MovieChat Forums > Tracer > Replies
Tracer's Replies
I agree with this too.
*Edit: I think I know what you meant now about Kreese making the mistake. Maybe instead of '81, he meant '82. This would mean that Johnny won in '81 and '83, Vidal in '82, Daniel in '84 and '85. That would be consistent with saying that Daniel was the only back to back and that Johnny did indeed win twice. Now, I am still not sure if the show refers to Daniel as the only back to back or the only two time winner. Either way, something is wrong here (and from people who have done way more research than I have, on the wiki, it says Johnny won '82 and '83.)
I think you are agreeing with me that the show and the first movie are conflicting and so is the karate kid iii
Yes, in the original movie, the first karate kid, Johnny is referred to as the two time defending champion.
Therefore, based on the first movie, he won twice.
Johnny won twice and Daniel won twice based on the actual dialogue heard and the events shown, with conflicting dialogue from the third movie. He wasn't the only back to back champion because Johnny did it as well because somewhere I think it says that Vidal won in '81. I think Kreese says Vidal won in '81.
Cobra Kai has messed up other details regarding what was said in the movies about the past tournaments. One being that in the first movie, Bobby was the runner-up to Johnny in the '83 tournament. The announcer says this in the movie.
In the Cobra Kai show, I believe they say that Tommy was actually the runner-up and that Bobby ended up in third place.
So there are discrepancies between what was said/shown in the movies and the show. Which of course, isn't a major deal, but the fact is that Daniel isn't as special if Johnny in fact won back to back as well.
The Karate Kid wiki even supports this idea. It doesn't mention Cobra Kai messing up that Daniel is the only two time champ, but does verify that Johnny won twice using the information gathered from both the show and the movies.
Could also be that karate kid iii messed up too. I mean, it's already ridiculous that Daniel is out of high school, in December, participating in an under 18 tournament. Not to mention Barnes had to be over 18 considering he's for hire and just end up living with Terry Silver. People in the karate realm would know he's over 18 too.
Who knows what's going on with the writers over there, you are right, it is already messed up by the third film so who cares if the writers don't follow it exactly
Is that what is said, that Daniel was the only back to back champion?
Because in the first movie, the statement is just that Johnny is the two-time defending champion. There is no indication that Johnny lost in-between his wins.
I did some more investigating...yes, I am bored...and it seems that there is some information suggesting that Vidal won in '81 over Johnny, leaving Johnny to win in '82 and '83. This makes Johnny also a back to back champion.
https://thekaratekid.fandom.com/wiki/Darryl_Vidal#Season_3
I think it was just an error in the show, if in fact, they do say that Daniel was the only one like I thought they did.
At the tournament in the first movie, the announcer says that Johnny is the two-time champion.
Yes. But Daniel is college age in 1985 as per dialogue in the third movie as well as him being able to open up a shop and not having to attend high school classes. This would make his age being 16 inaccurate.
It's just an oversight after the first movie. Could be explained that he's a young high school graduate, 17. Doesn't really explain Barnes being able to participate though. Retroactively, we could say that Terry Silver helped bend the rules to get him allowed to fight, or even faked it.
I think the writers were thinking of a different state, like NJ (where Daniel is from). Driving age is 17 there.
Mike Barnes throws a wrench into this because he's most likely not under 18. Silver is corrupt, so he could have gotten Barnes in, but I think we are giving too much credit to the story. I don't think the writers were planning on people analyzing this movie... But it's fun to do so.
Look at my previous reply. He's college age in part iii
In part iii, he uses his college money for opening up the shop. The dialogue in a few scenes is about him not going to college and taking classes later.
This has been argued before and has nothing to do with why I and many people hated it.
Hated because of the style of humor, some terrible characters, and some other silly stuff regarding the overall plot.
Yeah, I might have had ideas of where I would like the story to go, or at least expected it to go (can't blame me, it was set up a certain way previously). But the other issues took me out of the movie before anything "subverted" my expectations.
I mentioned that about Barnes in the op. It doesn't make sense.
If I remember correctly, in Karate Kid II, you see Miyagi's first name written in kanji(or some other japanese characters). When translated, it's Nariyoshi.
The Next Karate Kid and the cartoon did not go with this and actually gave him two different full names. This show went with the second movie's name.
Edit: Miyagi Yakuna in the cartoon.
