The Great Wall


Movies

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

To be honest, I am shocked there isn't already a thread for this one. Did not find any in a search...
Anyway, love the trailers for this fantasy movie set on the Great Wall of China. If you did not know, they make up the premise that it was not built to keep out people, but monsters. It is by a Chinese director, but with American writers and casting. Not sure how often that has happened.
However, it would be only mildly interesting to me except for the fact it has Matt Damon and Willem Dafoe...along with others. Those two are the cast members I am most familiar with--really like them.
Release date for USA is February 17 and I aim to see it as soon as possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't decide if I'm disappointed that the white saviour trope is still a thing in big budget movies,or impressed at how blatant a grab for cachet this is with the massively influential Chinese box office.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From my understanding, the movie's funding comes from China. So rather than a Hollywood grab for the Chinese market, it's the Chinese market celebrating they're influential enough to place a Hollywood leading man in the centre of their movie.


So this one just does not do it for me.

Reason number one is Matt Damon just hasnt had any interest for me in a while. He was great in Martian but even though I love the first 3 Bourn movies I did not see the last one. Chalk it up to I see his return to the role as a "hey someone other than me can do a good movie in this world so I better return" attitude. This may not be the case but it feels like it to me.

Reason the second is it it feels like a Chinese reach for the American market and even though it looks kind of cool it misses the mark.

Lastly The story looks weak from the previews.

So in the end I may wait for Netflix or something I still havent seen his last Bourn movie.

All opinions, you dont have to agree with them but its how I feel as an avid movie consumer. I go to movies very often and this is one I will skip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Transylvanian Tadpole wrote:
From my understanding, the movie's funding comes from China. So rather than a Hollywood grab for the Chinese market, it's the Chinese market celebrating they're influential enough to place a Hollywood leading man in the centre of their movie.

That would be interesting to consider.

Although in that case I would be curious to find out how they settled on Damon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Done by the director of "Hero", "House of Flying Daggers"...so excited to see this! Will go this weekend as "The Great Wall" is finally released here in the US.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
I can't decide if I'm disappointed that the white saviour trope is still a thing in big budget movies,or impressed at how blatant a grab for cachet this is with the massively influential Chinese box office.

Everybody talks about the White Saviour Trope...I think more disturbing is that they are totally demonizing a whole race of people (the Mongolians).

Also more worrying is that the Chinese government is making this movie leaves me wondering is this just propaganda for some future action....it would not be the first time in history it has happened.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those of us who like Legend of the 5 Rings, this looks like it is basically "The Kaiu Wall - the movie", so I'm totally hyped for it.

And Mongolians? Unless they've suddenly become literal inhuman monsters, I'm curious to know where you got that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This movie looks dumb. It'll be a dumb action flick with little plot, decent effects, and lots of action. Whether it will be good action is the decider overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

For those of us who like Legend of the 5 Rings, this looks like it is basically "The Kaiu Wall - the movie", so I'm totally hyped for it.

And Mongolians? Unless they've suddenly become literal inhuman monsters, I'm curious to know where you got that idea.

I suspect the link is that the wall was actually built to keep out Mongolians, so for the movie to say it was built to keep out monsters could be read as conflating Mongolians and monsters.

I'm not a holder of that view, I'm just guessing.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

For those of us who like Legend of the 5 Rings, this looks like it is basically "The Kaiu Wall - the movie", so I'm totally hyped for it.

And Mongolians? Unless they've suddenly become literal inhuman monsters, I'm curious to know where you got that idea.

The Great Wall of China was historicaly built for two reasons...one was border control...the second being to defend against Raiders. The while it might not state explicitly turning the wall into a defense vs demonic creatures instead...well it is not too hard to see it.

Though as a Legend of the Five Rings fan also...I can see it has "The Kaiu Wall - The Movie" too...I just wished they removed the connection of actually history...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm just naive, but that seems like reading too much into things.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Maybe I'm just naive, but that seems like reading too much into things.

