MovieChat Forums > The Karate Kid Part III (1989) Discussion > The demonizing of John Kreese.

The demonizing of John Kreese.


Anyone watching Karate Kid or Cobra Kai will tell you the bad guy isn't Johnny or Daniel but John Kreese, right?
Wrong!
Let's look at Kreese prior to the All Valley in 1984.
A decorated war hero and successful karate coach. His Cobra Kai dojo has had a lot of success at the local All Valley tournament over the years. His classes seem to be full, so despite his hard ass manner students appreciate and respect him.
One day a bunch of his top students come in sporting injuries. They tell him they were jumped by an adult. Said adult then turns up to the class and Kreese acts like anyone would in that situation. When Miyagi gives a different account saying it was 5 on to 1 (Daniel) Kreese offers to make sure it's one to one. when Miyagi says too much advantage to his student as it is his dojo, Kreese agrees and asks where Miyagi would like his student to fight. He then agrees to the All Valley challenge. He then goes on to agree to stop his students hassling Daniel until the tournament. In fact he couldn't have been any more accommodating.
Then come tournament day all of a sudden he says 'Out of commission' to Bobby. He wants the opponent injured so he can't fight in the final despite Bobby believing he can beat him.
Now that has never sat right with me. Here is a guy, who whether or not you like him, is a man of principal and honour. He might well be a hard ass but he is trying to make these kids the best they can be by pushing them beyond their limits. Then all of a sudden it's 'Out of commission'.
What follows after is KK2 in the parking lot and KK3 with the whole revenge plot, but it was that moment and that alone (for me) which made that character arc. As I said, going by Kreese prior to that moment, it never felt right. If anything that part should never have happened and at the end of Karate Kid it should have been Kreese saying to Johnny 'Go and shake his hand'.

Thoughts anyone?

reply

But Kreese never told Bobby to do anything wrong... he merely told him to take Whinielle "out of commission" i.e. remove him from the tournament competition by beating him.

reply

We both know that's not true. Bobby even says he can beat him and Kreese replies 'I don't want him beaten. Out of commission'.
My point though is that up until that point Kreese is reasonable and agrees to all Miyagis demands. The movie then goes out of its' way to make him the bad guy rather than Johnny and the gang. My thought on the matter is why? That is the question now answer that without your fantasizing or fuck the fuck off.

reply

If you curse on this forum one more time your friend Sam Gerard will report you.

Kreese said he wanted Whinielle beaten and beaten so decisively (taken out of commission) so that he would leave the tournament humiliated and with his tail between his legs.

reply

No. He said he didn't want him beaten he wanted him out of commission. Now stop arguing about this because it's clear what he means.
Stay on point.

reply

"Out of commission" means taken out of the tournament decisively by getting beaten badly.

Can you not understand english?

reply

you obviously can't take part in a serious debate as you are too biased and don't understand basic English. Consider your future responses on this matter ignored. That includes your other account too.

reply

Question for you WA..although I'm sure you'll dodge it: If at one of your tournaments you witnessed an instructor tell his student to take his opponent "out of commission" what would you do?

reply

You want an answer to that question then make a thread about it. I'll answer it on that thread. Now stay on point.

reply

It's clear he meant physical harm anyone who understands basic English would catch his what he meant the first time.

reply

Bobby also said he'd be disqualified if he did it. So it was clear to him as well that Kreese was playing dirty. It's too bad they cut the part from the original script where Bobby takes off his belt and throws it at Kreese's feet.

I'm pretty sure Kreese realized the same thing Miyagi did. The Cobra's were starting to respect Daniel and he couldn't let that happen:

reply

Exactly.
To say he meant otherwise is pure fantasy

reply

"We both know that's not true. Bobby even says he can beat him and Kreese replies 'I don't want him beaten. Out of commission'."

Kreese didn't want Daniel beaten illegally to a pulp, which ended up happening. "Out of commission" meant he wanted him out of the tournament via an honorable defeat. Bobby just misinterpreted Kreese's instructions.

reply

I absolutely agree! Didn't make sense to me either...I always found it surprising how Kreese initially seemed to have a sense of fair play and appeared to respect Miyagi, but unexpectedly showed a much darker side of his character at the very end. At first he didn't think much of Daniel, as he probably regarded him as a weakling who would never become a skillful karate practitioner, so it's somewhat odd that instead of admiring how far Daniel had progressed by the time of the 1984 All Valley Tournament (in part due to his students' bullying indirectly encouraging LaRusso to be serious about karate), he wanted him injured rather than seeing him win the title and then offering him to join the Cobra Kai.



