Thursday, May 13, 2010

Kung Fu Writer...


It appears that Katzenberg has got a big gun to come in and do a polish on the KFP sequel...

Charlie Kaufman, the brilliant screenwriter of "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Adaptation" among many others has came in to tighten the story of "Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom."

This sounds like great news. I happen to be a big fan of Charlie's work. I have high expectations for this sequel and anybody who read my review knows how much I love KFP. It's the high watermark that all films from DreamWorks Animation have to measure themselves by. I don't know if this will be as good as the first, but the quality of the story definitely got elevated. Well, at least we have that Kung Fu Panda holiday special to look forward to until the sequel.

Here's to hoping there's no doom in boom...

Hat Tip to The Hollywood Reporter's HeatVision blog.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Kunk" fu? Typo? Or a pun I totally missed?

Anyway, I hope Tai Lung returns in the KFP sequel. I know he was the bad guy, but I found myself feeling a little sorry for him, plus he was ubercool. It'd be awesome if he came back and redeemed himself. Next to Po he was my favorite character.

That is all.

Ryan said...

Hopefully this won't center on Po getting a job on the 7 1/2th floor of the Mertin-Flemmer Building, adapting a book (and putting himself in it at the same time), while secretly spying on the new bad guy, who's building a replica of the city in an airplane hanger. Oh, wait...

Justin said...

"It's the high watermark that all films from DreamWorks Animation have to measure themselves by."

In my opinion How To Train Your Dragon is a much better film. I enjoyed Kung Fu Panda, but I wasn't as gaga over it as other people were. Dragons, in my opinion, is a great film and is by far Dreamworks' best film to date.

Anonymous said...

Methinks Jeffrey was struggling with writer envy.

"Pixar has a kooky offbeat Oscar-winning screenwriter! Why can't we have one?"

:^)