For me it's quite reasonable that if someone creates pseudonym for his artistic work then that's how they want to be called, especially in context of that work. So I was curious if there's some exception to that rule for this specific performer.
I've never seen a major actor act out in the good interest of a black foreigner, inexperienced in film, speaking unoptimal mandarin.
My encounters with him were mainly professional, in the span of 6 months. Hard for me to judge his character in a bad way. He might an overworker who shoulders the image of an entire nation's film industry. But he is success is well-earned. His later alignment with the CCP during the HK protests angered me a bit. But I had my fair share of unfair treatment by the CCP. I know they can be cruel. But Jackie is no bad boy, I swear.
That's why I usually hold my tongue when people praise his work, there's no reason his personal believes should affect people's enjoyment of his work (I'd do the same for people enjoying Orson Scott Card's books, for example). I only bought it up in response to someone else mentioning it.
That said, his weird political stance is not a new thing, and not under duress from the CCP. He had been saying things like "freedom is not good for Chinese people" "Chinese people need to be controlled" since around 2009.
I think it shows something different from that: "the stunt you saw was real". As in: there were no wires, camera tricks, editing, or visual or special effects. Just someone extremely disciplined and good at what they do, trying many times to get it perfect.
I don't think the only thing preventing people who watch his movies thinking they could fight a gang of people using a 10'step ladder [1] is the blooper real..
Lots of people only see BD's demo videos, and not their making-of videos. Or don't have the expertise to interpret those. So each time BD does another demo video, I think of Chan's films, and wonder if BD might do better.