I believe it is a Singapore film. Those are Singapore actors.

The most famous being comedian Jack Neo who created the story.

Fixed.

If anyone has seen it and knows otherwise, please feel free to update.

Thanks Brian.

WILLIAMWAN wrote:I believe it is a Singapore film.

It IS a Singaporean film -- with absolutely zero involvement from anyone in Hong Kong. Singaporean production house Mediacorp Raintree Pictures produced it, and Jack Neo wrote and directed it. I can provide screenshots for anyone who doubts this, ala...





No...wait...I forgot...people here seem to believe that Singapore is somehow part of China, not its own independent SE Asian state. Silly me...

No...wait...I forgot...people here seem to believe that Singapore is somehow part of China, not its own independent SE Asian state. Silly me...

Not a completely unexpected response, I suppose! I'm certain Mike's not the only one who believes the focus here should be as narrow as the title of the site demands, but since the film is in the system, we can at least keep its details as accurate as possible for now (even if it doesn't minimize the derision such things invoke). When we finally have the ability to do so, the title (only) should be made into a non-clickable link in the filmography of Titus Ho (a concept discussed elsewhere), presuming, of course, that a B-movie mainstay like him had anything to do with it and wasn't also added by simple act of altruism gone horribly, horribly awry.

Hi Mike,

Brian is correct in updating it as it is in the system.

Also, I agree that those who doesn't read newspaper still believe Singapore is part of China. Singapore is not well know for making movie either.

By the way, Eutopia is in Africa? Right? Shangri-la in China? Right?

No problem on the fix (and I'm not entirely certain I get the Utopia/Shangri-la reference), but obviously I'll continue to believe that films like BEST BET should not be full-fledged entries in the database (keeping one side sorta-happy), but rather non-clickable or different-coloured links (whatever works!) in the filmographies of people who are already in the database because of their work in Hong Kong pictures (keeping the other side sorta-happy). In this case, Titus Ho, if it's eventually proven he actually produced this. If not one single person involved in it's production is listed here in the database, then it should be removed altogether, or at least disabled until someone from it actually does get a Hong Kong credit here. Either way, both sides of the debate can still get what they need from the database under such an arrangement.

Hmmm, that was a big change in content from what I read this morning (with comments about "desultory" content etc), but since I have seemingly offended people here by the way in which I've tackled this concept, I'm going to explain it in a different manner...

Btw, first up..."Utopia" = Ethiopia, and "Shangri-La" = Shanghai. Though obviously Will's comment was meant as a joke and was tongue-in-cheek, I can actually say that I have seen both fictional places accredited exactly the same way Mr. Wan made his small joke; and there is a perverse adherence towards fictional and/or created history out there in the world these days, usually initiated by people from insular backgrounds, that people like me find both annoying and morally misguided.

My simple point is this -- whenever one of the following examples occurs: Englishman for Irishman/Scotman, New Zealander for Australian, Canadian for American; snide remarks are often made about people's knowledge, or in some cases all out attacks are launched against the "stupidity" of the person making the remark. This isn't just limited to the internet, but it goes on in everyday conversation, the media (both print and electronic) and even stretches to the upper echelons of the political hemisphere (see George Bush's recent faux-pas of mistaking the word "Mandela" for something else entirely that created a bit of a world scandal). Everyone does it -- but that doesn't make it right -- and more often than not, people are often brought to task for delivering said wild misnomers. Unfortunately, when it comes to people of Asiatic descent, who incidentally account for the largest ethnic population in the world, it seems too readily easy for people to lump everyone in together under the gross generalisation that "a Chinaman's a Chinaman" (please excuse that analogy, as it is not intended in a racist context*).

Of hot contention here, is the presence of Titus Ho as producer in the productions of Singaporean director/writer/actor Jack Neo. I don't dispute Ho's involvement for a minute, as the below link will attest to...

http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/thebestbet/credits.htm

...but the fact is, if you look over those links in a little finer detail, Ho is scarcely mentioned outside of the credits page and the production is touted as a wholly Singaporean one (which, just to reiterate, Singapore was part of the state of Malaysia before it seceded as an independent republic in 1965). From the admittedly small amount of knowledge I have of Singapore itself, the people prefer to refer to themselves as Singaporean, rather than Chinese, Malay, Indian or whatever other cultural background. Who knows if Ho now refers to himself as a Singaporean, being that it's highly apparent from the research that I've done on my own that he has pretty much worked solely out of Singapore for the last four or five years? But there you have it...

Back to the other part of the allegation -- my personal greivance is thus: there's no denying the indisputable connection between Hong Kong and Mainland China, especially considering HK was handed back to China in 1997. That, I am not in dispute of. What I do dispute is the amorphous fashion in which information occasionally gets "dumped" here seemingly solely on the grounds that there is the most tenuous of links to some (active or inactive) Hong Kong film personality. I'm not going to argue over Taiwan -- Taiwan has already argued enough on its own standing that it will not surrender to the "Three Chinas" ideology and any attempt to remove their independence will be considered an act of war, so I am not going to counterpoint evolving history for the sake of "data completeness". But Korea...Malaysia...Singapore (and yes, Singapore and Malaysia are independent of one another)...any other SE Asian territory with no connection, be it sociological, political, cultural or spiritual, to China and its territories? I can't figure it -- it's almost like maps of the world and an "at-the-fingertips" window to cultural understanding (or at least, differentiation) doesn't exist!