I might be.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I assumed they had the tag line about "What were they really keeping out?" (or words to that effect) because it wasn't the Mongolians but some sort of monstrous thingy - though that is only my impression since all I've seen about it is the poster and this thread. I'm a bit disappointed by the whole "white guy shows up to make film interesting" (I remember the Last Samurai <shudder>) but if it's a Chinese director (and I've seen those movies and quite liked them) it might not be so bad. Though it might be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked aspects of the last samurai but the film itself was offensive. I think this will probably be in a similar vein, but a Chinese director... Hm. Scratching my head a bit. I don't think Racism is omnipresent per se- he could really just want to work with the actors in the cast- but something tells me that's not especially likely.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.

Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's the marketing people making racist decisions or the marketing people believing the target audience will be so influenced.


I thought I saw a DC logo at the start of the trailer. Is this based on a comic book?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The trailer states that the wall took 1700 years to build, awfully sporting of the monsters to wait that long.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.

Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's the marketing people making racist decisions or the marketing people believing the target audience will be so influenced.

Sticking a white guy in a film about China is not inherently racist.

The Last Samurai wasn't racist because Tom Cruise was in it. I'm even not really sure if it was racist despite the complete failure to properly engage with the samurai culture it purported to represent, although it was certainly culturally insensitive. And it was in some ways a sort of vague homage to Kurosawa, and possibly other Japanese film-makers whose oeuvre I didn't notice the visual quotes from, which is presumably not racist in intent either (even if Kurosawa himself was felt to be not 'Japanese' enough in style by some Japanese). Tom Cruise was stuck in it because they wanted a guy the whole world would recognise, so people who might otherwise not bother to attend a film about 19th Century Japan might consider going. That isn't racist either, it's simply people going with what they consider familiar, an effective celebrity endorsement which is pretty standard marketing fare. It's no more racist than Sean Connery advertising Japanese whiskey.

It would be racist if they were to belittle or seriously misrepresent the culture, or to maybe represent them as somehow inferior to "white" culture or in a cartoonish fashion. Or, indeed, any culture. I remember seeing a Jet Li film (I can't for the life of me remember the name of it) in a Chinese-made biopic in which he played a saintly early 20th Century martial artist. The Europeans were depicted in it in a very poor light, little more than moustache-twirling villains. Now, the Great Powers certainly trampled all over China during this period, but a nuanced depiction it wasn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also having Matt Damon in the film is a plot device. Having a outsider allows them to explain thing to the audience more naturally. He kinda serves as the audience's proxy to the movie. Of course it is plot device that is often used clumsily in the past.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.

Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's the marketing people making racist decisions or the marketing people believing the target audience will be so influenced.

Sticking a white guy in a film about China is not inherently racist.

The Last Samurai wasn't racist because Tom Cruise was in it. I'm even not really sure if it was racist despite the complete failure to properly engage with the samurai culture it purported to represent, although it was certainly culturally insensitive. And it was in some ways a sort of vague homage to Kurosawa, and possibly other Japanese film-makers whose oeuvre I didn't notice the visual quotes from, which is presumably not racist in intent either (even if Kurosawa himself was felt to be not 'Japanese' enough in style by some Japanese). Tom Cruise was stuck in it because they wanted a guy the whole world would recognise, so people who might otherwise not bother to attend a film about 19th Century Japan might consider going. That isn't racist either, it's simply people going with what they consider familiar, an effective celebrity endorsement which is pretty standard marketing fare. It's no more racist than Sean Connery advertising Japanese whiskey.

It would be racist if they were to belittle or seriously misrepresent the culture, or to maybe represent them as somehow inferior to "white" culture or in a cartoonish fashion. Or, indeed, any culture. I remember seeing a Jet Li film (I can't for the life of me remember the name of it) in a Chinese-made biopic in which he played a saintly early 20th Century martial artist. The Europeans were depicted in it in a very poor light, little more than moustache-twirling villains. Now, the Great Powers certainly trampled all over China during this period, but a nuanced depiction it wasn't.

Seriously?

