Talk:Kung Fu (1972 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question of Bruce Lee's involvement[edit]

According to the special features on the Kung Fu DVD's, Bruce Lee did not come up with the original idea of the show, or even develop it. He was just one of the actors they looked at for casting Caine. It is also relevent to note that Bruce's name does not appear in the credits. One would think that if he came up with the original idea, he would be credited as such. Can anyone offer any evidence that the show was orginally Bruce Lee's idea?

-Mike Prosser, June 4, 2005

Bruce Lee claimed in his memoirs that he had came up with the idea for the show and pitched it to Warner Brothers. In his version, the studio didn't think an Asian star would get as many ratings and replaced him with David Carradine. The event was dramatized in the movie Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. The studio continues to deny they stole they idea for the show and maintains that Bruce Lee only tried out for the part. Neither side has strong evidence supporting their claims.  :--207.215.78.126 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you found a quotation of Bruce Lee claiming to have created the show, that quote would be relevant. Noit 09:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the documentary "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey, Bruce Lee talks about a show called "The Warrior" and that the studio execs were afraid of casting a chinese man for the role because the white audience would not accept it.
It also is worth noting that the producers have the advantage in the discussion, since Lee is dead and cannot contradict them. I'm not saying that makes Lee's assertion true, only pointing out one aspect of the issue. The article doesn't presently include any comments either from Lee or from his widow as to his claims. It's notable as it continues to be a point of dispute.Lawikitejana 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast mention the allogations. This seems like a major issue concerning the work, and wouldn't make sense to ignore its existance.
--Vehgah (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In The John Kerwin Show, in witch David Carradine was interviewed, it is told that Bruce Lee had nothing to do with the creation of the show. He merely heard of it and himself asked for audition. It is also told that when the script resurfaced, the first thing Jerry Thorpe said was "This is an excuse for hiring David Cerradine" Paivis 213.243.135.38 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither side has strong evidence supporting their claims."
Only Bruce is making claims he cannot prove. 79.106.203.36 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from Carradine and Thorpe don't in themselves make Lee's assertions any less plausible. It's basically a matter of his word against theirs. In any case, Vehgah is right about one thing: the article would be remiss to not give Lee's claim at least a mention. Because Lee's assertion was very public -- finding its way into his own memoirs, documentaries, and an autobiographical film -- the article would be incomplete without a mention of the fact that Lee claimed to create this series; mentioning Lee's claim does not qualify as rumor, as long as we refrain from speculation. Minaker (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no reason not to include Lee's obviously untrue claim. It is well sourced. Dlabtot (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the info about Lee's claims because they were uncited. My concern was not whether lee's claims were true, but if he had made the claims at all. If you can find the source of these rumors definitely add them. Otherwise, we wouldn't want to put words in a dead man's mouth. Noit (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't look at me, I didn't add it. I'm not familiar with the sources so I have no opinion. Minaker said it was sourced in " his own memoirs, documentaries, and an autobiographical film " and I just took his word for it. If you disagree about his characterization of the sources that's between you two. I agree that the truth of the claim is irrelevant to the issue of it's inclusion. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a "citation needed" to the claim, and took out the reference to the movie. The movie is irrelevant and doesn't add to the claim. Also it states in the movie's article that it was based on his wife's book, not Lee's memoirs, and is partially fictional. Now we're back where we were in two years ago right before I took the info out the first time. I hope you find the source of Bruce Lee's "quotes" so it can stay. Noit (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't precise enough; I've read his widow's book, which does make the claim that Lee created the concept behind Kung Fu; I was under the impression that the book was based not just on her memories, but also on his unpublished memoirs, although I could be wrong about this. We already know which autobiographical film I was referring to, but if you say the movie's depiction of the event is irrelevant, I guess you have a point. I don't have a specific page citation; if my memory of the book making the claim counts as original research (honestly not sure if it does, I'll take your word for it either way) then you'd be right to remove the claim entirely. I thought it was important and interesting information, but if the encyclopedic or factual value is in question, I'm not opposed to its removal. My apology if I complicated things. Minaker (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, the sections "Bruce Lee's involvement" and "Ed Spielman's commentary" are WAY over the top for an article about the TV show. A one or two line mention about the controversy is AT MOST all that should be in this article.
I am sure that a separate article about the controversy is justified. It just does not belong in Kung Fu (TV series).
P.S., I notice that the contents of "Ed Spielman's commentary" has been getting cut out routinely. "Bruce Lee's involvement" should also get the axe.Kid Bugs (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't prove it, my step father was a friend of Bruce Lee's, and his brother, back in the '60's. He even has one of his custom made suits. A white suit, with purple velvet inlays to make the pant legs flare. He said that Bruce, his brother and he had discussed the Kung Fu show, and that Bruce had told him that he had written a rough script and pitched it to the two companies in question. He said that they turned him down due to the public's perception of Asian people in leading roles. He lost the script as he thought it was no use pursuing it. A year later, he saw an advertisement for the show, and got upset. this was the same show that he tried to pitch. He called Warner Bros. and they told him that he never copy righted the show, so there was nothing he could do about it. He was also told that he could never come out publicly and say that it was stolen from him without proof, or he'd be sued for defamation. Unfortunately, that's what happens when you don't protect yourself and your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.62.36 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

