Talk:Kung Fu Panda 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Are there really five composers?

I think we should get more sources before we list all of DreamWorks' past composers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.115.207 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Romance

I think We would all agree to some romance in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.97.40 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is James Woods starring in the ads?

I want him removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.60.222 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

The current plot summary is pretty confusing. I was going to try to fix it, but it's so confusing that I didn't trust myself to be able to make sense of it. The recent bot edit did fix the vandalism, but left the real problem of incomprehensibility. Anyone know enough about the film to be able to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlsusc (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it currently reads like fractured English. 60.234.236.221 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Nikhat Kazmi of the Times of India's 4 stars? Her ratings are highly questionable.

Characters

I don't know who, but someone keeps adding "master" onto the furious five's names. Like I've said many times, the furious five ARE NOT masters. Po is their master now, and Master Shifu is Po's master. Any changes involving "master" to one of the furious five's names will be reverted. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, If you watch the first film, The Furious Five are called Masters also.Anonymous

I have watched the first film, hundreds of times, and it is obvious that you haven't. The Furious Five are NOT called masters at all in the film. Even at the end, they bow to Po saying "master". Your vandalism to this page will continue to be reverted until an administrator bannes you from editing the page. If you're gong to use Wikipedia, use it correctly. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who is wrong, If you watch the first film again during the tournament sequence (at 3:12 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stx4Qxtf2as&feature=related) Shifu says "And finally Master Tigress" also Po says "They are five MASTERS, I am just one me!" later on in the first film so this is not vandalism TrueFaleel (talk) 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Furious Five are not masters; like I said before, they all bow down to Po at the end, and call him their master. Plain and simple. You are mistaken by the term "master" in two ways; one, is that Po sees the Furious Five as his "master" because he looks at the as his heroes; therefore that is what he calls them. Secondly, if you pay attention in the first movie, Master Shifu, and Master Oogway are still training the Furious Five to become The Dragon Warrior. When one of them is selected, THEN he/she will become a master. Yes, Master Shifu does call Tigress "master" at one point of the movie, but that is because she is the strongest and the main character of the Furious Five. She is not a true master as you are thinking. Furthermore, even in the end credits of the movie, say Master Shifu/Oogway, and just say The Furious's Five's names without master. It also says on IMDB AND Rotten Tomatoes that the Furious Five are not masters. This argument will end at this moment, and if you continue to keep adding "master" on the Furious Five's names on this page, It will eventually turn into vandalism, and I will have to report you for it. edit war is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and I suggest it stops at this moment. If it doesn't, unfortunatley I will have to report you for that, too. Also, don't take this to heart; your contibutions for Kung Fu Panda 2 are greatly appreciated from all of "us" users on Wikipedia. I am simply just doing what is best for Wikipedia. We all would appreciate your cooperation. :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Dreamwork's official publicity materials recognize them as such. E.e. "The Art Of Kung Fu Panda" artbook, the chapter on character design goes as such:

The Masters

Since animating the ornate cloth on top of fur was too difficult for the cg modellers at Dreamworks, Marlet made each of the main characters , including the five masters sport interesting fur, scale, skin, or feather patterns.

I hope that resolves any existing conflict since this was an official Dreamworks publication. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Like I said before, The Furious Five are not true masters; they are called "masters" by the fictional citizens of the Land of Peace, because they are so important; as they are in training for the dragon warrior. Even if it is said very briefly that they are on DreamWorks Animation, the producers don't mean that they are true masters for the movie. If they did want them to be masters, then they would have put it on the end credits of the movie. Furthermore, Po had become a master at the end of the first movie, thus everyone bowing down to him calling them their MASTER; includuing the Furious Five, therefore he is the Furious Five's master. Master Shifu is Po's master, and Master Oogway was Master Shifu's master. Please show that tyou have some intention of being a cooaperate user by at least reading the links that I have provided for you in my last say. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bowing is shown as a sign of mutual respect in Martial arts and many cultures, so it is not an indicator. As you watched the movie so many times, I am sure you recall at Po and Master Shifu bowed to each other after their special training in the first movie. As for IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, do keep in mind that Rotten Tomatoes is just a review site and like IMDB they cannot be compared to official Dreamworks sanctioned materials. Dreamworks OWN the characters, its up to them to determine whether the five are masters or not. Unless you can find official Dreamworks material that contradicts their own artbook and says explicitly that that say they are NOT masters, your reasoning only constitutes as Original Research. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When The Furious Five bowed down to Po, yes that is a sign of mutal respect, but what I am strictly talking about is that they said "Master" when they bowed down to him. The same goes for Po and Master Shifu; when they bowed to each other, Shifu showed respect to Po by bowing, but Po said "master" when he bowed to him. Furthermore, it says in plain black and white on the DreamWorks website, Po's dreams become reality when he joins the world of Kung Fu and studies alongside his idols, the legendary fighters Tigress, Crane, Mantis, Viper and Monkey under the leadership of their teacher and trainer, Master Shifu, and says NOTHING about them being true masters. Yes, they are masters to the village citizens, and to Po, but they aren't true masters to be called by that. So I suggest we both stop this nonsense over something so little. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

