Author: Amo

Fist of Legend (1994) remakes Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury (1972) and sequences from this movie inspired other movies. For example, the early fight sequence in the dojo inspired The Matrix’s training sequence between Neo and Morpheus.

I don’t intend this article to be a review of Fist of Legend (1994), but I do wish to explore this one on one fight sequence which I think is the best one on one fight sequence in the movie.

The fight sequence in question is Jet Li vs. Yasuaki Kurata

So what’s the score? Kurata plays Fuimo Funakoshi a Japanese fighter who also is the Uncle to Li’s Japanese girlfriend Mitsuko Yamada. In this fight, Fuimo has been ordered by a ruthless Japanese General Fujita (also known as “Supreme Killer”) to enter into a fight and kill Jet Li’s character Chen Zhen.

Fuimo is thoughtful, and doesn’t like being ordered around by Fujita. He suspects Fujita represents a new breed of Japanese soldier who talk of honour and the warrior spirit; but only use it for political gamesman ship and reluctantly agrees to the order.

What I like about this fight is how Fumio almost immediately breaks Jet Li’s rhythm by “warming up”. By the time Jet is ready to fight, he’s almost bored until Fumio launches an all out attack.

It’s the storytelling in this fight sequence that I enjoy so much.

Whether it’s Fumio’s chat with Li during the fight, or how he learns to adapt and leans into this adaptability as the fight continues.

The dialogue post-fight shows Kurata’s character’s wisdom and understanding of hand-to-hand combat, as well as his great respect for Chen Zhen and his master, it gave a lot more depth to the fight itself.

Although depending on what version you are watching, Kurata explains that a gun will always beat a person regardless of how skilled they are; or if you watch a different version Kurata explains that if you learn to become adaptable then you can become unbeatable.

For me, there’s a lot to learn from this sequence and this dialog.

The trouble is, in high stressful situations, it can be easy to forget and sometimes hard to execute on.

So long as we can move one step forward, that is good enough.

Gamification isn’t just play—it’s a creative, fun tool to tackle challenges, drive innovation, and reframes how to consider strategy in the water sector.

I like playing strategy games.

In June 2024 I wrote on LinkedIn about how I attended the Northumbrian Water Innovation Festival and participated in a gamification activity around the water industry and how this inspired me to create a serious game prototype that could help the water industry gamify strategy.

Read my Linkedin article: How serious play can help the water industry plan for the future

The idea was to have players make active, strategic decisions about whether they should prioritise on water demand or innovation initiatives.

The first prototype

This prototype took a lot of the ideas from the original version, and captured it into game mechanics using tracks, repairing old infrastructure, addressing climate issues. There was a lot going on.

Sometimes, less is more

Having play-tested the game, I realised it is too unwieldy.

So, much like a sculptor, I decided to cut away; and focused it only on 3 core aspects:

1. Fulfilling water demand efficiently (Operations)
2. Balancing the books (Finance)
3. Tackling climate change through innovation (R&D)

How does it work?

The game is played over a serious of rounds and players work co-operatively to move water from the reservoir to customers homes in an efficiency puzzle where the nodes of the water system are represented by D4 dice, and represent water throughput.

Customers will pay for supplied water and the players can use the income to focus on near-term threats or invest in R&D for climate change issues that will impact customers in future rounds of the game.

Decisions made in the game will impact consumer trust, shareholder trust, income and climate (which can only be slowed down).

But what about sewage?

Sewage in the sea is a serious concern, and I wanted to try to model this; so players are placed in the situation of whether they should deal with sewage through legal and illegal spills as per this article on the BBC news website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-62631320

What happens now?

I’m calling on UK water companies – Northumbrian Water and others – to dive into a unique opportunity. Let’s walk through a round or two of this water industry game prototype and learn how I might improve the game to reflect real world issues and explore the role analog gamification can play in shaping strategy.

This isn’t just about playing a game; it’s about uncovering insights, solving real challenges, and thinking differently about the future of water management.

If you are in the water industry and want to learn more, DM me and lets see what we can do.

By the way, a printable version will be published online in the coming months, so stay tuned!

---

Are you seeking innovative ways to tackle your business challenges?