Pointing out the horrors of China as the giant turkey during a disgusting time period in history is bad but white guy shows the incompetent Japanese how to make war is good?

Yeesh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.

Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's the marketing people making racist decisions or the marketing people believing the target audience will be so influenced.

Sticking a white guy in a film about China is not inherently racist.

The Last Samurai wasn't racist because Tom Cruise was in it. I'm even not really sure if it was racist despite the complete failure to properly engage with the samurai culture it purported to represent, although it was certainly culturally insensitive. And it was in some ways a sort of vague homage to Kurosawa, and possibly other Japanese film-makers whose oeuvre I didn't notice the visual quotes from, which is presumably not racist in intent either (even if Kurosawa himself was felt to be not 'Japanese' enough in style by some Japanese). Tom Cruise was stuck in it because they wanted a guy the whole world would recognise, so people who might otherwise not bother to attend a film about 19th Century Japan might consider going. That isn't racist either, it's simply people going with what they consider familiar, an effective celebrity endorsement which is pretty standard marketing fare. It's no more racist than Sean Connery advertising Japanese whiskey.

It would be racist if they were to belittle or seriously misrepresent the culture, or to maybe represent them as somehow inferior to "white" culture or in a cartoonish fashion. Or, indeed, any culture. I remember seeing a Jet Li film (I can't for the life of me remember the name of it) in a Chinese-made biopic in which he played a saintly early 20th Century martial artist. The Europeans were depicted in it in a very poor light, little more than moustache-twirling villains. Now, the...

1) I didn't say it was inherently racist. I said, and this was really my only point "Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive." Since you said "It's not racism, it's marketing." If the marketers are assuming they need a white star to get an audience, that could be racist on their part or it could be correct identification of racism on the part of their market.

2) I haven't seen the Last Samurai since it came out (if I even watched it then), so I really can't comment on specifics. Similarly, this isn't out yet, so I can't say too much based only on trailers.

3) The Mighty Whitey trope is at least problematic, with deep ties to colonialism and assumptions of European superiority. There are definitely ways to subvert that and do something more interesting with the basic concept, but the basic idea of "white guy comes in to place he doesn't know and fixes their problems" has some serious issues.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Seriously?

Pointing out the horrors of China as the giant turkey during a disgusting time period in history is bad but white guy shows the incompetent Japanese how to make war is good?

Yeesh.

Actually, the film in question wasn't about Europeans in China and certainly didn't address the politics in any way. So it struck me more as a bit of crude nationalism, which the current Chinese regime is not exactly unknown for. Even if it was, would dealing with it that way be justified or even remotely accurate? Or is it only wrong to display people in a distorted, cartoonish way if you think they are nice, but not if you think they are bad? Isn't that just double standards?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's not racism, it's marketing. But tying the plot in knots explaining why Matt Damon is standing on the Great Wall may impact stupidly on the plot. I understand why they might do it but it makes things trickier to pull off a satisfying film.

Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it's the marketing people making racist decisions or the marketing people believing the target audience will be so influenced.

Sticking a white guy in a film about China is not inherently racist.

The Last Samurai wasn't racist because Tom Cruise was in it. I'm even not really sure if it was racist despite the complete failure to properly engage with the samurai culture it purported to represent, although it was certainly culturally insensitive. And it was in some ways a sort of vague homage to Kurosawa, and possibly other Japanese film-makers whose oeuvre I didn't notice the visual quotes from, which is presumably not racist in intent either (even if Kurosawa himself was felt to be not 'Japanese' enough in style by some Japanese). Tom Cruise was stuck in it because they wanted a guy the whole world would recognise, so people who might otherwise not bother to attend a film about 19th Century Japan might consider going. That isn't racist either, it's simply people going with what they consider familiar, an effective celebrity endorsement which is pretty standard marketing fare. It's no more racist than Sean Connery advertising Japanese whiskey.

It would be racist if they were to belittle or seriously misrepresent the culture, or to maybe represent them as somehow inferior to "white" culture or in a cartoonish fashion. Or, indeed, any culture. I remember seeing a Jet Li film (I can't for the life of me remember the name of it) in a Chinese-made biopic in which he played a saintly early 20th Century martial artist. The Europeans were depicted in it in a very poor light, little more than

...

