Tony Leung IS The Mandarin

Is that the important point, that Feige hasn't said it multiple times? I think the point is that Feige has made his public position that Fu Manch is not in the movie, yet most people can clearly recognise Wenwu was partially based on him.

It's very important whether someone actually uses facts when they post or if they are just making up things that aren't true to make their position sound better.

It's also important to the argument since the Chinese reporter was asking the question based on the character from the comic books. No one has raised the issue after actually having seen the film.
 
It's very important whether someone actually uses facts when they post or if they are just making up things that aren't true to make their position sound better.

It's also important to the argument since the Chinese reporter was asking the question based on the character from the comic books. No one has raised the issue after actually having seen the film.

Or you're sidestepping the issue by complaining about something meaningless. Maybe it was clumsy wording on my part to say "interviews" and not interview (which is a far cry from "making up things"), the fact remains Feige chose the position that Fu Manchu is not in the film, yet Wenwu clearly has some basis in the character. This situation could have easily been avoided by just not adapting the villain.
 
Or you're sidestepping the issue by complaining about something meaningless. Maybe it was clumsy wording on my part to say "interviews" and not interview (which is a far cry from "making up things"), the fact remains Feige chose the position that Fu Manchu is not in the film, yet Wenwu clearly has some basis in the character. This situation could have easily been avoided by just not adapting the villain.

It wasn't just that you said interviews, it's that you made it look like he had to do a bunch of interviews after the film had come out because people thought Wenwu was like Fu Manchu, when in reality the only time it's been brought up was in a question before the film came out and that was entirely about the comic book character. Clear misrepresentation of what's been going on.

It's fine if you think the character is like that but you're the only one I've seen to go on about that after the film. What I've seen from Chinese fans is rather that they think the film should be released there because they feel the problematic characters from the comic book origin aren't in the film.
 
He did recently state publicly that Fu Manchu wasn't in the film and most people here seemingly can recognise he is an amalgam of the character and Mandarin. Those are still the facts and Feige's not going to contradict himself next time he speaks on it. I also never said when the interview came out because I never checked, you inferred that.

As far as being the only one who has acknowledged the Fu Manchu connection, I'll assume you mean the press and Chinese movie going public online and not the various posters here who have in some way agreed Wenwu shares dna with the character.

I was reading a Daily Mail article earlier that stated that some Chinese do feel the film cannot shake off the history of the character and I made a post replying to a poster in the general discussion thread wonder why people believe he's in the film in relation to a poster complaining why the Chinese think he's in the film. I don't know personally and can only gauge the discussions and articles I see online as I can't go and check personally what they'resaying, but I find the idea that in a demographic that large you will only find Chinese movie fans who don't see a Fu Manch connection a bit suspect.
 
*cough* Anyway, I find it somewhat funny people talk about this as the "real Mandarin" when a huge chunk of his text and subtext is essentially "the Mandarin is a stupid caricature". He's not especially trying to be faithful to the comic version of the Mandarin, and in a lot of ways is no closer to him than Killian was.

And none of this matters especially, because Xu Wenwu works as an awesome and appealing villain, *entirely of his own right*. He may essentially be an original character, formed out of a few small pieces of the Mandarin and Fu Machu/Golden Claw/Zheng Zu, but you know what? Original villains are not bad when they are *good* original villains. I would entirely approve of Marvel Comics retconning either the Mandarin or Shang-Chi's father ( separately or together ) into something more like Wenwu.

Yeah it's a little crazy how insistent people are about judging the MCU as a reflection of the comics rather than its own self-contained story.


The important thing about Wenwu isn't that he's the "real Mandarin"...there is no real Mandarin, strictly speaking...the important thing is that he's the real leader of the Ten Rings. The Ten Rings (both the organization and the actual rings) is what's important to the MCU's narrative, not the idea of the "Mandarin".
 
I disagree. I think it's fine to judge any and all adaptations and how they relate to the source material. Otherwise, why have a mcu at all and not just make an original film with new characters?

Frankly I think there being no Mandarin at this point is just rubbing salt into an old wound after Iron-man 3 and Hail to the King both dashing fans hopes and then building them up again.
 
Otherwise, why have a mcu at all and not just make an original film with new characters?

Because there's no reason to throw away a bunch of ideas you own the rights to just because you don't feel like using all of them.
 
Thinking about the character, I wonder if the film intended the things that I took about Wenwu's subdued and complicated feelings towards Shang-Chi. Because frankly I just like this character a lot.

Looking at it at face value it seems like ultimately Wenwu simply wants to have the entire family back. But I ended up reading more than that. In all the flashbacks we see Wenwu taking greater interest in training Shang-Chi while seemingly paying little to no attention towards training Xialing. He even takes Shang with him when hunting down Ying Li's killers without her. In a way during the movie I thought it was trying to tell us that Shang was the favored offspring and the one Wenwu trusted most.

