MovieChat Forums > Tracer
Tracer (29)
Posts
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.
View all replies >