Shrek 2 Trailer Released

ParticleMan911 writes "The Shrek 2 movie trailer (other formats) has finally been released by Dreamworks. Apparently Dreamworks has a goal to release 2-3 animated movies every year through 2006. Will Shrek 2 live up to the original, or will it be a dissapointment like most sequels?"

Comments

Story not Graphics

[Uber Banker]

The original Shrek was great because it was a creative story with a good plot. The good graphics were icing on the cake.

Only too many times are sequels a rehash of what went before only bigger, bolder, brighter, anti-alias shading. But as far as movies go the plot should be counts.

Re:Story not Graphics

[el_salvador]

the donkey rules, why don't they make an entire movie just about the donkey? did i mention the donkey rules?

Re:Story not Graphics

[s33l3t]

since the first shrek was a good movie, its not going to matter whether the second one is crap or not people will go expecting it to be equally if not better in quality.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Uber Banker]

Sad but true. Most sequels gross more than the original but are remembered far less. The movie companies are thus incentivised to put more creative juices in new originals than in sequels, as it'll have little effect on the sequel's success.

Re:Story not Graphics

[s33l3t]

please thank large corporations for mindless crap that entertains the trash in the trailor parks. "hey bubba back to the future II is on again, he yuk hehhe". please read a book, i find the imagination to be more creative by reading a book. if a movie is made after a book just remember that you have your own thoughts and they just might be different than the director of a movie

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative story with a good plot? Are you kidding? It was a ripped-off story with potty humor. Entertainment for morons.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the second Godfather movie more than the first, and I remember the second one better than the first.

I think the problem is most movie companies just want to get the movies done quickly instead of thinking through every detail of movie-making. Although each individual sequel gains less money, more movies come out. The end result is the companies make more money.

Re:Story not Graphics

[rcw-home]

$ dict incentivised
No definitions found for "incentivised"

Maybe you wanted "motivated"?

Re:Story not Graphics

[Uber Banker]

Hello spelling troll. If you are an American then substitute the s for a v. If you still fail then get a new dictionary.

From dictionary.com (American spelling but same meaning):
incentivize
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: "This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem" (Richard A. Gephardt)

The meaning of incentivise and motivate are different (subtle but different) so take it as a guide. I suggest you read a little more, absorb some more literary influences, maybe broaden your horizons a little.

Bye.

Re:Story not Graphics

[KDan]

English is a highly flexible language. Almost any word can be taken and reshaped and made into a different form of the same word (noun, verb, adverb, adjective..). Even if it's not listed in the dictionary (which, in this case, it actually is), it is not incorrect.

Daniel

Re:Story not Graphics

[catbutt]

How about "story as well as graphics"?

I enjoy good graphics and effects. I salute the work of the artists and modelers and animators and programmers that make them happen. What's so wrong about that?

Nobody questions that a good story and screenplay make for a better movie, but is there something wrong with admitting that part of the reason I go to see a movie is to appreciate the work of all the talented and creative people who participated in bringing it to the screen, rather than just the select few?

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

er... "icing on the cake"?

And, IIRC, aren't you the fuckweed who thought tomatoes were not fruit?!

Re:Story not Graphics

[Mahatma Goatse]

... except that "incentivize" is a very recently-invented word, coined by semi-literate morons attempting to sound intelligent by boosting their syllable count. Having a rich literary background wouldn't help on recognize the word; in fact, it would make someone more likely to reject it.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

How is incentivise recently invented? Incentivise means to give incentive and has been used since Victorian times. Please provide a reference stating it has been recently invented. Or are you posting AC as an attempt to give your prior posts credibility?

Re:Story not Graphics

[adamfranco]

I must say, voicing a talking donkey has probably been Eddie Murphy's best role ever. Beverly Hills Cop just doesn't compare and The Nutty Professor was a bit of a bomb. In Donkey though, the man shines!

"And in the morning, I'm making waffles!