Having just watched all three movies, the only mention of hitting the face being illegal is in part 3. So, that aspect of the argument only makes sense if taking all three movies as canon, which the show does. But that still doesn't explain why all the hits to the face are legal in the first film.
I'm guessing the best way to explain it would be that in the first film, hits to the face are legal, but all moves must be controlled. In the third movie, new rules, such as the sudden death in the finals were added... This includes no hitting of the face.
Therefore, if the crane kick is illegal, it is because it was an uncontrolled move. Hitting the face didn't become illegal until the following tournament.
Nothing is really explained well in the movies, even the shows creators said so.. It's all a matter of perspective I guess.
This would make sense.
Punching faces would be illegal. Kicking is legal. But uncontrolled moves are illegal. The argument then is that the crane kick is uncontrolled.
So that would be Johnny's argument, not the hitting of the face (as some online postings have suggested).
I don't understand why the crane kick would be considered uncontrolled though. Yes, it is a hard kick, but it was made harder by Johnny's advance. I'll chalk it up to judgement call.
There was no son. The records were falsified to make it seem like there was one, but there wasn't.
K believes he is the son, but it is revealed that the was only the daughter.
The idea of the son exists only to throw anyone searching for the kid, K, and the audience off on who the child really is.
I didn't hear that about the length of the episodes for season 8,that would be great
Which is why he is so great.. He's a great villain (even though he kind of just showed up in the story in both the show and books)
He explains it in an early episode of season 1.
He was smaller than most boys and grew up in a place called The Fingers... Littlefinger. He jokes that it is a "clever" name.
At least that's how I remember it.. Haven't seen the episode or read the book in a while
Haha...
1. Claire Danes was not better than Linda Hamilton. Claire Danes was depicted as a heroine. She wasn't a macho heroine like Linda Hamilton's character was in T2, but she was still a heroine with a different story arc. Her acting was bland, she was a character just thrown into the movie because they didn't have the original girl back, and she is not as memorable as Sarah Connor.
I am supposed to care about this random girl? I don't care about her. In T1, you grow to care about Sarah because she is an innocent girl being tracked by this machine and her only protection is this possibly psychotic human from the future. She is pretty vulnerable. In T2, she is now a stronger person who can handle her own. You pretty much care for her because of T1 and you want to see her do some damage.
But this new girl? I am supposed to care because John marries her in the future? From the moment of her first conflict, she has a terminator with her. She is pretty protected and I never felt like she was in danger. She is a reminder that Linda Hamilton as Sarah is just better.
2. Furlong was terrible and yes, I give that a pass. I fully understand that it is hard to get kids to act convincingly. Sure some have done it, but most aren't that great. His voice cracking? Sorry, but that is just puberty and out of his control...so i guess, realistic? You rip on his hairstyle as if kids didn't have hair like that in the early 90s at all...
3. Linda Hamilton made the character fun. It doesn't have to be depicted realistically, just grounded in a plausible reality (as much as it can be in a movie with killer robots). So they made her into a parody of a "strong woman" as you say...the movie is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not a representation of real life.
The fact is that even with the problem of T2, is a generally a more well liked movie that any of the other Terminators. I prefer T1 over them all, but T2 is still one of the greatest action movies
I don't get it either...i didn't even think it was a question
T3 is good, but the movie is so inferior to T2 in many ways
T3 relies too heavily on CGI scenes which don't look realistic, a villain which is not as jaw dropping (she's hot to many men, but we have seen her type of character before), killed off the main heroine in a passing mention of a disease,
T2 had better practical effects and CGI that was used still holds up today (since it mainly used it for the T-1000), speaking of the T-1000 - the villain was better as it was the first time we had seen such a character on screen and I would argue, had more of an impact on audiences and used his morphing often and more effectively, and Linda Hamilton was a way better and more convincing heroine than Claire Danes
the only argument i see against T2 is Edward Furlong's acting, but I usually give children a pass since most can't act
while these are my opinions....i just assumed they were facts :) because T2 was such a masterpiece that many action movies are still compared to it as a point of reference
I get what you are saying. I don't know much about Ryan Gosling, don't really watch his movies. I do think that we haven't seen much from this trailer though. We have about 2 minutes of screen time, with a good portion focused on Leto and action scenes. It is too early to tell how Gosling is going to portray the character, but I am in hopes for a good enough performance.