Instead it all changes towards the end once Wenwu reveals his resentment at Shang-Chi for doing nothing as a child when Ying was murdered. It recalibrated how I read the flashbacks. Now I look at Wenwu recruiting his son and training him to kill the murderer of Ying not as favoring Shang-Chi but rather a debt that must be paid for letting his mother die without a fight. Xialing he never blames which is why outside of Wenwu's obsession he also leaves her alone and pays her no mind. In his eyes she's done nothing wrong however Wenwu is broken and lets both his children leave him.

And I think Wenwu struggles internally, knowing he shouldnt resent Shang-Chi for Ying's death and that's why he's so obsessed with bringing her back, because not only would she return and his family presumably reunited, but he also could finally let go of his resentment towards his son.

I recognize I may have read too much into it but that resentment adds so much more to Wenwu's arc than if he never said it. Love it if the film intended it.

I am perfectly willing to see all of that as part of his character, myself.

Some things I liked about him that are not the same topic, but do touch at points. . .

Its not just the complicated, multi-layered relationship with his family that makes him such a compelling anti-villain. Even beyond that, he's. . . not "evil" so much as "old fashioned", which makes sense since he literally is a thousand years old. He's a ruthless warlord and ruler of men, not because of some madness or sociopathy but because that's literally the acceptable ideal of behavior for the vast majority of his life. He's sexist and patriarchal in various ways, but not out of contempt for women, but simply because that is the world he lived for the vast majority of his life. In allegorical terms, he's not "evil", in the sense of being motivated by vice or fanaticism and serving as a symbol of How Not To Live. He's instead old-fashioned, a person who might have been perfectly suited for the "old world", but who is ill-adapted to the new one, and for that deserves sympathy and understanding rather than revulsion. Hence why, for added tragedy, all his villainous deeds in the "present" story draw directly from his virtues: love of his family and a desire for justice. He sad;y pursues them in unhealthy ways, because thousand year old warlord.
 
I am perfectly willing to see all of that as part of his character, myself.

Some things I liked about him that are not the same topic, but do touch at points. . .

Its not just the complicated, multi-layered relationship with his family that makes him such a compelling anti-villain. Even beyond that, he's. . . not "evil" so much as "old fashioned", which makes sense since he literally is a thousand years old. He's a ruthless warlord and ruler of men, not because of some madness or sociopathy but because that's literally the acceptable ideal of behavior for the vast majority of his life. He's sexist and patriarchal in various ways, but not out of contempt for women, but simply because that is the world he lived for the vast majority of his life. In allegorical terms, he's not "evil", in the sense of being motivated by vice or fanaticism and serving as a symbol of How Not To Live. He's instead old-fashioned, a person who might have been perfectly suited for the "old world", but who is ill-adapted to the new one, and for that deserves sympathy and understanding rather than revulsion. Hence why, for added tragedy, all his villainous deeds in the "present" story draw directly from his virtues: love of his family and a desire for justice. He sad;y pursues them in unhealthy ways, because thousand year old warlord.

This is a good take.

I think what makes this especially sound if the film intended is that China (and by extension South Korea and Japan) still adheres to some of these old ideals like the patriarchy that still exists. Obviously Wenwu is more exteme relatively speaking but still something that can be picked up on. Really great read on your part.
 
He did recently state publicly that Fu Manchu wasn't in the film and most people here seemingly can recognise he is an amalgam of the character and Mandarin. Those are still the facts and Feige's not going to contradict himself next time he speaks on it. I also never said when the interview came out because I never checked, you inferred that.

As far as being the only one who has acknowledged the Fu Manchu connection, I'll assume you mean the press and Chinese movie going public online and not the various posters here who have in some way agreed Wenwu shares dna with the character.

I was reading a Daily Mail article earlier that stated that some Chinese do feel the film cannot shake off the history of the character and I made a post replying to a poster in the general discussion thread wonder why people believe he's in the film in relation to a poster complaining why the Chinese think he's in the film. I don't know personally and can only gauge the discussions and articles I see online as I can't go and check personally what they'resaying, but I find the idea that in a demographic that large you will only find Chinese movie fans who don't see a Fu Manch connection a bit suspect.

Weird to suddenly not quote me when you responded.

I mainly see people here disagreeing with your take on it and not seeing similarities that are problematic. As for inferring when your suggested multiple interviews took place, your post makes no sense unless you meant that it happened after the film as you were talking about the film character. He obviously can't get questions based on how the film character turned out before people have seen it.

Obviously there can be a wide variety of takes with individuals but you seem to expect that the film will get criticism with age due to this and I don't see that unless there is a wider group of people having issues with it, which I see no signs of there being. Just as that I'm sure one can find some black people that have issues with some representation in Black Panther, but certainly no wider groups of people so it keeps being beloved.
 
