MovieChat Forums > Bulletproof Monk (2003) Discussion > Major,major Story flaw

Major,major Story flaw

posted 19 years ago by akshaychopra85
48 replies | jump to latest

The film begins with nazis killing tibetian monks and trying to steal the scroll.2 big, big problems.

1. In 1943 (when the scene takes place) , Tibet was under the British India empire and was separated from India only in 1947 (along with pakistan, afghanistan, bangladesh,which were muslim dominated and burma) when the british were chucked out of India.

Now for there to be Nazis in what was then British territory (the crown jewel of the british empire as Hindustan was known), right smack in the middle of WW2 (in 1943) and have them brazenly parading about in platoons in the himalayas while the Brits did nothing is a stupid notion fraught with historical innacuracy.

2. The Nazis had their whole school of thought justified by the fact that they were aryans (sanskrit for noble)and hence were raccially superior to other peoples.
Hitler always propagated India is the Aryan motherland and origin, and also took the swastika (sanskrit for su;good + asti;is) from the original aryan religion, hinduism-come to india and you'll find atleast a 100 swastikas in the 1st 10 mins of yr being here, they're painted EVERYWHERE as it is a hindu sacred symbol.
He was a great supporter of India,also because India was fighting against his prime enemy, the british as well.He often supllied arms,subarines and once a whole division of japaneese soldiers to the Indian National Army to quell the british invaders.
Now to say that bands of his soldiers, who coudn't have been there in the first place would kill monks of hinduism's daughter religion, buddhism is unreasonable.

Most of the eastern music played in the movie (including the last scene) was Hindu devotional, tibetians dont have much of their own music , just some tribal clamour.Unjustified use in a Buddhist-centric movie.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] willbob247 19 years ago

1. in 1943 the brits were almost beaten. they were spread to thin. this is why it was such a big deal when USA entered the war in 44. I'm not saying this is why there were no brits there I'm just saying it's a possibility.

2. swastika is sacred in hinduism but the aryans are from the balkans not india.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nemesis302 19 years ago

1941.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RickWalkerHome 10 years ago

1. in 1943 the brits were almost beaten. they were spread to thin. this is why it was such a big deal when USA entered the war in 44.

Wrong but keep believing your hollywood history were America always save the day bahahaha. Maybe learn some actual history before spouting your *beep* to the rest of the world?

[–] overeast 19 years ago

there are more flaws than that

1) what was the point of protecting the scroll? if you destroy it than no one becomes invincible, problem solved.

2) how can someone fall on electric wires and live, but when a statue falls on him die?

3) why did the Nazi dude become young again? if it had something to do with the scroll wouldn't he of needed to know the whole thing?

i liked Bulletproof Monk but those things bugged me

[–] Deathwombat 19 years ago

Bork bork bork bork

Keep church and government separate. They do enough damage by themselves.

[–] HentaiGuy42 17 years ago

1) Because, one day, we might be ready for it's power...seeing as how it's possible to make heaven on earth.

2) Because the wires just electricuted him...when the statue fell on him a large piece of the framework was driven through his chest...plus the statue probably weighed well over a ton.

3) Because it was in the script...my guess is that it was the same power that allowed the guardians to stay young, and the guardians (in theory) shouldn't have read the scroll either...although how the Monk managed to transcribe the scroll and memorize the last verse without reading it is beyond me.

[–] Kakkaraun 19 years ago

Actually, the Nazi symbol is a REVERSED swastika. Pay attention.

[–] GreatSageEqualingHeaven 19 years ago

Swastika
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The swastika (卐) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles either clockwise or anticlockwise. It is traditionally oriented so that a main line is horizontal, though it is occasionally rotated at forty-five degrees, and the Hindu version is often decorated with a dot in each quadrant; the un-dotted version is considered more formal in Hinduism.

A swastika can be either way round and therefore can't be reversed

[–] tehdancewhore 19 years ago

And where in the movie did it say it was a true story... =P

[–] NiaSyn 19 years ago

This movie had a story?

