DVDizzy Forum

Okay mabey I am a bit late, but what is this Hapily N'ever After crap about? How long are they going to try and milk this formula? I know it still makes money but it makes me vomit! Shrek was great, I love it! But now we have so many Shrek formula's that have nothing to ad to the world of animation!
That trailer is sickening! I did not laugh or even smile once through that trailer! And why did they steal Kronk's voice? Patrick Warburton shame on you!

Anyway if anyone wants to see the trailer, here is the link
http://happilyneverafterthefilm.com

..........yeah........that's really, really bad. i mean REALLY bad. i just watched the trailer (never watched the entire thing before) and i was like....okay then... *sigh* sadly, that's what people do. they milk a good thing until people hate it. that's why things go out of fashion etc. too much of a good thing, right?

Yeh it is really sad... seems there is not enough creativity in animation world right now. *sigh*

As the film slogan puts it so nicely: "Fairytale endings aren't what they used to be."

I don't care if it's from the producer of Shrek, that means nothing to me. This film looks like rubbish and will probably be this years Doogal.

It's true - it looks like crap. But I will say this - the animation style looks interesting, similar to Hercules...and the color scheme is beautiful. Plus, my kids are begging me to take them to see it - so their marketing must be pretty well aimed towards them.

It obviously does appear to be in the <i>Shrek</i>/<i>Hoodwinked</i> mode. Kind of seems an uninspired looking follow-up to Valiant for Vanguard. The thing that bothers me most though: the apostrophe in the title. It just doesn't really make any sense even if I know what it's trying to indicate.

I was wondering the exact same thing!

The apostrophe in the title has no purpose! It is not like there is any strong wordplay going on in that title ... the apostrophe is useless.

Now, don't stone me, but I think this movie looks a little cute. I'll be seeing it.
Andy Dick is hilarious no mater what, and so is Patrick Warburton. They didn't steal his voice. He's an actor and wanted th job. Furthermore, Patrick has voiced more characters than Kronk. He has been Joe from Family Guy for the entire series, and was also Buzz Lightyear in the Star Command TV show.
While I agree that the formula is a bit tired, I still enjoy it. I highly doubt this will be anything like Doogal or Hoodwinked (both were incredibly dissappointing). This film has had better advertising than both of those movies ever did.
Also, it's from the producer of Shrek, which makes me expect an inverted fairytale story. I'm looking forward to this film.

The apostrophe needs to be there because it signifies that the N is shorthand for "and" and not just a letter.

I am definitely looking forward to this movie. What's the matter with a little entertainment anyway? The voice cast is superb, and the storyline looks pretty original to me. You people seem to be stuck in the 'if it ain't Disney, it's garbage mode' and I for one am looking forward to a lot more of the animation that is coming our way this year. "Shrek 3" even looks like it will be pretty good. C'mon give the other guys a chance. I love Disney like the rest of you, but it isn't the only game in town.

And at least this isn't a damned remake!!!!!!!

It looks interesting - and Hoodwink wasnt a dissapointment - one of my favorites from this year....

I am a fan of sequels (when they are well done), even if purely for entertainment value. I don't like it when folks complain about sequels with the old gripe about them being "unnecessary." The Shrek 3 trailer looks really funny, and I think that series gets funnier as it goes along, more focused on comedy than throwing stones at Eisner (that's what the first one was all about). However, I am less than thrilled when an "all new" film seems to be taking too many cues from another fairly recent film. I feel that sequels have much more right to retread old ground than competing studios. I cringe whenever I see two trailers for two different movies (most often computer animated films) that seem like one clearly copied the other. Now, I'm not saying that this "Happily N'ever After" movie is going to follow Shrek that closely. In fact, I might even like it and hope that I do, but I wasn't impressed with the overall look of the film in the trailer and it did quickly remind me of Shrek, as any computer animated fairytale comedy probably woud upon first seeing it. What made it really bad for me was actually when they said it was from the people who brought us Shrek, or something to that effect. In my opinion, mentioning Shrek in that trailer was a big mistake. I was already thinking, "This looks like Shrek." They didn't need to tell me, "This will be like Shrek!" Which is what it means when they say, "From the people who brought you Shrek!" So, I don't have high hopes for this one, but I will give it a chance, but probably when my friends rent it, ha.

dvdjunkie wrote:You people seem to be stuck in the 'if it ain't Disney, it's garbage mode' and I for one am looking forward to a lot more of the animation that is coming our way this year.

