Also Roger S. Schulman, of "ALFTales" experience, dropped off after the first movie--
That resume', I would trust with hip fairytale parody; any other applicant, nnnot so much.
(Still, every time fans complain about the sequels, you get the genuine impression they're struggling to capture some intangible decade-iconic experience of seeing the first movie, and even they just don't know what.
Apart from aforementioned Misplaced Historical Zeitgeist, 'fraid I can't help with that one, sorry.)
DreamWorks' SHREK
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25875
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
The problems with the Shreks, Eric, is that the first one was toned, for whatever reasons, as a Disney dig, which fed off the general feeling that you suggested above. I didn't actually like the film first time I saw it, and it took until it was on TV for me to really start to see some good in it.
But the second I loved, for some reason, though I more and more believe that this was a pure fluke by DWs. It was actually a vastly entertaining upgrade, more mature and able to dispense, to a large degree, of the Disney jokes and go for a more fully rounded "blockbuster" mocking in general (even if Shrek in human form is the spit of Michael Eisner circa ME/JK's tenure at Paramount in the 1980s). In part, I think this was because the same filmmakers came back: they knew the characters and story, where it should be headed. It felt like a continuation, and it worked. Boy did it work.
By Shrek The Turd, Andrew Adamson was off to Narnia, and the pressure to come up with something to top 2 was so great they just didn't bother. The early announcement that it was a trek to find King Arthur turned into Shrek's having kids, which also turned out to be false advertising (the kids turning up for a scant five minutes of the movie). All the rest was padding, and lame, we-only-have-a-year-to chrun-this-thing-out kind of padding. Storylines were fragmented, characters inserted just to insert new characters, and the plot basically had nowhere to go, seeing that it was a retread of the first, with established characters just hanging around for their one moment each.
You can't basically, churn these things out in one to two years, which is what a cash-hungry DWs is doing. Look at Pixar, only on their third Toy Story movie in almost 15 years, while we'll have four Shreks in less than ten with 4, which couldn't even go without a name change. It's the Shrek 3 cycle all over again, which is why I'm not really putting too much faith in this, in the hope that it might surprise on some level and entertain us.
But it seems the public still love this crummy stuff. True that it's what a movie makes when they go in that creates the bottom line, but when they came out there must have been a whole heap of people enjoying it as they continued with big business (a movie doesn't make north of $500m if word of mouth is bad after the opening weekend) through the summer.
If Shrek was a carefree teenager, and Shrek 2 was a sophisticated young 20-something adult, Shrek 3 reverted to being a juvenile child. Heaven knows what Shrek 4 will turn out like, but it's got a mixed parentage already and will probably be as messed up as the last one.
But the second I loved, for some reason, though I more and more believe that this was a pure fluke by DWs. It was actually a vastly entertaining upgrade, more mature and able to dispense, to a large degree, of the Disney jokes and go for a more fully rounded "blockbuster" mocking in general (even if Shrek in human form is the spit of Michael Eisner circa ME/JK's tenure at Paramount in the 1980s). In part, I think this was because the same filmmakers came back: they knew the characters and story, where it should be headed. It felt like a continuation, and it worked. Boy did it work.
By Shrek The Turd, Andrew Adamson was off to Narnia, and the pressure to come up with something to top 2 was so great they just didn't bother. The early announcement that it was a trek to find King Arthur turned into Shrek's having kids, which also turned out to be false advertising (the kids turning up for a scant five minutes of the movie). All the rest was padding, and lame, we-only-have-a-year-to chrun-this-thing-out kind of padding. Storylines were fragmented, characters inserted just to insert new characters, and the plot basically had nowhere to go, seeing that it was a retread of the first, with established characters just hanging around for their one moment each.
You can't basically, churn these things out in one to two years, which is what a cash-hungry DWs is doing. Look at Pixar, only on their third Toy Story movie in almost 15 years, while we'll have four Shreks in less than ten with 4, which couldn't even go without a name change. It's the Shrek 3 cycle all over again, which is why I'm not really putting too much faith in this, in the hope that it might surprise on some level and entertain us.
But it seems the public still love this crummy stuff. True that it's what a movie makes when they go in that creates the bottom line, but when they came out there must have been a whole heap of people enjoying it as they continued with big business (a movie doesn't make north of $500m if word of mouth is bad after the opening weekend) through the summer.
If Shrek was a carefree teenager, and Shrek 2 was a sophisticated young 20-something adult, Shrek 3 reverted to being a juvenile child. Heaven knows what Shrek 4 will turn out like, but it's got a mixed parentage already and will probably be as messed up as the last one.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25875
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I think DWs has worked out that the franchise basically wouldn't support another two films after 4, with 5 and 6 being canceled. After the creative doldrums on the third one, I wouldn't be surprised if they had trouble coming up with a decent fourth film plot and, rather than stretch things out, they'll call it a day with this one. Anticipation for this is pretty low, with audiences making Shrek 3 a hit but being disappointed with it in the long run, hence less than phenomenal DVD sales.
