Kung Fu Panda

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
Banned
Banned
Posts: 63
Joined: April 26th, 2007

Post by Remy » November 4th, 2007, 8:47 am

Because no Panda can do that stuff, and also I'm not much of a DreamWorks fan. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 4th, 2007, 2:28 pm

Because no Panda can do that stuff
And Cars can't talk...And rats can't cook...And penguins can't surf.

Look, it's a cartoon. That's what cartoons do.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18589
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 5th, 2007, 7:43 am

Remy, you'll need to tone down that headache-inducing signature image. It's too big and too loud.

Choose one and let it stand. Thanks. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5108
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: Nevermore

Post by Daniel » November 5th, 2007, 10:33 pm

No kidding, its making the page act up for me. Just a hunch, but I think it was intentional.

Regardless, here's some good news on Panda. So far so good!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7
Joined: January 25th, 2007

Post by skeezer » November 7th, 2007, 4:19 am

Ben wrote:Looks like standard 1.78:1 to me. I'd be very surprised if it was 2.35:1. It would be very cool, but I'd be very surprised.

it's 2.35 (well, actually 2.4)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18589
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 7th, 2007, 1:10 pm

Am I looking at the wrong trail then? The one I saw (the Jack Black thing) was 1.78.

Is the second "movie clips" preview 2.4 then? Very cool that they've shot it wide.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 199
Joined: July 3rd, 2007

Post by CGIFanatic » November 14th, 2007, 6:51 pm


AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7821
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 14th, 2007, 7:33 pm

Two words: Totally Awesome.


Thanks. :)
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm

Yes, they look nice.

Oddly shaped...But nice.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7821
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 14th, 2007, 9:55 pm

Yeah well, isn't animation supposed to be all about caricature? :)
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 15th, 2007, 7:02 am

No, the designs are great - it's the shape of the stills that bothers me. :P

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18589
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 15th, 2007, 7:46 am

How come? :)

They're widescreen 2.35:1, proof that the movie will look <I>great</I>!

Think <I>Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille</I> wide. I think this is the first time DWA have made a (computer) movie in this ratio. Their only previous one was the tradigital Spirit.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 15th, 2007, 2:53 pm

Unfortunately I don't really notice that sort of thing. I don't have a trained eye for it yet.

Anyway, if that's a good thing, then all for the better. :)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18589
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 15th, 2007, 3:57 pm

Get ye eyes trained Meg! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 15th, 2007, 4:45 pm

Yes sir!

Post Reply