A snow leopard as a villain I can go for. But a peacock? I couldn't get my head round how a peacock could have wolves and apes as minions.
Did he give them a good pecking when they were out of line?
He must be gay with that plumage :o)
See the movie and you'll see that he can be pretty damn threatening.
He knows kung fu, he utilises razor-sharp knives in combat and he's created a weapon of mass destruction that could bring China to its knees. But probably the worst thing he's done is orchestrating the massacre of an entire village of pandas and being the reason the main character is an orphan.
----------
There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a stick!
It was a good representation of the British way. Pompous and arrogant yet sophisticated and suave. Also remember, the British had a subtle way of invading other Countries' territories.
Here's how they worked:
- Move in under an amiable guise.
- Dismantle the Country's customs and traditions.
- Use an armed police presence, again in a way that initially makes it seem as though the aim is to maintain "peace" in the land.
- Replace that Country's customs with British customs.
- Claim that the British are more civilised and therefore more inclined to be the ones in charge.
- Set up a system of slavery and servantry.
You will notice that the hero's in the movie all have American accents, the secondary characters have Chinese accents, and the villain is the only one with a British accent. Notice also that the British peacock wanted more than anything, to get rid of Kung Fu (even though he practised it himself), he still relied mainly on advanced weaponry.
he was also noble/royalty - supposed to inherit the throne
and you realise that on of the 5 is a mantis, right ?
>>>You will notice that the hero's in the movie all have American accents, the secondary characters have Chinese accents, and the villain is the only one with a British accent.
The only thing is, American movies always have English accented folks as the villains. That's not because they dislike the British (only Obama seems to enjoy offending our best ally), but because the British always sound more classy than Americans.
Even when they are Cockney Geckos!
The Thunder Child ezine
http://thethunderchild.com
You will notice that the hero's in the movie all have American accents, the secondary characters have Chinese accents, and the villain is the only one with a British accent.
Then where does the Belgian Crocodile fit into your theory?
Honestly I thought it was a great choice. First off the character design was beautiful and had an elegant way of fighting a good opposite from many of his opponents (the 'local' Kung Fu masters were all very muscled and dense looking designs - the croc, rhino, and water buffalo). He had the look of royalty and it also helped illustrate that his greatest strength was his weapon (which he admitted early on) - although he fared pretty well in combat he was royalty and therefore relied more on his underlings and strategy over physical brawn.
One thing this franchise has shown is that with kunfu... appearance is minor. The whole point of the first movie was showing that even a big fat panda can be the dragon warrior, and I mean look at mantis - the strongest of the Furious Five and a fraction of their size. Crane is another avian and he's considered tough... though always seems to be more of a supporting role than anything else, and the snake character does not have fangs as a weapon (something that would doom a non-kung-fu fighting individual of her species).
I really loved Shen's fighting style, I wish he had gotten more screentime in kungfu battles.
He's voiced by Gary Oldman. /thread
Ha ha, charade you are!
the wolves etc.....they know the "pecking order" ................... i will get my coat.
shareWas just about to post something along the lines of what you said.
I took an instant liking to the character and upon finding out that Oldman did the voice, it all became clear why.
[deleted]
He was a really crap villain. Any of the kung fu masters could have defeated him easily, but conveniently it was only Po who gets to him and ends up having flashbacks. Such a weak villain.
Also the movie gave very mixed messages about how cruel he was. For example, why'd he let the fortune-teller goat go free when she annoyed him? Isn't he meant to be exceptionally evil? She ate half his cape and kept on telling him he'd fail. Why suddenly be "nice"? Because having the she-goat killed would be too harsh for kids?
The gun was also pretty silly. How is it going to defend him if a standard kung fu master came to attack him? It's too slow and requires aiming/sparking. Any sensible kung fu master would have just run up to the peacock and killed/disabled him. No peacock, no invasion of China.
Tai Long was a million times better as a villain. For me, the peacock was the weakest part of what was a good movie/sequel.
Shen was a formidable kung fu master, and had an army to protect him from one on ones...against a sea of enemies they don't even have to aim.
Jennifer Yuh said Tai Lung was the epitome of a physical villain, and felt the next level would have to be an intellectual one. I thought it was very well played.