Re:Story not Graphics

[geekoid]

no, most sequals do not. but a successful sequel is one that makes at least 2/3s of the original.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I think I hear some kids playing on your lawn!

Re:Story not Graphics

[Prof.Nimnul]

Exceptions do exist, depending on the development team. "Toy Story 2" out-performed the original "Toy Story" for the very good reason of a great script backed by the latest improvements in computer animation.

Personally, I was a little disappointed in "Shrek," because it really wasn't all that different from a Disney film; the moral was "The inner you is what counts," as well as the long "celebration" scene at the end. It would have been refreshing to have seen Dreamworks break the mold of American amimated films completely by trying something new. Hopefully, they'll do that this time out.

Matt

Re:Story not Graphics

[black mariah]

Yeah, they can add some tentacle rape and head explosions.

Re:Story not Graphics

[op00to]

You've struck on it! By reading more, you become more closed minded.. You're a genius!

Re:Story not Graphics

[NanoGator]

"No definitions found for "incentivised
Maybe you wanted "motivated"?"

$ dict ass

Re:Story not Graphics

[Mahatma Goatse]

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0170.html To wit: Corporate executives, car dealers, and politicians often cite the need to incentivize people to act in certain ways. They may want salespeople to work harder, customers to be more eager to spend, or businesses to take more risks. Incentivize has been motivating people since the mid-1970s--the more informal incent came along about 10 years later. Both words mean the same thing, "to give an incentive to" or "provide a motivation for." Usually the incentive is in the form of a material reward--a bonus, rebate, or tax break. But although these two verbs are popular with business leaders, they curry little favor with the Usage Panel, which sees them as trendy jargon. Ninety-four percent of the panel rejects incentivize in the sentence He's the leader of this organization, and he's got to have the whole team of people incentivized to improve shareholder value. Ninety-six percent reject incent in The management incented the employees to improve the shareholder value of the company. Panelists suggest motivate, encourage, and give incentives to as alternatives. --- Now then, it's your turn to provide a link proving that the word has been used since Victorian times. I mean, you wouldn't just make that up, would you?

Re:Story not Graphics

[Mahatma Goatse]

I also reject the word "zxghtey." Does that make me closed-minded as well?

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I'm that fuckweed (posting anonymously because it's off topic). But Safeway and Albertons (the only online grocers I checked) are fuckweeds too, since they also classify tomatoes as vegetables, as does this produce site, and really anywhere else you look where they are classifying things the way the word is actually used, rather than how some scientist reinterpreted the word centuries after people had been happily using it to mean something else.

Interestingly, Safeway classifies rhubarb as a fruit (and squash and cucumbers as vegetables), which indicates they seem to be using the "sweetness" criteria. BTW, according to Websters there is a third criteria for seperating fruits from vegetables, which is whether it comes from a herbacious (non-woody, single season) plant or not. Tomatoes, squash and cucumbers, since they are from an herbacious plant and aren't very sweet, are generally classified as vegetables by all us fuckweeds in the real world.

And yeah, I saw the icing on the cake comment, and I don't agree. Visuals can be every bit as important as story for some movies -- after all if the main thing I cared about was story, I suppose I'd just read the book.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, for some reason I found that incredibly funny.

Re:Story not Graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

The oldest reference for this word I could find is in Malthus's "An Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798). Maybe you could search this on Amazon (reg required so it is pointless to post the link).

Nevertheless I find your posting to be stirring up trouble to the highest degree and wish your sort of person would stop harming slashdot. (You seem to use this UID only for causing trouble in an indirect way, shame you hide your other UID).

Re:Story not Graphics

[op00to]

Of course. Zxghtey is my religion, and I am appalled that you would reject it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No ":" in title == good

[G4from128k]

My theory is that movies with colons in the title are bad. Its like the studio knows the movie is crap but hopes that one part of the title or the other might attract some paying customers.

