Originally posted by h1a8
That was the claim I meant from the beginning. Didn't know people did it with water in them? That was new to me.They were empty because they were prop bottles designed to break for the actor.
If that's your reasoning, that they were empty because they were props, then we can say that Miyagi never really broke them because that was visual effects.
Originally posted by FrothByteMy point was that they were empty In reality. But we can disregard reality if the shown intentions of the writer were different.
If that's your reasoning, that they were empty because they were props, then we can say that Miyagi never really broke them because that was visual effects.
Miyagi was intended to break the bottles as part of the story. The bottles were not intended to be filled (because both they weren't and they weren't evidenced to be).
In other words, We were not shown that the bottles were intended to be filled. In reality, the intention was that they were empty since, normally, a beer is fully drank before opening a fresh one. So if you see drunks drinking beer with multiple bottles on a car then you should know they are empty. This is common sense. To argue otherwise is to argue against the most probable case in favor of something not intended by the writers.
Originally posted by h1a8
My point was that they were empty In reality. But we can disregard reality if the shown intentions of the writer were different.Miyagi was intended to break the bottles as part of the story. The bottles were not intended to be filled (because both they weren't and they weren't evidenced to be).
In other words, We were not shown that the bottles were intended to be filled. In reality, the intention was that they were empty since, normally, a beer is fully drank before opening a fresh one. So if you see drunks drinking beer with multiple bottles on a car then you should know they are empty. This is common sense. To argue otherwise is to argue against the most probable case in favor of something not intended by the writers.
In other words, you have no concrete proof. Just a whole bunch of theories. Miyagi was meant to break the bottles. I agree with that. Whether they were empty or not is unprovable. All we can really say for certain is that Miyagi can break bottles. That's it. And we've also proven that martial artists of the real world can replicate this feat.
Now those are facts. No suppositions, no theories, just hard facts. Miyagi is not superhuman. He's a skilled martial artist but his feat of breaking bottles is easily replicated by other martial artists.
Originally posted by FrothByte
In other words, you have no concrete proof. Just a whole bunch of theories. Miyagi was meant to break the bottles. I agree with that. Whether they were empty or not is unprovable. All we can really say for certain is that Miyagi can break bottles. That's it. And we've also proven that martial artists of the real world can replicate this feat.Now those are facts. No suppositions, no theories, just hard facts. Miyagi is not superhuman. He's a skilled martial artist but his feat of breaking bottles is easily replicated by other martial artists.
This is fiction. There are no theories. If a writer didn't give evidence towards something existing then it simply doesn't. To say it does is called making shit up.
Originally posted by h1a8
This is fiction. There are no theories. If a writer didn't give evidence towards something existing then it simply doesn't. To say it does is called making shit up.
here peebrain...
actual martial artists breaking bottles.. i can also post the real inspiration for miyagi as well
Originally posted by BruceSkywalkerYou are the biggest idiot in the world. We been debating about breaking EMPTY BOTTLES FOR MANY PAGES. Those videos were posted a long time ago. Keep up dude.
here peebrain...actual martial artists breaking bottles.. i can also post the real inspiration for miyagi as well
Note: the first video doesn't have him even breaking the top of the bottles, but the entire bottles.
Originally posted by h1a8
This is fiction. There are no theories. If a writer didn't give evidence towards something existing then it simply doesn't. To say it does is called making shit up.
Correct. And the writer clearly did not specify whether the bottles were empty or not. Which means you insisting they were empty is called "making shit up".
Originally posted by FrothByteBut the bottles were actually empty due to them being prop bottles. Therefore they are empty in the story unless the writer intends for them not to be (by giving evidence). If the writer doesn't portray empty bottles as filled bottles then they are simply not filled.
Correct. And the writer clearly did not specify whether the bottles were empty or not. Which means you insisting they were empty is called "making shit up".
Finally,
It's understood that the bottles were empty because the men drunk them to open up new bottles to drink. No one opens a beer and drinks a little and then opens a new bottle and continues this pattern.
You are just arguing just to not be wrong and because you don't like the feat.
Originally posted by h1a8
But the bottles were actually empty due to them being prop bottles. Therefore they are empty in the story unless the writer intends for them not to be (by giving evidence). If the writer doesn't portray empty bottles as filled bottles then they are simply not filled.Finally,
It's understood that the bottles were empty because the men drunk them to open up new bottles to drink. No one opens a beer and drinks a little and then opens a new bottle and continues this pattern.You are just arguing just to not be wrong and because you don't like the feat.
If you're going to use the logic that they were empty because they were "prop bottles", then we can say Miyagi never broke them because that was just vfx.
Writer's intent was that Miyagi was shown to break bottles, writer's intent did not include whether those bottles were empty or not.
In fact, you're the only one making such a big deal of whether the bottles were empty or not. Everybody else here acknowledges that Miyagi broke beer bottles and acknowledges that this isn't a superhuman feat.
You have zero proof that they were empty. Zero proof that that were not empty. Therefor all we know is that they were beer bottles. Now just shut up and admit that Miyagi did a good feat but was nowhere near superhuman.
Originally posted by h1a8
But the bottles were actually empty due to them being prop bottles. Therefore they are empty in the story unless the writer intends for them not to be (by giving evidence). If the writer doesn't portray empty bottles as filled bottles then they are simply not filled.Finally,
It's understood that the bottles were empty because the men drunk them to open up new bottles to drink. No one opens a beer and drinks a little and then opens a new bottle and continues this pattern.You are just arguing just to not be wrong and because you don't like the feat.
Originally posted by FrothByte
If you're going to use the logic that they were empty because they were "prop bottles", then we can say Miyagi never broke them because that was just vfx.Writer's intent was that Miyagi was shown to break bottles, writer's intent did not include whether those bottles were empty or not.
In fact, you're the only one making such a big deal of whether the bottles were empty or not. Everybody else here acknowledges that Miyagi broke beer bottles and acknowledges that this isn't a superhuman feat.
You have zero proof that they were empty. Zero proof that that were not empty. Therefor all we know is that they were beer bottles. Now just shut up and admit that Miyagi did a good feat but was nowhere near superhuman.
Agreed.
Originally posted by FrothByte
To H1, I'm not sure why you're quoting yourself. Quoting something stupid doesn't magically make it not stupid, it just makes it doubly stupid.
I quoted myself because you ignored the entire post. No need to post anything new since you haven't addressed what I posted in detail. In other words, I caught you trolling.
Originally posted by h1a8
I quoted myself because you ignored the entire post. No need to post anything new since you haven't addressed what I posted in detail. In other words, I caught you trolling.
You must be blind then. I made quite a lengthy reply right underneath your post. A reply that addressed all your points. Now if you want to snob my response and claim that I didn't address your points, then I guess it's not me who's trolling.