But most importantly the animation for the feathers and blades were kickass.
It took me a while too to get over the fact that the villan was, in essence, a glorified chicken. Despite that though, I thought Gary Oldman did an excellent job. I guess since the animals in the traditional animal forms of kung fu are already in the movie exhausted they had to start picking other critters.
Stupidity knows no bounds.
I used to be naive and think that any villain who couldn't fight on his own two feet was worthless, once I grew up from that as a child, I suddently realised how stupid I was.
Look at Hitler and the horrible things he did, almost a real world example of a villain, although as always with real life it's all morally grey as he probably believed in what he was doing. The point is; when was the last time he ever fought a load of troops himself?
Fact is, brawn can only get you so far, intelligence, ambition and subtlety will take you far further.
It's like when a physically weak villain has a physically strong right hand man, I used to think "Hey why doesn't he just kill or beat up the weaker one and take over?".
The answer to this is a fairly complex one, but basically it's to do with the fact that firstly, the big right hand man probably doesnt have much of a plan and isnt that intelligent himself and secondly in a psychological way, he isnt as strong mentally or emotionally as the main villain.
There are exceptions to this, such as Charles Dance's character in Last Action Hero, but then again he was always more villinous and intelligent than the man he worked for anyhow.
Once you understand the complex social and mental hierarchy's of human beings it becomes far more clear.
The final point is that this villain was great in my books, plus its Gary Oldman, he always seems to do great villains.
[deleted]
You jsut summed of "of mice and men" :)
Like strawberries and cream
It's the only way to be =P
Firstly, I find that a very condescending post, especially given your first and second-last sentances. You clearly think your conclusion is that of an adult whereas anyone who think's Tai Lung was a better villain is simple-minded. Talk about patting yourself on the back too much.
Secondly, you've missed the point entirely here. Kung Fu Panda is not based on real life, and as such in Kung Fu Panda's world brawn IS enough. Look at Tai Lung, he could take out an entire army of rhino's (and multiple masters in the furious five) and had an entire village scattering for their lives. He could have pretty much done anything he wanted were it not for Po, and noone else other than the dragon warrior could have stopped him - this makes him a much more formidable enemy in my books than a peacock who relied on slow-aiming cannons (which fired hot balls that didn't really explode much) and an army of weak/easily defeatable wolves.
In fact, Shen should have been stopped/killed at least twice iirc had it not been for Po's flashbacks. Without them the movie would have been over in about 25 minutes. That's how weak a villain Shen was, and how exposed he was. How can a villain be a good one in a movie like KFP when he's nearly killed/stopped/captured a few times and some deus-ex machina saves his skin?
But back to the original point, Tai Lung was certainly powerful and viscious enough to be a great villain who you wouldn't get in real life. Therefore whatever wise understanding you've reached about "how the world works" is completely irrelevant in a bloody cartoon movie. FFS, can't believe I'm having to explain this.
Once you understand the complex social and mental hierarchy's of human beings it becomes far more clear.
Testinator.
I think YOU have missed the point entirely of this film. Yes, I realize this is an animated film about talking Kung Fu animals, but isn't the point of films not only to entertain, but to speak to us ABOUT real life. It isn't that hard to see that the film (obviously marketed to kids, but applicable to anyone) makes very clear statements about lessons or morals of the story that we need to learn. Lets say that you wanted to use the films to talk to children about bullying. Tai Lung is certainly your classical bully, he is big, he picks on everyone weaker than himself all so he can prove his superiority. But unfortunately in real life (and yes, even in the world of make believe talking animals) there is not just one type of bully. What about the bully's who use shunning, psychological torture, relational aggression, etc. (Ever seen "Mean Girls"?) I don't know that this is entirely what the filmmakers had in mind, but to claim that because this isn't real life we shouldn't deal with real life issues seems to be taking a ridiculous stand just to score talking points against the other poster who disagreed with you.
Secondly, I think your understanding of Kung Fu's purposes and aims is incredibly narrow-minded. For example these statements.
"It's boring and shouldn't be in a Kung Fu movie (animated or not) because it then becomes an anti-climax when the good guy fights the minions/underlings/hired hands to get to the "boss", and then gets a very easy battle with the weak boss who usually tries to run."