Re:No ":" in title == good

[OblongPlatypus]

I think you're right...

Re:No ":" in title == good

[sacrilicious]

My theory is that movies with colons in the title are bad. Its like the studio knows the movie is crap but hopes that one part of the title or the other might attract some paying customers.

I have a similar distaste for parentheses in song titles. Like "(Don't Fear) The Reaper", or "Hey Girl (I Love You)", etc. Some good songs have parens, but the parens always bother me anyway. It says to me that the music industry had to try and parlay greater title recognition into more impulse buys, rather than letting titles be shorter and more poetic.

Re:No ":" in title == good

[geeber]

Oh, you mean like "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"? Yeah, that one will surely blow chunks...

(Joke, he screams, as he puts on flame retardant vest!)

Re:No ":" in title == good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that one will surely blow chunks...

Sadly, you're probably right. I was disappointed with the first two in terms of following the plot Tolkien laid out. I mean, it's all there for a reason, though I realize some of that content dosen't/wouldn't make for a good movie.

However, they were good movies on their own merit--certianly better than most of the shit out there.

I think, though, that the third one will really be smarmy and made up along the way--leaving out important thigns for huge battle scenes, in the same way the 2nd one was. I still need to get the extended version, but goddamn.... I was disappointed the Ents more screen time. And they SOOOO needed to have a musical score (march music) and verse to the Last March of the Ents. I mean, holy shit. They managed to miss some really important and plot focused stuff there, including the wording: March isn't only something one does, it's a period of time too! This is SIGNIFIGANT!!!!

Re:No ":" in title == good

[teamhasnoi]

What?! Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit was a masterwork!

Re:No ":" in title == good

[KDan]

I've been told that the extended versions do a lot to fix those problems (I'm a tolkien fan too, and a stickler for details and keeping to the original plot as much as possible). Can anyone confirm or infirm that so that I know if the extended version will actually be worth buying in a couple of years when it comes out?

Daniel

Re:No ":" in title == good

[black mariah]

Or, you know, it's actually a decision of the artists that make the songs that one part of the title simply isn't as important as the other. Or that they want to convey something else in the title. Megadeth's Holy Wars(Punishment Due), Floor's Kallisti(Song for Eris), Isis' Celestial(The Tower), etc. There are many reasons for doing that, and none of them involve marketing. Nobody ever calls that Blue Oyster Cult song "The Reaper", you know?

Re:No ":" in title == good

[el-spectre]

Coupla things:

1)The extended version of The Two Towers comes out November 18
2) Yes, there are many things fleshed out. Apparently, the Huorns are present, as well as an extended treatment of the Denethor/Boromir/Faramir triangle.

Disappointment?

[The Evil Plush Toy]

I love the way Slashdot editors allow these malformed opinions on front-page articles just because twenty-five people replied to a story saying they didn't like the movie.

Slashdot editors need to be journalists, not editorialists. Give us the facts, and leave the "status quo" geek mindset for each reader to decide.

Re:Disappointment?

[Liselle]

I'd agree, except if you follow the RottenTomatoes link, you'll see that the 3rd Matrix has the worst overall reviews by far. Call it what you want, but it fits.

Re:Disappointment?

[snarkh]

Slashdot editors need to be journalists, not editorialists.

Slashdot editors? Journalists? I have no idea what you are taling about.

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way Slashdot editors allow these malformed opinions on front-page articles just because twenty-five people replied to a story saying they didn't like the movie.

You mean about the Matrix Revolutions? Everywhere I read about it they say it sucks. I know I've decided not to waste my $7.50 on a viewing and will wait for the DVD to come out at Blockbuster. Matrix Reloaded sucked donkey balls and should've never been made. Why can't people leave well enough alone and stick to one good movie with an open-ended ending? If they wouldn't have made Reloaded and Revolutions the Matrix would still be one of the most highly aclaimed sci-fi movies on the 1990's. Now it's being dragged down by it's sequals.

