Originally Posted By Admin This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID511490.asp" target="_blank">5/22/07 Toon Talk - From the Other Side: Shrek t</a>
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct I liked this better than SHREK 2. I don't know why people are giving this a bad rap. I read from PLAYBILL.com that SHREK is coming to broadway soon - lol Sounds like a hoot.
Originally Posted By ChampDisney I enjoyed Shrek the Third & I liked it better than part 2 but I think part 1 still is the best out of them all. Boy, Donkey's kids were cute!
Originally Posted By JeffG Was this article intended to be a review of the film or just a description? Other than the short, non-specific to this film commentary on 2nd sequels at the beginning (and the basically unexplained "C" rating given at the end), the article is just a plot description. -Jeff
Originally Posted By u k fan Jeff I completely agree. Where was the review? This read like a synopsis with a score at the end!!!
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 That's what I thought too. I was waiting for the meat of the review, and then, it never came!
Originally Posted By cstephens Hmmm, a non-review review? So no response about that from the writer? /cs
Originally Posted By ToonKirby The reason I have not responded previously is because I have learned in the past that defending my reviews after the fact is a losing battle. If you don't like my review, nothing I say here will change your mind. All there really is to say is that I stand behind my review, while at the same time taking any constructive criticism into consideration for the future. I would like to leave it at that, but I feel that this situation warrents further discussion. In the introductory paragraphs of the review, I discussed the history of "#3" movies as a means to establish my opinion that most "#3" movies are made for financial reasons, not creative ones. This relates specifically to "Shrek the Third" as it is a very obvious example of that practice, and I don't think anyone would argue with me about that. I specifically state that this film wasn't so much a movie as a "brand extension", a means to make money, nothing more. Throughout the remainder of the review I mention examples supporting that, such as the softening of the Shrek character and the introduction of the easily merchandise-able ogre babies. That was the point of my review, and to those who may have missed it, you might try re-reading the review with that in mind. Any constructive criticism is of course welcome. - kch
Originally Posted By cstephens OK, I hadn't read the review previously, since I have no interest in the movie, but I just read it. I certainly understand not wanting to defend your viewpoint since if someone disagrees with whether or not you like a movie, that's gonna happen, but I see the point about it not being a review. I see all the stuff about third movies - and all of that expounding takes up a lot more space in the review than any actual comments about the film itself. I pretty much get from the review that you didn't like the movie, but the reason that I got out of it that you didn't like it was that it was the third in a series, which imo is a pretty weak reason. An automatic bias against a third in a series simply for being third doesn't seem to me to be a very legitimate reason and seems like a complete shortcut to writing a review. /cs
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I specifically state that this film wasn't so much a movie as a "brand extension", a means to make money, nothing more.<< Every movie is made with the intention of making money, so to me, if that's going to play into how a film is reviewed, all films are guilty of attempting to sell tickets in a variety of ways. Just my 2¢, but I think reviews are more helpful to me, when deciding to see a film or not, when the review explains why things in the film work or they don't. Is the animation lush and well done, or clunky and cheap? Are the voice actors simply retreading familiar ground, or is there something fresh and inspired? I don't think people are taking exception with what you wrote so far, ToonKirby, but it feels like a lot is missing. Why does it earn a "C"? What saved it from getting an "F"? How could it have achieved an "A"?
Originally Posted By ToonKirby I'm not going to delve into a point by point rebuttal here because, you know, losing battle and all. But ... >Every movie is made with the intention of making money.< Have to disagree on that one. Not every movie is made for monetary reasons, there are many films out there that are made for creative and artistic reasons, from independent movies to documentaries to unexpected "sleeper" hits, made by filmmakers who actually have something to say, not sell. Thus, when a film series like "Shrek" is so blantently a cash cow with no real artistic merit, I'm going to call it on it. I didn't *not* like this movie because it was the 3rd in the series. I disliked this movie because it was the 3rd in the series that brought nothing new to the table (unless you count Justin Timberlake). "Unimaginative stories, lazy performances", "considerably lacking", "returns with a little less bite, a little less grit" ... sound familiar? I'm quoting from my review. Again, I feel that those complaining about this review (whatever their own agenda for doing so) simply missed the point I was trying to make. My fault? Possibly, so I'll take that, as constuctive criticism, under advisement.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I have no agenda. I was just trying to offer constructive criticism and explain what I look for in a review, what I find helpful. When you call "Shrek" a cash cow, that means that there is SOMEthing in the series that audiences are looking for. It has worth, at least $9 worth, to a lot of people. I feel that if you can't get past the reasons why its popularty bother you, then simply ignore it. As to movies making money, that's just the way it works. Filmakers can have higher artistic expression or not, things to say to an audience or not, but if a filmakers movies don't at least break even, they won't be making films for long. Filmaking is a commercial art. If Shrek 3 is simply a lot of re-treaded jokes, or if the script is filled with plot holes or cliches, or if the animation is choppy, that's what I need to know from a review. I get the point you were trying to make -- that Shrek 3 is about making more money fom a successful franchise, so it doesn't merit any serious critical review. Does the same standard apply to Godfather 2, the Pirates movies, Harry Potter? How about remakes? Rescuers Down Under? Disney direct to video sequels?
