# Kung fu panda has the most flagrant plot hole



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm a huge Kung fu panda fan, but all fanboyism aside I can't get over how terribly the producers used blatant dues ex machina to solve an impossible problem. Tai lung was portrayed to be invincible and a hardcore badass able to subdue 1000 guards. He proceeds to foddeize the furious 5 and then fodderizes shifu. Who can defeat this unstoppable badass. Enter po, a virtually diabetic panda and overly obese. Said panda takes an hour just to climb the stairs. In less than a month of training po goes from virtually useless to Bruce lee and gives tai lung a major ass whooping. The same guy who was raping armies was being bludgeoned by a panda. How did po get this immense power and strength? By believing in himself. 



Really? People complain about the power of friendship but ignore an even more flagrant trope, this whole dogma that self confidence can make you magically do anything. Smh.

I still am a huge Kung fu panda fan, but tai Lung's demise is an abomination if you ask me


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 6, 2014)

Po's strength was his fat. He could have absorb all of Lung blows.


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> Po's strength was his fat. He could have absorb all of Lung blows.



I call major BS. In the second movie po never had the ability to deflect blows with his fat. This is a palpable asspull, where only against tai lung po magically can deflect and absorb blows with his stomach. 

Tai lung was reputed to have mastered 1000 scrolls. We learn that among the abilities inscribed in the scrolls are blinding someone with a clap, erasing one's memory, using fire and more. Tai lung should have fodderized him with his 1000 scrolls abilities.

The producers wanted to be jocular and have po's fat nerf a seemingly invincible villain, which wasn't funny and terribly done


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 6, 2014)

You do realize that this is a movie made for little kids right? I mean I haven't seen this movie but judging from the title and what I've heard about it you really shouldn't expect to be some incredibly well written masterpiece. You're looking way too much into this.

I also love how all your criticisms for Kung Fu Panda are some of the many flaws the make Naruto such a terrible series.


----------



## Ae (Jan 6, 2014)

He's part of the Akimichi clan


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Masterpiece said:


> He's part of the Akimichi clan



It all makes sense


----------



## Rukia (Jan 6, 2014)

When a shitty movie has a plot hole I tend to not care.


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Rukia said:


> When a shitty movie has a plot hole I tend to not care.



Kung fu panda isn't shitty, just needs to work on solving problems without resorting o deus ex machinas


----------



## Stunna (Jan 6, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> You do realize that this is a movie made for little kids right? I mean I haven't seen this movie but judging from the title and what I've heard about it you really shouldn't expect to be some incredibly well written masterpiece. You're looking way too much into this.


A film having a primary demographic of kids doesn't exempt it from needing quality writing. 



> I also love how all your criticisms for Kung Fu Panda are some of the many flaws the make Naruto such a terrible series.


Do you get a boner from hating on Naruto? Does your hatred give you strength?

...Itachi?



Gutsiani99 said:


> Kung fu panda isn't shitty, just needs to work on solving problems without resorting o deus ex machinas


Ignore Rukia, he's a troll.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 6, 2014)

Gutsiani99 said:


> I call major BS. In the second movie po never had the ability to deflect blows with his fat.



You can't use the 2nd movie to support an argument for the first. If anything you should complain about the sequel for changing his abilities. 



> Tai lung was reputed to have mastered 1000 scrolls. We learn that among the abilities inscribed in the scrolls are blinding someone with a clap, erasing one's memory, using fire and more. Tai lung should have fodderized him with his 1000 scrolls abilities.



All irrelevant since Po was the chosen one. He was meant to be special and thus had special powers. It was even foreshadowed in his ability to so skillfully get to the cookies that he already had untapped potential. 

Outside of all that I think you are taking a children's movie way too seriously. It isn't like they really delved into the powers and made a power scale for everything.


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Stunna said:


> A film having a primary demographic of kids doesn't exempt it from needing quality writing.
> 
> 
> Do you get a boner from hating on Naruto? Does your hatred give you strength?
> ...