Could your business benefit from modelling scenarios through engaging, analog gamification strategies?

If this sparks your interest, I’d love to explore how we can apply gamification to create impactful solutions across industries.

Let’s connect on Linkedin or DM me and let’s start a conversation!

I think I must have been in my early teens when I first saw Jackie Chan’s Armour of God (1986). I vividly remember picking it up from the video store with my father. This was at a time when we used to go to the video store every week to rent out another martial arts action movie.

One week it was Bruce Lee, another week it would be another martial arts movie. I seem to remember the fortnight or so before we rented out Armour of God I was getting a bit bored of watching Bruce Lee knock off movies or some crazy martial arts movie where the plot didn’t really make sense or the characters were so one dimension and flat that it sucked all fun out of the movie.

That was until I saw Armour of God. I was really impressed me. I seem to recall rewinding the movie at least 3-4 times to watch the movie again. It made such an impression on me I would end up buying the VHS movie, tried to learn a little Cantonese (which I wasn’t very good at).

So, I decided recently to rewatch it. Purely out of nostalgia for a time long since gone.

Nostalgia is the major reason why I like this movie. Even, on reflection, if it isn’t on the par of his other movies.

The movie is a nod and a wink to the Indiana Jones movies with Chan’s own spin. Chan plays a modern Indian Jones character “Asian hawk” who steals artefacts, principally to sell them at auctions.

In this movie, he steals one of the pieces known as the Armour of God; except he gets targeted by an evil cult who intends to blackmail Asian Hawk into bringing together all five pieces so that they (the evil cult) can destroy them. They intend to blackmail Hawk through kidnapping Rosamund Kwan’s character Lorelei (Laura).

The film starts incredibly briskly. Within a few set pieces we see Asian Hawk steal one item, then we cut to the evil Cult discussing how to blackmail Asian Hawk, then we cut to a really fast-paced sequence set at a fashion show where Rosamund Kwan gets targeted and kidnapped by Monks armed with Kalashnikovs storming the catwalk; positing a level of danger that I don’t think we see from the rest of the movie.

Along for the ride is Asian canto-pop star Alan Tam who is mostly a comedy side-kick and his character is part of a love triangle story angle which drives some tension between Alan and Chan’s characters; though whether he is a good substitute for fellow action stars Sammo Hung or Yuen Biao is up for discussion. I feel he is ok.

Regardless of the questions about his fit with Chan, I find a deep nostalgia for the songs that Alan Tam brought to this movie. Whether it’s the cantonese version of “A friend with mine”, the impactful rock song “Midnight rider” or “Lorelei” — it brings back memories of a different time; it’s something I don’t think any of his other movies did.

Action sequences in this movie are a plenty. The opening sequence with the strange cult, the car chase through the streets of Croatia, the fight sequences with the monks and the final fight sequence with the four Amazon women.

Of course, most movie reviewers will know – Armour of God is the film that came closest to killing Jackie Chan. As seen in post-credit sequence, Jackie performs a stunt where he grabs and holds a branch; except it breaks and he ends up in hospital and severe injury to his head; and according to an interview he did some years back with Jonathan Ross, he still has suffers from to this day.

The fight sequences are really good. The multi-man fight sequence with the monks is peak Chan. There was a period of time where he was known for this multi-man fight sequences, and I even remember this sequence even made the documentary “Cinema of Vengeance” (1994).

And of course the fight sequence with the four Amazon women. Whilst its clear that most of the women are replaced with Chan’s stuntmen, the sequence is still funny, fast and a little bit dangerous to Chan; who doesn’t quite know (at first) how to fight women who constantly aim at his crotch.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Cynthia Rothrock was picked to be the final boss; I still wonder to this day what that would have been like.

Looking back on the movie, I find some sequences are a bit odd and perhaps don’t connect with a Western audience. The sequence with the “Losers” band won’t make sense to a Western audience, its only when you find out it was a parody of a band in the 70s, then it makes sense. Other sequences are also odd. Why is Hawk given bitter, rotten cheese by Alan Tam; and he doesn’t like it.

