Across the gender spectrum morality revolved around determinism: you can only be a good person if you got lucky and you have to do what was assigned to you by "fate" or you'll unravel the universe. It's embarrassingly defeatist masquerading as a message of hope.
I feel like you missed the entire point of the movie, if anything it's a commentary on determinism and "canon events" like you describe here, that Miles Morales was clearly NOT chosen by fate, his spider was a fluke from another dimension, and that he still had to make the choice to be "good", to not allow his father to die and fight against his fate as a spiderman
He can either choose, as it stands now, to allow his universe to collapse and save his father, or to allow his father to die for the health of his universe - but he will obviously choose something else, some "happy ending" that we will see
the movie has a lot of interesting messages to say about morality, especially where it leaves off, seeing how he would've lived if his uncle lived and his father died, forcing him to consider if he should allow his father to die in his universe, etc
The spider from the universe is just another instrument of determinism. His dad from another universe still had to die. Him trying to "save" his own universe was merely a hoax created to create the illusion of free will, whereas it was just characters misinterpreting which cause leads to which effect. But the cause and effect are still there, hence determinism.
>uh trans people are valid >uh le Indian people >le White people are evil
Wtf does any of that have to do with Spider-Man? Those “movies” are cancerous garbage, eat shit.
It lived up to the hype. Came out in june 2008 and was announced in 2005 (although it was in development before the announcement)
https://movieweb.com/dreamworks-sets-release-date-for-kung-fu-panda/?newsletter_popup=1
Dreamworks sure didn't put the same diligence when making Spirit (the horses film) and the Sinbad film without any arab elements. They looked quite worse.
>october 1998 : Antz >may 2001 : Shrek >october 2004 : Shark Tale >may 2005 : Madagascar >may 2006 : Over the Hedge >november 2006 : Flushed Away >november 2007 : Bee Movie >june 2008 : kung fu Panda
It was easily one of their very best non sequel CGI films at the time.
Antz, Shrek and Madagascar were made by PDI (Pacific Data Images) at Bay Area, while the others were made by that separate division at Glendale (although PDI collaborated on them as well)
It would be interesting, to me, if Kung Fu Panda had some reverse-TMNT thing going on. Like TMNT started out all grim and edgy and black and white before having more child-friendly adaptions that lightened the material up a lot and then stuff like the 2003 show that combined the elements. The Kung Fu Panda world is pretty cool and comic-booky itself, so imagine some ebin dark take on it. Even if Po still retains some humour, the surroundings and subject matter would be darker/edgier and more long form comic book story arcs.
Tai Lung obviously is the villain who then gets the redemption arc and Lord Shen is obviously the big bad arch nemesis - Po's Shredder, his Joker, etc.
Shen's the best villain tho. Although that may be lost somewhat when you don't have Oldman's voice and the way the animators did all his facial expressions.
The scene where he lets the Soothsayer go was very good, so all you have to do is really give me more of a basis for feeling like his parents never loved him as opposed to him concluding they hated him for exiling him after a genocide.
Like the genocide was almost a last ditch attempt to prove himself to them and earn love by showing himself a grand man who can conquer destiny. The original production had some story beat about how he was an albino who was considered sickly and perhaps unsuited to rule when a boy, so maybe something like that. Simply give him more of a basis for believing his family despised him.
>the genocide was almost a last ditch attempt to prove himself to them and earn love by showing himself a grand man who can conquer destiny
This is never said in the film. Not even implied. You're giving that script too much credit.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Your reading comprehension is off. I know it isn't implied in the film as if. There did, however, seem to be something like that in the original rough drafts with the albino 'sickly' backstory. If you're angling to rewrite the character's backstory, you lean into what the movie developers originally considered before scrapping from the final product.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Dreamworks has no excuse for removing all that backstory. Final film also gives no information about that army of wolves despite how much screentime it has.
Bad film. Dreamworks missed the mark with this sequel. I'm putting the blame on the director. There was only one, and she had no previous experience as director.
10 months ago
Anonymous
I don't get what makes it so le bad. 3 yes - way too fricking comedic and always undercutting any moments of sincerity/seriousness.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>3 yes - way too fricking comedic and always undercutting any moments of seriousness
2 did the same in almost every serious scene. You just don't remember it.
First film's directors (John Stevenson and Mark Osborne) had no involvement with the second film. Not even as executive producers or consultants. They obviously knew about it, yet chose to ignore it. Also, while i'm pretty sure crafting the story of the first film was a collaborative process, the duo credited under "story by" (Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris) also didn't return for the second film.
True
Love the first film, yet find the second one to have excruciating writing.
Kino. Zoomers will never understand.
It is a zoomer movie though.
It's millennial. Zoomers haven't seen it.
Yes they have. It is their Shrek, which is millennial.
it's a boomerzoomer film, the oldest zoomers are 25 already
t. almost 24 boomerzoomer
I'm 40 and consider myself a zillenial. I claim this Jack Black kino for the zoomers.
>implying Across the Spiderverse has less soul than this movie
Across the gender spectrum morality revolved around determinism: you can only be a good person if you got lucky and you have to do what was assigned to you by "fate" or you'll unravel the universe. It's embarrassingly defeatist masquerading as a message of hope.