[–] tehdancewhore 19 years ago

Somewhere..

[–] masschaos 19 years ago

This illustrates why foreigners shouldn't watch fantastical American movies if a.) You can't separate fiction from fact,some American movies aren't meant to be tee totally real, let some documentaries do the "realism" part, and
b) You simply have no sense of humor.
I for one appreciate the respite from reality when I go watch a movie... reality tends to get on my nerves.

I'm no scientist, but those mice were a different color - Lieutinant Colonel Shepard

[–] GreyHunter 19 years ago

Bwah! That's hilarious! In 1943, the Germans were still going pretty much anywhere they wanted, including not only British territory, but Britain itself...unless you've forgotten the Blitz. And if you've ever been to Tibet, you'd see that parading around without being challenged wouldn't be particularly difficult -- it's mountainous and often difficult to traverse, which means a small group could slip in pretty easily and the military couldn't possibly keep an eye on everything, especially given that Britain was fighting for its very existence at the time and lacked resources after years of back-breaking war.

The Nazis were not exactly known for consistency. Remember the non-aggression pact with Stalin that got broken as soon as Hitler felt the itch? Remember the Arabs who were left high-and-dry whenever it became convenient for the Nazis to turn against their erstwhile enemies? Their ideology allowed them to make alliances of convenience...but it's ridiculous to believe that the Nazi's creed of the racial ubermensch required any other ultimate goal than the destruction/enslavement of all other ethnic/racial groups...including the Indians and Tibetans. Incidentally, those were Chinese ethnic stock, not Indian.

Oh, and Buddhists/Hindus are no more compatible than Christian/Jewish, i.e. their belief systems have parallels, but the differences are far larger than the similarities. Modern India actually has terrorist conflicts between Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Christians, much in the same vein as the IRA vs the Protestants. There's no reason the Hindus would make much of a protest, especially given Germany's habit of the time of making certain other countries knew they were in charge and would enforce it at gunpoint.

[–] Murdock-12 19 years ago

Good point. Except the blitz ended in May 1941. By 1943 the British (with American help by this stage) were winning the war - Montgomery had already beaten the Germans in Egypt and the British were pushing them back into their own territory (they'd completely pushed them out of Africa by May 1943). The Germans were also suffering heavily at the hands of the Russians in Stalingrad, in what was probably the turning point of the war. There were no air raids on London at all after May 1941 as the Germans were too tied up fighting the Russians. So by 1943 the Germans definitely couldn't go "pretty much anywhere they wanted". In fact, by September 1943 they'd lose Italy to the Allies and then they were very much on the back foot.

Still, good film.

[–] GreyHunter 19 years ago

All true (as far as I can tell without bothering to Google the end of the North African campaign.) I was too general in my assertions. I was speaking in terms of trends, I think, where Germany had pretty much had its way with Europe and parts of Asia almost until that point. But you're right -- by 1943, they were falling back. That doesn't preclude them sending small expeditions into places not directly in war zones -- the British were still too preoccupied with the European front to be putting up major military defenses of areas not strategically-important, especially with the war still being fought on two fronts by some of the Allies. And Germany (or at least its proxies, which amounts to the same thing) was still maintaining some presence in places like the Middle East and the Balkans.

But good movie, yes. Surprisingly entertaining despite the danger that it would turn into a "Odd couple/buddy movie" sort.

[–] Colonel_Grammar 18 years ago

Very good. Articulate and to the point. If only more people made the effort.