1) I didn't say it was inherently racist. I said, and this was really my only point "Racism & marketing are not mutually exclusive." Since you said "It's not racism, it's marketing." If the marketers are assuming they need a white star to get an audience, that could be racist on their part or it could be correct identification of racism on the part of their market.

2) I haven't seen the Last Samurai since it came out (if I even watched it then), so I really can't comment on specifics. Similarly, this isn't out yet, so I can't say too much based only on trailers.

3) The Mighty Whitey trope is at least problematic, with deep ties to colonialism and assumptions of European superiority. There are definitely ways to subvert that and do something more interesting with the basic concept, but the basic idea of "white guy comes in to place he doesn't know and fixes their problems" has some serious issues.

Sure, you didn't say it, though it was a potential implication. I was just dealing with the notion, not attacking you. And re 3., I agree that that can be a problem, depending on how it is handled. Re The Last Samurai in particular, the Tom Cruise character is certainly in that territory, although it has to be pointed out that he actually loses the war (though he does cop off with the Japanese hero's sister at the end, so all's well) so he didn't fix much. I think the problem with the character is more that he's a bit pointless - why do we need some American guy standing around in a film that's really about (notionally, though in reality not very recognisably) Japan?

Which takes us back to (1) the marketing point. It's not racism, its familiarity. You make an implicit assumption (or at least posit it for the sake of argument) that marketers think that (a) the audience is all white and (b) they only want to watch white people and (c) the marketers are pandering to that. I reckon marketers would pander to anything that sells but I think (a) and (b) are both questionable. People don't watch Tom Cruise because he's white, they watch him because they have heard of him, like his persona/image, and have probably seen films with him in. Plus they might get more free publicity via press and so on than casting a Japanese actor no one in America or the rest of the world has heard of. I'm not saying there are no racists in the audience (or the marketing department), but I don't think it's driving the reason for the casting. And there might be plot reasons too, as John Kretzer mentions above.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Double standards? Hell, I dunno. Long before this thread mentioned The Last Samurai I was referring to Tom Cruise as "the gratuitous white guy."

On the other hand, if I were in his position and I had the chance to film a movie in Japan playing opposite Ken Watanabe, I'd do it; I don't think Matt Damon is going to do a single thing in The Great Wall that Andy Lau or Takeshi Kaneshiro couldn't do, but if I had a chance to act in martial artsy movie directed by the same guy as Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I'd do it. (Edit: actually, having looked at the cast on IMDB, I've found that Andy Lau is in The Great Wall, so we'll be able see who's kung fu is the best right there on screen in front of us.)

On the OTHER other hand, it disappoints me that there's an assumption that I, a white guy, am incapable of enjoying a movie unless there's at least one person in it who looks like me.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
On the OTHER other hand, it disappoints me that there's an assumption that I, a white guy, am incapable of enjoying a movie unless there's at least one person in it who looks like me.

I agree with that totally. If I want to see a film about the Great Wall of China, I really reckon it would work better with a Chinese cast. I find it a bit patronising that I might need Matt Damon to navigate me through it. But then again, my tastes are not necessarily the same as everyone else's - it depends on the demographic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

Double standards? Hell, I dunno. Long before this thread mentioned The Last Samurai I was referring to Tom Cruise as "the gratuitous white guy."

On the other hand, if I were in his position and I had the chance to film a movie in Japan playing opposite Ken Watanabe, I'd do it; I don't think Matt Damon is going to do a single thing in The Great Wall that Andy Lau or Takeshi Kaneshiro couldn't do, but if I had a chance to act in martial artsy movie directed by the same guy as Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I'd do it.

On the OTHER other hand, it disappoints me that there's an assumption that I, a white guy, am incapable of enjoying a movie unless there's at least one person in it who looks like me.

