MovieChat Forums > daveyh > Replies
daveyh's Replies
I never thought about that before. I guess he came across as a chancer and a bit of a freeloader - maybe he charmed or blagged his way into getting huge tabs at these places, or had someone else picking up the bill.
To answer the last question, the actual timeline of the show takes place in less than 2 years.
Season 1 covers the academic year 2017-18 (although there's a sudden jump from just after halloween to just before the tournament in May!)
Season 2 covers the summer of 2018
Season 3 the autumn of 2018, ending with the Christmas Special
Season 4 winter & spring of 2019
Season 5 summer of 2019
Problem is the younger actors - the kid who plays Anthony Larusso in particular - have quite visibly aged by a lot more than 18 months during the filming. They've sometimes changed appearance significantly in the time between seasons too, even though they're supposed to follow on immediately. Miguel looks different in Season 4, there's no way Brooks' hair could have grown that long in a few months etc - that said Eli's original Hawk hair was about a foot longer than his natural hair at the time!
Anyway, if the main older kids were about to go into junior year at the start of the show then that's right - although it means the show's writers have missed out on them deciding which college to go to, pressure of final exams on top of the upcoming tournament etc during Season 4.
If it carries on much longer (and I hope it doesn't) they'll have to work the pandemic in to the storyline.
I hope they do stop it there because the start of Season 5 had a "jump the shark" feel about it, between Miguel's Mexico trip and Silver the supervillian. They ended it nicely though - those last 3 episodes had enough shout-outs to the first 2 series to suggest that it was a finale for the entire show - showing Robbie and Sam in sync on that water platform, Eli referencing Kyler's earlier bullying and the fact that he seems to be the only one who hasn't moved on or grown etc, and as the OP says, even Kyler and co seem to turn their backs on Cobra Kai at the end.
Other things that made it feel very final - we also saw Amanda, who'd previously been opposed to Daniel's quest to shut down CK, especially when things turned violent, now fully support him and was even there at the final fight.
Even the Kreese/Silver flashback scenes had brought us more or less to the beginning of the first Karate Kid story, so much so that they'd have been better off de-aging Kove again rather than using the younger actors.
There's only Freddy Fernandez that I can think of who hasn't come back and it wouldn't be worth another entire series just for that cameo.
As for Kreese, for me that was yet another throwback reference, showing him faking his death once again - what a perfect way to end it.
Another parallel -
In (1), Solozzo makes an attempt on Vito after meeting resistance to his plans in the drug trade, whereas the next in line, Sonny, would in theory be more co-operative (hot for his deal etc)
In (2), Roth makes an attempt on Michael after meeting resistance to his dealings in Cuba, whereas the next in line, Fredo, would be more co-operative (no 'in theory' needed this time!)
Both attempts fail
And even if they'd succeeded, both attempts would have backfired
In (1), Sonny would never have gone in to business with the guy who killed his father - why would anyone?! The all out war Sonny escalates is, I imagine, pretty much what would have happened had Vito died in 1945.
And in (2), can you really see Fredo being made Don?! Granted, Michael would have been dead and so couldn't formally put Tom or anyone else in charge, but Fredo taking over would have seen all Michael's muscle and business and legal support walk away, or the Corleone family crumble to the point where their fully supporting Roth's business would have meant nothing.
best explanation I've heard - sort of like the bank robbery at the beginning of Dark Knight.
3 guys on the hit squad, one of them kills the other 2 and either gets out (using inside-info of the compound from Fredo) or does a good job of hiding (or maybe Fredo hides him?!) until it's safe to leave - once Michael's men find the 2 bodies, they'll stop looking for anyone else.
Having rewatched last night, you don't hear any further gunshots after the attempt, and the dead men look like they've had their throats cut. So definitely not Fredo.
One interesting thing I hadn't noticed before though was Fredo's wife (Deanna?) is the one who "discovers" the bodies and starts screaming "Mike, they're dead. They're right outside my room". What if this was a diversion while Fredo helped hide or smuggle out the 3rd assassin?
That said, when Michael's talking to Tom and says that they wont be found alive and that there's been a betrayal, Tom starts saying "you don't think Rocco or Neri...?" and Michael says that they're only connected to him by business so why not.
So he clearly suspected anyone but Tom (and ironically Fredo and Connie by extension!).
I got two units in front, three behind
I'll be right back. Just leave her running.
....entered, escaped, in under 3 minutes
crazy co-incidence, it's actually said in Sea of Love by Michael Rooker, who's also in LA Takedown, the template for this movie! There's probably a wolf of wall st connection somewhere too
Re Gordon's hockey career, I think it would have worked better if it just turned out he didn't do all that great at the minor league tryouts and went back to being a lawyer before being approached by Hans/Jan re the goodwill games - it would mean the film isn't starting on such a downer, and also make Gordon (and the audience) feel better about not pursuing a hockey career sooner.
As for Charlie's mother, I couldn't help feeling like that must have happened fast if this film only takes place a few months after the first one! Especially given how cautious she was about getting involved and not wanting to disrupt Charlie's life etc In fact it's implied that Charlie didn't get on with her new husband, so this is a complete 180 from her character in the first film.
They could have just had it so that the long distance thing fizzled out and she then stayed single. Actually if the Gordon story had been different at the beginning, it would have fixed some of this story too because they wouldn't need to contrive the skate shop and charlie always being there
Better still, they could have just not made the sequel and left us with the happy ending of the first one! But I guess it was a case of, if they're gonna make one, make it quickly before the kids get too old and too big, and maybe that's why this feels rushed and the story so disjointed at times - ties in with the very interesting thread about there potentially being so many deleted scenes/storylines
Sorry, I mean Ben's story of it happening to him is a lie.