Re:Disappointment?

[gad_zuki!]

Type it with me now:

w w w

DOT

r o t t e n

t o m a t o e s

DOT

c o m

Feel free to disagree, but its not just hard-core geeks who panned this movie.

Re:Disappointment?

[LMCBoy]

Dude, get a grip.

Re:Disappointment?

[KillerHamster]

Normally, I'd agree with you, but in the case of the travesty that is The Matrix Revolutions, I think posting such "opinions" on the front page is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Disappointment?

[CausticWindow]

It's not just a matter of personal taste. When the story is something an angst-ridden pimpled teen could've cooked up in fifteen minutes (goes for all three Matrix movies), it's really bad.

Re:Disappointment?

[Tony Hoyle]

I saw revolutions last night (it only came out a couple of days ago here) and really wish I'd not bothered... Couldn't think of anything good to say about it - even the special effects have been done before (fight in mid air... Superman about 20 years ago. Implausible walking things - the original terminator had those, albeit only briefly).

They completely abandoned the plot just to fill it with 'cool' fight sequences, most of which I could have seen on TV instead.

Re:Disappointment?

[fredrikj]

Slashdot is a weblog, not a newspaper.

Re:Disappointment?

[Liselle]

The point about Rotten is that they throw out a gigantic net, and catch the reviews of a lot of critics. Morever, they spotlight particularly insightful or well-reasoned commentary (sound familiar?), and it floats to the top for everyone to see. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good, and a lot better than relying on one person or critic certainly.

Re:Disappointment?

[Stardate]

Perhaps an angst-ridden tean wouldn't like Elf, but the critics at RT did. Because they (usually) able to overlook a formulaic story IF the execution by the actors makes up for it. And though I hate a formulaic story as much as the next (smart) guy, I'll usually have a good time if the actors make up for it, and that's why I (usually) trust the reviews at RT. Plus they take so many reviews into account that little things cancel out.

Re:Disappointment?

[RickHunter]

Or maybe the Slashdot editors actually went and saw it and are reporting on their own opinions of the movie? (To whit, that it sucked and blew at the same time, and did both with great force)

And it was a little more than 25 comments. In fact, almost every opinion I've seen of the movie from people who aren't die-hard fans and would have liked it even if the machine city had turned out to be filled with clones of Jar-Jar Binks is, at best, "it could have been worse."

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sour grapes about rotten tomates? Who knew?

Re:Disappointment?

[mobby_6kl]

>Rotten is just bad.
Yes, Rotten is bad, really, really bad! Rotten

Re:Disappointment?

[whereiswaldo]

Definitely agreed. One thing I can't stand is people passing off a small group's thoughts as "this is the way it is". Bullshit. I liked the movie, not quite as good as the first, but certainly not a "disappointment".

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

To get a balanced view of a movie that has just opened I think rotten tomatoes is the way to go. Who has seen a movie that just opened? Probably fanboys of the director or the stars. So it's likely that they'll write "w00t! best movie evar!!!" even if the movie is mediocre. Movies that are intentionally "cool" might also fool some guy who has seen about 20 movies in his life. He'll give it 10/10 just because it's "cool".
So it often takes months or even years before the imdb score evens out.

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the description "steaming pile of feces." I think it's the most accurate.

Re:Disappointment?

[gl4ss]

there's a problem with movies that have stories more complex than arnolds "the commando" has. people don't want to use their brains enough to get it(matrix1 in reality needed barely any thought to be enjoyable, the plot part was so _short_ and it left everything open, which some people mistook as being very complex or somehow totally cool, when the plot could have been fitted in a short movie without losing anything plotwise).

people want them to be simple.. heck, most people excepted the matrix 'stop existing'(whatever that means, killing everyone in it?) or the machines to lose totally or whatever, while it was pretty friggin clear for anyone who followed plot of 2(and animatrixes) that the world was in a state that there were just about 2 options, either zion would fall or machines would make peace(and that smith was a common enemy for both humans and ai's, and from animatrixes it was obvious that the ai's weren't inherently evil but would be able to coexist with humans if humans themselfs would allow it). of course there were 'stupidities' in it (weaponry & etc, but it wasn't told where zion had gotten it's weapons anyways).

heck, if lotr was a new story it wouldn't have snowballs chance in hell to not get totally bashed same way.

reloaded and revolutions were hell a lot better entertainment than episode 1 and 2 at least.