Or you're sidestepping the issue by complaining about something meaningless. Maybe it was clumsy wording on my part to say "interviews" and not interview (which is a far cry from "making up things"), the fact remains Feige chose the position that Fu Manchu is not in the film, yet Wenwu clearly has some basis in the character. This situation could have easily been avoided by just not adapting the villain.
Why not adapt the villain though? Is it truly that offensive??
 
I am perfectly willing to see all of that as part of his character, myself.

Some things I liked about him that are not the same topic, but do touch at points. . .

Its not just the complicated, multi-layered relationship with his family that makes him such a compelling anti-villain. Even beyond that, he's. . . not "evil" so much as "old fashioned", which makes sense since he literally is a thousand years old. He's a ruthless warlord and ruler of men, not because of some madness or sociopathy but because that's literally the acceptable ideal of behavior for the vast majority of his life. He's sexist and patriarchal in various ways, but not out of contempt for women, but simply because that is the world he lived for the vast majority of his life. In allegorical terms, he's not "evil", in the sense of being motivated by vice or fanaticism and serving as a symbol of How Not To Live. He's instead old-fashioned, a person who might have been perfectly suited for the "old world", but who is ill-adapted to the new one, and for that deserves sympathy and understanding rather than revulsion. Hence why, for added tragedy, all his villainous deeds in the "present" story draw directly from his virtues: love of his family and a desire for justice. He sad;y pursues them in unhealthy ways, because thousand year old warlord.
This is really well said.
 
Weird to suddenly not quote me when you responded.

There were no other posts between mine and yours. Were you not supposed to see it? Regardless it's clear you're intent on misreading my post. This conversation has run its course.

Because there's no reason to throw away a bunch of ideas you own the rights to just because you don't feel like using all of them.

I'm just not following your logic. They don't lose the rights to the Marvel characters like in the timed Sony or Fox deals, so I don't see the point in making in name only adaptations just because they can. There's no obligation and fans don't need to blindly accept everything they produce.

Why not adapt the villain though? Is it truly that offensive??

Pretty much. He's generally been seen as a racist caricature and has a long history in Hollywood adaptations of being portrayed by white men in makeup to look asian.
 
There were no other posts between mine and yours. Were you not supposed to see it? Regardless it's clear you're intent on misreading my post. This conversation has run its course.



I'm just not following your logic. They don't lose the rights to the Marvel characters like in the timed Sony or Fox deals, so I don't see the point in making in name only adaptations just because they can. There's no obligation and fans don't need to blindly accept everything they produce.



Pretty much. He's generally been seen as a racist caricature and has a long history in Hollywood adaptations of being portrayed by white men in makeup to look asian.
I would say you and anyone else who is truly bothered by it would be the minority.
 
On an unrelated note: I love that Tony Leung’s favorite Marvel superheroes are Iron Man and Deadpool.
 
There were no other posts between mine and yours. Were you not supposed to see it? Regardless it's clear you're intent on misreading my post. This conversation has run its course.

You were the one that made things up to make your point sound better (and didn't own up to it) and now that's my fault? Not the best sense of accountability.
 
I'm just not following your logic. They don't lose the rights to the Marvel characters like in the timed Sony or Fox deals, so I don't see the point in making in name only adaptations just because they can. There's no obligation and fans don't need to blindly accept everything they produce.

It's not "because they can", it's because they want to. There are no "rules" as to what percentage of ideas they should take from one story they own and use in another story they own. It's all just based on their subjective whims. You may not like it, but that's no less subjective.
 
On the matter of Fu Manchu. . . okay, I would argue that the reason we still talk about him and not 99% of the other Yellow Peril villains, is because unlike the rest he actually has a nugget of good concept underneath. Within the context of his original fictional material, he's an incarnation of the genre that tries to take the concept seriously ( unintentionally or not ), rather than just being a strawman to show how twisted and dastardly Chinese people are. He's competent, he has an understandable motivation, and while you technically don't want to see his ( ruthless and horrible ) plans succeed, you kind of do want to see more *of him*, because he's interesting, moreso than the heroes of the stories. Which is why there are a fair number of characters created with the premise "Okay, what if we take Fu Manchu, and strip out the Yellow Peril imagery baggage even more so that its just the good stuff?"
 
Sure! I'm open to suggestions.

I'd recommend these two right off the bat:
Hero
Infernal Affairs

However if you've seen those then:
In the Mood For Love
Chungking Express
Hard Boiled
Red Cliff (Extended Edition which is over 4 hours)

I think these should be good starters.
 
I'd recommend these two right off the bat:
Hero
Infernal Affairs

However if you've seen those then:
In the Mood For Love
Chungking Express
Hard Boiled
Red Cliff (Extended Edition which is over 4 hours)

I think these should be good starters.
Awesome! Thanks for those. Interesting, a 4 hour movie, huh lol. I've only seen Hero, but that was so long ago I don't remember it. Didn't realize he was in that. I was also recommended Flashpoint. Lots of movies to watch!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,432
Messages
21,724,348
Members
45,549
Latest member
misterkocher
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"