reply

For me, if the first movie had ended with Kreese telling Johnny to shake Daniels hand then KK2 could have stayed the same to complete Miyagi and Daniels stories and KK3 could have been about Johnny. Because going back to the All Valley with Daniel was just a rehash of the first movie.

reply

Yes, this could have certainly been a possibility. On the bright side, we got to see compelling new characters like Silver and Barnes etch their names into the Karate Kid folklore.



reply

Silver didn't make much sense to me overall. Barnes even less so.
When you look at what Silver does and why, initially it seems valid that he would do what he did. When you think about it though it all seems a bit much. Daniel won a competition. A situation Kreese agreed to. When you look at Kreese and his 6 months of not having a new student through the doors you have to think where the hell was Silver then? So to suspend his multi million dollar business dealings to deal with a kid and an elderly man seems laughable and unbelievable.
Then we have Barnes. He's the Bad Boy of Karate not an assassin for hire. Yet this 17 year old kid travels (from wherever ) to California unaccompanied to seal a deal with a billionaire (and stop at his mansion ala Michael Jackson style) to terrorize and beat on a kid who he has no crib with.
We can understand Johnny's problem whether we agree or not.
We can understand Chozen's problems.
Barnes makes no real sense for a 17 year old.
Moving on to Barnes cohorts we have the main dickhead in Snake, who let's be honest is just a poor mans (rich mans I suppose when you consider Terry Silvers wealth) Dutch.
The movie is basically a poor rehash of the first.

reply

It does look like a rather far-fetched scenario, especially in real life. To play devil's advocate, it's likely that Silver was not strapped for time and being a somewhat eccentric billionaire, decided to embark upon a new type of "adventure" while at the same time doing his friend's bidding. However, it's somewhat odd that Silver didn't eventually change his mind about the whole scheme due to developing an attachment to his student, as Daniel was nice and polite to him, perhaps even starting to view him as a mentor figure.
It's never explicitly stated in the movie, but Barnes may have been an emancipated minor. I think that he didn't really hate Daniel or have a personal issue with him...it was more a case of Barnes being competitive to the extreme (always giving his best when fighting) and also being concerned that if Daniel doesn't show up at the tournament, then he won't receive the reward from Silver, as specified in the contract. While I think that Snake and Dennis were successful in providing further comic relief, they were indeed far from being in Dutch's (and Tommy's) category when it came to the intimidation factor.



reply

Have you finally cracked being around THEM for so long?

reply

It took a while to realize it wasn't 'THEM' but 'HIM' but yeah, cracked it.

reply

Kreese was a pillar of the community, He deserved a statue.

reply

Because in the USA they erect statues to adults who strangle their students in a car lot.
Oh hang, they don't do they?

reply

He was a karate sensei. It was part of his training. As an instructor yourself, have you never held one of your students in a headlock?

reply

He was a karate sensei. It was part of his training. As an instructor yourself, have you never held one of your students in a headlock?

reply

Except it wasn't part of his training was it?

reply

Kreese was showing him a new move that might help sharpen his skills for future tournaments. We later see Johnny using the same technique on Miguel in Cobra Kai. Miyagi rudely interrupted his lesson (not for the first time) and created a scene. The crooks on the All Valley board should have banned him.

reply

You really do view this through rose tinted glasses don't you?
You see here I was thinking you're just a dickhead when in fact you are mentally ill.
I don't dislike you, I feel sorry for you. You must be really lonely.

reply

Johnny passed on his knowledge about countering a chokehold to Miguel, who used it during his rumble in the cafeteria. Kreese’s wisdom served generations of Cobra Kai.

reply

It must have been so lonely sat in that cellar. Then one day while eating cheetoes and perusing the internet you came across the online Cobra Kai and joined in. For a few years you felt part of something. You felt comradeship. But it all ended and once again you were alone. Moviechat gave you a brief glimmer of hope but sadly none of your online buddies really came back beyond fleeting appearances. So, alone and in the dark you invented your alter ego cruisin109 hoping that anyone seeing there were at least two online Kai it would grow. This, unfortunately for you, hasn't happened.
It's time to come out of that cellar and in to the light.

reply

Lol. Didn’t you openly admit to creating a fake account?

reply

Yes. I ADMITTED TO IT!
It's not too late to get help. I'm here if you need me FrogClarke.

reply

You’re accusing other people of the very crimes you are guilty of committing. Trump-like behaviour.

reply

GET HELP....PLEASE!

reply

"..man of principal".

So a school principal owns this man somehow?