You know what I think (personally) would best for this type of information? A film entry page with all of its links disabled except for the relevant HK identity (ie: "The Best Bet" has an entry, but the only active DB link becomes "Titus Ho" -- then it keeps the entry in the DB, but doesn't identify the filmmakers and actors involved as originating from HK [which would be a gross falsehood and misleading anyway] as they become inactive entries).

Everyone knows me and my thoughts on the subject by now -- I am a strong champion of acknowledging and respecting individual cultures and countries as independent of being grouped together as one "amorphous mass". Similarly, I find criticisms of individual filmmaking technique based solely on the fact that the society that creates the entity hold different cultural, historical, political or spiritual beliefs than those which reflect their own (sure, people are welcome to do that, but for me personally that shows a distinctive intolerance and ignorance for so-called "foreign" cultures drawn from willing, or inadverted, misunderstanding; in short, we will call it xenophobia). If one is to embrace and extol the virtues of a particular filmmaking community alien to your own, then you have to accept the inherent cultural, historical, political and spiritual differences that come with that community.

I live in a country that is starting to create its own monster, in that the media is allowed unfettered immorality to create the blatant falsehood that "Muslim" = "race", not spiritual values; in turn that is starting to develop a seething underbelly of racial hatred based upon politically motivated, and indoctrinated, misinformation. The roll-on effect is obvious. Thus, I've put forward my idea for Brian's resolve, so let's see what happens next...

* nor should it be construed as a "racist" remark, lest anyone forget that I am married to someone of Chinese lineage.

Hmmm, that was a big change in content from what I read this morning (with comments about "desultory" content etc), but since I have seemingly offended people here by the way in which I've tackled this concept, I'm going to explain it in a different manner...

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have toned it down, since I still stand by much of what I said (particularly regarding what I feel is the unconstructive nature of such remarks), but posterity and all... Ironically, or perhaps not, this bit:

You know what I think (personally) would best for this type of information? A film entry page with all of its links disabled except for the relevant HK identity (ie: "The Best Bet" has an entry, but the only active DB link becomes "Titus Ho" -- then it keeps the entry in the DB, but doesn't identify the filmmakers and actors involved as originating from HK [which would be a gross falsehood and misleading anyway] as they become inactive entries).

...is more or less exactly what I (and a few others) have been suggesting in thread after thread in regards to ALL of these non-Hong Kong entries we have in the database! That's probably the single reason why I think discussion of the matter is better handled like this, even if it might feel like we're typing out novels from time to time. At least the seeds of change are being planted, and while movement on these issues can be frustratingly slow sometimes (no doubt Bob's a busy man), at least we've got a "history" of genuine motivation to look back on in these threads when the time comes.

I realize that the presence of Singapore, Korean, Japanese films here as full-fledged entries is bound to get up noses, so to speak, but when the time comes when we can finally incorporate it properly, we will at least have some workable information to start with. THE BEST BET, GOGOL 13, the list goes on...

And, as I said in the previous post (the part I left there) I will continue to champion the inclusion of such info for as long as I'm allowed to be a member here. I do not think it will clutter the database if it's integrated properly. Right now, it isn't integrated properly, and that's what leading to these -filled exchanges, I think. THE BEST BET is a perfect example, among many. It should indeed be included only in the filmography of Titus Ho, most logically as a single line non-link, as should every single other title he has been associated with in Singapore, now that your research has revealed a bit more of the scope of his work.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not overly familiar with the works of Mr. Ho beyond some pretty negligible Hong Kong B-pictures, BUT as an avid fan of Asian cinema—albeit a far less knowledgeable one than yourself—it would please me greatly if I could one day click on his entry and realize that there's more to the man's body of work than just those very same Hong Kong B-pictures he often seems to be associated with. I might, for example, be able to peruse a complete list of his Singapore titles, and then decide for myself whether I want to research the subject further via other websites like the one you provided. And I'd have the HKMDB to thank for at least acknowledging that this man worked beyond the borders covered by the title of this site.

At the same time, I'd be willing to bet good money that few here would argue that ALL Singaporean, Korean, Thai, Japanese films should now be poured wholesale into the database. I'm just not getting the same vibe as Mike, I guess. If I do take offense to anything (and perhaps I am a bit thin-skinned on this issue, since I think it has merit), it's that those off-handed, sometimes-humourous remarks thrown away in other threads by Mike (and possibly others), tend to give the impression that we aren't worth taking seriously on this matter. Perhaps your measured response in this thread has, hopefully, proven otherwise.

Personally, I don't even think this issue NEEDS to be about racism, xenophobia or anything like that (remember, there are plenty of people here in mixed relationships ). If you read all my posts related to the subject of database inclusion, I've consistently argued the matter along technical lines, not racial, and I firmly believe others have as well, and we're the ones who have a genuine interest in seeing the site be properly inclusive of titles from other cultures when appropriate, and not just the wholesale dumping of every film with Asian faces into the database, which has obviously yet to happen and probably never will.