Um...no its actually not an anti climax. Its just a different kind of climax. The point of this was not to show who Po could beat up (we already know he can do that) The climax of this film was when he finally was able to achieve inner peace, which is ABSOLUTELY something that should be in a Kung Fu movie (see point below).
"in Kung Fu Panda's world brawn IS enough."
Um...actually its not. If all that were required for Kung Fu were to beat the &%@# out of someone, then yeah sure, Tai Lung is the only possible villain for the movie. But anyone who studies martial arts will tell you that it ISNT just about brawn, nor is it all about FIGHTING (as you assert). The point of martial arts (and really the aim of traditional Chinese culture and philosophy) was to emphasize TOTAL harmony: Mind, body, spirit. To assert that the ONLY thing Po needed to learn was how to kick Tai Lungs a$$ you are actually demonstrating your ignorance about the purpose of Kung Fu. Watch the film again and this time pay close attention to Shifu. You know, Shifu, the great guru of the film. He flat out states that that Po has mastered ALL the physical skills necessary to be the dragon warrior. Now he needs to achieve inner peace (i.e. total harmony), which he could not do until he came to grips with his past and finds peace in his future. Shen was the person who stood in the way of his being able to achieve that.
As to your final point, all I can say is if villains like Shen are boring to you than you really have missed out on a lot of great villains. For example Hans Gruber from Die Hard (its actually quite easy to kill him once John McClane sifts through all his minions), The Joker from Dark Knight (yeah he puts up a pretty good fight, but that fight only lasts about as long as the fight between Po and Shen in KFP2. Not too mention the fact that there are also two times when Batman could have easily taken him out if only he hadn't gotten distracted...just like with Po and Shen). Or if you want to go the route of other kids films, Scar from Lion King is very similar to Shen in that he is also very much a weakling who has to rely on his pack of hyenas to defend him, yet I would hardly call him "boring". Also, villains from literature such as Iago from "Othello" (in my opinion the BEST Shakespearean villain of all time).
One more side note. If you really think the cannons are that wimpy why don't you try stopping a cannon ball with your bare hands and then throwing it back. Honestly, I thought that was freaking awesome. And by the way, REAL LIFE cannons actually do just fire "small chainless wrecking balls", what were you expecting of the weapon, SCUD missiles? And its hard to call what the cannons do "minimally explosive" (For example, look at what they do to the palace and the blockade of ships)
Honestly, I would suggest you broaden your views a bit. If you don't like Shen because you find him boring, that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your weakly argued points or your narrow-mindedness.
You completely misunderstood my post.
I also thought Tai Lung was a great villain, but I was just explaining how I, remember me not you, used to think as a child.
Besides this wasnt just about Tai Lung, I was just explaining the way I saw things, I apologise if it came off condecending, but it wasn't aimed at you in particular, I merely replied to you because it was somewhat relevant.
I can see your point about 'James bond' villains, but they are almost always more ridiculous than Shen, he at least had a somewhat believable motive backed up by what he probably thought of as a difficult past.
Although frankly he was a power hungry brat.
However I do like villains that could have a real world counterpart, forget for a second the rhetoric of 'this is about talking animals, afterall it is written by us, humans, with our morals and perspectives, the animals are just a medium.
I suppose it's probably just that I prefer a villain with a bit more to him than either the cliche of the james bond villain or the brawny villain with a grudge who ends up in a flashy showdown with the hero.
In the case of kung fu panda they managed to do variations on both, but at the same time flesh them out to be more than just one dimensional personalities.
ps: You may see a contradiction between me claiming they were fleshed out somewhat and the 'power hungry brat' comment directed at Shen but that is the point, often people are shallow and their motives and drives can come from shallow reasoning.
Most people are shallow, including myself. Afterall, it is often the smaller things which bother us, rather than the big things.
Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one. Tai Lung was bada$$ don't get me wrong. But in many ways Shen is a far more interesting villain. What you call mixed messages, I call unpredictability. The best villains are those that throw you off, you are never quite sure if they are gonna torment you just for fun, let you go (presumably to catch and torture you again later) or just kill you on the spot. Besides sending the soothsayer away believing that he had just proved she was a fraud was probably a worse fate in his book. Besides which, Shen was a better villain because he had a personality and quirks. I love the fact that you get to see moments where Shen seems like he wants to be a strong ruler but isn't quite sure how to do it (for example the scene when he is practicing what to say to Po when he comes in). Not to mention the humor. Shen was probably the funniest character in the show because of his dry wit (what can I say? Gary Oldman is a freaking genius in EVERYTHING he does). Tai Lung just blazes in and takes everything out, Shen schemes and plans things. Plus, really all Tai Lung wanted was to prove he was the biggest bada$$ of all. Shen wanted it ALL.
I could go on, but seriously, Shen may be a different kind of villain than you were expecting but if they had just put in ANOTHER tough bada$$ as a villain, just another Tai Lung, this movie would have REALLY sucked because I would have felt they were just trying to recreate the first one. Thankfully they decided to mix things up a bit and try a different villain. In my opinion the peacock was the BEST part of the sequel.
Killing a fortune teller is never a good idea. Shen was afraid of her predictions, but at the same time he needed her around him for her abilities. Would you give up an actual fortuneteller when you're making an ambitious plan for total domination? It wasn't being nice, it was making sure he didn't ruin his own future.
The key to the weapon is surprise and overwhelming power. If you haven't faced it before, it is a devastating tool. Besides, Shen was more than capable of fending off Kung Fu Masters when it came down to it.
Besides, they took Lord Shen in a different direction and made him a different kind of villain. Tell me the truth, would it have been interesting if the villain was just another Kung Fu master like Tai Long? They went for something new, and I'd say it worked quite well.
At first I also found the idea to make a peacock the villain somewhat weird. But at times he could be very threatning.
shareAnd then at times he could be rather comical ("A little to the left," anyone?) without it being the character being funny on purpose, which kind of detracted from that.
Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.
That's the thing. I didn't want a one dimensional villian. I wanted a somewhat more complex villian. Unfortunately, at times when it seemed to go in that direction I was slightly let down.
I think the drivers for this villian were too weakly explained and demonstrated.
Batman is only as good as his villians.
Just checking. Are you fine with a Praying Mantis the can beat the crap out of just about anyone?
Do you want me to slow him down sir? or are you sending in more guys for him to beat up?
This is such a stupid thread lol....people getting WAY to serious about whether or not a Kung-Fu Peacock could control some Kung-Fu Wolves. LMAO so stupid.
IMO, Shen was badass, and making him a Peacock let them get VERY creative with his animation, which turned out beautifully.
Also as far as the story, Shen invented super-cannons. And he was rich. And he was atleast decent at Kung-Fu. And he had a plan to conquer China. And he was convincing. Combine all that, and you get a powerful leader who could easily recruit simple minded thugs. It makes perfect sense.
I thought the same thing - a PEACOCK - just let some of those wolves run over him like they did in The Company of Wolves. He was beautiful though. I said that several times throughout the movie. He was beautifully drawn and imagined. Then my friends told me to knock it off.
"Well, make something up!"/RG
Shen being a peacock didn't deter from his ability to be a formidable villain in even the slightest. Some people don't understand villainy, and what is required to make a villain memorable and great.
Gary Oldman is such a brilliant actor, be it protagonist or antagonist. He knows how to portray a villain perhaps better than anyone working today. Shen was beautifully drawn, and animated, but those who appreciate him can thank Oldman as the reason why he is the epitome of awesomeness.
I didn't know Shen was voiced by Oldman when I started watching the movie, and I didn't point him out right away. It didn't take me long to figure it out when the Peacock not only sounded like Oldman, but behaved as he does as well. I was just like, "This peacock is freakin great! It's gotta be Oldman!" Came on here to look at the cast, and sure enough.
- The General has spoken.
Shen was a very dimensional character right down to those moments where he showed some speck of remorse for his actions only to pull away...and all this in an animated movie! I think Oldman was having some fun with this particular role and it showed. 10 out 10 for an animated villain.
shareWell, he knows how to fight and he had some metal claws going on and one of the wolves has a missing eye so...
--------------------------
New Siggy: Some people on IMDB whine just as bad as 2 yr olds.