That assumption is even older..,and more has to do with Americans can not relate to a movie without Americans in it. Take the movie The Great Escape...in RL the American POWS had no hand in the escape...Hollywood thought that American would not like the movie so theyes added the Americans to the movie.

Hollywood has alot of assumption like this...like Americans don't like unhappy endins...or Americans don't like movies with a female lead in action movies. They point out that these movies don't do well...though I think they ignore that these movies are often very bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

That assumption is even older..,and more has to do with Americans can not relate to a movie without Americans in it. Take the movie The Great Escape...in RL the American POWS had no hand in the escape...Hollywood thought that American would not like the movie so theyes added the Americans to the movie.

Hollywood has alot of assumption like this...like Americans don't like unhappy endins...or Americans don't like movies with a female lead in action movies. They point out that these movies don't do well...though I think they ignore that these movies are often very bad.

Plenty of movies don't do well. If they follow a normal formula, then it's just the individual movie. If they break it, then it's obviously that that caused them to fail.

Action movie with a male lead flops. Normal.
Action movie with a female lead flops. Female leads bad in action movies.

Just part of the larger picture - white male is the default. Anyone else has to represent their category.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

That assumption is even older..,and more has to do with Americans can not relate to a movie without Americans in it. Take the movie The Great Escape...in RL the American POWS had no hand in the escape...Hollywood thought that American would not like the movie so theyes added the Americans to the movie.

Hollywood has alot of assumption like this...like Americans don't like unhappy endins...or Americans don't like movies with a female lead in action movies. They point out that these movies don't do well...though I think they ignore that these movies are often very bad.

Plenty of movies don't do well. If they follow a normal formula, then it's just the individual movie. If they break it, then it's obviously that that caused them to fail.

Action movie with a male lead flops. Normal.
Action movie with a female lead flops. Female leads bad in action movies.

Just part of the larger picture - white male is the default. Anyone else has to represent their category.

Pretty much yes...

I mean what would people say if instead of Matt Damon...it was Samuel L Jackson?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is, so I understand, a Chinese movie rather than an American one - it just has an American star in it. That could be for a couple of reasons. There was a period when British movies often had an American "star" (think Doug McMclure) to make them more marketable here - this might be something along those lines. Or it could be the Chinese trying to crack the US market, for both commercial and maybe nationalistic reasons (one in the eye for the capitalistic oppressors by beating them at their own game). Maybe.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

That assumption is even older..,and more has to do with Americans can not relate to a movie without Americans in it. Take the movie The Great Escape...in RL the American POWS had no hand in the escape...Hollywood thought that American would not like the movie so theyes added the Americans to the movie.

Hollywood has alot of assumption like this...like Americans don't like unhappy endins...or Americans don't like movies with a female lead in action movies. They point out that these movies don't do well...though I think they ignore that these movies are often very bad.

Plenty of movies don't do well. If they follow a normal formula, then it's just the individual movie. If they break it, then it's obviously that that caused them to fail.

Action movie with a male lead flops. Normal.
Action movie with a female lead flops. Female leads bad in action movies.

Just part of the larger picture - white male is the default. Anyone else has to represent their category.

Pretty much yes...

I mean what would people say if instead of Matt Damon...it was Samuel L Jackson?

I'd say... Hmmm, maybe now I'm interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think all of you are reading waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into a shitty brainless action flick. I doubt any thought went into this beyond "Matt Damon is hot right now, he'll make us money". Same reason Scarlett Johansson's lily-white not-even-vaguely-Asian-looking ass is playing Kusanagi in the Ghost in the Shell movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Quote:

Seriously?

Pointing out the horrors of China as the giant turkey during a disgusting time period in history is bad but white guy shows the incompetent Japanese how to make war is good?

Yeesh.

Actually, the film in question wasn't about Europeans in China and certainly didn't address the politics in any way. So it struck me more as a bit of crude nationalism, which the current Chinese regime is not exactly unknown for. Even if it was, would dealing with it that way be justified or even remotely accurate? Or is it only wrong to display people in a distorted, cartoonish way if you think they are nice, but not if you think they are bad? Isn't that just double standards?

all I can say to this is to crack open a history book. China, indeed all of Asia, as a giant turkey for western powers to slice up resulted in a lot of stories like this being made. Most are folk hero tales(like this one), others even have a bit of actual history behind them.

