Kung Fu Panda

http://www.kungfupanda.com/download/signature/sig_po.gif

http://www.kungfupanda.com/


First impressions: Gonna be a silly one. Beautiful backgrounds. Will probably wait for DVD.
.

If it’s as funny as Shrek the Third it will be a must see.

I thought the Third Shrek was funnier than heck compared to the second one, I hope Kung Fu Panda is just as funny.

The design and stylization of the characters look beautiful. Jealous!!

Looking forward to see that one.

I saw the trailer a couple months ago. It looks decent. I won’t say it looks spectacular, cause I always cringe when i see any US studio doing an asian-themed film. the last time they did that they used Chinese people in Japanese roles. No one in the production apparently noticed that there was a difference :stuck_out_tongue:

EDIT: Half a page is enough, right?

It has the voices of Jack Black, Jackie Chan, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie… what could possible go wrong!!! (Producer thinking) :evilgrin:
It has very good animation and darn dificult stuff… 3 more months :frowning:

Meh. Yet another crappy CG film with furry animals :stuck_out_tongue:

meh?? i’m excited for it personally

i don’t know what you define as crappy, but i love watching CG films like Kung Fu Panda to learn from them :slight_smile:

i think that the film industires are running out of ideas, i mean… seriously, a movie about a kung-fu fighting panda? what´s next? a hippo joining the olympics???

You mean you haven’t seen the trailer for Hippothlete?

lol, nah not yet, ive heard alot of ppl talking about it tho

“think that the film industires are running out of ideas, i mean… seriously, a movie about a kung-fu fighting panda? what´s next? a hippo joining the olympics???”

i like this idea lol its kind of amusing hahah

JACK BLACK IS THE BEST !! realy funny! i cant wait to see this and Semi Pro(random)…

Dream Works is a sad case. So much talent wasted on such bad script writers.

If I may take what Blenderizer said and run with it a bit, in my opinion the problem with animation - possibly with US films in general - is just that most of the studios are just remaking the same several films over and over again. Look at animation. Pixar, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, Disney. All of these studios have films coming out this year: Wall-E, Kung-Fu Panda, Horton Hears a Who, and Bolt (I know little about this, but it doesn’t look good from what I’ve seen of it). All of these films are aimed DIRECTLY at the exact same target audience, and it sort of bothers me.

There was a recent post on Blender Nation about an interview with Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, Ed Catmull and … some other dude (sorry other dude, i forgot who you were), and in this interview thing Brad Bird kept bringing up the fact that Animation isn’t a genre - a fact that most executives have a hard time wrapping their heads around. I am struck by the hypocrisy in that statement, tho, coming from Bird who really has done nothing new within the medium. Don’t get me wrong - I love all of Bird’s films - but he’s no different than the execs in that he’s made nothing but family oriented entertainment. Kid friendly films. It bothers me that Pixar is the end-all and be-all high-water-mark for animation studios, especially now that they are owned by Disney.

This sort of thing worries me a lot. If you look at animation today, it closely mirrors what was going on with Comics here in the 80’s. What happened in the 80’s was that a few people found out that you could make a buttload of money in comics by sticking to a specific genre (superheroes) and focusing on the art alone (along with variant covers, variant interiors, re-starting the series so you can have ANOTHER #1 issue…). Unfortunately, people got sick of the gimmicks and after the collector market crashed, NO ONE was interested in comics anymore. People weren’t buying them for the stories, they were buying them because they thought maybe they would be worth something. After the gimmicks got overused, people just got sick of comics and most of the audience just went away. Some stayed, but most just left.

