Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear First of all, Artogas, sit down and relax. I said "a voice of sanity" in a joking way. Geeesh...too much coffee today? And don't dismiss my "not too well thought of cliches". How dare you? You neatly swipe aside what I meant by it, and therefore stop any kind of calm discussion of the topic at hand. I frankly would expect better from you. I guess everyone has their bad days. But getting high handed and pompous with me will get you no where. You did not adress any of my comments, and you are doing nothing but running with a straw man arguement. Again, I would expect better than that from you.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Those were a couple of contemporary references in the opening montage, as we have debated ad nauseum in another thread. So, I take it that you have not seen the entire film. That's okay, I decide to avoid a lot of movies based on the trailers or subject matter that either offends or doesn't interest me. If you compare the contemporary references in Home on the Range, somehow, they just didn't work all that well. Yet most (not all) of the contemporary references do work in Shrek 2 (in my not-so-humble opinion). There's a lot of warmth and heart in this Shrek, and a lot of fun & energy, too. My hope is that its success challenges Disney, Pixar, Fox and everyone else in the animation businesses to try and better it. They're missing a chance if they try and wave its success off as a fluke or some sort of herd mentality phoenominon.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And as much as I enjoyed the movie, I would agree with Kirby's point that 2 is probably enough. A Shrek 3 and 4 is in the pipeline it sounds like, but better to leave the audience wanting more, as the old saw goes.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Arstogas I see your point that the "sanity" comment might've been indelicate. But I think Ursus still has a point that popular opinion isn't enough to make a movie good. I sure as heck don't think this is a "two foot jump". :-(<<< Hardly. I also don't share the belief that popular opinion doesn't make a movie "good" or "bad". But a CONSENSUS, between an overwhelming member of the critical press, AND the public at large, DOES indeed say something. The critics pretty much blasted THE MUMMY RETURNS. A large segment of the public embraced it, giving it return business. But when you look at the numbers, it doesn't take a lot of people to bring return business to record levels. You'd be hard-pressed to find a film where the critics AND the press overwhelmingly agree, (like Shrek 2) where the film is NOT firing on all thrusters. You can ignore the public, you can ignore the critics, but you can't ignore a consensus of pretty much EVERYONE (and by everyone I mean 91 percent of the critical press and an extraordinary measure of immediate return business demonstrated by the public). To ignore this, is indeed, silly and ridiculous and ignorant of the obvious. It also indicates that one is clearly ignoring the OPPOSITE observation: that the detractors are pretty much either 1) wrong or 2) simply engaging criticism of a movie that is not in their tastes, and that as such, their opinion of "good or bad" doesn't really have much relevance in the grand scheme. >>>There are three derivative gags in just the first five minutes alone. The "From Here to Eternity" scene, the "One True Ring" scene and the "Spiderman Mask", the last two being especially pointless and witless.<<< So what do you do with SCARY MOVIE (take your pick of numbers). What do you do with WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, considered a "classic" by many, many critics and adored by the public... which has, arguably, more blatant derivations and "lifts" of other films and plots than all of SHREK 2? The kind of things you note are simply GAGS, that frankly went fast and furious and were not belabored... in fact, they were pretty effortlessly accomplished, and my audience was roaring with laughter. Had the filmmakers decided to worry about dating their film, they might have chosen otherwise. Or would they? Fiona wiping mud from Shrek's face will not be as funny in fifteen years, maybe, but it will STILL work as a tender gesture. So the humor is lost in future years, but the characters are just as strong. The rolling in the surf ala "FROM HERE TO ETERNITY" has been evoked in COUNTLESS films for humor, and it's usually pretty good for a laugh. Why should this film be exempt, or pointed out as "witless" for doing its own version, and BETTERING it? (with the Mermaid thing) That they don't rely on the gag alone, but plus it, is a testament to the strength of the storytelling and the WIT of the storytellers. Again, the only cause I can see for criticism of these very successful moments, from a rational