Why Do People Not Like Shrek?

[ichabod]

OK, let the rant start.

First of all, the original Shrek film does not bother me that much, my feelings towards it are neither like or dislike, just "meh!". The story of Shrek is not terrible, it just seems very thin, every plot point you can see coming a mile off, and the story seemed to be fleshed out purely by Eddie Murphy being annoying and not keeping his yap shut and the humour is...well In my opinion not humour, there's only so many times a CGI ogre can belch before my attention wanes. Yes I do think that Shrek got way too much attention, it is hideously overrated, but I was willing to let it be.

My real beef with the franchise comes with the dawn of Shrek 2, a film with so little imagination or story, basically the first film with the scenes edited in a different order. People whine about the Direct to Video sequels Disney release, saying they lack imagination because they either, reverse the events of the first film, or go back and unpick something that didn't need unpicking, and then go on to praise Shrek 2 when it is guilty of the same crimes. Shrek 2 survives solely on the hope that people have seen the first film and relies on pathetic jokes that we have all seen a million times before, I mean ''Are we there yet?" jokes weren't funny years ago, and they're still not now. Yet for some reason about a minute of screen time is taken up with them. Dreamworks idea during the production of Shrek 2 seems to have been "If you can't come up with an interesting plot development, throw in a cheesy joke, make the ogre fart then make a pop culture reference and it just forms a final product which is empty and weak.

Also the animation is just so sub par, to anything other studios produce, the humans espescially have crap designs, the move awkwardly and they all look the same. I mean take this image from the upcoming Shrek 3



I mean just look at them! Take away the hair styles and all the bloody princesses look the same!

And my Shrek 2 rattles my cage even more is that this cinematic diarrhoea was gobbled up by slack jawed morons across the world making it the highest grossing animated film of all time!

Insanity, pure insanity!

For anyone who likes the Shrek films, you're welcome to them and I just hope the local nut house comes to cart you off ASAP!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Is it too early to nominate ichabod as the most intelligent UD member of the year?

Anyway, why do I not like Shrek? Well to put it short: in unoriginal.

Now I know a certain "Disney-Fan" here who use to live in the year "2000" will tell you "Shrek is an origianl concept because it was the first animated film to be based on pop-culture references". Well, I don't know where he's been, but I dare him to pick up The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show: Seasons 1 through 3 and watch the "Fractured Fairy Tales" segments and tell me with a straight face Shrek is either original, creative or actually good.

The fact is pop-culture references have been in animated movies/shorts/t.v. shows almost as long as animation has existed (and have appeared in many "beloved classics" from Disney like Aladdin or Hercules). I don't have a problem with them, as long as they're creative, make fun of stuff that'll most likely stand time, or don't make it their main focus at all. Shrek unfortunately doesn't make either of those. Anyone who wants to see a REAL fairytale spoof see the masterpiece that is "Chicken Little". (sorry CL haters, I can't stop defending my baby )

Now some people say "Chicken Little" was "behind the times" because of spice girls and various pop-artist references(when that was CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, not pop-culture references) when Shrek was MUCH farther behind the times than people claim CL to be(of all the restaurants you could spoof, why bother spoofing a dying restaurant chain like "Bob's Big Boy"?). And then there are so many references that just flat out suck(I'm still waiting for an explanation to how "Tower of London Records" was supposed to be funny).

A fairy tale spoof is an idea that has potential(and has worked wonderfully with Chicken Little) but both Shrek films both throw it away with the fart jokes, sexual innuendo, celebrity voices(you can't help but wonder if some them were cast because their names can sell) unfunny floods of pop-culture refernces etc.

And the general idea of Shrek is so basic(Shrek goes finds princess with a buddy(sounds similar to Pixar doen't it?) but then starts and fall in love with princess).

How so called critics can call Shrek original, or give it's script an Oscar nomination is beyond me.

As for the third, well, there's not much that can be said yet, but so far, it sounds to be the worst of the three, if that's possible. I hope "Shrek the Third" fails simply so the other installments can be direct-to-video or something.

As for "Shrek the Halls", well I certainly understand what that one critic said about "The Santa Clause 3" when he said "I'm thinking about converting to "Hanukkah".

[Disney-Fan]

Now I know a certain "Disney-Fan" here who use to live in the year "2000" will tell you "Shrek is an origianl concept because it was the first animated film to be based on pop-culture references". Well, I don't know where he's been, but I dare him to pick up The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show: Seasons 1 through 3 and watch the "Fractured Fairy Tales" segments and tell me with a straight face Shrek is either original, creative or actually good.

Will do. I'll see if I can rent it somewhere.
As for where I've been? See me in the page before this one.

[dvdjunkie]

Timon/Pumbaafan wrote:

Is it too early to nominate ichabod as the most intelligent UD member of the year?

Oh yes, way to early.