By your logic above, Po would not be a called a Master as well, since he is just a " kung fu master" just like the Fuve. He is a Dragon Warriot, but he was still training with and under the Five, if we take into the context of the part where Po trains under Tigress. Other than the villagers, no one has referred to Po as a Master either (except for the Five, and that was mutual). Technically its not Master Shifu either, since "Shifu" already means master in Chinese. But thats all original research. We should take official sources and the movie as it is and not add our own interpretations to it. Dreamworks own the characters. And if their official materials recognize them as masters, they are so, and Po as only the dragon warrior, thats the way it is. Zhanzhao (talk) 21

13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are still not making reference to what I have said. IF THE FURIOUS FIVE WERE CONSIDERED MASTERS, THEN THE PRODUCERS WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT IN THE CREDITS. Just accept that fact that you are wrong. Actually, I shouldn't say that, because I, am wrong in many ways too. But I've got an idea; since Tigress is the only one out of the Furious Five who has been called called "master" directly by a character in the movie, then I suggest adding master to her name only, and not to the others, because they haven't been called master directly. Plus, she is the main character of the Furious Five. Do you think that is fair? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually my point is that Po is roughly on the same level as the five. Note that other than that one instance when Tigress addressed him as master, other than the villagers everyone addressed him as either Po or Dragon Warrior. The dragon warrior is outside of the normal ranking system, seeing how Po was chosen before he was even a student. Finally credits describe Po as just.... Po. Can't argue with the credits. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You just concluded this problem. The credits describe Po as just Po, and they describe the Five as just their plain names; Tigress, Monkey, Mantis, Crane, and Viper without "master". I rest my case. You're right, there is no arguing with the credits. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Except credits can be wrong, example? Jurassic Park lists a piece of source music under the wrong name, but yes going by that logic, they are not masters TrueFaleel (talk)

Okay, I'm glad you understand. :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what the rating is/will be on this movie?

I'm very surprised that there is no mention of Rating in the main box on the right, under the movie poster, with the basic info on the film. Anyone know what it is?166.94.128.10 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're asking about the MPAA rating. Like the previous film, it is PG. This says, "Rated PG for sequences of martial arts action and mild violence." The reason that the infobox does not include a rating field is that there are different ratings (and different reasons) in different countries. To report only the MPAA rating would be biased toward the United States, where listing all the ratings would be too indiscriminate. It's more direct to call it a "family film" to indicate the lack of adult elements. If a rating is out of place for some reason, there will be coverage about it, which can then be used in the article. Basically, this film received a rating typical for its genre. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OR tag

It appears as if the claims as to surprisingly specific species of animals are someone's personal observations. The movie doesn't specify, and even if the claimant is a biologist that's original research.

I'm not saying the claims are necessarily incorrect; probably 90% of them are correct. I'm saying that, because of the core reason we have an OR policy in the first place, that these things need citation. One cannot say, "Well, it's obvious that's a Javan rhino" because to the vast, vast majority of the audience, it's simply a rhino. Calling it a Javan rhino requires specialized personal expertise, and we cannot use our own specialized personal expertise because there's no way of knowing if the editor is a scientist or some kid making a guess. These claims need verification. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually all the specific species are listed in the movite site or art books. And if anyone disputes the species because "it is obviously wrong cos I am a specialis", do remember that the 2 sources I mentioned are Dreamworks resources and its their call to make. This movie has TALKING ANTHROPORPHIC animals......why so serious? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Relating to voice actors

Is it necessary to mention who voices who in the "Plot" section when their names are listed in the "Cast" section right below it? Sorry if this sounds naive. User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Many "Chinese stars" boycott the film? Wrong!