perspective, is a certain BIAS or grumptitude on the part of people who resent a film's taking the crown away from Disney's animation legacy. I hate to put it that way, but a lot of Disney fans are clearly writhing with this film's success. I see it as healthy competition for the mouse, and no doubt they will, in time, meet the challenge. I do hope every film doesn't become simply a laugh-fest though. That would be a mis-directed goal. >>>And don't dismiss my "not too well thought of cliches". How dare you? <<< How dare I? How dare you try to pass off a silly, condescending comment used by every irritable, unheeded parent as some kind of truism. It's a cliche, and not aptly employed. You're merely irritated that I pointed out how it DOESN'T work, doesn't have relevance, given the overwhelming consensus on the film. Don't pretend that I'm merely "swiping your comments away" when I'm taking time to point out how they DON'T apply. That's adding insult to your initial condescension. You did not adress any of my comments,<< Yes I did, but you got your dander up because I pointed out that they were silly. I have done more in the above, and will do further here, though in fact, your initial post didn't consist of much TO comment on. Here's what you posted: >>>For me, the movie was too deriviative. Using scenes from other movies for a gag may be good once, but to have a whole movie that is nothing but. Outside of the recycling (which makes The Lion King look like an original Fellini masterwork) the story is basic TV level sitcom.<< The whole of the movie IS not derivative of other films. Those "moments" exist, but this film takes much more time (as Kirby duly noted) to spoof fairy tales and nursery rhyme characters in GENERAL, rather than films based on those characters. And the whole CONCEPT of SHREK is about turning the classic "fairy tale - beautiful princess is found by beautiful prince" on its head. If you DON'T warm to that conceit, then the film is just not for you. But apparently most of the rest of the viewing public and critical press doesn't have such baggage with Disney that they can't abandon the predictable Disney "princess" formula. It does seem as if K2M is right, and you didn't see the entire movie. I believe you DID, but I think it's clear you saw it through Disney-colored glasses. It's hardly at Sitcom level. I can't think of ANY sitcom whose tapestry of plot and depth of character were so well and so lovingly developed and executed, whose visuals (aside from my problems with the technique they use in animating humans) are delightfully inspired and successful in communicating story and pathos... Again, that's condescending to the material and trite. I'd expect better from you, and certainly have seen better. Straw man indeed. When you choose to SAY more than you did, you'll give us more to discuss. I've kept it civil, but I've also kept it on targe and accurate. You've been condescending in pretty much every post, and you've been called on it. That's what you don't like.
Originally Posted By arstogas ^^^That and revisionist fairy tales, of course. Good gravy. What are you going to do when RAPUNZEL UNBRAIDED comes out? There's nobody left after Disney betrays the old formula.
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 I don't care about any "consensus". I refuse to concede to the consensus. I don't have to submit to any tyranny of the majority that you keep insisting on. What's with the capital letters? Those gags don't "better" those cliches at all. Not even close, they're complete failures. That Spiderman scene is not a tender gesture at all. The characters do nothing other than ape a sickenly overfamiliar scene to the letter. In doing so they're zombies completely devoid of any meaning. The mermaid gag is not at all bettering anything. It's mean spirited and deeply offensive.
Originally Posted By narkspud >>But a CONSENSUS, between an overwhelming member of the critical press, AND the public at large, DOES indeed say something.<< Spirited Away. (Sorry, A, couldn't resist.) And Inkan, I have to admit that I am absolutely baffled by your comments, and I'm the guy who is constantly criticizing movies for being "sitcommy." There's nothing zombie-ish about any of the major characters in Shrek 2. Did you see the movie?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Not even close, they're complete failures.<< Okay. (Sigh.) Home on the Range: Slow-mo shot of cow fighting inspired by Matrix/Crouching Tiger camera work. Hercules: "One Last Hope" training sequence, where Herc (and Pegasus) pose against the sunset in a lift from The Karate Kid. Emperor's New Groove: Character stops film, breaking "fourth wall" done decades ago in Tex Avery 'toons. Aladdin: Genie morphs into Jack Nicholson, Peter Lorre, a flight attendant, to name a few. Are all of these failures, too?
Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear How dare you try to pass off a silly, condescending comment used by every irritable, unheeded parent as some kind of truism. It's a cliche, and not aptly employed. You're merely irritated that I pointed out how it DOESN'T work, doesn't have relevance, given the overwhelming consensus on the film. Don't pretend that I'm merely "swiping your comments away" when I'm taking time to point out how they DON'T apply. That's adding insult to your initial condescension. <<< blah blah blah. This is just alot of hot air. And I stopped reading your comments when they seemed to be more heated than insightful. You're still sitting on the arguement that because EVERYONE likes it, I had better like it to. I don't go for that kind of humor, and have valid points about it. People don't prize originality these days, and the MBAs love it. That's fine. But this wholesale attack on me is frankly unjustified and silly. >>But apparently most of the rest of the viewing public and critical press doesn't have such baggage with Disney that they can't abandon the predictable Disney "princess" formula. >>> Don't asume what my tastes are. >>Home on the Range: Slow-mo shot of cow fighting inspired by Matrix/Crouching Tiger camera work. Hercules: "One Last Hope" training sequence, where Herc (and Pegasus) pose against the sunset in a lift from The Karate Kid. Emperor's New Groove: Character stops film, breaking "fourth wall" done decades ago in Tex Avery 'toons. Aladdin: Genie morphs into Jack Nicholson, Peter Lorre, a flight attendant, to name a few. <<< I don't like this humor in any of the movies. To my mind, it's a cop out. And you can call me names and what not, but that is a logical plausible observation. >>You've been condescending in pretty much every post, and you've been called on it. That's what you don't like.< oh pulleeeeze. I called you on your breezy dismissal of my comments, along with your wordy blather,which is not convincing and perhaps that's what got you hot and bothered. Everyone likes it, so I should like it? heh.
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 I was referring to that specific gag, narkspud. If characters are just miming scenes like that "SpiderMan" scene they might as well just be zombies. Kar2oonman, I think you only have a point with the "Aladdin" scene. But there I thought the Genie's gags were funny because of the way the artists animated him and the stylized way the celebs were caricatured. There was material there beyond just cultural referencing. Also, the Genie was a character made specifically with the ability to anachronize. I don't think any of the other characters did cultural referencing, at least not very much. But then things went wrong in later films. T&P sang "Lion Sleeps Tonight" and Zazu talked about throwrugs. Now characters who couldn't possibly know cultural references were making cultural references. And there was no style to them anymore, just verbatim referencing. I really think these kinds of gags were a major contributor to the death of Disney 2D animation. By the time of "Hercules" cultural reference jokes had completely lost their appeal. That movie's Thrace as modern city gag was already old when "The Flintstones" did it. "Hercules" was considerably trashed for making this Flintstones gag. Yet "Shrek 2" does basically the SAME gag, only it's a fairy tale city as a modern city instead of a mythological city, and everyone praises it. This makes me especially outraged as this is an injustice. Similarly, people were mostly critical of the referencing gags in "Home on the Range". Those gags made the 2D unit look dead on its feet. The "Groove" gag shouldn't be listed here. That's a method of a gag, breaking the fourth wall. They never ape a specific Tex Avery joke exactly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I would submit that when those gags involving references to other films work, they're okay sometimes. Shrek 2 is the kind of movie you go to and enjoy on the big screen and maybe even buy the DVD but probably end up watching it very seldom over the years. Again, we're back to debating a five minute musical montage at the very start of the film. You haven't answered if you have seen the movie yet, but I will assume the answer is 'no.' So to debate whether the entire film is good or not, besides being a matter of personal taste in the first place, is pointless if you have only 5 minutes of footage to use as a basis. What's going on here, clearly, is that you want Disney to be top banana in animation, and are threatened when another studio succeeds -- especially if it gets to giddily poke fun at Disney in the process (far, far less of that in this film than the first Shrek, by the way). I, too, want Disney to be top banana. But I think the success of other studios ultimately PUSHES Disney to try harder than if they are all alone in the genre. In other words, Disney could simply throw up their hands and claim "There's no audience for animation anymore" after a string of box office disappointments. But Lilo & Stitch, Nemo and Shrek 2 prove that there IS an audience for quality animation out there, and that's good news! Disney has a long tradition of excellence on which to build, and still has a stable of the best of the best working for them that is sure to rise to this challenge.
