It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Who Am I, The Accidental Spy (Chinese version only), Drunken Master II, Shanghai Noon, the list goes on & on.
I love this guy.
Y'know, in a MANLY way...
We've got to get Dalts back first, remember? ;)
A Japanese James Bond? how would he be called then? Jameshi Bondukuri? lol
or
Jimmy-kun (for a boy, not a man) pronounced "koon"
(I edited it; at first I put "chan" for a boy, but that actually is only for a girl!)
;)
It's really weird to think about: he's just one of the 382,459 people thrown at Lee in the movie, and look at him now: he's doing some destruction of his own. Those stunts of his cannot be trumped.
;;)
What Chan lacks compared to Lee is a danger factor. Sort of like Craig vs Brosnan, Craig is dangerous and Brozzer you wouldn't sweat in a dark alley.
Lee might seem more dangerous in films, but that's because he's much more serious while Jackie uses comedy.
I think it'd be a close call but Jackie could take him in a fight. Lee and Chan are different but both extremely good.
Jackie himself has said that he tried to be different to Lee on purpose to set himself apart from the countless Lee imitators.
Bruce Lee played straight faced, serious badasses, Jackie Chan plays more comedic, everyman type heroes (well as everyman as you can get when you're doing the stunts he does).
Another thing he mentioned, and that I've noticed too, is that their fighting styles are also pretty different. Both are pretty quick but while Lee was loose and flew round all over the place Jackie is choppy, he keeps his arms closer to his chest and is tighter and faster. Watch a fight scene from either of them and you'll see what I mean.
I think, overall, I prefer Jackie. On top of being a great fighter, some of the stunts he's done are insane and unlike Lee he never used a stunt double. I think overall his films are better too.
Lee though was a total badass who helped shape the landscape of martial arts cinema and we can't forget that.
So Fleming got it wrong when he had Tiger say that it should be "Bondo-san" instead of "Bond-san"?
Seriously, Bruce LIVED fighting, and the more I trained & studied, the more I became aware that I would never, EVER achieve his level, because I had & have other interests in life. Though I have a 30 year background in martial arts, it has never been the thing that drives me in every waking moment.
Realistically, Bruce Lee vs. Jackie Chan at their best would result in a loss for Chan. Yes, Chan did all the stunts and even flips that Lee never mastered, but Lee was about simple devastation, not show.
Good for catching that, but it is not an error as it is more realistic dialog. It is just the last name plus "san". But Japanese tend to add a vowel onto the end. Cred is said "cred-oh" So although it would supposedly technically be just the last name Bond-san and I would say Bond-san, many or most Japanese would say in speaking "Bondo-san". Like beer is said "bee-loo" etc. (they don't have an "r" so their "r" is like a light "l") or to say the English for the color red, they say "led-oh".
I still think Chan could take him. He's faster and I reckon that'd give him an advantage.
That school he trained at sounds pretty horrible and he started training at an earlier age than Lee.
I think that's a fair assessment.
One on one straight up fight in a ring, Lee stands a good chance of taking it.
But if they were somewhere where Jackie could use the enviroment to his advantage (so basically anywhere with a solid object), then Chan would definetly win.
I reckon Chuck norris was probably the best fighter in real life. He was a undefeated world champion for many years.
I don't think he was. Too slow for one thing, especially as he got older. He was the karate world champion for years but that's no guarantee that Jackie or Bruce couldn't kick his arse.
Undefeated world champ for many years too slow. I wouldn't think so.
Of course as he got older he was slower so did jackie chan.
I think people overrate Norris because of his facts. Here's 1983 Chuck Norris.
And here's Jackie Chan in 1998.
Chuck Norris was born in 1940, Chan in 1954, so in these scenes they would've been roughly the same age.
Who do you think is faster, and who do you think stands a better chance?