Kung Fu Panda Poll

I just wanted to get some feedback from those of you whom might have seen this movie...

Peace :D
NIMHmaniac

I saw it last Sunday, its hilarious. Story is a bit cut and paste formula, but they twist it up enough, and add enough unique characters and jokes to keep it interesting. I really enjoyed it, and had quite a few good laughs through it. I'll be adding it to my movie collection the second it hits shelves.

If anyone sees it, make sure to wait through to the end of the credits. ^.^

Check out 'Rotten Tomatoes' for more reviews and opinions:

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movies/certified_fresh.gif[" alt=""/img][=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kung_fu_panda/][img="]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movies/certified_fresh.gif[" alt=""/img][/url]

Seen it 7 times ^-^ On IMAX, of course.

Seen it 7 times ^-^ On IMAX, of course.

Devoted fan of it? How can one afford to see an IMAX movie that many times?

Seen it 7 times ^-^ On IMAX, of course.

licoughli[=http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/2000/200/2013/2013.strip.gif]licoughli ;)

I saw it twice simply because it was that good.

Kung Fu Panda has more in it than people may realize. Aside from the animation, which starts as 2D for the beginning minute or so, and the following faux 3D, and cosmetic touches, the way the animals were implemented into the martial arts was well done. The characters are the animals that represent the gung fu on which they are based, and that is a huge plus for me, particularly regarding Tai Lung. The Leopard style is more negative than the others because all it does is rely on strength and analyzes other forms for the weakness in them and abuses their use.

Visually stunning movie no doubt. Right up there with Pixar for visual integrity. Designs, animation, style...all top notch.

But once ya get past the purty pictures, there's really not much there. Seen the story a million times and characters are for the most part paper thin. The Furious Five add nothing to the film as characters. They could have been chopped from the movie completely but for one action set piece they are in. Side note: I love that they kept selling that Jackie Chan does the voice for the monkey. I think he uttered a total of three lines through the entirety of the film. Fact is, if it were any other DW movie, it'd be written off as the same old uninspired storytelling...cause it is.

They don't this time because there's no pretense of depth. You didn't come for the characters and story, you came to watch kick-ass action, and that's what they deliver. I'm fine with that, honest. It just means the movie left my head the moment the credits rolled.

I go coz I'z rich :D

Seen previews, but I have not seen it yet :?

Still, looks like checking into ( you never know), I thought that "Cars" would suck, but to my surprise it was a great reminder to me of my dad taking us for a drive on route 66 in the 1960`s :)

Seen it 7 times ^-^ On IMAX, of course.

Wow indeed. Though I personally would prefer to spend that money on a DVD or Blu-Ray copy of the movie. ^.^

I was pretty disappointed with theatrical movies in IMAX, as they seem to be a variant of pan-and-scan. Not showing everything the theatrical widescreen release has, but more than pan and scan. :(

Visually stunning movie no doubt. Right up there with Pixar for visual integrity. Designs, animation, style...all top notch.

But once ya get past the purty pictures, there's really not much there. Seen the story a million times and characters are for the most part paper thin. The Furious Five add nothing to the film as characters. They could have been chopped from the movie completely but for one action set piece they are in. Side note: I love that they kept selling that Jackie Chan does the voice for the monkey. I think he uttered a total of three lines through the entirety of the film. Fact is, if it were any other DW movie, it'd be written off as the same old uninspired storytelling...cause it is.

They don't this time because there's no pretense of depth. You didn't come for the characters and story, you came to watch kick-ass action, and that's what they deliver. I'm fine with that, honest. It just means the movie left my head the moment the credits rolled.

"Right up there with Pixar"

I really wish people would stop comparing things to Pixar. Dreamworks isn't trying to be like Pixar, and there are better animation companies that have exceeded the things Pixar has done, graphically.
You should see all the things they cut out of the movie during its development.

I saw it today, and was slightly disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I did not dislike the movie, but it was not as good as I was expecting from Dreamworks. It started out sort of cheesy, and I was praying it would improve, which it did from the middle of the movie.

It could have been better, yet it could have been worse.

"Right up there with Pixar"

I really wish people would stop comparing things to Pixar. Dreamworks isn't trying to be like Pixar, and there are better animation companies that have exceeded the things Pixar has done, graphically.

The very fact that you had to add in that last word to justify your claim perfectly illustrates why everyone views Pixar as the studio by which all others are judged.

