DreamWorks' SHREK

Post by **Dacey** » March 12th, 2010, 12:20 am

They don't even mention Artie in the trailer. The plot is actling as though Shrek became king at the end of the third movie...which is what should've happened in the first place!

Still...Fat Puss is pretty funny.

Post by **Foxtale** » March 12th, 2010, 12:44 am

I just want to take puss in boots and roll him around.

Thanks for posting the link.

Is it just me or does they way they treated the animation and style of Fiona in some scenes shown in the trailer very similar to the blonde girl in How to Train Your Dragon? ;P

Post by **Bill1978** » March 12th, 2010, 5:14 am

The plot is actling as though Shrek became king at the end of the third movie...

Don't even get me started on that plot point. It still grates that Shrek could decide to be King or not. Last time I checked, the heir to a throne is actually the offspring of the reigning monarch which is Fiona. So therefore, it's Fiona's decision to be Queen or not, Shrek just has to go with the flow - or you know have a scene where Shrek discusses his concerns and Fiona makes the decision to abdicate the throne. The third movie presents all of that as though Shrek has a legitimate claim to abdicate.

I do hope that Artie is in the movie, I know it's an unpopular opinion but I thought that character was the saving grace of the film. Probably because I envision that Shrek The Third would have worked better if they focused on the school Arthur attended and spoofing the Arthurian legend for the whole movie, not just for a random 10 minutes.

Post by **estefan** » March 12th, 2010, 5:57 am

It's been a while since I've seen Shrek the Third, but didn't King John Cleese want Shrek to be king? That's what I seem to remember, but that was such a forgettable film, it wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't it.

As for this, it really doesn't do much for it. Rumpelstilkin seems like such an annoying character and the only joke I laughed at was Shrek remarking "I didn't know we could do that."

Post by **Bill1978** » March 12th, 2010, 6:23 am

You know, estefan that does sound familiar and I can't recall the film very well either as I've tried to remove it from my consciousness, but it still shows how lazy the Shrek writers are if they think a king can just decided willy nilly who can be the next monarch. I think if my memory is right, that scene is more about convincing Shrek to step up and be a King (or really a Prince to Fiona's Queen to get all technical) but really the only person who can renounce the thrown is the actual monarch (Fiona) not their husband/wife. I think that's why I focused so much onthe Arthur character as I knew he would end up being King anyway and all the headaches Shrek's abdication was causing me faded away to just be another pointless thing I took away from the movie.

Rapulstiltskin has also annoyed me already in the trailer. Oh the joy of a full movie with him. I did laugh a couple of time, namely the one you mentioned and the pig's line about wanting to go home. I dunno, the pigs are just funny to me.

American_dog_2008 · Post by **American_dog_2008** » March 12th, 2010, 4:22 pm

Yay!

Cool!

Post by **EricJ** » March 12th, 2010, 6:51 pm

Although I suspect "You gotta give a day to get a day" was a late addition to the script....

(Thus reminding us just how old the main historic motivation for much of the humor is starting to look nowadays.)

Post by **CGIFanatic** » March 13th, 2010, 1:54 pm

EricJ wrote:Although I suspect "You gotta give a day to get a day" was a late addition to the script....

How do you know that was a late-addition change to the script? And if it was, how does that make it a good or a bad thing?

If this kind of thing irks you, then you gotta wonder if your head is about to explode over all the drama that is going on Rapunzel Unbraided (oops no Rapunzel oops no Tangled or whatever other name that'll be hatched by the time the movie is released)?

Also, as if the naming issue wasn't enough, we're nine months away from the release of the movie and we're still overhauling the script to make it more accessible to boys. What?

I know you'll probably say Disney's been there and done that before but IMO it's certainly not the ideal position to be in at this late stage for that movie.

You still want to nit pick at this over something you made up?

Post by **EricJ** » March 13th, 2010, 2:07 pm

(Well, er, I see "Fanatic" is well named...)

Post by **CGIFanatic** » March 13th, 2010, 2:35 pm

It's better to be a fan of animation of all stripes instead of a "tongue hanging out of your mouth lover" of just one studio.

Post by **ELIOLI** » March 13th, 2010, 5:06 pm

CGIFanatic wrote:It's better to be a fan of animation of all stripes instead of a "tongue hanging out of your mouth lover" of just one studio.

Oh my goodness....AMEN!!!!!

Post by **Macaluso** » March 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

By the way. What happened to Paul McCartney being in this?

Post by **Dacey** » March 14th, 2010, 6:06 pm

That was a total rumor.

Rumplestilksin is now being voiced by a story guy.

Post by **Ben** » March 15th, 2010, 8:44 am

Wow. 2.35:1?

Post by **LotsoA113** » March 19th, 2010, 10:29 pm

Looks alright. Love Puss In Boots though. Still feels more Shrek The Third though. Huh.

DreamWorks' SHREK

Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"

Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"

Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"

Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"

Re:

Re:

Re: "Shrek Goes Fourth"