Shrek

[Dacey]

The main problem facing the fourth film is that "The Third" set the bar so low that no one seems to really care about this franchise anymore. When "Shrek 2" came out, there was genuine excitement for it. But even before "The Third" came out, my anticipation for it wasn't high, largely because I could tell from the trailers alone that it might not be very good. And the director switch made me skeptical from the very beginning.

In the end, it took the record for best opening weekend ever for an animated feature, but no one seemed to really notice. Perhaps that was partly because it was sandwhiched between the release dates of Spidey and Pirates, making it seem like "the other threequel" of the month. Or maybe it was because no one really seemed to like it very much.

But it's not just that. We've seen "Shrek" imitated by so many people now--including DreamWorks themselves--that it no longer feels "special" anymore. To be honest, I'm all for the Puss in Boots movie, mainly because I'm fond of the character, but it's hard for me to get too excited about "Shrek Forever After." I know that I'll still see it, though.

[EricJ]

In the end, it took the record for best opening weekend ever for an animated feature, but no one seemed to really notice. Perhaps that was partly because it was sandwhiched between the release dates of Spidey and Pirates, making it seem like "the other threequel" of the month. Or maybe it was because no one really seemed to like it very much.

If the triple detonation of Spidey, Pirates and Shrek 3 should have taught us anything that year, it's that opening weekends make their money on the people going in to the movie, not the people coming OUT.

But it's not just that. We've seen "Shrek" imitated by so many people now--including DreamWorks themselves--that it no longer feels "special" anymore. To be honest, I'm all for the Puss in Boots movie, mainly because I'm fond of the character, but it's hard for me to get too excited about "Shrek Forever After." I know that I'll still see it, though.

Although I've seen the first movie and bits of the others, I confess I haven't seen a "decline" in the writing from the first one to the sequels (except that the running-gags get more mechanically exploited, like Puss's obligatory kitty-eyes scene)--
It's pretty much been running the same treadmill for three films, except for maybe consciously trying harder to sell its overbearing PC messaging, after Jeff became aware his "money" was on princess-bashing female audiences who were more interested in the social-avenging than in the jokes.

I still believe most if not pretty much ALL of the first movie's money was made on a mass-hypnosis mania that was a product of the anti-Eisner fervor that was just coming to a boil in '01-'02 (back when we thought "Lilo & Stitch" was the "revolutionary messiah" that was going to lead the final war against Bambi)...Go back and read the reviews, fans were picking any, literally any references to fairytale characters as a "long-deserved slam at Disney", unquote, whether they resembled the specific characters or not.
And now that Disney is "okay" in the public's mind again, Jeff K. still trying to sell us Angry Princess jokes comes off not so much dated as like the Loud Guy at the Party: You might have briefly thought he was funny at work, but he started thinking he was a hoot, glutted his own market, and now there's no getting rid of him.

I just have to shake my head every time I see some fan who bought into it heart-and-soul eight years earlier now saying "Gee, the new Shrek movie isn't as funny as I remembered the first one...Maybe the new writers aren't as good?"

[Dacey]

The new writers aren't as good.

Or, at least, the writing isn't. I'm honestly not sure if the original writers have stuck around throughout the series or not.

[estefan]

I know Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio (two of the writers of the first film) declined to write the sequels, because they felt that "Shrek" should have been like traditional fairy tales by ending with "they lived happilly ever after" and that's it.

[EricJ]

Also Roger S. Schulman, of "ALFTales" experience, dropped off after the first movie--
That resume', I would trust with hip fairytale parody; any other applicant, nnnot so much.

(Still, every time fans complain about the sequels, you get the genuine impression they're struggling to capture some intangible decade-iconic experience of seeing the first movie, and even they just don't know what.
Apart from aforementioned Misplaced Historical Zeitgeist, 'fraid I can't help with that one, sorry.)

[Ben]

The problems with the Shreks, Eric, is that the first one was toned, for whatever reasons, as a Disney dig, which fed off the general feeling that you suggested above. I didn't actually like the film first time I saw it, and it took until it was on TV for me to really start to see some good in it.