People appreciate Pixar because the storytelling is so much more advanced than the other major animation studios. They are always a step ahead. The visual artistry comes from that foundation of integrity - which is specifically the word I used when referencing the company. There have been plenty of cg movies that are prettier - Blue Sky for my money has released the most visually impressive movies of the major studios - but they don't carry the movie, the story does and their weaknesses as stories inevitably take the visuals down with them - again refering to Blue Sky, who released a string of crap movies and one good one (here's to ya Horton! :D)

"Right up there with Pixar"

I really wish people would stop comparing things to Pixar. Dreamworks isn't trying to be like Pixar, and there are better animation companies that have exceeded the things Pixar has done, graphically.

The very fact that you had to add in that last word to justify your claim perfectly illustrates why everyone views Pixar as the studio by which all others are judged.

People appreciate Pixar because the storytelling is so much more advanced than the other major animation studios. They are always a step ahead. The visual artistry comes from that foundation of integrity - which is specifically the word I used when referencing the company. There have been plenty of cg movies that are prettier - Blue Sky for my money has released the most visually impressive movies of the major studios - but they don't carry the movie, the story does and their weaknesses as stories inevitably take the visuals down with them - again refering to Blue Sky, who released a string of crap movies and one good one (here's to ya Horton! :D)

There is an underlying fault in Pixar and I seem to be the only one that has noticed it. As a story teller myself, I see it easily. Every one of their films follows the same plot formula with the exception of the Incredibles. To me that is not groundbreaking. To a storyteller as experienced as I am, they are not that impressive.

Secondly, "graphically" doesn't always mean the CGI.

Fair enough, but neither has any other animated studio. In fact KFP's own Dreamworks animation is constantly lambasted for cliched stories and generally uninspired plots. Also - and I think this may be a definition issue more than anything else - I should note I don't view plot as storytelling, but as a part of it. And their plot points were never the strength, but something far more important: Characters.

They create real characters unlike any other studio out there. Take Monster's Inc. for example. That movie presented two characters as best friends and made it look believeable. Their behavior indicated a history that preceded the movie and a friendship that will continue past it's end. They had lives outside the framework of the plot...we just happened to be watching them during this time in their life. Whereas the Shrek movies, the relationship between Shrek and Donkey is forced and feels it. When they do a joke, it feels like it was to specifically make us laugh, not because they thought it was funny and we just happened to agree. They feel like actors performing for us while most every Pixar character is a fully-realized being. Pixar characters are not performing for us, we're watching them deal with important moments in their lives and that makes the connection to the movie that much more unforgetable.

Now to keep on topic, let's look at Kung Fu. When are the characters ever fleshed out fuller than a two demensional piece of paper? The closest I saw was the dialog between the main bad guy and the teacher. Even then, it came off as a performance rather than a genuine moment between two real people, because they never bothered to flesh the characters past what was required for the story. Hell, I can't remember any part of the movie that told me about anything about the members of the Furious Five, save the Tigress. So why have 'em? So far as I know, the only purpose they served was to show how powerful the bad guy was in one scene where they get their butts kicked. In which case...why have 'em in the rest of the film? They never do anything.

But anyway it's getting late so I'll wrap this up. In short, Pixar is the king of storytelling because they make the characters believable regardless of the plot they find themselves in. I've not seen a nother studio whose done that.

P.S. If you're saying you weren't referring to CGI, ya might wanna actualy specify what you were referring to.

I saw it on that movie site (www.watch-moves.net), I liked it but nothing too special..

fun movie I laughed really hard when I seen it though I sorta do think they could of added a bit more to the story line. it was fun and entertaining enough to enjoy. overall b+

I liked it very much! It's all about believing in yourself, following your dreams and keep it alive! Besides, I and Po, we have much in common (love for dumpligs and dreaminess) and the whole story touched me. Well done, Dreamwork!

I saw the last 10 minutes of it again today, and thought it might have been better off letting the mouse die. As sad as it would have been, the added comedy there just ruined the moment. I know it was funny as is, and I had a good laugh, but did they really need that last bit in a movie that already had plenty of good laughs in it?

I saw the last 10 minutes of it again today, and thought it might have been better off letting the mouse die. As sad as it would have been, the added comedy there just ruined the moment. I know it was funny as is, and I had a good laugh, but did they really need that last bit in a movie that already had plenty of good laughs in it?

I totally agree with you. it would have been a better movie then I mean the end comedy was sorta pointless

I thought the panda was shallow, the ending was pointless, and I felt sorry for the villain.

The comedy was decent but not enough to redeem it.

It's ok, but I wouldn't call it "great"