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 A movie that's good for only one viewing and that you forget about soon after does not deserve the mega boxoffice it's getting. I'm not threatened by Pixar. I'm not threatened by Ghibli. I saw "The Iron Giant" as a great inspiration for the Disney corporation to do better. Those are competitors I respect. I have no respect for "Shrek 2". That is pushing like how high school jerks push you down to tease and pick and you. That's healthy like how the teaching done to the Columbine kids is healthy. "Shrek" is what put the idea into execs' heads that 2D animation can be killed and 3D animation works regardless of quality. The "Shrek" movies are contributing to the death of 2D animation.
Originally Posted By narkspud >>people were mostly critical of the referencing gags in "Home on the Range". Those gags made the 2D unit look dead on its feet.<< I was critical of HOTR because it wasn't very good. Ditto Hercules. Shrek 2 is a much better movie. Nothing unjust about that. But aside from that, the reason we keep asking you if you've seen the movie, is that you seem to insist on proclaiming its dreadfulness solely because of the cultural references. And they weren't what the movie was about. It also had interesting and entertaining characters, scads of funny bits that had nothing to do with cultural deconstruction, and a good example of one of those "story" thingys that we're always harping on about. It's a very good movie--not a great one, but a very good one--and I wish you'd discuss it without all these declamations of injustice and stupidity on the part of those of us who did like it. You're allowed to not like it because of the cultural stuff, but sheesh! Chill out.
Originally Posted By narkspud >>I have no respect for "Shrek 2". That is pushing like how high school jerks push you down to tease and pick and you. That's healthy like how the teaching done to the Columbine kids is healthy.<< Boy, you REALLY haven't seen the movie, have you. You aren't even close.
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 OK. I'll chill out. Though I think you should tell arstogas to chill out as well seeing as how incredibly long his rant was. And I hope you're not holding anything against Ursus, whom I feel has stayed pretty civil through all of this, more civil than I actually.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>What's with the capital letters?<<< We don't have benefit of underlining, or italics, in these forums, so we're left with CAPITALIZING for emphasis. I try to use it only for emphasis, not for insult. Sometimes, you can't avoid pointing out the obvious without being "interpreted" as insulting by someone who is ready to BE insulted. >>>Those gags don't "better" those cliches at all. Not even close, they're complete failures.<<< Hardly failures when audiences are enjoying them, and again, you haven't answered the question of whether you've actually SEEN the film. It makes me wonder. People who argue about something that they've not even seen... one of my pet peeves. It destroys your credibility, and now you've avoided the question so much, I can only assume that if you DO say you've seen it at this point, that you're just covering. Go see it. >>>devoid of any meaning. <<< Now I know you're just out of control. You really need to see the movie. Ursus, it's quite EASY to assume what your tastes are, when your explanations of critiques are so thin and succinct. Contrary to your contentions, I've addressed EVERY single one (there were few) of your complaints/observations, and dismissed them because they were indeed easy to dismiss, and this doesn't have so much to do with the consensus argument - but if you completely ignore that argument, then you're simply not facing the reality that this is less about the MBA's, and more about a few people in a minority who simply don't find SHREK's material to their tastes, and want to be vindicated as a majority, or as correct, and you're neither. Again, you've initiated the condescension, and I've returned it to you. But read your posts again, and you'll see a superior air that bleeds through your statements. I've been a writer, animator, directing animator and director of entertainment in film and television for years. I have a great and abiding respect and affinity for Disney's legacy in animation and classic storytelling. But I also know a lack of objectivity when it's displayed, and boy, you and Inkan are quite the poster boys for that. See the movie.
Originally Posted By arstogas Inkan, chill out and see the movie. THEN make your comments. Then you won't embarrass your very evident prejudices with wholly laughable statements like: >>>"Shrek" is what put the idea into execs' heads that 2D animation can be killed and 3D animation works regardless of quality. The "Shrek" movies are contributing to the death of 2D animation.<<< And Narkspud, your example of SPIRITED AWAY really holds up my "consensus" example. SA was roundly embraced by critics, but NOT by the public... so I don't see it as contrary to my contention that it's appeal or quality is up for debate. Had the masses of humanity fallen for SPIRITED AWAY's charms like say, a TITANIC, along with the critical press, then I'd have nothing to admit than "you know, it's not my speed, but there must be something there I'm missing." And I would indeed admit that if it were the case. That is what Inkan and Ursus will NOT admit here. SHREK 2 is headed for the biggest gross of any animated film in history, but instead of seeing it for fine entertainment, it's "devoid of any meaning" and repetitively derivative, and is also the harbinger of the death-knell of 2-D animation. I just finished producing two animated spots. Both hand-drawn. Doesn't look like a dead art form to me.
Originally Posted By arstogas ...You know, it all just became very clear. I was rooting through the DVD collection, and came upon GALAXY QUEST. And it was such a good paradigm for SHREK and moreso for SHREK2 (which relies far less on parody and much more on its own internal "world" and mythos than the first one), that I thought I'd post quickly as to the observation... MOST of the Star Trek fans really enjoyed and appreciated GALAXYQUEST as both parody and more - it creates its own reality and mythos while gently (sometimes not so gently) taking jabs at the expense of the STAR TREK world specifically... pretty much every aspect. Now, a hardcore contingency of Trekkers did NOT 'get' GALAXYQUEST at all. They wouldn't even admit it was genuinely funny, genuinely moving in parts, or even affectionate in its ribbing of the obvious source material. This is inevitable with any extreme POV developed by folks who have lost objectivity. So every critique comes from a portal of offense or a framework of prejudice. There is no way for these people to truly judge a film on its own merits, because they truly take the issue personally - see the "intruding" material as an encroacher, a threat. (i.e., the Shrek films are responsible for the coming "death" of 2-D animation) But having just watched GALAXYQUEST again, and actually being moved to tears in a couple of spots, I appreciated even more how something can be both satire and tribute, how it can LAUNCH from a place so familiar as to be labelled derivative by cynics, and quickly ARRIVE, via great storytelling craftsmanship, at a place wholly original and fresh and delightfully its own. Some people can see that. The hardcore Trekkers...well, they've always got ENTERPRISE, I guess. And the hardcore Disneyphiles will always have HOME ON THE RANGE.
Originally Posted By DisneyDude81 Sorry to spoiled the fight here I liked Shrek 2 hehe When I saw the mermaid my mind started working she looks alot like Ariel! lol quite funny. I loved the fairy godmother (I have a fondness with villains!)and Puss in Boots (He's so cute!). I enjoyed it better than the first!
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 So what if the audience laughed. I went to see "Space Jam" at a packed house, and the audience laughed loudly at the terrible jokes in that movie, while I didn't. The same thing happened when I saw "Mulan". ( Remember the opening scene to the "Daria" TV series that showed Daria in a theater not laughing when everyone else did? ) Just because the masses fall for it doesn't make it funny. I still stand by my criticisms of those gags in the first five minutes. Arstogas hasn't contradicted me. All he's done is brand them "successes" and demand that we accept that without question. I'm not going to bend to that. It wasn't until after "Shrek" became a big hit that talk started about closing down traditional animation divisions and doing only CGI animation.