I cannot disagree with people more than on this thread. These so-called critics just think that because this is a Disney site everything else sucks. That is not true at all. Animation is just that - Animation!! - it is a charicature (sp) of a person, animal, object, whatever they are animating. Like the teacup in 'Beauty and the Beast', or mice in "Cinderella'. These are not supposed to be real, and they are just animated objects or people or animals. They have no feelings. They aren't real, people. What part of that don't you get.

Even Disney animation slipped way down the poll of being 'life-like' with movies like "Emperor's New Groove", "Pocohontas", and "Hercules", among others. The animation in "Snow White", "Bambi", "Cinderella", and the like is so far superior to what is being passed off today, that I think we need to take a step back and look at where CGI has come from and where it is going.

I for one, like the first "Shrek" film a whole lot better than the second, and I am not really looking forward to the third one, but for totally different reasons than anyone is stating here. I have no problems with any of the other animations studios as long as they put out a good family-oriented film.

Today we have films like "Open Season", the characters are over-drawn (in CGI terms) and exaggerated, but the movie is very funny, and will stand up with the best of them. "Over The Hedge" works on a light premise that the 'citifcation of the world is driving the anmals away' and I thought that all the characters were a joy to watch.

I am one of the few that thought "Hoodwinked" was an amazing 'adult' CGI film and very well done, with just the right touch of humor. The premise of Granny being an X-games star was hilarious.

Sony Pictures Animation, Dreamworks, Warner Brothers, and the like are entitled to their place in the animation world as we now know it.

When you have seen animation like I have, from the projection booth, you learn to appreciate the entertainment value of all types of 'toons. When I worked at the Mickey Mouse Theater in Fantasyland at Disneyland, I was exposed to all types of Disney animation, and had a great fondness for all of the early works of the Disney studios.

I think that as far as disussion goes, you 'kids' here on UD take it way too far. Most of the time you sound like a broken record. "I liked (fill in the blank) because it has great color, and good character transformations" or "I thought there were too many artifacts in this transfer" or something that is so inane as "They could have given us a better collection of extras".

I think we should all just be grateful that we are able to see these movies at all.

If you don't like something, don't watch it again. And for heaven's sake don't buy it for your collection. That is what I don't understand is those of you who own the film, yet can slam it for some reason as being 'terrible' or 'unwatchable' or something like that.

But please, don't brand Ichabod as being intelligent, he is a great contributor to the sight as his insight is well-taken, but this is a discussion forum, and none of us are critics, and we should all try not to expect perfection from anything - be it one of us here, or any movie that we watch.

Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

[memnv]

I have read that Dreamworks steals from Disney, What about The Wild. Can we say Madagascar.... They both do it. How many Disney Movies are based off other stories not created by Disney...Let me see, There is Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, Naria, Hercules, Pocahantas, Peter Pan... Get my drift, Disney is not as origional as people think. Anyway's I like the Shrek movies and I like Dreamworks almost as much as Pixar.

[Disneykid]

I think that as far as disussion goes, you 'kids' here on UD take it way too far. Most of the time you sound like a broken record. "I liked (fill in the blank) because it has great color, and good character transformations" or "I thought there were too many artifacts in this transfer" or something that is so inane as "They could have given us a better collection of extras".

...but this is a discussion forum, and none of us are critics, and we should all try not to expect perfection from anything - be it one of us here, or any movie that we watch.

You just contradicted yourself. This is a forum where we can discuss things, but apparently films we think overrated, subpar DVD transfers, and meager bonus material offerings are off the list of approvable topics? The whole point of a forum is for people to share their opinions. If we can't talk about how certain DVDs don't quite live up to our expectations, then we're left with happy praise talk, and that can get rather dull after a while.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't expect perfection from anything. Even when I criticize a certain aspect of a film or DVD, I only do so to add color to my posts, but I always try to fill them with positive aspects because I consider myself an optimist. To post on these boards without mentioning what we really feel (negative or not) would be lying, and I don't think you'd encourage us "kids" to lie, do you? Besides, (and pardon me if I sound too frank), but your posts certainly don't give off the sense of optimism you so desperately want us to express. That just screams of double standards and hypocrisy.

[Disney-Fan]

I have read that Dreamworks steals from Disney, What about The Wild. Can we say Madagascar.... They both do it. How many Disney Movies are based off other stories not created by Disney...Let me see, There is Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, Naria, Hercules, Pocahantas, Peter Pan... Get my drift, Disney is not as origional as people think. Anyway's I like the Shrek movies and I like Dreamworks almost as much as Pixar.

^ That's not stealing. That's adapting an idea.
Stealing is when one certain animation company seems to come with a brilliant new movie just around the time that the more successful one is releasing its feature film. Catching the difference?

[memnv]

I have read that Dreamworks steals from Disney, What about The Wild. Can we say Madagascar.... They both do it. How many Disney Movies are based off other stories not created by Disney...Let me see, There is Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, Naria, Hercules, Pocahantas, Peter Pan... Get my drift, Disney is not as origional as people think. Anyway's I like the Shrek movies and I like Dreamworks almost as much as Pixar.