But yeah, cartoonish distortion is hardly a one way street, and white guy saving the world while the incompetent non whites look on in mute admiration (and he gets to bang one of the hot women too) also counts and is by far more common.


I have to say that in the current political climate, I'm really uncomfortable giving money to people who made a movie about how "walls are effective at keeping monsters at bay." I think that sends the wrong message, issues with the casting aside.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Quote:

Seriously?

Pointing out the horrors of China as the giant turkey during a disgusting time period in history is bad but white guy shows the incompetent Japanese how to make war is good?

Yeesh.

Actually, the film in question wasn't about Europeans in China and certainly didn't address the politics in any way. So it struck me more as a bit of crude nationalism, which the current Chinese regime is not exactly unknown for. Even if it was, would dealing with it that way be justified or even remotely accurate? Or is it only wrong to display people in a distorted, cartoonish way if you think they are nice, but not if you think they are bad? Isn't that just double standards?
all I can say to this is to crack open a history book. China, indeed all of Asia, as a giant turkey for western powers to slice up resulted in a lot of stories like this being made. Most are folk hero tales(like this one), others even have a bit of actual history behind them.

I'm really quite well aware of that. It is certainly the case that modern China feels quite aggrieved about what happened, especially with the Opium Wars. I'm British and I certainly struggle with what was one of the darkest, most debasedly cynical episodes in my country's history - there is no positive gloss you can really put on it. On the other hand, the Chinese authorities (officially) think that Mao was great, and he was a murderous, incompetent cunt who killed millions. So their approach is hardly consistent, and modern politics and state mind-control (turning any ill-feeling outward, instead of towards the Communist authorities) is quite a large factor in this too. That's not an excuse for the Opium Wars, but the Opium Wars and the (justified) sense of grievance can be used an excuse for state totalitarianism, which can be seen reflected to some extent in the depiction of the non-Chinese characters (who, it should be said, were very minor). The film wasn't a folktale, by the way, more a biopic of an historical character set round about the beginning of the 20th Century. It was this one (by the power of the internet) and frankly a bit naff, depiction above notwithstanding - Hero it was not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Matt Damon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me, it is just a mindless action flick that I may see on Netflix or TV at some point.

This thread is interesting to read, though, seeing what folks of another political persuasion than I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's a mindless action flick. I doubt there's any conscious malice behind any of the stuff we're talking about. I don't believe anyone involved is cackling over how evil they are.

They're just working with their ingrained biases and expectations. Or in some cases, the biases they expect their audience to have. And making use of long established storytelling tropes that carry all sorts of problematic colonial era connotations.


I just find it interesting how people seem to inject politics into everything, and, while I see it on both sides, it seems far more prevalent on the left. To me, it would seem exhausting to scour everything for anything "problematic." However, it is interesting and often amusing to read about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
I just find it interesting how people seem to inject politics into everything, and, while I see it on both sides, it seems far more prevalent on the left. To me, it would seem exhausting to scour everything for anything "problematic." However, it is interesting and often amusing to read about.

it's far easier to sit down and swear nothing is wrong. Which is what the right does. Until minorities get uppity, that is. How dare they not be content with their lot in life?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
I just find it interesting how people seem to inject politics into everything, and, while I see it on both sides, it seems far more prevalent on the left. To me, it would seem exhausting to scour everything for anything "problematic." However, it is interesting and often amusing to read about.
it's far easier to sit down and swear nothing is wrong. Which is what the right does. Until minorities get uppity, that is. How dare they not be content with their lot in life?

A silly action flick isn't a problem. College admission policies that artificially suppress Asian enrollment is a problem.

As an American Indian (Oneida tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), rampant corruption, nepotism, and pay-to-play in tribal governments is a problem. The Washington Redskins is not.

