anyone else think they cheated at end?
They lit the bricks on fire which obviously softened them up a bit. They cheated and no one objected! Also, the commentators nor the crowd seemed stunned that the bricks were on fire.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Sidekicks (1993) Discussion > anyone else think they cheated at end?
[deleted]
Well ... I may not be a fire expert, but wasn't it the lighter fluid that was on fire, not the bricks? Once it burned off, the fire would have been gone. I mean a brick can't catch fire itself unless it was soaked in some flammable solution, not simply sprayed a little. And I would think they would have to burn awhile in a REALLY hot fire before they softened.
But still, I agree ... no one questioned him lighting the fire, or even said "whoa, you can't light a fire in here" ??
JP
The Nostalgia Critic pointed out that lighting them on fire might not be the best idea. Mr. Lee says it will help him concentrate but Barry is already nervous; so is lighting the things on fire really going to make the situation LESS tense?
share"Breaking, we choose Breaking!!"
Never rub another man's rhubarb hehehe
I'm still trying to figure out why Mr. Lee carries a can of lighter fluid around with him...
shareI'm still trying to figure out two things:
1) What kind of BS scoring system is in place when you can come in 1st for 3 out of 4 events, and still be tied with someone else.
2) Once tied, why would the team that wins the coin flip be forced to choose who from their team will compete in the (unknown) tiebreaker event, while the losing team gets to actually pick that specific event, and then by default have their best competitor from that event(who trained in this event for the competition) compete against the person chosen from the other team? In what world does winning this coin flip give you an advantage? You lost the coin flip, but you get to see who the other team is selecting, then you get to pick the event? That's a huge advantage.
Also, i'm a big nerd and figured out the answer to my first question. I went onto youtube to be sure I had the order correct for my second statement. Anyways, they show the scoreboard, and both teams had 36 points. so we got two realistic options for how they could tie. Option 1, 3rd place isn't worth anything, so 1st is 12 pnts, and 2nd is 8 pnts. Option 2, 1st 2nd and 3rd are all worth 9 pnts each... that's it, any other way for them to tie would involve non-whole numbers for 1st and and 2nd... and i'm not talking about .25, .50, or .75 of a point. I'm talking 1/3, 2/3, 1/9, 4/9. So option 1 seems plausible, until you notice the scoreboard also shows teams with 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 pnts. Which means 3rd place is going to be worth less then 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.
I'm still trying to figure out two things:
1) What kind of BS scoring system is in place when you can come in 1st for 3 out of 4 events, and still be tied with someone else.
2) Once tied, why would the team that wins the coin flip be forced to choose who from their team will compete in the (unknown) tiebreaker event, while the losing team gets to actually pick that specific event, and then by default have their best competitor from that event(who trained in this event for the competition) compete against the person chosen from the other team? In what world does winning this coin flip give you an advantage? You lost the coin flip, but you get to see who the other team is selecting, then you get to pick the event? That's a huge advantage.
Me too. The scoring made no sense whatsoever.
And the OT rule makes no sense. The winning team gets to only pick their competitor, but then the losing team NOT only picks their competitor (or the winning team doesn't get to pick them) AND CHOOSE THE EVENT.
But yeah, when he lit the bricks on fire at the end that was sort of cheating, although the bricks would have to get pretty hot before they could melt. Also keep in mind that this movie takes place years before 9/11/2001, so no one would think about an old man carrying lighter fluid and matches on him.
"Be excellent to each other...And....Party on!" share
AWESOME!!!! I think you're the only other person in the whole world who noticed the ridiculous scoring, and found it worthwhile to actually mention.
shareThe point system flaw was ridiculous. 3 wins and a second trumps 3 seconds and a first. You would think unless they gave different points for different events. After the ladies kata they show the board and they're not done posting the points. They have 10 for first 6 and 4 and 2, with no score for the frying dragons finishing. Which makes me think of what I know from other competitions like that. They are 10,8,6,4,2,1. With that in mind the frying dragons would have 38 points and stone karate would have 34. There's a chance they didn't give a 6th score of one but no matter. Other thinking could be there were more points in each additional event which would've made it even less close as the frying dragons would've had more. The bs tie and the point about who gets to choose first should have been event. I was hoping to see the two of them fight because that's what the movie built towards anyway. Getting to pick the event as the loser was an obvious bs advantage. My other sort of what were they thinking is Cellini breaks the record with 8 bricks, mako breaks that record breaking 9 right? So at the end, Cellini acts like a high jumper or pole vaulter and opts to skip 8 and go for 9. The announcer wrongfully says Cellini is going for a record 9 brick break. Instead of saying a record tying break. Than Barry could have opted to do 8 and beat Cellini the same way as if someone high jumped 6' and the next person did 5'10" and opted to skip 6' and fails to clear 6'2". The person who played it safe doesn't even have to jump 6'2" unless he/she was earlier in the order but nonetheless the 6' clearing wins unless that person clears 6'2". So, Barry could've had the option of doing 8 and would not have to do 9. If he didn't break what they were supposed to do is count the broken bricks. If they both broke 8 let's say, they'd still be tied in the film makers flawed point counting.
share