Re:Disappointment?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Slashdot editors? Journalists? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Neither do they.

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

wait is this post another rip on Jon Katz??

Re:Disappointment?

[RickHunter]

I find it amusing that you're preaching about complex plots to someone that loves anime, but I'll humor you.

The reason I didn't like it was not because it had a complex plot, but because the plot sucked. Yes, that's right, you heard me: it sucked. It was poorly-written, poorly-handled, and poorly planned. They pulled too many about-faces. "The machines are evil and seek to wipe out the 'virus' mankind." "No, the machines are good, just misunderstood." "Oh, wait, they're evil again and are just toying with us." "No, they're good, they're just trying to wipe out humanity because we left the toilet seat up! Silly us!" To say nothing of the neutering of Neo after the first movie. He goes from being able to alter the Matrix however he likes with his mind, as its all just code to a bad Goku or Superman impersonator.

They wrote themselves into a corner with Animatrix and Reloaded, and Revolutions is the product of them desperately trying to get out of it. It suffers accordingly. I wouldn't say that its worse than Star Wars I and II, but I wouldn't say that its better either.

And something you're missing - for many, LotR is a new story. Many of the friends I've gone to see the LotR movies have never read the books, and they've still loved them. So its obviously not because its an old story that everyone knows. It seems to be because they're actually semi-competently written and directed.

Re:Disappointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because critics and geeks always get along!

Re:Disappointment?

[gl4ss]

how could they write themselfs to a corner, when reloaded and revolutions were largely done as one piece anyways? they didn't.

not too many just like it. but the most usual complaint i've heard is that "it was blablba bang bang bang".

-

Re:Disappointment?

[d3faultus3r]

The Matrix revolutions was panned by critics and nearly everyone else. The editors were simply pointing out an example of a sequel that disappointed many people.

Re:Disappointment?

[NanoGator]

"Feel free to disagree, but its not just hard-core geeks who panned this movie."

I'm not surprised. Very little of the movie took place inside the Matrix, and they spared us the philosophical bs. I guess people were really getting into those aspects of the movies, and Revolutions didn't provide.

I'm not a fan of the Matrix, but I found the third movie reasonably entertaining. I have a feeling that most of those who hated it were simply mad that their own expectations weren't fulfilled. Personally, I think if the third movie came out like the hard-core geeks wanted, it'd have been a 90 minute long kungfu wire scene with a big explosion in the end signalling the demise of the ever so evil machines.

yawn.

most sequals are crap...

[s33l3t]

but you know its a kids movie, how hard can it be to make an entertaining kids movie. insert a couple of childish jokes and a couple farts, people will eat it up. anyways the first shrek had some great graphic animations, i expect the 2nd one to exceed that.

Re:most sequals are crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the bird was hitting the highnote then blew up, you laughed with the rest of us.

Re:most sequals are crap...

[scons]

how hard can it be to make an entertaining kids movie

Pretty damn hard. If it's so easy, why are there so few really entertaining movies for kids? Why are Shrek and Finding Nemo the exceptions, rather than the rule? Hollywood studios would be falling all over themselves making "entertaining kids movies" if it were that easy to make them, and to make money doing them. The great graphics serve the story, not the other way around.

Another poster got this right: The reason that movies like Shrek and Finding Nemo are the rare gems that they are is because they're well-written, engaging stories with real characters, not worn-out, thread bare plots with a "couple of childish jokes and a couple farts."

