Since the bandwagon for this has appeared...

[ahill1]

Have you watched the new Tarantino's movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? If so, what do you think about the way Bruce Lee was portrayed? Many took issue with the way Tarantino represented him in the movie, saying it was a disrespect towards that who had to battle constantly to end the persecution the Asians suffered in the film industry.

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Haven't seen it, since it basically just seems to be a tribute to Boomer era Hollywood with nothing going towards it beyond celebrating the industry. I have seen the Bruce Lee clip though and it's an absolute disrespect to his legacy on so many levels. Even ignoring his struggles, it's very inaccurate in portraying his personality and his martial arts skill.

 

[ahill1]

Haven't seen it, since it basically just seems to be a tribute to Boomer era Hollywood with nothing going towards it beyond celebrating the industry. I have seen the Bruce Lee clip though and it's an absolute disrespect to his legacy on so many levels. Even ignoring his struggles, it's very inaccurate in portraying his personality and his martial arts skill.

Yeah, most people took issue with the way Bruce Lee conducted himself, wording his statements in a relatively arrogant fashion, as well as comparing himself with other fighters like Muhammad Ali, notably Bruce Lee's daughter. Although to a lesser extent, but showcasing Bruce Lee being outmatched by Brad Pitt's character wasn't well received either. Maybe he had Lee that way due to him fighting against Hollywood's bias agains the Asians, as the movie seems, like you said, a tribute to Hollywood's golden era?

I liked the final Tarantino gave it tho... that infamous happening that marked the end of an era in Hollywood deserved to be changed, and Tarantino gave it the final it deserved. The movie goes a little beyond it tho, and it's definitely a good movie imo. Not only due to its general, outlined message, but by the construction of the scenes that make up the movie, with each of them being powerful and impactful on their own right.

To Tarantino's defense about Bruce Lee though, he stated that from what he had seen in interviews and read about Bruce Lee, he came off as arrogant in many of his interviews and speeches. Not only that, but he also stated he'd defeat Muhammad Ali in a fight... some fans said the way Tarantino had Bruce Lee speaking seemed a lot like how Bruce Lee used to express himself in interviews. As for him ``losing`` the fight to Brad Pitt's character, Tarantino stated it doesn't matter that much as Pitt's character was fictional... and that such is the same as having Bruce Lee being defeated by Dracula, for instance, though worth noting that there was a movie in which Bruce Lee faced and kicked Dracula's ass lol.

 

[Captain Cadaver]

To Tarantino's defense about Bruce Lee though, he stated that from what he had seen in interviews and read about Bruce Lee, he came off as arrogant in many of his interviews and speeches.

As someone who has seen quite a few Bruce Lee interviews, that comes off as quite narrow. The way he's portrayed here ignores not only some of his more humble aspects, but also his approach to fighting. Him showing a desire to crush his opponents goes against many things such as his "Be like water" speech.

Not only that, but he also stated he'd defeat Muhammad Ali in a fight...

Context is important here. He stated he'd probably beat Ali in a street fight, but would likely lose if it were a boxing match.

As for him ``losing`` the fight to Brad Pitt's character, Tarantino stated it doesn't matter that much as Pitt's character was fictional... and that such is the same as having Bruce Lee being defeated by Dracula, for instance

That's a pretty weak excuse, considering a historical movie trying to insert itself in the real world's time period can't just make its character and overpowered self-insert without breaking immersion.

 

[GreatSaiyaman123]

Do you agree with the notion that Obi-Wan looking for Grievous in Utapau was more fillerish than the Canto Bight sequence?

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Not in the slightest. Grievous was integral in ending the Clone Wars, it makes sense for him to be hiding when still inferior to Dooku's skills and the whole scene was quite short. Meanwhile, Canto Bight offers absolutely nothing for the plot or world building and made things overly convenient as a result of being extended so long.

 

[Let's Go Fearless!]

Can/Will you make a thread about best character of each arc from the beginning of the series? I think it's a good idea and can give some activity I guess.

 

[Captain Cadaver]

I could, or could simply to character breakdowns for individual characters. That, or you could make such a thread and I will offer my response in it.

 

[GreatSaiyaman123]

Not in the slightest. Grievous was integral in ending the Clone Wars, it makes sense for him to be hiding when still inferior to Dooku's skills and the whole scene was quite short. Meanwhile, Canto Bight offers absolutely nothing for the plot or world building and made things overly convenient as a result of being extended so long.