The subject about many "Chinese stars" boycotting this film is misleading. This gives the impression that the whole of China is boycotting the film, when in reality the vast majority of Chinese audience gave it a positive review. A correction to that section is required ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.141.178 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] Its this avant-garde Chinese artist/t-shirt designer, Zhao Bandi who is launching this boycott. Apparently, Zhao Bandi staged the exact same boycott in 2008 with the first Kung Fu Panda. However, unless it is demonstrated this person's boycott is actually impacting the film, it is not relevant here (further mentioning him here is like given "free publicity" to this person and his commercial interests, as apparently Zhao sells Panda related clothing and artworks [2] [3]). --Filmested (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Section ordering

MOS:FILM does not dictate any section ordering, so the claim that we need to follow the way the sections are laid out in these guidelines is patently false. For one thing, just because "Marketing" is secondary does not mean it goes at the end. It is secondary in being the kind of content that is not expected in a film article on a regular basis. The topics under "Primary content" are what are expected in the article in a regular basis. It has nothing at all to do with order. Having "Theatrical release" allows us to talk about the release in theaters and how people responded to it there. We are not bound to fully isolate the details of the release from how people are responding to it. Read MOS:FILM—nothing talks about the ordering of the sections. We can talk about other sorts of ordering, but what exists at MOS:FILM exists to talk about specific elements, which can be woven together. Some articles will have just a "Reception" section, and some will be thoroughly broken down. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We're expected to follow guidelines, which are there because of now years of consensus, unless there's a compelling reason not to. In that respect, saying "does not dictate" is a technical straw dog, and your needlessly aggressive phrase "patently false" certainly does not make a person sound as if one wants to discuss things collegially.

I'm a little concerned about your unilaterally changing things to your own personal, preferred way, which is contrary to guidelines, without discussion. Since you seem insistent on doing things your own way regardless, and unilaterally going against guidelines, I'd imagine our next step would be some sort of mediation, such as an RfC. I would ask that you respect guidelines in the meantime.

For the record, here is the consensus-derived order as per guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film):

   4.1 Lead section
   4.2 Plot
   4.3 Cast
   4.4 Themes
   4.5 Production
   4.6 Release
       4.6.1 Home media
   4.7 Reception
       4.7.1 Critical response
       4.7.2 Box office
       4.7.3 Accolades
   4.8 References
   4.9 External links

5 Secondary content

   5.1 Documentaries
   5.2 Controversies
   5.3 Soundtrack
   5.4 Adaptation from source material
   5.5 Historical and scientific accuracies
   5.6 Marketing
   5.7 Further reading

--Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And I see, both here and on your user page, that you seem intent on doing things your way regardless. I'm not sure why you feel "Marketing" is one of the most important things about this film, but, fine, in the interest of collaboration and collegiality, I compromise on that. I would ask that you not exhibit such OWN-type behavior with the rest of the artice. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tenebrae, there is a rough order presented in these sections. Like I said, primary content is content that should appear in most film articles. Secondary content is more dependent on the nature of the film. For example, most articles will not have "Marketing" sections, but the way the guideline sections are laid out does not mean marketing goes after all of the primary content. I know because I was part of the discussion to group them accordingly. You are saying we are supposed to follow the order and the names of the sections to the letter? That is too restrictive, and we should be able to work with coverage of the film. For example, my experience is that the article can follow a rough chronology, such as release after production, so it makes sense to me to put marketing in between. Other sections like themes or historical accuracy don't have a specific consensus of where they should go, either. As for the release-based information, I think that we can combine "Release" and "Box office" because "Release" is so spartan in stating the Cannes screening. We can state that, the commercial release, and talk about box office figures as a result. "Critical reception" also has a number of ways to be included, but if we're to combine Release and Box office, we should do something different with it. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

May I ask, do you not think that it would be useful to merge the "Release" section with the others in some capacity? That was my problem from the get-go, stringently applying the guidelines to divorce these sections when we should be able to weave the Cannes screening in with the other theater-focused information. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time to discuss, particularly in such good detail. I do wish to say that I don't see someone generally inferring "follow strictly to the letter" from "follow guidelines unless there's a compelling reason not to." I don't believe that's a fair statement.