I refuse to believe anyone could confuse 'principle' with 'principal'.. completely different words.

reply

Yet you knew what I meant.

reply

Another grammar error by WA.

reply

Another post stalking by NRC123/cruisin109/Chris882cats

reply

Uh... Because it plays into the story. Miyagi's comment about 'no bad students, only bad teachers' wasn't just thrown haphazardly into thw script.

reply

Yes we have that comment, but as I said in my OP Kreese is accommodating and fair right up until the semi final. The script (for me) makes a poor job of making him the bad guy.

reply

"Now that has never sat right with me. Here is a guy, who whether or not you like him, is a man of principal and honour."

Kreese was never depicted as a man of honor; quite the opposite in fact. Right from the get-go he was teaching his students to be violent criminals. "Strike first" = assault and battery (which is a crime), and "finish him" = hitting someone when they are already down, which is far from an honorable tactic. Additionally he issued a threat of violence (which is a crime) to Daniel and Mr. Miyagi, saying that if they didn't show up at the tournament it would be "open season" on them.

"Out of commission" was perfectly in-character for Kreese.

reply

Striking first when you feel threatened is neither a crime nor dishonourable. He wasn't teaching his students to go out and be violent...they (Johnny and co) chose to do that. When they got their comeuppance at the hands of Miyagi they turned up for training all bruised etc and told him they'd been jumped by an adult. Kreese obviously believed them.
As I said in my OP, Kreese agreed to every one of Miyagis requests, even telling the boys to leave Daniel alone to train.
Up until the 'Out of commission' comment there is nothing to suggest he advocates cheating (or whatever label you want to put on that comment). He simply comes across as a typical military trained Karate-ka or a hard ass if you like.
I'm not usually the one defending Kreese but that particular thing just never sat right with me. Still doesn't really.

reply

"Striking first when you feel threatened is neither a crime nor dishonourable."

"When you feel threatened"? Tell me where that can be found in the movie. If your feeling of being threatened is justified, then you can act in self defense, but that's up to the court to decide on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't matter though, because Kreese never added the "when you feel threatened" qualifier, and his students struck first more than once in the movie without there being any threat to their life or limb.

"He wasn't teaching his students to go out and be violent..."

Yes, he was. "Strike first, strike hard, no mercy". There is no "if you feel threatened" in there. Also, the "no mercy" part negates any implication of "if you feel threatened", because you can't show mercy unless you have someone at your mercy, and it's impossible to have someone at your mercy and legitimately feel threatened by them at the same time; those two things are mutually exclusive. He also said:

We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy.


"As I said in my OP, Kreese agreed to every one of Miyagis requests, even telling the boys to leave Daniel alone to train."

And he followed that up with a threat of violence, which is a crime; two crimes actually, since he threatened two people.

"Up until the 'Out of commission' comment there is nothing to suggest he advocates cheating (or whatever label you want to put on that comment)."

It is plainly shown that he advocates hitting people when they are down and the point has already been scored, which would be cheating in a tournament.

reply

When you feel threatened"? Tell me where that can be found in the movie.

Who said it was in the movie? You said "Strike first" = assault and battery (which is a crime),....It doesn't.

"As I said in my OP, Kreese agreed to every one of Miyagis requests, even telling the boys to leave Daniel alone to train."

And he followed that up with a threat of violence, which is a crime; two crimes actually, since he threatened two people.

He said it was open season on both of them. One of which an adult who allegedly attacked and beat up his students. Violence had already occurred and maybe thre police should have been involved at this point to decide whether or not Miyagi was legally right to do what he did eh?

'because Kreese never added the "when you feel threatened" qualifier, and his students struck first more than once in the movie without there being any threat to their life or limb.

No, but he did say (and this is your quote) A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy.

Confronts!

As for his students striking first in the movie many times, again where is it in the movie that he tells his students to go out as a gang and pick on people? This is their doing and not his instruction.

It is plainly shown that he advocates hitting people when they are down and the point has already been scored, which would be cheating in a tournament.

In a tournament it would not be classed as cheating. An infringement of the rules at worst, and then only if the referee had shouted Yame (the instruction to stop fighting and return to starting position. Where are you getting your information from?

Like I said, It never sat right with ME. You are entitled to your own opinion on this.



reply

"Who said it was in the movie? You said "Strike first" = assault and battery (which is a crime),....It doesn't."

Yes, it does. If you "strike first", period, that's assault and battery. You can't refute that by adding a qualifier ("when you feel threatened") that's not even in the movie, because "strike first when you feel threatened" is not the same thing as simply "strike first".

"He said it was open season on both of them."

I already said that, and that's a threat of violence, which is a crime.

"One of which an adult who allegedly attacked and beat up his students."

So? That doesn't make it legal to threaten someone with violence.