But Canto Bight introduced DJ, who not only came to be pivotal later to the plot but also offered character development to Finn along with Rose’s expository dialogue the rich.

On the other hand, that side plot is just an excuse to take Obi-Wan from Coruscant - Hardly anything would’ve changed had Grievous died on the Invisible Hand or not existed at all.

 

[Captain Cadaver]

But Canto Bight introduced DJ

In the most overly convenient manner possible. Finn and Rose go there to find a code breaker only to fail and then find another code breaker anyway. Why not just make DJ the code breaker Maz meant from the start and avoid wasting time?

but also offered character development to Finn

Not really. Finn learning that morality can be grey (something he should've known anyway given that he's a First Order defector) never plays into his later decisions in the film.

along with Rose’s expository dialogue the rich.

Wait, I thought you were trying to point out a positive in TLJ.

On the other hand, that side plot is just an excuse to take Obi-Wan from Coruscant

Something that was integral in solidifying Anakin's turn and Palpatine's rise. Obi-Wan being on Coruscant would've had the possibility of having him reason with Anakin and would require him to make a retreat and be tracked down to Mustafar, something that wouldn't really make much sense. It would also make Padme fleeing from Vader in any manner far more difficult to accomplish both from a writing and in-universe perspective.

Hardly anything would’ve changed had Grievous died on the Invisible Hand or not existed at all.

The senate would've immediately demanded Palpatine to not be the senate have his emergency powers revoked and heavily hinder his grand scheme, for one.

And most importantly of all, it means we'd never here Ewan McGregor's "Hello There."

 

[GreatSaiyaman123]

In the most overly convenient manner possible. Finn and Rose go there to find a code breaker only to fail and then find another code breaker anyway. Why not just make DJ the code breaker Maz meant from the start and avoid wasting time?

Maz actually trusted the Code breaker she talked about, so the betrayal later wouldn't make sense.

Not really. Finn learning that morality can be grey (something he should've known anyway given that he's a First Order defector) never plays into his later decisions in the film.

Well, DJ is basically a embodiment of what Finn could become if he accepted both sides as equally flawed. It's on the name even: "Live free, don't join".

Wait, I thought you were trying to point out a positive in TLJ.

That business with Rose, it doesn't... It doesn't count.

Something that was integral in solidifying Anakin's turn and Palpatine's rise. Obi-Wan being on Coruscant would've had the possibility of having him reason with Anakin and would require him to make a retreat and be tracked down to Mustafar, something that wouldn't really make much sense. It would also make Padme fleeing from Vader in any manner far more difficult to accomplish both from a writing and in-universe perspective.

What about the droid attack on the Wookies? Would it contradict anything if he's on Kashyyyk instead of Utapau?

have his emergency powers revoked and heavily hinder his grand scheme, for one.

Dooku's death didn't end the War, the Separatist council was still out there and so was the Droid Army. He could still hold onto the emergency powers.

And most importantly of all, it means we'd never here Ewan McGregor's "Hello There."

Ok, you got me there

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Maz actually trusted the Code breaker she talked about, so the betrayal later wouldn't make sense.

There were many ways in which to write the traitor sub-plot without the use of DJ. In fact, making Rose the traitor would've made for a far more solid film. Having her do things such as taser Finn and stop him leaving against his will when he was never formally a Resistance member in the first place and causing havoc on Canto Bight that would logically lead to the populace gaining a bad opinion of the Resistance would make far more sense under the context she was the mole trying to keep Finn in place and sabotaging the Resistance's image. Instead, we got plot convenience after plot convenience and dumb character decisions.
This scenario would lead to Finn killing himself, but given how he just became a glorified extra in TROS, it's not as if that'd change anything

Well, DJ is basically a embodiment of what Finn could become if he accepted both sides as equally flawed. It's on the name even: "Live free, don't join".

The problem is that Finn never reflects on this, leaving him static despite everything that happened to him.

What about the droid attack on the Wookies? Would it contradict anything if he's on Kashyyyk instead of Utapau?

It would leave Yoda free to be on Coruscant, one person that could both make sure Windu took down Palpatine and someone capable of convincing Anakin not to listen to Palpatine, or stop Sheev by force. You'd need to take Yoda somewhere else to make that happen, which would lead to an actual filler plot.