But the second I loved, for some reason, though I more and more believe that this was a pure fluke by DWs. It was actually a vastly entertaining upgrade, more mature and able to dispense, to a large degree, of the Disney jokes and go for a more fully rounded "blockbuster" mocking in general (even if Shrek in human form is the spit of Michael Eisner circa ME/JK's tenure at Paramount in the 1980s). In part, I think this was because the same filmmakers came back: they knew the characters and story, where it should be headed. It felt like a continuation, and it worked. Boy did it work.

By Shrek The Turd, Andrew Adamson was off to Narnia, and the pressure to come up with something to top 2 was so great they just didn't bother. The early announcement that it was a trek to find King Arthur turned into Shrek's having kids, which also turned out to be false advertising (the kids turning up for a scant five minutes of the movie). All the rest was padding, and lame, we-only-have-a-year-to chrun-this-thing-out kind of padding. Storylines were fragmented, characters inserted just to insert new characters, and the plot basically had nowhere to go, seeing that it was a retread of the first, with established characters just hanging around for their one moment each.

You can't basically, churn these things out in one to two years, which is what a cash-hungry DWs is doing. Look at Pixar, only on their third Toy Story movie in almost 15 years, while we'll have four Shreks in less than ten with 4, which couldn't even go without a name change. It's the Shrek 3 cycle all over again, which is why I'm not really putting too much faith in this, in the hope that it might surprise on some level and entertain us.

But it seems the public still love this crummy stuff. True that it's what a movie makes when they go in that creates the bottom line, but when they came out there must have been a whole heap of people enjoying it as they continued with big business (a movie doesn't make north of $500m if word of mouth is bad after the opening weekend) through the summer.

If Shrek was a carefree teenager, and Shrek 2 was a sophisticated young 20-something adult, Shrek 3 reverted to being a juvenile child. Heaven knows what Shrek 4 will turn out like, but it's got a mixed parentage already and will probably be as messed up as the last one.

[starlioness]

I wonder what happened to Shrek 5? I thought that was going to be a prequel.. I'd rather see that .. than another "wonderful life" Shrek

[Ben]

I think DWs has worked out that the franchise basically wouldn't support another two films after 4, with 5 and 6 being canceled. After the creative doldrums on the third one, I wouldn't be surprised if they had trouble coming up with a decent fourth film plot and, rather than stretch things out, they'll call it a day with this one. Anticipation for this is pretty low, with audiences making Shrek 3 a hit but being disappointed with it in the long run, hence less than phenomenal DVD sales.

They say to quit while you're ahead and that's what they're doing here, especially since they also have Puss In Boots to come from the same franchise too.

[EricJ]

I think DWs has worked out that the franchise basically wouldn't support another two films after 4, with 5 and 6 being canceled.

I remember reports early, early on that 3 was going to end with Shrek's new babies as a punchline, thus presold-cliffhangering into the wacky "Three Babies & an Ogre" adventures of S4. (In addition to more "Learns to be a dad" adventures foster-fathering Prince Artie.)

After the disastrously underwhelming early screenings for 3, they tweaked the story and decided they'd better deliver the babies as soon as possible to ensure the money-concept while they had it, and not start counting unmade sequels before they hatched.

[Josh]

The Sun has the teaser trailer and poster for Shrek Forever After.

Update: Apple.com now has the teaser trailer.

[Dacey]

The trailer played out pretty much how I expected it too, but boy, that teaser poster is awful.

Shrek looks like he's saying, "Hold the phone! I'm in another bad sequel?"

[estefan]

Yeah, I got no laughs from the trailer, though the animation on fat Puss was really well-done. Kudos to whoever is animating him.

And I agree about the teaser poster, though I kind of like Fiona's warrior look.

[Ben]

Ack!

Really, Shrek and Shrek 2 did all that could be done with this franchise, but at least this looks more inventive than the awful Third. But what about the kids? Are they going to stay looking like Tod Browning's Freaks forever after too? Couldn't we even get stroppy teenagers with some comic mileage? And is this only going to be all about Shrek not being recognized by his pals or is he going to have a companion? Could get awfully boring just being tied to the one character for most of an entire movie.

Shame they felt the need to "3D" the Final Chapter text...it looks very amateurish: "hey, DWs can use Word Art, too!"

[eddievalient]

I'll probably see it just to say that I did, but I'm not expecting much. After 3 I was surprised that Shrek the Halls was actually not bad.

[American_dog_2008]

Cool poster!

I can't wait!