^ That's not stealing. That's adapting an idea.
Stealing is when one certain animation company seems to come with a brilliant new movie just around the time that the more successful one is releasing its feature film. Catching the difference?

Uuuummm What's the difference, It is not their idea to start with, someone else wrote it

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Uuuummm What's the difference, It is not their idea to start with, someone else wrote it

If you had written a story that wasn't so popular, but then someone wrote a story very similar to yours but sold billions worldwide and was cosidered one of the greatest stories ever written, wouldn't you a least like to be credited that the author was inspired by storyelements in your story?

As far as animated films go though, well I actually don't believe Dreamworks have truely "ripped off" Disney. Their movies have similar features, but the main stories are usually completely different. It's hard to truely know anyway. The Wild had experienced many draft and story changes, it's hard to know whether Dreamworks thought of it first and Disney then tried to find a new way to go with "The Wild", or if Disney had indeed thought of many different drafts, but and Dreamworks copied on of them which turned out to be a similar one Disney approached.

[memnv]

Every one of the stories I mentioned above were big, not a single one of them are not well known, Some of them like Robin Hood had already been done as a movie.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Popular or not is not the point. Disney had gotten permission from the publishing companies to adapt all those books into movies. Or they at least mentioned it was used as inspiration.

Both Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks claim their films are original. Which one is truely the "rip off" or the better film is up to the individual animation fan.

[TheNikki]

I get alot of entertainment out of them. I saw the second one twice in theaters. I really like them myself. I love the spoof on fairy tales myself, plus the little twists are fun.

I'm looking forward the third one with the addition of Justin Timberlake soley for the fact that I laughed my ass off at the "poster" of Justin in the second movie. It just made me giggle for some reason and I'm not even a Justin fan.

[Sotiris]

‘Shrek’ at 20: How the Soundtrack Became a Millennial Cultural Touchstone
https://variety.com/2021/artisans/news/ ... 234955248/

‘Shrek’ at 20: How a Chaotic Project Became a Beloved Hit
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/movi ... rsary.html

'Shrek' at 20: The Complicated Legacy of the Hit Animated Film
https://collider.com/shrek-20th-anniver ... revisited/

Fractured Fairy Tale: The 20th Anniversary of DreamWorks' "Shrek"
http://www.animationscoop.com/fractured ... rks-shrek/

[Disney's Divinity]

I didn't love the first Shrek, although I thought it was funny in a subversive way. I did really like Shrek 2 though, because it felt more like a fairy tale--it was genuine where the first was cynical, although there were still mocking jokes. The other films are awful and I pretend they don't exist. I do think Shrek has always been overrated though and I'm glad those days when it was the biggest thing are in the past.

I did like Rufus Wainwright's "Hallelujah" cover from the first film's soundtrack, but I thought 2's soundtrack was better.

[DisneyFan09]

Well, now that this thread has been bumped up: When I first saw Shrek, I liked parts of it. But I definitively found it overrated due to the endless hype that surrounded it. Mainly because of the film is flawed and dramatically uneven. What truly works, is the comedy and the pop cultural references. Eddie Murphy as Donkey was endearing, even though he could be grating at times. And sure, the visuals were great at the time. But Shrek feels uneven because of how the film suddenly turns into a sappy melodrama in the third act. The misunderstandings of Shrek and Fiona are stale and seem to come from every single romantic comedy. Despite it`s tonal inconsistendcy, Shrek suffers from some obvious flaws:
It desperately tries to mock all the fairy tale conventions, but still wants to have it`s cake and eat it, too. With infusing a moral that feels contrived in a movie which makes fun of the tropes. Besides, the movie never comes across as a lovingly parody, but rather spiteful towards it`s genre. Not to mention is how Shrek doesn`t truly deserve Fiona. When he misunderstands her, he brings Lord Farquaad to her right away. Besides, Shrek treats Donkey horribly towards the whole movie and when he warms up to Donkey, it feels contrived cause it`s not a sincere closure between them (even though Donkey is supposed to be annoying and their sparring is mandatory, at least Shrek treats him better in the sequel)

Now Shrek has grown on me, but I definitively consider it to be overrated. I saw nothing but endless praise of it during it`s release, but through the years it eventually reached a backlash and people were picking out for it`s flaws. Fortunately, since people were finally seeing through it. As for Shrek 2, while it`s somewhat dramatically uneven as well, it still feels more cohesive as a whole. It felt calculated at parts, but still it had it`s perks and was better as a whole. Since the film didn`t suddenly turned into a tedious drama at the end. Even though I thought that Puss in Boots was just meh. And yeah, I`ll admit it: I actually liked Shrek The Third and never understood why it was so shunned. It was fun and an enjoyable romp and didn`t deserve it`s massive hate it got.

[Disney Duster]

I thought the tone and drama in Shrek was good. Tones can shift. Comedies can have heart.

[Redadoodles]

I think Shrek and Shrek 2 have some very strong emotional moments but the crude humour doesn't do it for me (even as a child).

Cameron Diaz discussing her role as princess Fiona:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od5xj2rXyOs