Dooku's death didn't end the War, the Separatist council was still out there and so was the Droid Army. He could still hold onto the emergency powers.

Indeed, but the Separatist council had little strength to gain a solid upper hand against a Clone Army lead by Jedi without a similar general. Having them go to Mustafar or split off into hiding on various planets would've lead to a wild Bantha chase side-plot that'd lead to even less happening. It would also be arguable whether or not Palpatine would reveal himself to Anakin until he was sure the war was close to its end and there was little time to hold onto emergency powers.

 

[SSJ2]

Have you seen all of the X-Men films? I forget

 

[Captain Cadaver]

Only First Class and Logan, as well as The Last Stand a long time ago, though I'm aware of the main points in determining the quality of the other films as I mentioned in Page 166 of this thread. Tl;dr, Logan is the only one considered a must-watch, though First Class is ok and the rest of them aren't recommended, especially when the 90s cartoon features a far better version of The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine's plots and a roughly equal adaption of Days of Future Past.

Technically Deadpool and it's sequel can count as well since lesser X-Men characters play a part in both. They're by no means high-standard in writing, but are perfectly fine as popcorn entertainment.

 

[ahill1]

Why do you think Moro is a so uninsteresting villain? (I agree with the notion btw).

 

[Captain Cadaver]

The first reason would be how unoriginal of a threat he is. In premise, focusing on a magic user is a good idea and would make up for the Boo Arc's untapped potential. Moro, however, doesn't perform this as his abilities essentially just make him have a more haxed version of Gero's abilities and the whole eating planets thing is a pretty blatant Galactus knockoff.
Secondly, his very existence is a plot hole that damages the franchise's credibility even more. The fact he wasn't released in Trunks' timeline makes no sense when none of the differences would result in Cranberry being prevented from freeing Moro. This is one of the major flaws in Super constantly introducing new threats from Universe 7 in a series that has branched timelines.
Perhaps the main reason though is how bland his personality and goals are. His merciless, opportunistic nature is no different from Piccolo Daimao, Saiyan/Namek Arc Vegeta or Freeza, all of whom have far more going for them. Speaking of Daimao, one can't ignore the identical goal they had in restoring their youth. The difference is Daimao was so powerful in his old state that the threat of him regaining it was easily conveyed, he had unique traits to his villainy such as the anger of feeling his sons die and he had many plans in place for after he regained his youth and conquered the world. Moro, meanwhile has none of that, the only reason he didn't get killed immediately being Goku and Vegeta's intelligence getting plot nerfed and he seems to have no goals beyond eating everything. What's more, he had the potential to be decent if him eating planets was more like Galactus in that it was something he had to do in order to live rather than just doing so for fun. Unfortunately, him being locked up for 10 million years snuffed that idea out from the start. It'd be understandable if Toriyama was writing this as he said he doesn't like to get psychological with his villains, but this was Toyotaro's first true chance to show his ability to craft a story and all he showed was how much of a hack he is.

 

[GreatSaiyaman123]

Is No Fap the key to Roshi’s manly GAINZ?

 

[Captain Cadaver]

It is, but not the key to Ultra Instinct. The key to that is just to have Toriyama say "why not?"

 

[ahill1]

I think that the writing with the paper known as papiro was invented in some decades before Christ and so and before that historicians hadn't too much to go on in terms of portraying the past. I think the oldest relate of humankind dated of 300 years before Christ (can be wrong) or so in the story related in the old testament about the King James and the way he enslaved the Hebrews, invoking the wrath of God who punished them in a series of plagues.

What do you think about the story regarding its veracity? Do you think it could have happened that way, or maybe it had a more symbolic meaning?

 

[Captain Cadaver]

What we know as paper today was only developed within the last few centuries of BC, though there were many early equivalents prior. Papyrus was used by the Egyptians for writing as early as over 2500BC that describe the last few years before the Pyramid of Giza's construction, so historical records for humanity were far less primitive than we tend to believe.

As for the story of the ten plagues on Egypt, there can definitely be some truth attributed to them even if taking religion out of the equation, considering things like blood alge changing the colour of water bodies to red or frogs descending from the sky due to being transported by high wind pressure are cases that have been reported within recent history.