That said, there may indeed be people here who will continue to add every single "Asian" title they pick up at a Chinatown shop to the DB (or mistakenly believe that Singaporeans are just another group of "Chinese" people). I say as long as the architecture remains the way it is, let 'em. That info will come in handy in future overhauls. Eventually, I'm hoping Bob will (as he suggested) institute a way for us to separate the HK-related info from the non-HK-related info in a person's individual listing, with only the appropriate titles being active links. When that happens, I'm glad we'll have a lot of this raw information already in the system. It will just be a matter of locating, say, a full-fledged entry for a Singapore film, disabling it as it's own entity, and re-locating it's title to however many filmographies of Hong Kong performers are featured within. Sure, we're bound to lose entries for a lot of great Singaporean actors and filmmakers, but the title will at least still pop up in the appropriate filmogs of talent with a proper connection to Hong Kong. This can work, but it will, like all things, take time.

Sadly, much of my own hard work on the HUNTING EVIL SPIRIT movies might ultimately be sacrificed in such an endeavour, but as I admitted when this subject reared it's head in regard to those probably-Singaporean productions, I simply had NOTHING to go on while I was watching them, not even in the films themselves, until I got to the fourth or fifth one and an explicit reference was made to the region. Prior to that, I think ANYONE could have been forgiven for thinking these were possibly shot in areas surrounding Hong Kong. Ultimately, I believe only one of the films featured an actress who had worked once in Hong Kong, so sadly, all that work would be whittled down to one non-link in her filmography under the proposed plan. All the other entries and their wonderful pictures, would realistically have to go, or at least be "featured" differently somehow (beyond the rather obvious "Singapore" tag that graces them all) so no one mistakes them for Hong Kong productions.

Perhaps since I seem to be the most passionate proponent of all this, I could mock-up a couple of sample pages (based on existing layout) to illustrate one or two ways that the information could be delineated, and then others can counter with improvements, etc. Just gotta find the time...

As a small aside, here's a link to some info on Mr Ho I found in my travels around the 'net digging up some data pertaining to him when I was researching a couple of Jack Neo films...

http://web5.confixx2.webspezi.com/filmorient/?id=16

...from that blurb, and though he had a HUGE history in HK cinema, it appears that he's been working nearly exclusively out of Singapore since around 2001/2002.

Additionally, I wasn't blatantly accusing anyone of "racism" or "xenophobia" -- I was passing comment on something I see and hear all too frequently borne out of (perhaps blissful) ignorance and attempting to relate it within context to the topic at hand. As I said prior, it's not okay in many people's eyes to lump a whole group of Caucasians in together simply because they originate from nearby land masses -- why should it be okay to do so with people of Asiatic heritage, even if that "nearby land mass" is several thousand kilometres away and its own independent republic?

I don't believe I've ever once said that I don't take people's work here seriously except, in the odd instance when I fulfilled another role, out of frustration borne of being publicly slandered or landslided with pushy private messaging when other people wanted things their way. I do, however, feel there is a clear divide between "thematically pure" data, and that of an "amorphously loose" nature. Film, although some folk will claim otherwise, isn't just about film -- it's as much about the society, culture, history, politics and related peculiarities unique to its relevant origins as the end product. At least it is when you're dealing with the various Asian territories and the films that exhibit the unique aspects of that region and culture within the aforementioned "end product".

I just see certain things in a slightly different light than some of my peers, and unfortunately that is always going to be an integral facet of who I am.

Well, if nothing else, I can only hope these debates will ultimately count towards the introduction of some new features on the site.

You're right, folks come at this issue from all different angles, but there's a big difference between an honest-if-insular misunderstanding of an issue/culture/etc., and the kind of willful intent to mislead/stereotype which, as you say in an earlier post, must be taken to task (the need for which to do so is palpable sometimes, I'm sure) and probably is elsewhere even if it doesn't appear to be here. Frankly, I'm just not seeing the latter from folks at this particular site.

And, at its core, there's a workable, constructive idea under discussion in these various threads, and if it's implemented correctly, it will make this site an even better resource, and those who really, honestly, do feel that all Asians (or Caucasians or Blacks or what have you) are part of some great big blob will have a harder time trying to add "unrelated" titles willy-nilly, and hopefully there will be a kind of "control" in place to allow us to take what we need from a Singapore or Japanese movie, for example, rather than just tossing the whole thing in the DB unchecked. Honestly, I think there's more agreement going on here than a casual glance at these threads might suggest.


EDIT: Nice find on that Titus Ho bio. So sad that it doesn't reference such Ho classics as ROYAL SPERM, LSD BEAUTIES and THE SOFT ROD! I have to wonder if these Winners' Workshop/Jacky Wong/Tony Leung/etc. deals were meant to stay below the radar!

I added this movie. I did not know it was a Singaporean movie. Sorry. If nobody stops me in 15 I will delete it.