Talk:Kung Pow! Enter the Fist

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sequel?

Can you actually confirm that there will be a squel? The trailer seemed more like a joke to me and I doubt it's seriousness.--Blazingluke

Well it's kinda confirmed at the end of the Kung-Pow commentary and it's on Imdb.--Sultn 08:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good enough for me.--Blazingluke 12:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Becides some vague references on a 3+ year old movie commentary, there is no legitimate evidence to suggest that there is a sequel in the works as of January 2006. No press releases, no news articles, nothing. The only evidence that suggests that this will have a sequel are movie sites that deal in absolute speculation. The IMDb page no longer exists only strengthens this. I suggest removing that page until there actually is any evidence of it's existance.Radagast83 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no plans for a sequel o Kung Pow, nor have there ever been. If you watch the DVD special features of the movie, you'll find that the shots from the "sequel" were just deleted scenes that didn't make it into the original film. This is not to say that there will never be a sequel to Kung Pow, but the scenes you're referring to weren't part of it.

I removed the 'rumor' listed under sequels - first off, that link is a dead end, and secondly, rumors do not belong in a wikipedia entry.--170.35.224.64 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any mention of a real sequel should even be in there, personally. Back in 2003, IMDb had the sequel coming out in "... (2006)," and then in 2004-2005, it said, "... (2007)." Now, apparently, it says 2008?

Yeeahhh....

Its aslo possable if you think about it that It WAS in the works but was dropped due to the fact the producers all had every single brain cell fryed while makeing it.

But if there is no sequel then when will the chosen one meet up with that one boobed chick again!? The one boobed chick clearly states that there is going to be a sequel.

Indeed... the one boobed chick's word is gospel. I quiver in the shadow of her... well, her boob. ^Triana_C 16:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB page is back and has stated their will be a Sequel. Superx 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenifer Tung

Jennifer Tung is, in fact, equiped with the standard number of breasts for a human female.

"Another memorable moment involves the appearance of Jennifer Tung, who plays Whoa. Tung has one
breast, which is used for comedic effect in her scene. There were no special effects used for Tung,
and Oedekerk pointed out on the DVD commentary how difficult it is to find a one-breasted acress in
Hollywood."

Photo of Jennifer Tung:

"http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0876611/HH/0876611/7A8F3047.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Tung,%20Jennifer

Her alledged one-breastedness is mentioned in the commentary, but this is an example of what is known as a joke. I'm removing the above quoted passage.DevoutHeretic 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I added quotes, please add some more.

WAY, WAY more than necessary. This needs to be cut right down, and if so many are warranted then there should be a simple link over to the Wikiquote project page for this movie. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of....

I think we should make an page listing the many refrences and improbabilties in this movie I have watch the movie and counted at least 52 of them. Thank you Superx 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? The improbabilities? Optimus Sledge 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

Since the plot description seems to be getting rather long and convoluted, I would suggest putting the direct quotes into a separate section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilyaunfois (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Kung Faux?

Had anyone heard of that before all these references to it showed up in the Kung Pow article? It seems a bit... suspicious. One such reference claims KF is suing Oedekerk for something along the lines of copyright infringement, but IMDb says KF is an '03 release. Sensei Le Roof 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. It's obviously an over-zealous "Kung Faux" fan and vandal 207.237.55.187 (check out his talk page) vandalizing the entry for some ungodly reason. Most importantly, the source that is cited had nothing to do with a "legal battle" (I checked back on his edit on 00:40, 17 December 2006, he just added that into the sentence), so I'll edit this vandalism/whatever the hell out.

Evil Council

Anyone else think that the Evil Council's pyramid ships were "borrowed" from Stargate (i.e. the Ha'taks)? Chronolegion 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they buy from the same company. If own a Ford Escort and you see a guy driving a Ford Escort, you don't automatically assume he borrowed it from you. Optimus Sledge 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Steve Odekirk wouldn't know an original idea if it fell out of the sky, landed on his face and started to wiggle. That is the same reason why he made and is staring in this piece of shit, no one else wanted any part of it.

Anonymous criticism is the most pointless of all. Optimus Sledge 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, misspelled criticism. Sensei Le Roof 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha'taks were my first thought too. --81.233.196.49 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic seen in the movie

You may not believe me but I saw a "Titanic" in the bottom right hand corner of the waterfall scene before Ling's father and The Chosen One fought Betty. Can someone check for me to confirm it? Aranho 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? It was in there. Lots42 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Is there really enough information about Kung Pow 2: Tongue of Fury to warrant it having its own article? With the only source quoted being IMDB, I question whether it should even have a mention, let alone an article. (And I'm really not sure where the "trilogy" reference came from.)

But I digress. Proposing merger. --Roger McCoy 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that it should merged. there is very little information to warrant its own article. it should be a section in the Kung Pow! Enter the Fist article until further information is available. -- Alexander Vince 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged. Turtlescrubber 01:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Until the danged film is actually released, any info should be here in this article. Lots42 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as per nom. Not notable enough to wrrant it's own page. --RedHillian 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support a merge per WP:NF since it is not in production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kungpow.jpg

Image:Kungpow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

The plot summary was turned into a very long blow-by-blow account in late 2006. I've restored it to the previous version [1]. Please feel free to add brief descriptions of essential plot details to the existing summary. --TS 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I agree that a summary should be short but now it only covers half the movie. There should definitely be some mention of what happens in the end. Jmodum90 (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary makes almost no sense without prior knowledge of the movie.

It also includes a sentence about Master Pains chode. "The family quickly succumbs to one of Master Pain's big, deadly chode; however, he is unable to seduce the Chosen One because, even as an infant, he had powerful martial arts skills.." Not only is this gramatically incorrect, but it's factually incorrect and not appropriate for wikipedia. Could someone who's watched the movie recently please rewrite the plot summary. Dannysjgdf (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone with some kind of skills please re-write it, it's like a play by play of the movie. I would, but I am not a terribly good writer, so that's out. Any English majors wanna take a whack at it? B10Reaper (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cow

Holly Hell, I can't believe how ignorant that cow bit is. I mean, go read the article on cow. I can tell you right now that the cow is female, female cows have horns when they are not cropped off, and it is obviously the parody of a female milk cow. A male cow that just happens to have utters. *sigh* Someone please go fix all that. --67.209.71.18 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the movie has french aliens in floating, spinning pyramids. They get to be ignorant. 76.180.19.184 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack Listing

Can we get a soundtrack for this? Someone went through transformers and did it, I would appreciate the same kind of thing for this page. B10Reaper (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

I recommend a delete and rewrite. I saw the movie and the section is just...ugh. Lots42 (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]