Am I the only one that thought that this accusation came completely outta left field?

Disney-Fan wrote:

dvdjunkie wrote:You people seem to be stuck in the 'if it ain't Disney, it's garbage mode' and I for one am looking forward to a lot more of the animation that is coming our way this year.

Am I the only one that thought that this accusation came completely outta left field?

nope.

i love movies that arent disney. im not a robot that is programmed to only be loyal to disney. its just that the idea has been DONE already, multiple times, and has already been done WELL. if it was done badly and they wanted to do it well that's a different story.

Grammatically speaking, if "Happily N'ever After" meant "Happily and Ever After", it would have to have been "Happily 'N Ever After", not "Happily N'ever After". N'ever seems like an odd way of abbreviating "And Ever", and past 'n usages have shown that the apostraphe never comes after the N.

Chip 'n Dale
Fish 'n Chips
Rock 'n Roll
London Investigation 'n Detective Agency

Happily 'N Ever After

But even if it were the "proper" way, "Happily And Ever After" just doesn't sound right to me.

The trailer plays it as a Shrek-ish movie, which I don't particularly like. But the story seems interesting, and probably just worth a blindbuy, not a theatre ticket.

Escapay

i love movies that arent disney. im not a robot that is programmed to only be loyal to disney. its just that the idea has been DONE already, multiple times, and has already been done WELL. if it was done badly and they wanted to do it well that's a different story.

I agree 100%! It is not that I hate everything that is not Disney... I started the thread saying that I love Shrek! It is one of the the top movies in my top 10.
It is just the formula that is realy starting to bother me! Twist a few fairytales with fart jokes and you have a new movie. Also what is bothering me is that they do not make fun of one fairytale, but several at the same time! This is a copy with a small twist..I mean, look at the Prince! He is a mix of Kronk and Prince charming from Shrek!

Escapay wrote:Grammatically speaking, if "Happily N'ever After" meant "Happily and Ever After", it would have to have been "Happily 'N Ever After", not "Happily N'ever After". N'ever seems like an odd way of abbreviating "And Ever", and past 'n usages have shown that the apostraphe never comes after the N.

Chip 'n Dale
Fish 'n Chips
Rock 'n Roll
London Investigation 'n Detective Agency

Happily 'N Ever After

But even if it were the "proper" way, "Happily And Ever After" just doesn't sound right to me.

The trailer plays it as a Shrek-ish movie, which I don't particularly like. But the story seems interesting, and probably just worth a blindbuy, not a theatre ticket.

Escapay

grammatically speaking, it would be Happily 'N' after, because you're cutting out the a AND the d. when you say it's you have the apostrophe for the i which you are cutting out....so it would be 'n'.



(i'm saying that in a kidding way. it's true, but im not actually being nasty i'm just having a little fun)

I of course haven't seen the film, but since it's about happily ever afters that don't happen, or in other words, are madet o have never happened, I think a much more fitting and clever title would be Happily Never After.

Anyway, did anyone see that TV commercial for the movie that said, "What if the stepmother won?" What if the stepmother won? It would be called Cinderella III: A Twist In Time! In fact, in Cinderella III the stepmother makes it as if Cinderella's happily ever after never happened!

Disney Duster wrote:I of course haven't seen the film, but since it's about happily ever afters that don't happen, or in other words, are madet o have never happened, I think a much more fitting and clever title would be Happily Never After.

um.....maybe im stupid, but i thought that is what the title was implying....