"Violence had already occurred and maybe thre police should have been involved at this point to decide whether or not Miyagi was legally right to do what he did eh?"

That's irrelevant, obviously, as it has no bearing on the fact that Kreese's threats of violence were crimes. And not that it matters, but Miyagi acted in defense of Daniel and himself, and never "struck first".

"No, but he did say (and this is your quote) A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy. Confronts!"

What of it? A confrontation isn't necessarily threatening/violent. For example, Daniel confronted Johnny over the radio incident on the beach, but there was no threat of violence from Daniel; he was simply opposed to what Johnny was doing (which was criminal behavior, i.e., destruction of someone else's property). Then Johnny, following his teachings, simply "struck first" by pushing him to the ground (another crime).

"As for his students striking first in the movie many times, again where is it in the movie that he tells his students to go out as a gang and pick on people? This is their doing and not his instruction."

Is that a joke? His threat to Mr. Miyagi and Daniel was that if they didn't show up at the tournament then it would be "open season" on them. That goes beyond telling them to merely "pick on" people, he's telling them to violently attack people for no reason other than them not showing up at a tournament, which obviously isn't legal justification for violently attacking someone.

"In a tournament it would not be classed as cheating. An infringement of the rules at worst"

Is that another joke? Infringement of the rules is what "cheating" means, obviously.

"and then only if the referee had shouted Yame (the instruction to stop fighting and return to starting position. Where are you getting your information from?"

Don't be ridiculous. In the dojo scene, the point had already been scored, the kid was down on the mat, and the kid who scored the point had already gone back to his starting position and was just standing there. Then, following Kreese's order, he walked over while the other kid was down on the mat and hit him again. If those exact events played out in a legitimate tournament, it would obviously be cheating, i.e., an infringement of the rules.

Long before the "out of commission" scene we see that Kreese has no respect for the type of laws that are meant to protect people from violent thugs (which is the most important type of laws that we have, because if you don't have laws protecting you from being wantonly maimed or killed, then what good are any other laws?), since he breaks the law when he threatens Daniel and Mr. Miyagi with violence, so why do you think it's out of character for him to have no respect for mere tournament rules either?

reply

Yes, it does. If you "strike first", period, that's assault and battery. You can't refute that by adding a qualifier ("when you feel threatened") that's not even in the movie, because "strike first when you feel threatened" is not the same thing as simply "strike first".
Already answered.
I already said that, and that's a threat of violence, which is a crime.
He never actually threatens violence
So? That doesn't make it legal to threaten someone with violence.
See above answer.
That's irrelevant, obviously, as it has no bearing on the fact that Kreese's threats of violence were crimes. And not that it matters, but Miyagi acted in defense of Daniel and himself, and never "struck first".
already said Kreese never actually threatens violence. As for Miyagi acting in self defence, we the audience know that but how does Kreese?
What of it? A confrontation isn't necessarily threatening/violent. For example, Daniel confronted Johnny over the radio incident on the beach, but there was no threat of violence from Daniel; he was simply opposed to what Johnny was doing (which was criminal behavior, i.e., destruction of someone else's property). Then Johnny, following his teachings, simply "struck first" by pushing him to the ground (another crime).
Again, Kreese didn't tell his students to bully anyone. That was all on Johnny and his jealousy.
Is that a joke? His threat to Mr. Miyagi and Daniel was that if they didn't show up at the tournament then it would be "open season" on them. That goes beyond telling them to merely "pick on" people, he's telling them to violently attack people for no reason other than them not showing up at a tournament, which obviously isn't legal justification for violently attacking someone.
No. He's saying Miyagi will answer for attacking his students.
Is that another joke? Infringement of the rules is what "cheating" means, obviously
No. Wearing an earring is an infringement of the rules, is that cheating?

reply

Don't be ridiculous. In the dojo scene, the point had already been scored, the kid was down on the mat, and the kid who scored the point had already gone back to his starting position and was just standing there. Then, following Kreese's order, he walked over while the other kid was down on the mat and hit him again. If those exact events played out in a legitimate tournament, it would obviously be cheating, i.e., an infringement of the rules.
Again, not cheating. Excessive contact yes. Something the referee would deal with if it happened in a tournament.

Long before the "out of commission" scene we see that Kreese has no respect for the type of laws that are meant to protect people from violent thugs (which is the most important type of laws that we have, because if you don't have laws protecting you from being wantonly maimed or killed, then what good are any other laws?), since he breaks the law when he threatens Daniel and Mr. Miyagi with violence, so why do you think it's out of character for him to have no respect for mere tournament rules either?

No we don't. What we see is Kreese putting the welfare of his students before others.

reply

"Already answered."

False, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted.

"He never actually threatens violence"

Saying that it will be "open season" on someone is a threat of violence, and your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

"See above answer."

See above.

"already said Kreese never actually threatens violence."

Which is a bald-faced lie.

"As for Miyagi acting in self defence, we the audience know that but how does Kreese?"

As I said, it doesn't matter, because Kreese's two threats of violence were crimes either way.

"Again, Kreese didn't tell his students to bully anyone. That was all on Johnny and his jealousy."

Johnny "struck first" when confronted by Daniel, which is in accordance with Kreese's teachings.

"No. He's saying Miyagi will answer for attacking his students."

"Open season" is a hunting term. When it's open season on e.g., deer, that's when you're legally allowed to kill them. Saying that it will be "open season" on a person if they don't do such and such, is a blatant threat of violence; technically, it's a death threat.

"No. Wearing an earring is an infringement of the rules, is that cheating?"

Intentionally violating the rules of a competition is cheating. Someone violating the rules, even if it seems like an innocuous violation, is, at the very least, a distraction to the other competitors.

"Again, not cheating. Excessive contact yes. Something the referee would deal with if it happened in a tournament."

Yes, it is cheating, and you're contradicting yourself. You indicated earlier that the "out of commission" thing was cheating, and now, according to your new "logic" (born of intellectual dishonesty), what Kreese told Bobby to do, and what Bobby did, wasn't cheating, it was just an "infringement of the rules".

"No we don't. What we see is Kreese putting the welfare of his students before others."

Your laughable attempt throughout this post to redefine the term "open season" is dismissed.

reply

False, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted.

Ah, waiting for that one. I answered, so your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

Which is a bald-faced lie.

Except it isn't. as I said he never actually threatens harm.

As I said, it doesn't matter, because Kreese's two threats of violence were crimes either way.

Oh it doesn't matter? Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

Johnny "struck first" when confronted by Daniel, which is in accordance with Kreese's teachings

No. That's putting Johnnys bullying solely on Kreese. Non sequitur noted.

"Open season" is a hunting term. When it's open season on e.g., deer, that's when you're legally allowed to kill them. Saying that it will be "open season" on a person if they don't do such and such, is a blatant threat of violence; technically, it's a death threat.

Now you are reaching...noted.

Intentionally violating the rules of a competition is cheating. Someone violating the rules, even if it seems like an innocuous violation, is, at the very least, a distraction to the other competitors.

Okay, you don't understand the rules. Your tacit concession is noted.

Yes, it is cheating, and you're contradicting yourself. You indicated earlier that the "out of commission" thing was cheating, and now, according to your new "logic" (born of intellectual dishonesty), what Kreese told Bobby to do, and what Bobby did, wasn't cheating, it was just an "infringement of the rules".

My logic is neither new nor dishonest.

Again your tacit concession is noted.

Your laughable attempt throughout this post to redefine the term "open season" is dismissed.

And your laughable attempt throughout this post to prove what you are saying is dismissed.


reply

"Ah, waiting for that one. I answered"

No, you didn't. You couldn't have possibly "already answered" something I hadn't typed yet. Your tacit concession regarding the following...

If you "strike first", period, that's assault and battery. You can't refute that by adding a qualifier ("when you feel threatened") that's not even in the movie, because "strike first when you feel threatened" is not the same thing as simply "strike first".


... remains noted.

"so your intellectual dishonesty is noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do.

"Except it isn't. as I said he never actually threatens harm."

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted as well.

"Oh it doesn't matter?"

Obviously not, and I told you why, twice.

"Your intellectual dishonesty is noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part II.

"No. That's putting Johnnys bullying solely on Kreese."

No, it isn't. Johnny is responsible for his own actions. That doesn't change the fact that what he did was in accordance with Kreese's teachings.

"Non sequitur noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part III.

"Now you are reaching...noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted as well.

"Okay, you don't understand the rules."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted as well.

"Your tacit concession is noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part IV.

"My logic is neither new nor dishonest."

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed, and since you have no argument, your tacit concession on that matter is noted as well.

"Again your tacit concession is noted."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part V.

"And your laughable attempt throughout this post to prove what you are saying is dismissed."

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part VI.

Since there wasn't a single argument in your entire post, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted. If your next reply contains no arguments you're going on ignore. I don't allow people who have resorted to pathetic, intellectually dishonest "tactics" to continue to clutter up my inbox with pure foolishness.

reply

Your tacit concession is noted

reply

"Your tacit concession is noted"

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, monkey see, monkey do: part VII.

Since you still have no arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted, and you're now on ignore.

reply

Your tacit concession is noted

reply