They say to quit while you're ahead and that's what they're doing here, especially since they also have Puss In Boots to come from the same franchise too.
They say to quit while you're ahead and that's what they're doing here, especially since they also have Puss In Boots to come from the same franchise too.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5206
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
I remember reports early, early on that 3 was going to end with Shrek's new babies as a punchline, thus presold-cliffhangering into the wacky "Three Babies & an Ogre" adventures of S4. (In addition to more "Learns to be a dad" adventures foster-fathering Prince Artie.)Ben wrote:I think DWs has worked out that the franchise basically wouldn't support another two films after 4, with 5 and 6 being canceled.
After the disastrously underwhelming early screenings for 3, they tweaked the story and decided they'd better deliver the babies as soon as possible to ensure the money-concept while they had it, and not start counting unmade sequels before they hatched.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6758
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 398
- Joined: May 28th, 2009
- Contact:
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25875
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Ack!
Really, Shrek and Shrek 2 did all that could be done with this franchise, but at least this looks more inventive than the awful Third. But what about the kids? Are they going to stay looking like Tod Browning's Freaks forever after too? Couldn't we even get stroppy teenagers with some comic mileage? And is this only going to be all about Shrek not being recognized by his pals or is he going to have a companion? Could get awfully boring just being tied to the one character for most of an entire movie.
Shame they felt the need to "3D" the Final Chapter text...it looks very amateurish: "hey, DWs can use Word Art, too!"
Really, Shrek and Shrek 2 did all that could be done with this franchise, but at least this looks more inventive than the awful Third. But what about the kids? Are they going to stay looking like Tod Browning's Freaks forever after too? Couldn't we even get stroppy teenagers with some comic mileage? And is this only going to be all about Shrek not being recognized by his pals or is he going to have a companion? Could get awfully boring just being tied to the one character for most of an entire movie.
Shame they felt the need to "3D" the Final Chapter text...it looks very amateurish: "hey, DWs can use Word Art, too!"
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 199
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007
Dreamworks Animation Screens 30 Minutes of Shrek Forever After
Please note the following link has lots of spoilers so continue as you see fit.
www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62406
Please note the following link has lots of spoilers so continue as you see fit.
www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62406
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25875
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Lots to pick apart there!
It doesn't exactly adhere to what has been set up in the first film (and second, to a degree), but sounds more interesting that the third, basically jettisoning everything from that movie (marriage, kids) and going back to basics.
It also sounds more Cinderella III than It's A Wonderful Shrek, since this is about a villain who revises time to create an alternate reality, not one where Shrek looks back on what might have been different.
It actually sounds, if done right, like it could be pretty good, though I am glad it's now been designated the final chapter. Going back and pulling stunt plotting like this shows how tired a franchise has become, though I'm betting if the third movie hadn't been made and this had basically come as part 3 originally, we'd be all in awe at how great the Shrek trilogy had been over three films. As such, it's been diluted too much by a really horrid third movie, so this film will have to serve double duty in not only being anything decent, but making up for what came previously.
It hope it can, and it sounds like it has a decent shot.
It doesn't exactly adhere to what has been set up in the first film (and second, to a degree), but sounds more interesting that the third, basically jettisoning everything from that movie (marriage, kids) and going back to basics.
It also sounds more Cinderella III than It's A Wonderful Shrek, since this is about a villain who revises time to create an alternate reality, not one where Shrek looks back on what might have been different.
It actually sounds, if done right, like it could be pretty good, though I am glad it's now been designated the final chapter. Going back and pulling stunt plotting like this shows how tired a franchise has become, though I'm betting if the third movie hadn't been made and this had basically come as part 3 originally, we'd be all in awe at how great the Shrek trilogy had been over three films. As such, it's been diluted too much by a really horrid third movie, so this film will have to serve double duty in not only being anything decent, but making up for what came previously.
It hope it can, and it sounds like it has a decent shot.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 199
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: July 9th, 2008
- Location: Australia
Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"
So far it looks alright. Although it does seem more Shrek The Third quality than Shrek 2. At least it appears that Fiona is only an ogre at night, since all those scenes are set at night, cause if this really is a reset then she can't have found her true love (Shrek) to have broken the spell meaning during the daytime she should be human. Although I do have to wonder why she is out and about as an orge since in the first movie she was too ashamed to be seen as an ogre. And shoudln't Donkey have been locked up since he is a magical creature as dictated by the first movies storyline. Or maybe I should stop thinking too much about a movie that hasn't been released.