I feel like you missed the entire point of the movie, if anything it's a commentary on determinism and "canon events" like you describe here, that Miles Morales was clearly NOT chosen by fate, his spider was a fluke from another dimension, and that he still had to make the choice to be "good", to not allow his father to die and fight against his fate as a spiderman
He can either choose, as it stands now, to allow his universe to collapse and save his father, or to allow his father to die for the health of his universe - but he will obviously choose something else, some "happy ending" that we will see
the movie has a lot of interesting messages to say about morality, especially where it leaves off, seeing how he would've lived if his uncle lived and his father died, forcing him to consider if he should allow his father to die in his universe, etc
The spider from the universe is just another instrument of determinism. His dad from another universe still had to die. Him trying to "save" his own universe was merely a hoax created to create the illusion of free will, whereas it was just characters misinterpreting which cause leads to which effect. But the cause and effect are still there, hence determinism.
>uh trans people are valid
>uh le Indian people
>le White people are evil
Wtf does any of that have to do with Spider-Man? Those “movies” are cancerous garbage, eat shit.
>le White people are evil
wtf are you talking about
none of the good or bad guys were white. the movie was not about white people, at all
You’re being disingenuous. It’s a heavily politicized movie made for creepy adult troony neckbeards. Would not let children watch.
I don't really think I am being disingenuous
the movie is made for hispanic people I think that's pretty clear. non-hispanic whites are not main characters in the movie
main character, hispanic black. main enemy, hispanic (or spot who is supposed to be a postracial blob) . diverse cast of supporting characters.
how can you watch across the spiderverse and think the main point of the movie is "whites bad". that is so far from the point
mmm monke
It lived up to the hype. Came out in june 2008 and was announced in 2005 (although it was in development before the announcement)
https://movieweb.com/dreamworks-sets-release-date-for-kung-fu-panda/?newsletter_popup=1
>3Dshit
>Soul
Dreamworks sure didn't put the same diligence when making Spirit (the horses film) and the Sinbad film without any arab elements. They looked quite worse.
>october 1998 : Antz
>may 2001 : Shrek
>october 2004 : Shark Tale
>may 2005 : Madagascar
>may 2006 : Over the Hedge
>november 2006 : Flushed Away
>november 2007 : Bee Movie
>june 2008 : kung fu Panda
It was easily one of their very best non sequel CGI films at the time.
Antz, Shrek and Madagascar were made by PDI (Pacific Data Images) at Bay Area, while the others were made by that separate division at Glendale (although PDI collaborated on them as well)
It would be interesting, to me, if Kung Fu Panda had some reverse-TMNT thing going on. Like TMNT started out all grim and edgy and black and white before having more child-friendly adaptions that lightened the material up a lot and then stuff like the 2003 show that combined the elements. The Kung Fu Panda world is pretty cool and comic-booky itself, so imagine some ebin dark take on it. Even if Po still retains some humour, the surroundings and subject matter would be darker/edgier and more long form comic book story arcs.
Tai Lung obviously is the villain who then gets the redemption arc and Lord Shen is obviously the big bad arch nemesis - Po's Shredder, his Joker, etc.
>Lord Shen
That second film is a turd
Shen's the best villain tho. Although that may be lost somewhat when you don't have Oldman's voice and the way the animators did all his facial expressions.
His backstory was undercooked. Should've had more to it.
The scene where he lets the Soothsayer go was very good, so all you have to do is really give me more of a basis for feeling like his parents never loved him as opposed to him concluding they hated him for exiling him after a genocide.
Like the genocide was almost a last ditch attempt to prove himself to them and earn love by showing himself a grand man who can conquer destiny. The original production had some story beat about how he was an albino who was considered sickly and perhaps unsuited to rule when a boy, so maybe something like that. Simply give him more of a basis for believing his family despised him.
>the genocide was almost a last ditch attempt to prove himself to them and earn love by showing himself a grand man who can conquer destiny
This is never said in the film. Not even implied. You're giving that script too much credit.
Your reading comprehension is off. I know it isn't implied in the film as if. There did, however, seem to be something like that in the original rough drafts with the albino 'sickly' backstory. If you're angling to rewrite the character's backstory, you lean into what the movie developers originally considered before scrapping from the final product.
Dreamworks has no excuse for removing all that backstory. Final film also gives no information about that army of wolves despite how much screentime it has.
Bad film. Dreamworks missed the mark with this sequel. I'm putting the blame on the director. There was only one, and she had no previous experience as director.
I don't get what makes it so le bad. 3 yes - way too fricking comedic and always undercutting any moments of sincerity/seriousness.
>3 yes - way too fricking comedic and always undercutting any moments of seriousness
2 did the same in almost every serious scene. You just don't remember it.
First film's directors (John Stevenson and Mark Osborne) had no involvement with the second film. Not even as executive producers or consultants. They obviously knew about it, yet chose to ignore it. Also, while i'm pretty sure crafting the story of the first film was a collaborative process, the duo credited under "story by" (Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris) also didn't return for the second film.
SOVL