Talk:The Karate Kid, Part III
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
Possible POV problem
The criticism section seems very one sided and also seems to use a lot of "weasel words" like "many thought that..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Fair use rationale for Image:Karate kid part III.jpg
Image:Karate kid part III.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Bye Plot Hole
According to this article, the tourney bye given to the reigning champ is an obvious plot hole. But the film very prominently explains it as a new rule. Even if it's a flimsy excuse, this article seems to ignore the fact the one-match-only rule is explained, and doesn't disagree with the original film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I just finished watching the movie and the announcer clearly states over the PA that the reigning champion only needs to fight in the final match; that this is a new rule. The article should be worded differently. --Noxia (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I will also add, having partipated in many karate tournaments, that it is not that unusual for the previous year's grand champion to be given an automatic spot in the grand championship the next year. That would be somewhat difficult to explain in the context of the movie, and it comes off as a bit of a deus ex machina, but it is not an atrocious plot hole. Likewise the scoring and losing of points is not as outrageous as the article suggests. Many tournaments allow repeated fouls before even considering disqualification, even with the outrageous behavior. It is unusual, but not completely impossible. What is truly absurd in both this and the first movie is a bunch of kids under 18 competing without any protective gear, particularly mouthpieces and helmets, but also food and handguards, and allowing such extreme contact. I would really like to know where they got insurance for that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed plot section, and removed most of the reception section because (as pointed out earlier on the page, albeit 20 months ago) it was 90% weasel words and point of view statements sourced from mostly user reviews on yout run-of-the-mill movie fan site.
Still, the article could use a ton of work. With the proper sources, a lot of interesting info about this film could go right back up. Also, the few legitimate citations on this article need some proper formatting. Saw this on hulu last night - it's a guilty pleasure of mine from the 80s, so hope it gets in good shape soon. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Please, do not re-insert the poorly written and lengthy critical section that has been claimed to all come from "legitimate" sources. imdb is not a reliable source (it can be edited by anyone) and epinion and fanedit are by no means the platform of notable critics, but rather the musings of mere fans (key words: opinion! edit!). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Article still needs vast amount of work. Currently appears to be a highly detailed plot summary and little else. - 65536 —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
Bill Conti's musical addition
Modified sentence describing technique Daniel used to win
The technique Daniel used to make the final blow after the takedown was not a punch, but a strike. A palm strike to be specific.If you you notice, before the takedown and palm strike, Daniel was performing the kata that he and Mr. Miyagi practice throughout the movie.. . while performing the kata, they never performed the kata with closed hands; their hands were always opened. The final movement of the kata starts off with Daniel's left arm is raised above his head with his fingers opened and held as an open-handed strike and not a close-handed punch.
Looks like someone changed my edit from "a strike" to "a punch". I will change it back to "strike". Also, the throw wasn't an "over-the-shoulder throw". If it was an over-the-shoulder throw, than Mike would have been actually touching Daniel, but he wasn't. There was a definite space between Mike and Daniel. If someone disagrees with me, I would definitely like to discuss the change and the entire technique in general.
Robert Mark Kamen interview on Karate Kid Part 3
- http://web.archive.org/web/20121012012524/http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/197469-not-a-sequel-robert-mark-kamen-on-taken-2-bloodsport-and-karate-kid?start=1 - http://www.webcitation.org/6OJEz1dzR
Development or production
The Reception section currently ends with a comment beginning with, "Kamen was so disgusted with the way Daniel LaRusso (Macchio's character) was altered from his portrayal in the script to his portrayal in The Karate Kid, Part III that he refused to involve himself in The Next Karate Kid, [...]" It may be useful to include either a Development or a Production section which might elaborate on the context of this statement. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)