That's interesting about the subtitles, I never knew that. At the time, the theatrical subtitles were often (always?) burnt in and dual Chinese/English

Whoa! Hey, if you're stuck with the damaged one, you might as well start on the movies!

Glad you found the channel, learned about the box set, and subscribed! Thank you!

Go for it. I have it and it is amazing.

I hear this limited edition has sold extremely well and is nearing sell-out, so hopefully you can grab it! I’m sure there will be a slimmer non-limited version soon.

@@fritzthecat8158 Unfortunately there is no skull flag platform that provides this type of content... Netflix had something for a while, but unfortunately the little that exists is dubbed into Spanish or audio in English with subtitles. In my opinion, the work can be understood in its entirety by hearing it in the original language. There are many expressions that are more enjoyed in the original language. Thanks for your recommendation friend!

Volume 2 comes in November

Truth, this is not my favorite packaging by a long shot. Thankfully, it's a little better than those cardboard "pockets" that seem to eat discs. I'm thinking of the Al Adamson set from Severin, which left permanent glue residue on some of my discs.

36 Chambers would be amazing!

@@CerealAtMidnight Including Return to the 36 Chambers would be double amazing! Lol

He already made his Best Of The Year videos by the time he got this one. As he said at the end of this video, unofficially, it's his best of the year

@@kunider9714 You're right, I forgot.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/er1jmpRz2rHMhKs.html

Angela Mao Ying ❤️

It's one of them, for sure! Kill Bill is Tarantino's love letter to 70s kung fu and there are tons of movies that he's homaging (and borrowing from) there, including some surprising non-kung-fu movies like Savage Sisters and blaxploitation.

So what did you think? I'm considering a blind buy myself

@@Tyler7P7 I'm only through the first 2 so far. But they're both a lot of fun.

Probably because Shaw Bros was founded 12 years before Golden Harvest, so they are considered the grand-daddy of martial arts movie companies. They also produced what is essentially the first big kung fu film, The One-Armed Boxer (in 1970).

@@84paratize I suppose that would make sense, but it's worth noting that they didn't make any Kung-Fu movies until 1966, or at least as far as I can tell, and golden harvest started producing Kung-Fu movies in 1971, again, at least as far as I can tell, so the time gap isn't necessarily as great as it would at first appear.

Yeah, I'd say volume and longevity. Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan are icons, and those movies are excellent (I haven't seen most of the Chan stuff), but there are hundreds of Shaw Brothers movies spanning a longer period of success. Edit: also their branding, innovation, technical presentation, and quality make them a household name all over the world. The movies don't look cheap, they look really, really expensive.

@@CerealAtMidnight I see, so it's more like Golden Harvest is more famous for the stars of individual movies, while Shaw Brothers is famous because, well because the the studio itself is the selling point. Kind of like Hammer now that I think about it, which is ironic considering they did have two co-produced movies together I suppose.

VERY much like Hammer! Great comparison, and accurate, too.

That's really one of the frustrating things about Tarantino: a huge chunk of the output is taken from other movies. People don't realize how much, either. Entire scenes, whole lines of dialogue, music, and it can go beyond homage into something else. People who know the references say "well, it's a tribute," but the average viewer (99 percent of the people watching his movies) doesn't realize HOW MUCH he took from Shaw Brothers, or Corbucci, or Godard, and they think it's all his creation. Some even say he's "remixing" classic scenes, but if you take a speech from a character in a 70s movie and give it to your character, is that a remix or is that reappropriation? It was disheartening for me as a younger movie fan to continually realize that something I loved about Tarantino (like his "and they will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon them" line being lifted wholecloth from a Sonny Chiba movie) wasn't his at all. If movies had the same rules as music, where someone had to credit something they'd taken, it would help things, but I don't think that's ever likely to happen.