[–] dippy_in_dc_1 18 years ago

The German Navy was smacked down hard in early and mid-1943, losing most of their U-boats and then losing the Tirpitz in Norway. Following Northern Africa’s fall, the British pushed for an invasion of Sicily and then Italy in order to divert German forces down south of the excellent German east-west communications lines (roads and railroads), so as to first divert pressure from the Russian front and keep them distracted and unable to extricate quickly when they did invade Europe on a new Western front. With the capitulation of Italy in late 1943, the Germans had to divert major forces from Russia to Italy and the Balkans to keep control in place of the former Italian divisions and to wait for an invasion across the Mediterranean Sea to anywhere along the coast. Despite the Americans trying to sabotage their efforts, the British still managed to do a pretty good job of “distracting” the Germans, who had to increase their forces in Southern Europe from 18 divisions in July 1943 to 49 divisions in November 1943, and 2/3rds of the German Luftwaffe was taken from Russia and spread all over Europe. Also, the British RAF was laying waste to industrial cities in Germany by Fall, but then started to divert to try to take out V-1 and V-2 launch sites being built on the French coast.

The Middle East was sitting peacefully, with two British armies keeping watch in case the Russians lost hold and Germans started pouring south. Had to be pretty safe since Roosevelt and Churchill went to Cairo near the end of 1943, and then they went on to Teheran to meet with Stalin. Roosevelt especially wouldn’t go anywhere where there was risk (initial planning was that he wouldn’t go farther from the USA than Cairo).

The British had forces in Bengal and Burma and all, but were resisting American efforts to push them into starting another offensive through Burma into China for the dual reasons that US Admiral King had been continually siphoning 12/13ths of the landing craft into the Pacific (despite repeated agreements between US and GB that Germany was the primary and first target), would not be contributing any to the SE Asia theater (wanted to siphon them from Med, but Italy was so slow and bloody due to Americans siphoning landing craft up to Great Britain to sit idle for 9 months before that invasion), and the British figured out that Chiang Kai-Shek and his aides didn’t have a clue how to fight a modern war, and so any effort spent in that direction would be at best useless.

There were no Germans in Indian Ocean/SE Asia anywhere near this time (excepting a commerce raider whose name escapes me but did not land any troops anywhere), as that was the Japanese sphere. The only way the Germans could get out of Europe was by air (not likely as Russians and British had them surrounded in depth so there was no place to refuel) or by cramped submarine.

(happen to have the commentaried diaries of the British Chief of Imperial General Staff with me now, which also includes comparative diary entries from Goebbels and other Axis leaders)

Steve

[–] zhaozilong79 18 years ago

So you mean there are story flaws BESIDE the whole "magic scroll" thing then?

Well done

[–] summerlovin07 18 years ago

omfg it's a movie for goodness sakes.

[–] Deathwombat 18 years ago

Borl borl borl

What exactly is an evil giraffe?

[–] wikkidragon 18 years ago

"there are more flaws than that

1) what was the point of protecting the scroll? if you destroy it than no one becomes invincible, problem solved.

2) how can someone fall on electric wires and live, but when a statue falls on him die?

3) why did the Nazi dude become young again? if it had something to do with the scroll wouldn't he of needed to know the whole thing?

i liked Bulletproof Monk but those things bugged me"

Ok, I would like to answer your questions.

1) I do not know the answer of that one, but maybe if the scroll is destroyed, the four elements are destroyed, hence the destruction of humans? Maybe. I'm just guessing. xD

2) Well he could've fallen on the electrical wires and have been weakened and then the statue finished him off.

3) He became younger because he used part of the scroll, but he didn't gain the ultimate powers because he didn't use all of it. But he did get younger, and stronger.

Hope that helps. ^^

[–] claudiu-oana 18 years ago

the scroll was protected for the future times when the humankind will be ready to use it for doing right things.
is said in the begining of the movie that for now it should not yet be used by anyone.

[–] sameness 18 years ago

2) how can someone fall on electric wires and live, but when a statue falls on him die?

The statue had metal rods sticking out of it which went through his body and pinned him to the floor

[–] ted-337 18 years ago

An evil giraffe is a giant furry creature that runs around on the tops of hills on one leg! With a goatee but resembles a haggis.

Wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka! mmmm haggis.