Good writing is hard to come by and difficult to create, no matter the genre.

Re:most sequals are crap...

[letxa2000]

Why are Shrek and Finding Nemo the exceptions, rather than the rule?

I never have understood what the big deal about Finding Nemo was. Seems to me it was completely overrated. We liked Shrek--it was fun. And we liked Beauty and the Beast back in the 90's. Those are about the only two animated films my wife and I are willing to watch more than once.

But Finding Nemo? We left the theater asking ourselves, "So what was the big deal?" Perhaps someone can tell me... what WAS the big deal about Finding Nemo???

Re:most sequals are crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm not sure on Nemo, either. It was a good movie, don't get me wrong, but I also think it was overhyped. The graphics were amazing (and incredibly hard to do, I imagine), but it didn't have the suspension of belief that Monsters, INC. or Shrek had, and it didn't have the sad sort of brooding reminisce, and nostalgia Toy Story had.

It had a lot of slapstick sort of comedy, but the beginning was pretty slow for me, and I was half-way wishing for the sting-ray teacher to come a bit too close to a boat propeller, and it had some touching moments. The turtles? Honestly, I'm at a loss for that scene.

I'm with you. I'm just not sure what the big deal was!

Re:most sequals are crap...

[Trurl's Machine]

Pretty damn hard. If it's so easy, why are there so few really entertaining movies for kids? Why are Shrek and Finding Nemothe exceptions, rather than the rule?

But they are not! Did Pixar has _ever_ released a non-entertaining movie? "Bug's Life?" "Monsters Inc."? "Toy Story(ies)"? What happens when Fox releases an animated ferature? It's the hilarious "Ice Age". What happens when Warner does it? It's the "Iron Giant", a +100 Insigthful look at the maccarthyism and the Golden Age of science-fiction. What happens when the Japanese do an animated feature? It's the stunning "Spirited Away". So who, actually, DO release crappy animated features? The answers is obvious: Disney, the Microsoft of animation.

And yes, I know that Pixar works for Disney, but they are not Disney. They don't even live in the same part of California. And yes, I know that Disney sometimes releases a precious gem like "Lilo & Stich", but even Microsoft has its "Age Of Empires".

Re:most sequals are crap...

[scons]

You're self-selecting for good "kids" movies and ignoring the drek.

Pixar has a stellar track record largely because John Lasseter (who spent most of his early career at Disney, BTW) understands and values how to tell an engaging story. Pixar spends a lot of time and energy on getting the story right, and the results speak for themselves in terms of quality of the movie. When you combine that with Disney's marketing muscle, you get good box office.

The others you mention are great films, but the box office record is mixed. Ice Age was a hit, but Iron Giant but did pretty lousy box office ($23M domestically in four years) despite being a great film. Spirited Away is stunning, but didn't crack the mainstream U.S. market (only $10M U.S., although it did do $260M worldwide).

But the real point is: For every one of the artistic successes you mention, there are many more lousy kids pictures. Go to Blockbuster with any parent who's trying to find a good kids movie that's also watchable by adults. There's a ton of crap there, just like there is in any genre.

The fact that there are, thank goodness, examples of good kids/animated features we can point to doesn't mean that it's significantly easier to write or make a good kids movie than it is any other kind of movie.

Re:most sequals are crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lilo & Stitch was made at their facility in Florida, which was also responsible for "Mulan". It's the stuff that's made in Los Angeles that sucks.

Re:most sequals are crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, Iron Giant, whose most engaging bit of dialog was "Guns bad."

Got to start brainwashing the kiddies young, right?

Don't forget!

[readpunk]

Eddie Murphy turned in his best performance since Beverly Hills Cop in the original Shrek movie. I am dying to find out if he can duplicate it. Thank you for existing Eddie Murphy. Where would my life be without you?