@@CerealAtMidnightYES YES YES! I am SO happy that you said all of this. You just spoke my HEART. I was afraid to even write (as little as I wrote) bc I was concerned it might be inflammatory, seen as negative, and people would jump down my throat. EVERYTHING you said is my go to statement about his work. I always say, I love what Tarantino loves....and I like hearing him TALK about what he loves (bc he IS knowledgeable)....but I'm not sure when we began to allow for a version film plagiarism, and not only give it a pass by calling it homage, but additionally praise it as "genius". The final fight in BOXER FROM SHANTUNG makes Uma's fight with the Crazy 88 seem like a freshman film project.

@@CerealAtMidnight Bravo Heath!!! Truer words were never spoken.

I really think it is plagiarism, and a lot of his peers have a complicated relationship with QT because of it. The fans who defend him are usually those who have never watched Godard and who don't realize how much he's taken. They love him, he feels like "one of us" and they'll defend him because he likes grindhouse cinema. This is the guy who tried to buy out Roger Avary during Pulp Fiction (the entire Bruce WIllis segment was written by Avary) so he could call Pulp Fiction "A Quentin Tarantino Film" and who threatened to ruin Avary when he didn't want to comply. This is also the guy who punched a film critic in a restaurant who gave him consistently negative reviews. Granted, this was all 25 years ago and I think he's grown some (Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is my favorite thing he's ever done), but he's gotten away with things that no other director ever has before, and most people don't realize how much of his movies are stitched together from other movies. I think you and I agree, his role as a film mentor and curator exceeds his voice as a creator.

@@CerealAtMidnight Oh 100%. Like I said, I love what he loves, and I even *sometimes* enjoy hearing him talk about what he loves (when I can get past his mannerisms and my general desire to smack the smirk off of his face) because he does speak with a true fan level of commitment/devotion/knowledge....but I do NOT rank him among great film makers or ....humans. I like his role better as curator.....If I remember correctly, I believe he helped finance IRON MONKEY getting released in the states, and I LOVE that movie. Well worth the watch if anyone reading this hasn't seen it. I feel you and I are in alignment on this one. Like I said, I was going to make a comment in my initial post, but didn't want you to think that I was bringing negativity to your table. I am delighted that my round about mention started this discussion, because it ("it" meaning both his predisposition towards plagerism, as well as the general topic of "homage"/plagerism in film) isn't discussed enough among film people. Regarding ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, I agree. However, my one gripe when I saw it was that...how do I say this.....my fear is that kids (used in the general "kids today" way) seem to not know history from fantasy. Just look at the WEIRD trend of not believing that Helen Keller was real, or that even weirder weird TikTok trend of thinking that Ancient Rome was made up (what the ACTUAL F).....well my concern was that younger generations might feel it was a true to life bio pic. There is enough in it that was true, that it is grounded in reality.....and enough that is "once upon a time..." to create confusion. Hell, even if they looked it up, which version would they believe...film or reality? I know that sounds like an odd complaint/concern but people are so....odd and unpredictable in what reality they refute. If it was more fantasy, it would worry me less. I like the way that Catherine The Great show, THE GREAT is being handled with regard to this. There is an asterisk in the opening credits, attached to the title, to alert you that this is historical fiction. I feel they felt they needed to do that. They are probably right. I know the Tate/ Polansk familyi gave an ok on it....I don't know....as much as I did enjoy the just desserts fantasy of it, it felt weird, and to *me* slightly disrespectful to the memory of those lost. However, it is a better overall work. (I hope that concern/comment made sense.)

I'm not surprised to hear that the dubs are inferior, and that probably goes all the way back to the original creation of those dubs 50 years or so ago. All the tracks are mono, but the Mandarin and Cantonese tracks seem richer and have more power to them, which makes sense, considering those are the original audio tracks for these movies (English dubs were secondary, added upon foreign release)

It’s certainly not cheap, but it’s $129.99 on Amazon right now, and it’s 12 movies, so that’s less than $11 per film. People drop $35 bucks all day on a single movie from some labels, so it looks like the return on investment is definitely there!

Mmmmkay. Thanks for sharing?