Kung Fu Panda 2
May. 30th, 2011 09:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinOne of the great things about working in animation in LA is that I get to see a lot of movies for free, sometimes before they're released. I got to see Kung Fu Panda 2 a little over a week ago, thanks to the now ironically-named disneyboy who generously invited me to the Dreamworks friends and family show.
Because it was a company event, the director was on hand to present the movie, and something she said in her little introductory speech should have raised a red flag. She mentioned the movie having been well-received by critics and fellow animation professionals but the judges that really mattered were the kids out in the audience today.
Now, I have no real problem with filmmakers being aware that the primary audience for animated films are only a few years out of diapers, but there is a big difference between making something for kids, and making something kids can enjoy. The first KFP (along with most of Dreamworks' animated successes) was definitely in the latter camp, but this one sits squarely in the former. It was still fun, but it was the sort of fun that it would be by default, with the plot and premise that it had. It's got a good story, but it could have been great if it had been told better. I think the greatest fault was in the dialogue: so much of it was so completely unimaginative, on-the-nose, subtext-less, and irrespective of character. I found myself mentally re-writing the dialogue as I was watching the scene – how hard could it have been to get someone to do a dialogue pass on it? Did everyone on the story crew have a tin ear? Or was someone actively suppressing anything nuanced or natural? It wasn't entirely awful – the villain got some good bits, for example – but all in all I was left more with a feeling of regret for what could have been.
Then I wondered if maybe circumstance was leading to an unfair perception in this case: the first KFP was a bolt from the blue, a Dreamworks animated movie that didn't rely entirely on scatological gags and pop culture references, but actually had a plot and characters, so of course it was awesome. This one is coming off How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind, so even if it were exactly as good as the previous one it might look weak. I haven't seen the first one since it was in the theatre so I really can't compare scientifically.
On the visual side it was all I could have hoped for ... the animation was gorgeous, the models and rigs somehow magically emulate Nico Marlet's poetic drawing style; there were even some sequences that looked exactly like some of the concept art from the first movie's art book. Splendid as usual. And for all its lack of finesse the story did at least move along at a nice pace, and the action scenes were well staged, so there's really nothing to complain about there. Well done, team! Now hire a dialogue polisher.
Also – Po's dad is a goose? I had always thought he was a duck. Where did I get this idea? I was so distracted by this surprise that I spend a good while trying to parse the evidence and determine whether I was being blind or the filmmakers were just ignorant. For the sake of future generations, here is an easy guide:
Without any of that distracting 'colour' to throw you off, a direct comparison:
disneyboy who generously invited me to the Dreamworks friends and family show.Because it was a company event, the director was on hand to present the movie, and something she said in her little introductory speech should have raised a red flag. She mentioned the movie having been well-received by critics and fellow animation professionals but the judges that really mattered were the kids out in the audience today.
Now, I have no real problem with filmmakers being aware that the primary audience for animated films are only a few years out of diapers, but there is a big difference between making something for kids, and making something kids can enjoy. The first KFP (along with most of Dreamworks' animated successes) was definitely in the latter camp, but this one sits squarely in the former. It was still fun, but it was the sort of fun that it would be by default, with the plot and premise that it had. It's got a good story, but it could have been great if it had been told better. I think the greatest fault was in the dialogue: so much of it was so completely unimaginative, on-the-nose, subtext-less, and irrespective of character. I found myself mentally re-writing the dialogue as I was watching the scene – how hard could it have been to get someone to do a dialogue pass on it? Did everyone on the story crew have a tin ear? Or was someone actively suppressing anything nuanced or natural? It wasn't entirely awful – the villain got some good bits, for example – but all in all I was left more with a feeling of regret for what could have been.
Then I wondered if maybe circumstance was leading to an unfair perception in this case: the first KFP was a bolt from the blue, a Dreamworks animated movie that didn't rely entirely on scatological gags and pop culture references, but actually had a plot and characters, so of course it was awesome. This one is coming off How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind, so even if it were exactly as good as the previous one it might look weak. I haven't seen the first one since it was in the theatre so I really can't compare scientifically.
On the visual side it was all I could have hoped for ... the animation was gorgeous, the models and rigs somehow magically emulate Nico Marlet's poetic drawing style; there were even some sequences that looked exactly like some of the concept art from the first movie's art book. Splendid as usual. And for all its lack of finesse the story did at least move along at a nice pace, and the action scenes were well staged, so there's really nothing to complain about there. Well done, team! Now hire a dialogue polisher.
Also – Po's dad is a goose? I had always thought he was a duck. Where did I get this idea? I was so distracted by this surprise that I spend a good while trying to parse the evidence and determine whether I was being blind or the filmmakers were just ignorant. For the sake of future generations, here is an easy guide:
Flattish bill Usually shorter neck Say 'Quack' | More tented bill Usually longer neck Say 'Honk' |
Without any of that distracting 'colour' to throw you off, a direct comparison:
