1>2>3
Attached: MV5BODJkZTZhMWItMDI3Yy00ZWZlLTk4NjQtOTI1ZjU5NjBjZTVjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODE5NzE3OTE@._V1_.jpg (1413x2048, 366.37K)
1>2>3
Other urls found in this thread:
Yes, though the villain from 2 was cooler
No.
2 was much better than 1.
pandas are in fact one of the coolest animals on the planet
Pretty much great>great>good
2>1>
This
2 >1 >>>>>> 3
Honestly one of my favorite trilogies. Still liked three for diving more into the spirituality of kung fu and some of the really awesome imagery, but they should've eased up on the constant wacky panda antics.
These movies also have my favorite movie soundtracks, god damn they're good shit.
3 was ok tho
1 - 8/10
2 - 9/10
3 - 7/10
1 is the only good one imo. Didn't like the sequels. Even so, Panda 1 was only good for 2008 standards. It's nothing remarkable nowadays
I hated the second film. 81 mins of repetitive fight scenes, unfunny jokes, characters with no personality or chemistry, and barely enough plot to sustain 30 mins, let alone 81. Like, it was absolutely pointless. Who cares about Po's origins ?
Dreamworks just doesn't know how to make trilogies. Both KFP and HTTYD had very strong first movies, yet very underwhelming and creatively bankrupt sequels made only for the money
1: standard
2: amazing
3: terrible
I unironically found them more charismatic than any character in this charmless franchise, except for Shifu and Oogway. For starters, they actually had a fucking personality
Well, that's what happens when your company goal is to try and find franchises you can milk for many sequels.
That's why Madagascar is also pretty weak as a trilogy since while the ending is easy to write, the middle isn't so 2 just meanders with nothing and 3 could work just as well without it.
I saw the second before the first, and it was pretty obvious to me that the original had a much harder time trying to figure out how far it wanted to lean into the comedy at times. I think 2's tone was more consistent.
On the contrary, 2's tone is all over the place
I didn't care for any character in this series. Po is a fat idiot and too much of a nice guy, yet he's not very charming or charismatic, Furious 5 are all one dimensional and they don't even seem to like each other that much, Shifu is a Yoda clone, and the villains are all whiny brats. No matter how the films try to pretend to be artful, you can still tell they're made by committee
2>1=3 at least for me. All the 3 movies are good, but 2 was the best one (something similiar happened with HTTYD franchise).
>1
>standard
>2
>terrible
that's the worst opinion I have ever heard
>Well, that's what happens when your company goal is to try and find franchises you can milk for many sequels.
To be fair, they DID technically spin off of Disney, who was already doing that shit way before it was cool.
>inb4 but its okay when disney does it
>blindposting
>Shifu
>Yoga
Nah, he's too ornery and imperfect to be Yoda. A key plot point in the first movie is him being kind of an asshole because he doesn't believe in Po.
my mistake I meant 3
Bullshit. Panda 2 and Dragon 2 were not very good films, and they were certainly worse than their predecessors. They should've never existed, yet Dreamworks only cares about money
>they were not very good films, and they were certainly worse than their predecessors
I could say the same about a majority of the film-oriented sequels/spin-offs Disney and Pixar churned out, especially nowadays.
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is surprisingly great, though.
At least the Pixar sequels, Cars 2 aside, have some likeabilty and feel like they had some thought behind them. I'd show my kids a movie like Monsters University anyday over the soulless Panda and Dragon sequels
>wow that slothful animal that has no ambition and just eats the same shit day after day is just like me and is sooooo relatable.
I honestly enjoy Shark Tale more than the Panda movies ( except for maybe 1 ) because it's at least an honest film. Shark Tale is a committee product and it's proud of being one, since it never tries to pretend to be anything else. The Panda films are committee products that try to pretend being art, so they come across as phony and unsincere, like they're lying to the audience
Wow, I think this is literally the first thread where I see people not liking the second movie. What happened? KFP2 is universally considered one of the best animated sequels ever.
Shrek 3 va Kung Fu Panda 3
Which was worse Zig Forums?
>At least the Pixar sequels, Cars 2 aside, have some likeabilty and feel like they had some thought behind them.
Okay then, justify to me how most of such sequels are any different in necessity and value than those Dreamworks makes, other than making drastic mental loops for preferring one shiny-looking polygon cartoon brand over another.
That said, you might have a point with maybe the Toy Story films (other than 4 probably). I don't know about the others however.
/thread