Ignore rica Partin, he's a pretentious ass self righteous elitist wannabe who thinks his opinions are infallible and "objective". I hope not everyone here is like him


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> You can't use the 2nd movie to support an argument for the first. If anything you should complain about the sequel for changing his abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What he did against tai lung was only showed in that one scene in the frost movie. In every other franchise like the sequel and legends of awesomeness, no ability existed. That's an asspull and major plot hole


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 6, 2014)

Gutsiani99 said:


> What he did against tai lung was only showed in that one scene in the frost movie. In every other franchise like the sequel and legends of awesomeness, no ability existed. That's an asspull and major plot hole



But you can't apply it to the first movie. That movie was first and sets the standard. If that changes it is the later movies where you can call retcon or whatever else.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 6, 2014)

It's a hard criticism to make well. On the surface, it's a message for kids. Talking about how the conclusion is arbitrary after the bad guy defeated so many kung fu masters is probably not the kind of head space the writers were targeting for the movie's demo. Having a fat panda moping about being fat the whole movie and then using his fat to defeat the bad guy is a message, and the theme of that message probably has deeper roots in the script than the power levels you were mapping out. To add to that, this kind of arc has home in older kung fu movies where the hero's initial weakness - thinking too much, moving too slowly/quickly, being too tall, being too short, fighting too dirty, fighting too honorably, whatever flaw, ultimately becomes the secret key to defeating the unstoppable villain. Kung fu panda was riffing off those archetypes.

It's a wild criticism. You can read about dues ex machina, plot holes, macguffin, character development, power levels, and so on, and then start plugging them in everywhere, but some of these jacks don't jack in there. I thought the fat twist was a cute message for kids. You thought it was a plot hole that didn't excuse how an untrained panda could defeat the bad guy. You're not wrong, but I'm not wrong either, and if we're both right, I think I'm closer to the spirit of an animated PG movie aimed at young audiences than you are.


----------



## Malicious Friday (Jan 6, 2014)

Well he _is_ somewhat the title character... and he's the main character...and it is a children's movie... so.... 



Rica_Patin said:


> I also love how all your criticisms for Kung Fu Panda are some of the many flaws the make Naruto such a terrible series.



He's not even talking about anything near anime and yet you still rage on how Naruto is a terrible series... the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Gutsiani99 (Jan 6, 2014)

Malicious Friday said:


> Well he _is_ somewhat the title character... and he's the main character...and it is a children's movie... so....
> 
> 
> 
> He's not even talking about anything near anime and yet you still rage on how Naruto is a terrible series... the fuck is wrong with you?



Rica Partin is why we have rehabilitation instituted


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 7, 2014)

That is a flaw, but I believe no one really cares because this story isn't meant to be taken seriously.

It's a fun and goofy movie about a clumsy panda trying to learn kung fu.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 7, 2014)

Po was immune to Tai Lungs' nerve attack due to his fattiness; beyond that, Tai Lung underestimated Po while Po chose to outsmart and embarrass rather than outfight him, and since Tai Lung had a fragile ego this was easy to do. Po was not a better fighter, but he spent a lifetime studying Kung Fu so a month of training (ie. getting in shape) isn't that unfeasible; he didn't become a master or anything, he bet an angry,  humiliated and delusional egomaniac who had just discovered that everything he had devoted his life to was something he never could get- believing in himself didn't make Po the Dragon Warrior; Po _was_ the Dragon Warrior and believing in himself was just the final step.

In the sequel he's gained skills but lost weight, and nobody used the nerve attacks Tai Lung did on him.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Jan 7, 2014)

Erm... who cares?

No really... who can possibly care?

I guess you do.


----------



## Hyperion1O1 (Jan 7, 2014)

You remember how Po Kung Fu'd the food right?

He's a Kung Fu genius because of destiny but only if he focuses on food. Shifu even said he stinks when he focuses on Kung Fu.

At the end of the movie, he briefly tapped into his inner genius and unleashed Kung Fu on Tai Lung.

Additional proof of his genius: he learned the finger/pinkie/whatever hold without being taught.

Posted because of boredom


----------



## Island (Jan 7, 2014)

Stunna said:


> A film having a primary demographic of kids doesn't exempt it from needing quality writing.


Yes it does.

Something doesn't have to be good by an adult's standards to be entertaining to a child. The purpose of films like these is to entertain children, and that may or may not come at the sacrifice of entertaining individuals outside of their target audience. There are many children's movies that succeed at entertaining a wide range of viewers, but that doesn't make them the benchmark.

Somebody making a movie for children, by definition of what they're doing, is tasked with making a movie that will entertain children, the same way that a food bowl designer is tasked with making a usable food bowl for animals. The fact that both the movie and the bowl can be enjoyed by groups outside the target demographic doesn't mean that ones that are not enjoyed outside the demographic are inherently worse. The latter still succeeded at its purpose.

It comes down to the purpose of your product. If it does it's job, good. If it does it's job and then some, great, but that doesn't mean that similar things that still do their job are any less.

As for the topic at hand, lol...

I didn't know that people were this passionate about Kung Fu Panda.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 7, 2014)

Kung Fu Panda is a great movie but I definitely wasn't studying it's complexity lol.


----------

