Shanghaiist: Kung Fu Panda inspires wrath. Really?

taihanasie

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:03:37 +0800

I also don't get why anyone would complain about this. It is no secret that Hollywood distorts serious themes, especially when the movies in question are meant to be shown to children. One example: I have read Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame. After seeing the previews of the Disney movie, I instantly felt an intense disgust at the many gross departures from the story. The difference was so evident that I did not need to view the film to pass judgement. It is an Americanised version of a French classic that combines Disney "magic" with dumbed-down dialogue. Did I march through the streets? No. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "What crap! I, at least, won't go see it." Furthermore, the primary audience is American children, not Chinese ones. Did Universal remake The Mummy to impress the Egyptians? Hardly! Why should Zhao think that Dreamworks should make its Panda movie to satisfy him? And why should Spielberg have to respect pandas as a "national image" of China? Last I checked, pandas were not a trademark. Anyone can use the "panda" brand. Zhao is being hypersensitive about "art". I use the word generally to describe "cinema", and not to imply that Kung Fu Panda is fine art, which it isn't. Such sensitivity is a very bad trait for an artist.

Andy Best

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:25:20 +0800

Kungfu Panda is not very good, maybe kids will like it but it's so sentimental and predictable. But - what I'm interested in is the often heard 'the kung fu' (or kung fu movie) is westernised or not chinese etc criticism. The truth of the matter is that mainland China, and also the HK film industry of late is dominated by modern wushu sports kung fu and wirefu to the point of no longer resembmling either Chinese Kungfu of old or the values it espoused. It was basically on the way out once the Shaw Studios stopped making kung fu pics in 1985. I like Zhang Yimou films, but all that talk of Crouching Tiger not being 'Chinese' and then Hero being made almost in direct riposte was ludicrous. Ang Lee is Chinese and so were all the cast, crew and locations and the composer. It was a good balance of all the genre's traditions and when it used wires or acrobatics it was directly related to the characters or themes. It won me over despite being a hardcore Shaw style fan. Hero, depsite being flash looking, was far away from Ang Lee's movie. House of the Flying Daggers was an improvement on Hero. The criticism basically stems from a group of right wing nationalists who want to bang on about what's Chinese or not - and in the case of the history of Kung Fu and the movies, they seem to be ignorant of most of it. Also, an American made film, in English about a panda doing kung fu - seems 'americanized', what does he even mean beyond stating the obvious. And, i'm not Chinese or American - but photographs of Furong jiejie in panda inspired get up gives you bragging rights over dreamworks? ... uh, yes, that's right.

nanheyangrouchuan

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:23:49 +0800

Yeah, wikipedia is a great source. How about China's open supply of nukes to Pakistan, NK, Lybia and Iran? And the Khartoum gov't doesn't need any more help killing black Africans, so why is China practically giving away tanks and fighter-bombers? Guns and PLA spec ops advisors to keep Zimbabwe "harmonious"? But China really takes the humanitarian cake by solely supporting NK for the past 30 years.

dannygreat

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:08:50 +0800

I forgot to mention that Spielberg is the major owner of DreamWorks.

dannygreat

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:02:44 +0800

You can always find some people with extreme views in China since they have 1.3B people. So, it is not surprising to see someone who wants to boycott the lovely movie. What annoyed many Chinese is that Spielberg criticized China for the Darfur issue. Even with the Sweden-based SIPRI report, China only accounts 8% of weapons imported into Sudan (www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/PR_AT_data_2007.html/view?searchterm=darfur). USA, Russia, Germany, France and UK are the top 5 largest arms exporters (accounts 90% of the total) on the earth between 2000 and 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry). Why did Spielberg ignore the heavy weights and focused on China for the whole issue? The movie is great, but Spielberg is a hypocrite.

TheShangHighRoller

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:11:13 +0800

Wouldn't it be funny if the government was actually supporting wing-nuts like this so that we could all have a good laugh, and then pay less attention as the Net Nanny's noose gets tighter?

Titro

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:08:14 +0800

Zhao Bandi? another crazy nutcase.

ououou

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:30:51 +0800

of course,the panda wins in the end,why not?

James Creegan

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:18:25 +0800

Presumably though, the panda wins in the end?