I think, actually, you feel the same way, since you are, very reasonably, making a case to combine Release and Box office in this case. I, too, do think that as long as the release date is in the lead that we can get away with mentioning it as the opening of the Box office subsection, but my feeling about the larger picture is that the consensus must have wanted to have Release be its own section for a reason. Since most movies' release information is only a sentence or two long, I'm not sure consensus would have wanted a Release section unless there was some reason for it that we might not readily know without searching for days for that archived discussion thread.

So while I agree with you, I'm also cognizant that perhaps there's good reason for a Release section. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've taken my medicine, I think that the value of a separate "Release" section depends on the coverage. Some films will go from festival to festival before they appear to the masses. I think that a section heading like "Theatrical release" works for this topic because we do not have much to say about Cannes, but at the same time it's not related to the box office, hence the different heading. The kind of coverage for a given film as it is released will vary, and I think that we should accommodate the coverage as it exists in the article and adjust headings if additional coverage is provided. I don't follow a universal set of headings to use for release-related information; I think it helps to have the topic define that order. As for "Marketing", you're right that it's not as important, but I had the rough chronology in mind. We could put it at the end if that is the preference. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, wherever you feel it's best -- I certainly wouldn't take back a compromise I offered. My concern, aside from anything else comes from having seen some of the spin that, evidently, someone connected with the film's marketing had been adding to the Box office section. I do worry that fans and others will use a higher-profile Marketing section to spin and to plug products (as I've recently seen at Thor (film) and The Green Hornet (film).

And since you've worked on some of these guidelines from the get-go, I'd accede to your feelings about combining Release with Box office. A separate Release section probably does work best for films with a long festival history or some complications/anomalies. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice the same challenges with "Marketing" sections too, which is why I brought it up here. It may be worth addressing the articles you mentioned too. I know that the presentation can be susceptible, but I think it can be informative with the right sources. For this article, before I used the one Variety source, the "Marketing" section looked like this. Variety was the only source I found that provided reasonable detail, like coverage of how studios conduct business, rather than "hey guys check this out!" coverage of the latest poster. [EDIT: I would also say that as long as sources are secondary and high-quality and provide information of value, we should be okay with "Marketing" sections. After all, we shouldn't feel wrong to write mostly positive reviews in the "Reception" section if the critics' consensus is that the film is great.]

As for the order of the section, let's get other opinions to see what the best way to present these sections are. I think there are several possible approaches, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds eminently reasonable. Honestly, from my perspective, I've been swayed to your point of view re: Release, and I myself can go either way on Marketing. (I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm against having that section. In fact, it's probably necessary. My only concern was that by having it high up rather than a scroll down "below the fold" it might entice marketing spinners. But I, for one, am perfectly content with either location.) Cheers, mate! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected...

...on "Critical response." My apologies; I glanced too quickly. You are correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New post

Some chinese people boycott it for they don't want the chinese culture to be sent to the world by the united states at all times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.125.4.18 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