The original story (Bringing Down the House) is true but, as ever, the movie takes so many liberties.
The main difference, as far as my OP goes, is that the protagonist wasn't doing it to get tuition money or a story for Harvard Med School. He was a top MIT graduate, so whatever job he went on to do would pay as good as card counting and then some. So he basically went along for fun.
As long as I don't know the original story in advance (and I didn't in this case), I can usually reconcile the changes Hollywood makes by figuring if they hadn't made a blockbuster movie about it, I wouldn't be looking up the original story in the first place.
I think Ben had him until he summised "I scored the hottest girl in school", and I think that's the reason for the admissions guy's jaw dropped reaction - as if to say "what are you, 15?!", or "are you a top-of-you-class MIT scholar or a caveman"
Between that and Josh Gad and his friend rating girls out of 10, plus the whitewashing, it's fair to say this hasn't aged well.
No, he'd never get caught - he don't LEAVE no witnesses
One interpretation of your question that's not been covered here is - why didn't they lose a few hands on purpose, if they suspected people were on to them etc.
In the book, in addition to the fact that, naturally, they lost overall on some nights/weekends anyway, one of the things they did to avoid detection was for the "big player" to deliberately make a few more bets after the deck had cooled - gives the casino a bit of money back, means they're not seen to be winning every time, and most crucially of all, after losing a few hands, the "big player" will be like "oh, it seems my luck's turned/my streak is over" etc, so it looks like he's not been playing any kind of strategy or counting.
Even before he broke from the system and started gambling, he was already losing that night though - that's why he lost control - was betting big trying to chase the losses.
Sometimes you'll still get unlucky (see also Jill Taylor's story on the subway of the dealer making 21 against all odds and her dad losing a ton of money because of it)
re (3), Ben Affleck would also star with Cole Hauser and Anthony Rapp in Dazed and Confused, with the latter being the outsider again and the others being jocks again.
I guess we've just gotta assume there were several other games that we're not shown.
It's like in every series of Friday Night Lights, they only seem to play one away game during the regular season!
And, while it would be interesting to see how the reaction on the field after his friends turn on him, that homecoming game against St Lukes does seem to have the feel of being the showpiece end to the season.
I'd like to have seen more games too, it would have broken the film up a bit more.
With no family around and very little known about his background, David could pretend to be someone else for senior year.
He was unlikely to see any of his teammates again, and if any of them did bump into him at Harvard and discovered his "secret" then, it wouldn't matter. If Ben Affleck's comments when they're getting ready for the dance are anything to go by, there's a strong Jewish community there so he wouldn't have to hide anything there.
When it came to Sally, though, I'm not sure how he thought that relationship could progress. Maybe he wasn't thinking and was just following his cock.
That whole situation with Dillon and Sally didn't really make sense. Even if we buy that Charlie had deluded himself that they were romantically involved (and from what we're shown of him, that is entirely believable, to be fair!), it doesn't explain why Sally didn't object when he referred to her as "his girl" at the dance (and has possibly done it on numerous other occasions that we're not shown).
Then, later in the film, in their absence, someone mentions David stealing or moving in on Charlie's girl. How would they know? David and Sally had kept their relationship a secret, Dillon was the only one who found out, and given his obsession with his own perfect image, surely he'd have kept that information to himself to save face.
While it's not a plot hole, it's something I wish they'd have tidied up or been clearer on.
I agree with the OP though - David still broke the bro code
maybe he was - we don't know what went on in that dorm room
I find the last few minutes of the film to be really annoying. It's a shame because they did such a great job of following the format of the book (the balloon aside), if they'd just done it for that final scene it would have been amazing.
Basically, cut out all the bits between the fake "out" of Fogg and Auoda agreeing to get married and the guys in the reform club getting ready to celebrate their win. It makes Fogg's arrival seem like a work of magic.
Also in the book, there's a crowd gathered outside the reform club (to see if Fogg makes it), and so the guys inside fear the worst when they hear a commotion outside with a few seconds to go - they'd made it clear throughout the film, with all the newspaper stories and betting, that Fogg's journey was big news, so it's a pity they didn't follow through on this and have a crowd, including journalists, waiting outside the Reform Club to see who'd win.
OK, they'd have to have a bit of exposition at the end - David Niven telling them in the reform club about it, and therefore filling the audience in on the story, would have been enough.
Instead the ending was....well, that. A bad 50's British comedy farce that no-one finds funny even a few years later. Way to ruin an until then brilliant movie.
Glad someone's mentioned this. Even if we can suspend our disbelief enough that someone as meticulous and obsessive about time and accuracy as Fogg wouldn't have known about the international date line and gaining a day, I've always had a problem with him not realising this during the 2nd half of the journey.
You'd think someone on the crew of the Carnatic (think that's the boat he crossed the Pacific on!) would have mentioned it, especially when there are so many time changes during that voyage. And then we're supposed to accept that he never saw a newspaper or something with "today's date" on during the whole time he crossed America, either at the stations or in the New York shipping office or somewhere (you'd think with the election hoo-har he entered in San Francisco, the date would have been shown at least once).
And even if we do accept all that, like you say, the China would have been due to depart on a set date - that he missed it, the only explanation would be that the China left a day early and no-one bothered to mention that, they only told him that it had already gone.
And then he'd have not seen a newspaper or the date anywhere else back in England.
It makes for one of the greatest twists in English literature - it's so good I wish I didn't already know the story when I read the book - but the suspension of disbelief is just too much.