New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

David Mumpower: I'm going to start from a different angle here and work my way back so please stay with me. I have mentioned on occasion on BOP that I am convinced the scariest horror films are the ones where there is no explanation for the behavior. The line of dialogue in The Strangers gives me a chill for exactly this reason. We want to understand the underlying mechanics of things; that's the nature of human curiosity. Our understanding drives us to become better. And as much as I want to find a satisfactory explanation for the middling domestic opening of Kung Fu Panda 2, I have been unable to do so. In point of fact, I spent an hour at dinner on Saturday evening contemplating this with Kim Hollis. We were stymied. I cannot think of five times that has happened since the creation of BOP.

We had the discussion about the distance since the first film but with all due respect to Matthew and Edwin, I do not see it as a significant amount of time. Yes, The Hangover II was only two years removed from its predecessor, but we also argued just last week that not enough time had passed for a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel. I think we all agree that Cars 2, a sequel that comes over five years after the original, will tear up the box office. Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa was released three years after Madagascar and it behaved as we had expected, opening 34% higher. Sequels should do better than the original; after all, the demand created by the original is (presumably) the rationale for making another movie. Kung Fu Panda 2 failed to do so. Why?

As Edwin suggests, I also went down the line with the thought process that animation fatigue should be setting in. I absolutely believe that is an issue for a new property such as Rio or Rango. They are starting from scratch and that puts more of an onus on them with regards to opening weekend. Still, those titles debuted to $38.1 and $39.2 million, respectively. Kung Fu Panda 2, a known franchise with a very well regarded predecessor, managed less than $10 million more to start. That blows me away.

Yes, I agree that its legs and international box office will carry the day for DreamWorks Animation. Even so, if I worked for that company today, I would be feeling quite dejected. Kung Fu Panda 2 was intended to be their Pixar-ish film, the character-driven feature that dials down the laughs in order to ramp up the story telling. This movie is quite poignant and I very much enjoyed it. It just wasn't very funny. In the end, that's apparent all people want from Kung Fu Panda.

We joke all the time here at BOP about the Jack Black/Kevin James/person in a fat suit comedies. Our argument is that people want to see a fat guy fall down. Kung Fu Panda is apparently the animation equivalent of this with a big fat panda substituted in for big, fat Jack Black. When the trailer focused on the Po character arc instead of Po falling down a lot, DreamWorks apparently lost a significant portion of its core audience. If I am involved with the making of a feature this high in quality and I'm faced with that realization, I'd be ripping my hair out in frustration.

People gave Pixar a chance with WALL-E and Up, but DreamWorks Animation was not extended the same benefit of the doubt. I worry that this will cause them to step back a bit from all of the growth they've demonstrated with their recent animated titles, particularly my favorite of 2010, How to Train Your Dragon. Their latest turn toward story driven character plots has not succeeded while The Hangover II lazily swapped out a tiger for a monkey and made a fortune. This is the latest round of that constant battle between art and commerce and commerce just wiped the floor with art. Again. I'd like to see art put up a fight every once a while.

Continued:       1       2       3