On the other hand, in both animation and comics, Japan has always been diverse and successful. They do target specific markets, but there are so many targets to be had that these anime and manga aren’t really as competative to each other as it may seem. The manga a 14 year old boy will like is probably not going to be the same as a manga a 14 year old girl will like, let alone a 50 year old woman. They are all targeted seperately, and as such there is a much more diverse set of stories and creators. This is true with their animation as well. Here in the US, studios are trying to be everything to everyone by releasing one all-encompasing movie every year, and this is a mistake. No one succeeds for very long by doing that. The art of film is compromised when you do that. You may make a lot of money, but 10 years from now no one will care about your films at all. With Pixar, the same as it was for Disney, this may not be the case int eh long run, but the other studios like Blue Sky and Dreamworks may find that Shreck and Ice Age aren’t nearly as popular in 20 years as the early Pixar works. This is true in much the same way that Bluth’s films don’t have the same weight as Disney’s, even tho many of Bluth’s films are superior in a number of ways. The Secret Of Nihm, Balto, and An American Tail are all far superior films to anything Disney was putting out at the time - The Rescuers Down Under, Oliver And Company - and yet the Disney films still outsell them all.

Another thing that bothers me is the number of people who compare Pixar with Ghibli. Pixar is nothing at all like Ghibli. AT ALL. Miyazaki is great, but his films are much more art-house than anything Pixar has done, and he’s done adult oriented films. Takahata - in my opinion the real genius at Ghibli - has made films every bit as challenging and moving as the best dramatic live-action films. Yet, Grave of the Fireflies - when it was screened at the Reading Festival on it’s initial release - got a “Best Children’s Film” award, even tho there is some extremely graphic material, and I would give that film at least a PG13 rating. It wasn’t a children’s film, but it was deemed to be so merely because it was animated. This idea that animation has to be family oriented and benign really annoys me. No other country in the world treats the medium that way. But here in the US it’s expected so much that Bakshi had to deal with angry parents who thought he was trying to sell pornography to children. The fact that the films were R-Rated and obviously not meant for children didn’t matter. It was a cartoon and that was apparently enough.

I know this rant has gotten off track a little, but the idea that this panda movie looks good or not is entirely irrelevant to me. No US animated film will ever really peak my interest unless it is finally that first film coming from a major studio that dares to show a little backbone to do something different, as well as to show some respect for the movie-going audience that adults can appreciate a serious film no matter the medium. These crap animated films with talking animals, cheap fairy-tale parodies and even cooking rats do little to encourage me that anyone in the animation industry has the slightest idea what really makes for a good story, and it pisses me off that so many people hail their efforts as spectacular when 9 times out of 10 they are flatter than the celluloid they’re projected from.

Just think of it like this: What if Spielberg had been forced to make Schindler’s List a PG film? Saving Private Ryan? What if Kubrick had been forced to do that with A Clockwork Orange? How can you even achieve the same level of story in those films - the same level of greatness - by restricting it in such a way? Why is it so hard to think that no one would be able to recognize the genius of those films had they merely been drawn instead of filmed? I find it offensive that this is the way most of the people making animation seem to treat their audience.

Sorry for the rant. It’s been bothering me a lot lately. That interview on BA pissed me off a bit.

Seems like a good movie, but why does it have to be animals? It looks like it would be better with human characters. CG movies without talking animals… Do they make those?

The graphics in the trailer look stunning.

@Squiggly_P: Holy Lord, you wanna sum that up? Im not even going to read all of that… 0.o

I am ver y interested in seeing it. I really like Jack Black, and dreamworks makes some decent movies, so Ill see it.

Visually speaking, I agree with Sago 100%, saw a trailer a couple weeks ago, it looks positively beautiful.

okey dokey:

In short, I think all the animation studios are screwing the pooch. I think most of the people involved at the higher levels of US animation hold themselves in far too high regard. I hope some dude with a computer in his garage steals all their thunder, and I hope that happens before the bottom drops out of the animation industry.

The key points are in the first couple of paragraphs :stuck_out_tongue:

Screwing the pooch … the story of one cute furry pooch, abused by the big corporations, who ends up finding happiness where he least expected it. Do you think I might be able to sell that one to Pixar? :slight_smile:

Seriously though … I think you make some good points - but I think there’s a brighter side too. Movies like Sin City and Through a Scanner Darkly do push the envelope of what audience will accept for presentation (I have to 'fess up to not having seen either). And if major corps turn their backs on a market, that should provide more scope for indies.

I’d like to see it. The trailer doesn’t really give much away, but the characters look pretty cool generally, and the animation looks top notch.

Looking forward to the release!

Lookie theres jack black in there, that means it will have some damn good humor in it. :slight_smile: