Talk:Kung Fu Panda 2

Reviews

Nikhat Kazmi of the Times of India's 4 stars? Her ratings are highly questionable.

Chracters

I don't know who, but someone keeps adding "master" onto the furious five's names. Like I've said many times, the furious five ARE NOT masters. Po is their master now, and Master Shifu is Po's master. Any changes involving "master" to one of the furious five's names will be reverted. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, If you watch the first film, The Furious Five are called Masters also. Anonymous

Can anyone tell me what the rating is/will be on this movie?

I'm very surprised that there is no mention of Rating in the main box on the right, under the movie poster, with the basic info on the film. Anyone know what it is?166.94.128.10 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're asking about the MPAA rating. Like the previous film, it is PG. This says, "Rated PG for sequences of martial arts action and mild violence." The reason that the infobox does not include a rating field is that there are different ratings (and different reasons) in different countries. To report only the MPAA rating would be biased toward the United States, where listing all the ratings would be too indiscriminate. It's more direct to call it a "family film" to indicate the lack of adult elements. If a rating is out of place for some reason, there will be coverage about it, which can then be used in the article. Basically, this film received a rating typical for its genre. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OR tag

It appears as if the claims as to surprisingly specific species of animals are someone's personal observations. The movie doesn't specify, and even if the claimant is a biologist that's original research.

I'm not saying the claims are necessarily incorrect; probably 90% of them are correct. I'm saying that, because of the core reason we have an OR policy in the first place, that these things need citation. One cannot say, "Well, it's obvious that's a Javan rhino" because to the vast, vast majority of the audience, it's simply a rhino. Calling it a Javan rhino requires specialized personal expertise, and we cannot use our own specialized personal expertise because there's no way of knowing if the editor is a scientist or some kid making a guess. These claims need verification. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Relating to voice actors

Is it necessary to mention who voices who in the "Plot" section when their names are listed in the "Cast" section right below it? Sorry if this sounds naive. User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Many "Chinese stars" boycott the film? Wrong!

The subject about many "Chinese stars" boycotting this film is misleading. This gives the impression that the whole of China is boycotting the film, when in reality the vast majority of Chinese audience gave it a positive review. A correction to that section is required ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.141.178 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] Its this avant-garde Chinese artist/t-shirt designer, Zhao Bandi who is launching this boycott. Apparently, Zhao Bandi staged the exact same boycott in 2008 with the first Kung Fu Panda. However, unless it is demonstrated this person's boycott is actually impacting the film, it is not relevant here (further mentioning him here is like given "free publicity" to this person and his commercial interests, as apparently Zhao sells Panda related clothing and artworks [2] [3]). --Filmested (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Section ordering

MOS:FILM does not dictate any section ordering, so the claim that we need to follow the way the sections are laid out in these guidelines is patently false. For one thing, just because "Marketing" is secondary does not mean it goes at the end. It is secondary in being the kind of content that is not expected in a film article on a regular basis. The topics under "Primary content" are what are expected in the article in a regular basis. It has nothing at all to do with order. Having "Theatrical release" allows us to talk about the release in theaters and how people responded to it there. We are not bound to fully isolate the details of the release from how people are responding to it. Read MOS:FILM—nothing talks about the ordering of the sections. We can talk about other sorts of ordering, but what exists at MOS:FILM exists to talk about specific elements, which can be woven together. Some articles will have just a "Reception" section, and some will be thoroughly broken down. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We're expected to follow guidelines, which are there because of now years of consensus, unless there's a compelling reason not to. In that respect, saying "does not dictate" is a technical straw dog, and your needlessly aggressive phrase "patently false" certainly does not make a person sound as if one wants to discuss things collegially.

I'm a little concerned about your unilaterally changing things to your own personal, preferred way, which is contrary to guidelines, without discussion. Since you seem insistent on doing things your own way regardless, and unilaterally going against guidelines, I'd imagine our next step would be some sort of mediation, such as an RfC. I would ask that you respect guidelines in the meantime.

For the record, here is the consensus-derived order as per guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film):

   4.1 Lead section
   4.2 Plot
   4.3 Cast
   4.4 Themes
   4.5 Production
   4.6 Release
       4.6.1 Home media
   4.7 Reception
       4.7.1 Critical response
       4.7.2 Box office
       4.7.3 Accolades
   4.8 References
   4.9 External links

5 Secondary content

   5.1 Documentaries
   5.2 Controversies
   5.3 Soundtrack
   5.4 Adaptation from source material
   5.5 Historical and scientific accuracies
   5.6 Marketing
   5.7 Further reading

--Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And I see, both here and on your user page, that you seem intent on doing things your way regardless. I'm not sure why you feel "Marketing" is one of the most important things about this film, but, fine, in the interest of collaboration and collegiality, I compromise on that. I would ask that you not exhibit such OWN-type behavior with the rest of the artice. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tenebrae, there is a rough order presented in these sections. Like I said, primary content is content that should appear in most film articles. Secondary content is more dependent on the nature of the film. For example, most articles will not have "Marketing" sections, but the way the guideline sections are laid out does not mean marketing goes after all of the primary content. I know because I was part of the discussion to group them accordingly. You are saying we are supposed to follow the order and the names of the sections to the letter? That is too restrictive, and we should be able to work with coverage of the film. For example, my experience is that the article can follow a rough chronology, such as release after production, so it makes sense to me to put marketing in between. Other sections like themes or historical accuracy don't have a specific consensus of where they should go, either. As for the release-based information, I think that we can combine "Release" and "Box office" because "Release" is so spartan in stating the Cannes screening. We can state that, the commercial release, and talk about box office figures as a result. "Critical reception" also has a number of ways to be included, but if we're to combine Release and Box office, we should do something different with it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, do you not think that it would be useful to merge the "Release" section with the others in some capacity? That was my problem from the get-go, stringently applying the guidelines to divorce these sections when we should be able to weave the Cannes screening in with the other theater-focused information. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time to discuss, particularly in such good detail. I do wish to say that I don't see someone generally inferring "follow strictly to the letter" from "follow guidelines unless there's a compelling reason not to." I don't believe that's a fair statement.

I think, actually, you feel the same way, since you are, very reasonably, making a case to combine Release and Box office in this case. I, too, do think that as long as the release date is in the lead that we can get away with mentioning it as the opening of the Box office subsection, but my feeling about the larger picture is that the consensus must have wanted to have Release be its own section for a reason. Since most movies' release information is only a sentence or two long, I'm not sure consensus would have wanted a Release section unless there was some reason for it that we might not readily know without searching for days for that archived discussion thread.

So while I agree with you, I'm also cognizant that perhaps there's good reason for a Release section. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've taken my medicine, I think that the value of a separate "Release" section depends on the coverage. Some films will go from festival to festival before they appear to the masses. I think that a section heading like "Theatrical release" works for this topic because we do not have much to say about Cannes, but at the same time it's not related to the box office, hence the different heading. The kind of coverage for a given film as it is released will vary, and I think that we should accommodate the coverage as it exists in the article and adjust headings if additional coverage is provided. I don't follow a universal set of headings to use for release-related information; I think it helps to have the topic define that order. As for "Marketing", you're right that it's not as important, but I had the rough chronology in mind. We could put it at the end if that is the preference. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, wherever you feel it's best -- I certainly wouldn't take back a compromise I offered. My concern, aside from anything else comes from having seen some of the spin that, evidently, someone connected with the film's marketing had been adding to the Box office section. I do worry that fans and others will use a higher-profile Marketing section to spin and to plug products (as I've recently seen at Thor (film) and The Green Hornet (film).

And since you've worked on some of these guidelines from the get-go, I'd accede to your feelings about combining Release with Box office. A separate Release section probably does work best for films with a long festival history or some complications/anomalies. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice the same challenges with "Marketing" sections too, which is why I brought it up here. It may be worth addressing the articles you mentioned too. I know that the presentation can be susceptible, but I think it can be informative with the right sources. For this article, before I used the one Variety source, the "Marketing" section looked like this. Variety was the only source I found that provided reasonable detail, like coverage of how studios conduct business, rather than "hey guys check this out!" coverage of the latest poster. [EDIT: I would also say that as long as sources are secondary and high-quality and provide information of value, we should be okay with "Marketing" sections. After all, we shouldn't feel wrong to write mostly positive reviews in the "Reception" section if the critics' consensus is that the film is great.]

As for the order of the section, let's get other opinions to see what the best way to present these sections are. I think there are several possible approaches, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds eminently reasonable. Honestly, from my perspective, I've been swayed to your point of view re: Release, and I myself can go either way on Marketing. (I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm against having that section. In fact, it's probably necessary. My only concern was that by having it high up rather than a scroll down "below the fold" it might entice marketing spinners. But I, for one, am perfectly content with either location.) Cheers, mate! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected...

...on "Critical response." My apologies; I glanced too quickly. You are correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Some chinese people boycott it for they don't want the chinese culture to be sent to the world by the united states at all times...