattering or unusual ways. In Coming to America one character says Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. punched him in the stomach for no reason. In Dogma, Chris Rock says Jesus owes him money.
It's immaterial whether or not Bruce Lee was an arrogant little guy or an absolute saint in real life. In the Tarantino universe in which Sharon Tate survived Manson, Lee was, at least on that one day, at least in Booth's memory, feeling his oats and holding court, and was put in his place. The scene was hilarious, and will be remembered as one of the great scenes in cinematic history.
The scene is meant to be how Cliff remembers the incident with Bruce Lee, of course he will remember himself being heroic and Lee being a pompous ass.
People should stop reaching for the perceived offence.
Very good point.
We are seeing the confrontation through Cliff's point of view. Of course he's going to come off well.
Lee is (rightfully) seen as a legend in the movie and martial arts world, so I suppose people are going to be touchy about seeing him parodied.
My interpretation was that it was a day dream as well. Fueled by his recent input. It ending with his "huh" is what made me think he was just day dreaming. Was it fantasy or memory? Has QT declared something regarding this?
shareHe was recalling why Kurt Russel's character didn't like having him on set. Then he remembered what happened, leading back to the Bruce Lee scene, and after having the flashback, said "fair enough", having realized that maybe Kurt's animosity was justified.
I know that that is a common interpretation but I do not think that it is absolutely the intended one. Could be, sure. Obvious? mmmm ... I prefer my take on it. I don't know how anyone other than QT can claim they know for sure.
shareI believe Tarantino has said in an interview that it was a memory, not a daydream.
shareI don't think it matters whether or not the scene was real or a dream in the movie. The entire movie is a alternative reality revenge fantasy with the premise "What if the stuntman the Manson gang killed (in real life they murdered 35 year old Donald Shea, who worked as a ranch hand at Spahn Ranch, presumably Cliff Booth was based on him) was such a BADASS he could beat Bruce Lee in a fight?"
It's preposterous to think that a stuntman without advanced martial arts training could defeat the actual Bruce Lee in a fair fight by being faster and more agile, the two things Bruce Lee was famous for.
When Cliff Booth throws Bruce Lee against the side of the car, it makes a massive dent. Cars of that era had thick steel, so not only would he need absurdly superhuman strength to do that, but Bruce Lee would have broken half the bones in his body had he actually hit the car that hard.
The entire movie is a alternative reality revenge fantasy with the premise "What if the stuntman the Manson gang killed (in real life they murdered 35 year old Donald Shea, who worked as a ranch hand at Spahn Ranch, presumably Cliff Booth was based on him) was such a BADASS he could beat Bruce Lee in a fight?"
He was also insanely strong for his size or any size for that matter. In his biographies they show him knocking people down w 6" and then even 2" punches.
shareExactly----and that's what the trouble with that whole sequence was. I saw the movie, liked it, but it's not even explained that the fight with Bruce Lee was supposed to be a macho fantasy---which is all it is. In real life, Lee would have taken this stuntman down, period. And the ending was ridiculously gory and over the top---up 'til then, it was fine---and the first QT I've seen in some years that didn't make me feel disgusted at some point (well, that ending was too gruesome for words) but I liked the rest of the film before that.
share"Cars of that era had thick steel"
No, they didn't; not in the body panels anyway. In fact, due to there being no regulations mandating side-impact protection, the doors were a lot easier to cave in than with today's cars.
I have spent many hours on a frame machine and I can tell you that newer cars are built stronger.
shareYeah, that's because of modern crash protection regulations as well as modern manufacturing equipment and techniques that allow automated welding in harder-to-reach places than in the past. Cars looked a lot better in the '60s though.
However, his idea that cars back then had thicker steel is true in some cases, but it didn't apply to body panels (steel body panels have always been relatively thin and easy to dent). For example, the frame rails on that '68 Lincoln Continental were made of way thicker steel than the subframe rails on any car made today, but that's true of any body-on-frame car compared to a unibody car. Unibody construction is generally more rigid than body-on-frame construction though, due to the way the subframe rails are welded/integrated into all of the structural parts of the body.