The link to Chris Potter is incorrect. The actor who played Peter Caine in Kung Fu: The Legend Continues was born in Canada in 1960, not a jazz saxophonist born in 1971. Check out IMDB for details: http://imdb.com/name/nm0693243/

-Sheri Herod, June 29, 2005

The Emporer's nephew[edit]

It should be mentioned that the reason Caine killed the nephew was that nephew shot Master PO.

digitalronin 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian-American actors[edit]

How is there no reference here to the lack of Asian-American actors in the cast (which would have been a little unusual for the time, but younger readers won't know that). Could someone who knows anything about the show add in a paragraph or two? This Guardian piece might be of a little assistance. — OwenBlacker 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was not in reality a lack of Asian-American actors in the cast. The Caine character was half-Chinese, half-American. Considering that neither Bruce Lee nor David Carradine share that heritage, the point seems moot, since other than the half-Chinese lead character all the other Asian characters in the series were played by actors of Asian ethnicity, afaik. Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH Don Johnson as a Native American? (The Spirit Helper) That was lame casting. Dlabtot (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Notable' guest stars[edit]

What is the criteria for inclusion here? The recent additions of Judson Pratt and Don Keefer got me looking at this. It seems to be turning into a list of all guest stars. But that seems inevitable with no set criteria. Harrison Ford, Jodie Foster and Don Johnson certainly seem to qualify as 'famous' guest stars, but Season Hubley? Should we even have this section? I'm not sure there's anything remarkable or notable about a TV series having guest stars, a few of whom were or became famous. I admit I am no fan of lists. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it having been many months, and no one having advanced any justification for including this section, nor any criteria for inclusion, I've deleted it. If you disagree, go ahead and revert me, and let's talk. Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the original story come from?[edit]

It's hard to believe that Hollywood screenwriters came up with the original story. There is so much detail and Taoist philosophy in the pilot movie. Was it based on a book? Was one of the screenwriters a monk? In the on-screen credits of the pilot movie, it says "Story by Ed Spielman". 114.161.79.57 (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the Shaolin is not a Taoist order. Dlabtot (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Buddhist.Toddsschneider (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a connection between the title of this television program, and the 63rd hexagram of the I Ching. I can't be the first to notice the connection. The 63rd hexagram is known by the name "kung fu," (though this depends a little on the way it is transliterated. Most people examining the I Ching, refer to an index where "crossing the river brings luck." This is actually an essential part of the story line where the protagonist crosses the Pacific Ocean to come to North America. Does anybody have a reference suitable for citing, so we can mention this in the main article? 216.99.198.237 (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make that Hexagram #61, not #63. The translation by James Legge translates hexagram #61 as "Kung Fu" (inner truth) - "movement of pigs in a pond is equal to the movement of fish in a pool" while Richard Wilhelm translates it as "Jung Fu" (English) or "Dschung Fu" (innere Wahrheit) (German). They are all, apparently, equivalent to each other. 216.99.201.73 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the I Ching is a Confucian work, not Buddhist.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's Notes Ed Spielman[edit]

Why can't the Writer of the Show be the source for this type of information? Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources per Wikipedia:reliable sources. If this material comes from a published source, it can be cited and included. User:75.51.65.192, where did you get this material? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are Ed Spielman. Wikipedia would not be the proper venue for the initial publishing of this statement. Get interviewed by a trade magazine or newspaper, or publish an op-ed or a book. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. per Wikipedia:no original research. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims and attempts to establish who is right[edit]

I altered a few claims (one in an angle bracket note) about Bruce Lee. Was the idea his? Was he considered for the role? We can't settle these points, but can only include various verifiable reports. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the final 4 episodes[edit]

"Barbary House," "Flight to Orion," "The Brothers Caine," and "Full Circle" are not the final four episodes, there are 3 more after them. 75.88.107.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reception e.g. in UK[edit]

The series created a huge craze for all things kung fu related in the UK - may be worth someone writing something about that (probably re the series' general reception). Ben Finn (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Caine and Master Po.jpg[edit]

The image File:Caine and Master Po.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