The date that this movie came out in it's home country, which is the US, was released on May 26, 2011. The date it was released on Canada, was May 27, 2011. The link you provided was not related to what I am trying to say here; using other movie articles for examples, such as Toy Story 3, which has the film released at a different date in Taormina, which is much smaller than Canada is included in the infobox. Happy Feet, for example, was released in Australia in a different date then it's home country, and it is incuded in the infobox. Legend of the Guardians, was produced in the United States, and it came out on a different date in Australia. There are many, many, other articles that have different release dates int heir infobox, and there is NO EXCEPTION for Kung Fu Panda 2 to have just one release date in its infobox, if it came out on a different date in Canada, the second largest country in the world, should be stated. I, and all the other contributors to this article would really apreciate your cooperation. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The way you describe in those other articles goes against Wikipedia guidelines and those extraneous dates should be removed. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And I have checked Toy Story 3, and Taorminia is correct there since that was the locale of the earliest release. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Monkeys, you are very limited in your examples of why other "countries" are listed in the infobox. Toy Story 3 was shown at the Taormina Film Festival before its general release. Happy Feet is considered a co-production between Australia and the United States and thus both release dates are listed. And Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole is an Australian film, but was released in North America first, and thus both dates are listed. Kung Fu Panda 2 is an American film and was shown first in the United States. That date is the only date that needs to be in the infobox according to WP:FILMRELEASE. If you'll notice, we do not list the Russian release date for every film, even though it is the largest country in the world. If there is some reason why the Canadian release date is so extremely notable that we have to list it in the infobox, then please make that case. BOVINEBOY2008 22:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines do not state that the date of a movie should be included in the infobox, if the film came out in a different, and large country. Yes, the original date that the film was released must be in the infobox, but if a certain film comes out on a different date in a different country then its hometown, and the country is large, then it must be included in the infobox. It's just plain, simple, common sense. Furthermore, I said that the production took place in Australia for Legend of the Guardians and Happy Feet. The animation is what took place in Australia; know your facts. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have read your reasoning a few times now, and I have to admit, it does make sense. Russia is the biggest country in the world, and this particular info in not included. May I ask, if production of Kung Fu Panda took place in Canada, and it was released on a different date in the United States, then would this information not need to be included in the infobox? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the film was considered Canadian, or at least partially Canadian, then of course the Canadian release date should be in there. BOVINEBOY2008 22:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then yes, in this case, you are correct. Your reasoning does make a lot of sense. I can't be right all the time! :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth simplifying matters by just saying May 2011? It seems like there are awkward situations where we feel compelled to notice that the film was released in some other country one day before it is released in the United States. It's a level of precision that seems unnecessary for the infobox. Historically speaking, it seems like a good highlight to have the month and the year. The specific date works better in context, especially to avoid these awkward situations. Just a thought. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea, good thinking :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Suggested

I have been having a problem for several weeks now with a contributor changing the release date on the infobox of this article. It is starting to turn into vandalism now, since the release date has already been disscused above. Also, this is not the first time I've had vandalism problems with contributors on this article. I've also came across other users reverting vandalism on this page's edit history. I suggest having a semi protection lock on this article, to reduse the amount of vandalism. Does anyone else agree? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It should be easy to document for an admin. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually have no clue how to semi protect a page, because I have never done it before, maybe a different user could? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is now semi protected. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Future Sequels

In a future sequel, problems that may be dealt with: 1) Po may be forced to choose between his beloved adopted father and his biological family, who are alive after all. 2) Will the relationship between Po and Tigress remain a friendship, or will it develop into a romance? Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if there ends up being a sequel, it is definatley going to be interesting with Po's adoptave father and his biolgical father. But Po and Tigress were simply just becoming closer as friends in the current movie, and there is most likely not going to become a romance between the two, as this is a DreamWorks movie. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

At one point, Po and Tigress give each other a friendly hug. Just buddies. But - then, right away they become a bit embarrassed and self-conscious. Does DreamWorks have an iron-clad rule afainst Romance? Maybe not. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Shen agrees that one is free to move on and choose one's own path - and then deliberately he chooses the path of evil. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How on Earth can DreamWorks be contemplating four more films! One more, maybe two, I can handle. But four! I know Star Wars lasted for six films and the Bionicle Saga lasted for a decade, but they were different. I doubt that Jack Black, Angelina Jolie and Dusten Hoffman will want to stay on for that long, let alone the other Furious Five actors. I just hope they don't extend this madness to the Shrek films, which went on for three films more than the film characters could really cope with. It was torture watching their stories being strung out that far. ProtoDrake

Semi Protection

The problem with users changing the release date on the infobox has returned after the semi protection expired. If this keeps up, the page may have to become fully protected, or protected for much longer then before. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kung Fu Panda 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927143238/http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/jonathan_aibel_glenn_berger_talk_kung_fu_panda_2_their_plans_for_king_lear/ to http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/jonathan_aibel_glenn_berger_talk_kung_fu_panda_2_their_plans_for_king_lear/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=698481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)