Anthony wrote:If popular, the special will re-air on a 15 year cycle. YAY - Shrek 'til 2022!
I don't see what would make them automatically decide 15 seasons of Shrek. That's a bit odd.
Perhaps they'll just keep airing it until people stop watching. Or maybe it'll become like the Rudolph and Frosty films and become a Christmas tradition.
I think that's what ABC is hoping for. A new holiday special for the 21st century. A brand new Rudolph tradition.
Prudence wrote:disneyboy20022did say that these were spoilers.
Thanks for defending me.... That is why I put a warning possible spoiler... although its true pap64 if you went to the theaters you probably would have seen this anyway.... Unless you prefer not to see spider-man 3 and boycott it until shrek 3 comes out Just kidding
But I think what pap64 is saying is why did Dreamworks show the babies already.. Not an attack on me but rather a question of why Dreamworks showed them so soon.... I mean the baby carrige issuing gallons of puke at shrek was enough... They didnt need to show the Baby(s) or how many there were...
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
Go to Walmart and they have a TON of toys of the triplets. So no one can blame disneyboy for spoilers. Blame corporate America. If they made Shrek toilet paper, people would buy it.
why show the babies now? it's like the whole focus is going to the babies and none of it is going to Artie. the babies are cute like Fiona.
personaly i'm looking forward to the princess fighting part.
and don't worry it'll all end with Shrek 4, the special, and Puss In Boots.
-head meets desk-
Are you serious?! Mike, look up "inevitable" and look up "genetics." I simply wrote a three-syllable word after writing a four-syllable word!
of course I know that's genetic,for the pictures I can say that Shrek's genes compared to Fiona's would be more recesive or "less strong" considering that two of the three...ogres have red hair but I was just "naming" the green brats