In the article, Master Kan is quoted as saying, "Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious and cannot be replaced." The end of the quote is "for all life is precious nor can any be replaced."Dreese1210 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only three seasons[edit]

Please improve this article. It is odd that it says so little about the importance of this TV show in US culture: the relationship with Chinese/Asian influences in general, martial arts etc. And very odd not to include anything about why the original show came to an end after only three seasons despite being very popular.-71.174.185.30 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting topics. Do you have any sources that discuss them, so that they could be added to the article? Dlabtot (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise[edit]

With the launch of the reboot Kung Fu (2021 TV series); it seems it is time to create a franchise article, instead of using this 1972 article as an ersatz franchise article. Kung Fu (media franchise) could be started with a partial copy partial split from this article and expansion. A shorter summary of the follow-ups and sequels would be left behind, that being for the franchise article. The dispute between production and plaigirism with Bruce Lee can be expanded on with content from Warrior (TV series). -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It appears that Warner Bros. has no intention of making Kung Fu a franchise, since the new series is seen as a substitution, and a "righting of the wrong" made by the original one by having a white actor in the leading role. On the other hand, Matthew Polly's Bruce Lee biography has settled the plagiarism question: there was no plagiarism, Kung Fu and Warrior are two different shows.Maykiwi (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this article, about Parodies.[edit]

Regarding the removal of the “In Popular Culture” section, which has this note: (rm WP:TRIVIA, most of it ill-sourced (WP:RS/IMDB etc) or unsourced – fortunately we no longer include this kind of stuff in our articles), my view is, it serves a purpose in the history of this series, and is related to the lack of contemporary reviews.

-Originally, the section had the same title, a few items, without order, and no sources.

-Regarding the sources for it, I am a real-life librarian. I have worked in historical bibliographic research, I have high respect for sources, but this is a 70s TV show. It isn’t the same as history, politics, physics or medicine, which require documentary or peer-reviewed sources. Regarding TV shows before the Internet, there aren’t any contemporary sources other than magazines and newspapers, which either aren’t online, or are behind a paywall. The UCLA Library, which has extensive resources about showbiz, only provides bibliographical service for its members. I can’t go to look for 70s American newspapers; I am a Chilean quarantining in Argentina.

A lesser source is better than no source at all; primary sources, like oral testimonies (and blogs nowadays, like Yoani Sánchez’ one), are increasingly used in the history field when authoritative documented or academically produced sources are absent, especially when just describing or dating events. And, no source is free of error: most of the academic sources used in other parts of this article contain mistakes about the series’ plot. Sometimes it seems that the professors or their research team simply did not watch the series before passing judgment on it.

-The IMDb is not an ill source. It is a professional information company in the entertainment field; its characteristics are described in its own Wikipedia article. Every article I have seen in Wikipedia regarding movies and actors has an IMDb link. If the problem is that IMDb is a collaborative effort by volunteers, Wikipedia is that too, and here we are. If there is a better source for TV shows' episodes' description and casts, please inform. There are uploads from the parodies in YouTube, which is a social network and essentially unstable, yet I have seen it used here and there in Wikipedia for illustration purposes. IMDb is much more permanent, hence, a decent source for a fleeting subject.

Why mention the parodies?

-This series had a great cultural impact in its time. Not every 70s TV series got picked by major comedy shows and satirical magazines for parodies internationally, nor got alluded to in the title and plot of a 21st-century play addressing the issue of anti-Asian racism. IMDb enlists dozens of mentions in many other shows and films, here there were only the most relevant.

I agree that having a section called “In Popular Culture” under a TV show, which is a popular culture subject, constitutes an Ouroboros. However, as explained, this isn’t mere trivia about the show, but a sign of its impact. It is a subject that should be mentioned, possibly after the Critical response. Any better sources you wish to inform? Maykiwi (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if User:Justlettersandnumbers had discussed and explained further why he deleted the "In popular culture" section[1] but his edit summary did say most of what needed to be said: "(rm WP:TRIVIA, most of it ill-sourced (WP:RS/IMDB etc) or unsourced – fortunately we no longer include this kind of stuff in our articles)"
As he said WP:TRIVIA is discouraged. IMDB is not a reliable source, Wikipedia rules and guidelines consistently agree that WP:IMDB should almost never be used. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and (sometimes) holds itself to higher standards that would be acceptable for other publications.
I think deleting the whole section was a little harsh. What some editor think is TRIVIA, other editors recognize as Production details, or in this case as the Legacy and Cultural impact of an important tv show. It is not The Cover of Rolling Stone but being featured on the cover of Mad magazine and Cracked was significant cultural signifier at the time. It might be possible to maybe restore some of that section (maybe a third of it), but it would definitely need work and significantly better sourcing. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Critical response[edit]

I have been writing to film review aggregator websites, libraries, UCLA’s social networks, the producing companies, asking for them. So far, no answers. A member of Metacritic says that if I find them, I have to send them to him as PDFs. So, I’ll write to the magazines and newspapers themselves. If anyone wants to collaborate with the search for reviews, please help by contacting the publications that the aggregators use, and ask the media to send the reviews to the aggregators. They won’t do it spontaneously.