It's far easier to be outraged at silly things than to tackle real problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks like 14th warrior Chinese edition.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
I just find it interesting how people seem to inject politics into everything, and, while I see it on both sides, it seems far more prevalent on the left. To me, it would seem exhausting to scour everything for anything "problematic." However, it is interesting and often amusing to read about.
it's far easier to sit down and swear nothing is wrong. Which is what the right does. Until minorities get uppity, that is. How dare they not be content with their lot in life?

A silly action flick isn't a problem. College admission policies that artificially suppress Asian enrollment is a problem.

As an American Indian (Oneida tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), rampant corruption, nepotism, and pay-to-play in tribal governments is a problem. The Washington Redskins is not.

It's far easier to be outraged at silly things than to tackle real problems.

prioritizing is one thing, ignoring casual bigotry is another. We will have to disagree here.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Interestingly, this thread isn't the only place the subject of a white guy in China has popped up - there's a "Thank you, Matt Damon" thing going on more broadly. Also interestingly, the Chinese by-and-large aren't bothered about seeing a Hollywood actor in one of their movies and apparently the film has done good business there. It's (some of) the Western audience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Quote:

Seriously?

Pointing out the horrors of China as the giant turkey during a disgusting time period in history is bad but white guy shows the incompetent Japanese how to make war is good?

Yeesh.

Actually, the film in question wasn't about Europeans in China and certainly didn't address the politics in any way. So it struck me more as a bit of crude nationalism, which the current Chinese regime is not exactly unknown for. Even if it was, would dealing with it that way be justified or even remotely accurate? Or is it only wrong to display people in a distorted, cartoonish way if you think they are nice, but not if you think they are bad? Isn't that just double standards?
all I can say to this is to crack open a history book. China, indeed all of Asia, as a giant turkey for western powers to slice up resulted in a lot of stories like this being made. Most are folk hero tales(like this one), others even have a bit of actual history behind them.
I'm really quite well aware of that. It is certainly the case that modern China feels quite aggrieved about what happened, especially with the Opium Wars. I'm British and I certainly struggle with what was one of the darkest, most debasedly cynical episodes in my country's history - there is no positive gloss you can really put on it. On the other hand, the Chinese authorities (officially) think that Mao was great, and he was a murderous, incompetent c+&& who killed millions. So their approach is hardly consistent, and modern politics and state mind-control (turning any ill-feeling outward, instead of towards the Communist authorities) is quite a large factor in this too. That's not an excuse for the Opium Wars, but the Opium Wars and the (justified) sense of grievance can be used an excuse for state totalitarianism, which can be seen reflected to some extent in the depiction of the non-Chinese characters (who, it should be said, were very minor). The film wasn't...

Interesting, I was thinking it was Once Upon A Time In China or either of the sequels, where the Brits were cartoons. Granted it wasn't the modern The Defender where the brave Chinese Li exposes the corruption of the decadent west. Or Born to Defend where "Jet, a young soldier at the end of the second World War must overcome some abusive Americans who are bullying him as well as the Chinese people."

But seems there's quite a few Jet Li (or HK) movies where the heroes fighting the evil foreigners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that Matt Damon is as much a side character more than the main hero, although that is only what I peaced together from reviews and not personal viewing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's some talk about this that I found interesting. It discusses the historic moviemaking background of the issue, which frames things in a way I hadn't considered.

It's Bob Chipman, just to warn any possible... critics of him.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Possibly part of the reason I find it hard to get excited about this movie is that The Great Wall is the name of a Chinese takeaway near where I live.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

Here's some talk about this that I found interesting. It discusses the historic moviemaking background of the issue, which frames things in a way I hadn't considered.

It's Bob Chipman, just to warn any possible... critics of him.

Wow, yeah. Guy makes too much sense. Bad form posting that on the messageboards :p

I have only one correction for Bob's diatribe monologue:

Follow the $, or in this case, follow the ¥*.

* With apologies to the number 42, that phrase answers all most questions.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / The Great Wall All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.