A final stunt sequence I had odds with was Chan’s jump onto to an awaiting hot air balloon. Chan starts at a mountain side, then suddenly the film cuts with him being hundreds of miles up. It doesn’t really work.

Although that part where he jumps into the balloon paired up with the Lorelei music really adds weight.

Strangely, I remember getting annoyed at one of the Police Academy movies (it was probably 5) where one of the heroes jumps onto a hot air balloon and performs almost exactly the same stunt as in Armour of God. I guess Chan’s impact in America although not mainstream, was generating some interest.

So, does Chan’s Armour of God live up to expectations? I think the early part and late part certainly do, the fast introduction of the who-what-where and geography is really fast.

The stunts are good, and the fight sequences are effective. Whilst some plot points don’t make sense, and maybe it slows down too much and maybe it never ventures back into the danger heights that the fashion show gets to, and perhaps part of it just don’t make sense to a Western audience; and yet, it still has its charm.

I think overall, I enjoy Armour of God for what it is; and for me, its about nostalgia.

7/10

I recently got asked “what is the most original idea you’ve got?”

I found it quite hard to answer.

Looking back, I wish I asked “can you please define original ideas”; or “what are the metrics we are looking at?”

I didn’t. I wish I did though.

Here is why I think it’s really hard to answer.

• You need to know what the goalposts are.

• It’s a perfect information problem.
• Innovation should favour customer needs.
• The market only cares about perceived value.

Knowing where the goalposts are

It’s hard to know what is original without knowing what the objective criteria is for an original idea are.

Is it IP?

Is it being first to market?

Is it being in a blue ocean? (IE: blue ocean strategy)

Is it original because you never heard of it?

Is it original because it’s the only one of its kind. Such as a work of art?

Is it something nobody has ever tried?

How would you even know if nobody has ever tried it anyway, wouldn’t you have to have access to all human knowledge, ever?

This is a perfect information problem.

The perfect information problem

I don’t know what ideas you have already tried.

I don’t know what ideas you have discarded.

I don’t know what ideas you didn’t follow up, on or ran out of budget pursuing.

I don’t know what idea sits in someone’s drawer, a notebook, or on a post-it note somewhere.

It is a black box, a collection of unknown unknowns.

Even with all the data, with a criteria; we as innovators must remember that innovation processes and co-design will often favour customer needs, even at the expense of being “original”.

Innovation should favour customer needs

Innovation should start with customer needs. Leading with empathy, to generate ideas and pick solutions to test our ideas with customers.

Regardless of your chosen method; all innovation methods will have a select or filter stage.

For example, the method of “dot voting” is a selection.

Another example is testing the idea with customers; where insights drive the next iterative cycle of your innovation pipeline.

This iterative cycle is actively seeking a “market fit”

Usually this “market fit” will based upon the feasibility, desirability, viability Venn diagram.

The bottom line is that selection stage will often filter out ideas, even “original” ideas; this is because customer needs matter more than whether its original.

The market only cares about perceived value

The market only cares about perceived value from the lens of a customer.

To establish value, we can refer to the value proposition canvas;

Jobs to be done

In the jobs to be done (JTBD) section, we list out all the jobs a customer wants to do.

Pain points, Pain relievers and Gain creators

On the value proposition canvas we look at pain points, pain relievers, products and services to create gain creators.

Buying decisions are based on value

It’s customer’s perception of value that informs a customer’s buying decisions.

As innovators we validate value through testing products and services with customers; and through iterative innovation processes.

It is this iterative process that will filters ideas, even the “original ones”; in favour of solutions that actively solve the customer’s problems.

Summary

Meaningful innovation comes from co-designing with stakeholders, with customers; to actively filter, select products apply gained insights from iterative processes into products, services that actively aim to solve customer’s jobs and pain points.

This might mean your idea isn’t original or new; but it does solve a customer problem. And as a final point, if the solution does fit need and your lucky enough to hit product market fit, and it hits scale (mass market) to a point where customers are actively seeking out, begging for your product or solution – what does it matter if the idea was original or not?

Because, ultimately it is the market and customers that will decide whether your original idea matters or not.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

What about your thoughts on this subject?

What was the last original thought you had?

What made it original?