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/publication/reviewed

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/sources

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/legacy_sources

Hopefully, some day the Critical reception section won’t be empty. Meanwhile, I’ll put what is available, which is popular reception. If you know of any online and for free source to find contemporary reviews about this show, please inform. Maykiwi (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, don't waste your time. They are a convenient way to provide an overview of modern shows but frankly they are not important for anything older from before 2000. WP:SOURCEACCESS means that you might be able to reference sources or libraries that others cannot easily access. Search old newspapers for reviews of the show. If you find anything clipping services like newspaper.com might be a helpful way to reference those old newspapers but that isn't necessarily required.
If you cannot find anything directly try searching indirectly for information about David Carradine and there is a good chance you will find out more information about the show that he is best known for. You might be able to extract more from sources already in the article[2] Also the release of the 2021 Kung Fu television show should result in a lot of retrospective commentary on the original. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About excessive detail.[edit]

Greetings. I am undoing the recent edit in the "Casting controversy" section, labeled as "excessive detail." Without the reference to the episodes in which racial and gender issues are treated (how many of them, which ones), the text appears as vague. It is not excessive detail, it is precision/accuracy, referencing the episodes with season and episode numbers only to make the whole the less cumbersome to read as possible.
As seen by the sources, this show has been studied in the fields of social and racial issues vs. the media and entertainment until present times. It is a service for anyone who is currently researching in those fields to refer to the specific episodes in which those subjects are mentioned, instead of just saying "some episodes" (How many? Which ones?) and forcing the researcher to watch all the episodes. Which he/she probably won't do, and the results can be biased. Several of the academic sources show mistakes due to that same difficulty. Maykiwi (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, direct quotes from sources shouldn't be edited, even if they have grammar or factual mistakes. Maykiwi (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above.
Just reading the "Representation of women and ethnic groups" section, for starters I didn't think it was written particularly well. But that aside, it generally has a stench of someone using WK to promote their own essay and subjective opinions. I won't do any edits however, as perhaps I'm incorrect on this and anyway, I don't feel qualified to do so. 137.43.106.63 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the above -- the entire section reeks of someone trying to defend a specific opinion rather than attempting to provide an objective view of the controversies surrounding the show. 2601:202:4181:9340:D065:B5FB:C9DF:BC89 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response[edit]

Audience scores are not allowed. Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION. WP:USERGENERATED content such as from other wikis or from user voted web polls are not allowed. Scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes have consistently been rejected as unreliable source. This means that almost the entirety of the "General response" section does not meet the standards normally required by Wikipedia Television articles. In general the best available indication of audience response to a TV show is the Neilsen ratings, again please see MOS:TVRECEPTION.

I see from the edit history that adding this section[3] was almost entirely the good faith work of Maykiwi (talk · contribs) but most or all of this will all have to go. If you ask Wikipedia Project Television they might be able to explain if any of this can be salvaged, or if any exception can be made but I doubt it. -- 109.76.142.195 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section.[4] It was added in good faith but user voted web polls are unreliable and those kinds of sources are rarely acceptable. -- 109.76.129.242 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bruce Lee's Involvement" section[edit]

Given that Bruce Lee wasn't really involved in the show Kung Fu, apart from maybe a casting consideration, the title of this section seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Crediblity aside, his involvement is only a rumor or an allegation, so perhaps "Question of Bruce Lee's Involvement" is more appropriate. 4.28.82.26 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous talk page involvement, not going to draw out a delay in what's probably an uncontroversial change. Changed it. 4.28.82.26 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Kung Fu (especially pertaining to the original series), Caine is a Shaolin Priest, not a Monk.[edit]

I have read the main page of 'Kung Fu (1972 TV series)' before, someone changed all instances of Caine being referred to as a Shaolin Priest to Monk. Without regard to whether this is technically true or false in real life, Kwai Chang Caine has been repeatedly referred to explicitly as a Priest, and not a Monk. He even refers to himself as a Priest. In the interest of being as authentic and accurate as possible, in facts relating to the Series, I propose that this be changed back to how it was before; Kwai Chang Caine is a Shaolin Priest.

Regards

[5]https://imgur.com/a/g8RC8rq 2001:F40:98C:A16:E4BE:94AD:1EB8:6A72 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kung_Fu_(1972_TV_series)&oldid=1218431888"