This movie was made using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'll bet they haven't paid their SCO license fee yet. I won't be taking my children to see any movie that was made using stolen IP as it would be teaching them that stealing is OK.

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[JamesTRexx]

Yeah, but you are reading and posting on a site that also runs on Linux. :-P
Bad example for your kids now.

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[gad_zuki!]

>Bad example for your kids now.

He posts to slashdot, his chances of mating successfully are pretty slim.

Here's to hoping for cheap and effective robot wives, for all our sakes.

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[mbourgon]

...so is downloading it okay?

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be okay if there was a commercial before the movie that told you how wrong it was? Like a programmer telling you the danger you put his job in every time you download linux for free.

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[Eristone]

> Here's to hoping for cheap and effective robot wives, for all our sakes

I, for one, will welcome our robot wife overlords...

(ducking flying produce...)

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[hoggoth]

> I, for one, will welcome our robot wife overlords...

Please explain how our robot wife overlords will be better than our current human wife overlords?

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[huckda]

well the "trailer" bit right before the trailer of "Shrek 2" was this nifty little banter about how piracy of movies is wrong and affects the stunt-man, yada yada...that the big guys always get their HUGE salaries but the little guys are the ones affected... so yeah...teach 'em stealing is bad...and teach them to take existing IP and improve upon it and develop more...so they can be like Disney and take old stories and animate them and make them popular and then copywrite it and extend that copywrite beyond the standard term through lobbying and other political bribery...

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[black mariah]

They have an on/off switch, and never get headaches.

Re:This movie was made using Linux

[Eristone]

> Please explain how our robot wife overlords will be better than our current human wife overlords?

They'll be able to balance the (empty) checking account down to the penny, of course.

Toy Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Toy Story 2 was just as good as the original, and that's a 100% CGI movie too...

Re:Toy Story

[Mr Pippin]

Actually, I like Toy Story 2 better than the original.

Re:Toy Story

[dabraun]

I strongly disagree. I heard about Toy story as being 'the first completely rendered movie' and all the rumors that went with it (way to many sparcs stacked up in closets, etc) - when I finally saw it the fact that it was a really good movie was simply a bonus - I thought it was great. I saw Toy Story 2 recently and was simply not impressed. The fact that it is rendered is no longer fascinating and the story did not hold up to the original (that is: the original had a unique idea - that the toys have a life of their own when people are not around - the sequel just repeated that idea - nothing new to see.) David

Re:Toy Story

[May Kasahara]

Same here. Sure, because it was a sequel it wasn't as original as the first movie, but I found it much more entertaining.

The only part I thought they could've done without was that song that Jessie sings, and even then, it was better than most all of the musical numbers from other animated films of the time.

Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[hamster foo]

The clip looks promising, but good christ did they have to use a Smash Mouth song again? The end of the first one makes me cringe.

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[wud]

use a Smash Mouth song again

actually it was a monkeys song, that smash mouth ruined horribly and made me want to cry

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[maddskillz]

you have to feel bad, I mean the Monkeys put so much heart and soul into their music, only to have it ripped off!

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[TheAJofOZ]

you have to feel bad, I mean the Monkeys put so much heart and soul into their music, only to have it ripped off!

And just to emphasise the point, I'm A Believer is a Neil Diamond song.

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[IM6100]

The Sex Pistols did an absolutely great cover of 'Stepping Stone.'

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[Phong]

Keep in mind that the music that is used in a trailer often bears no relation to the music that goes in the actual movie. For instance, trailer producers a few years ago were very keen on using the Third Eye Blind song Semi-Charmed Life, but it hardly ever made it into the associated movie. So, using music from the original Shrek in a trailer for Shrek 2 doesn't necessarily mean that it will actually occur in the sequel -- well have to wait and see.

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[Drathos]

So were a lot of other Monkees songs (especially early on).. Neil Diamond wrote a lot songs for other people.

Re:Argh! Smash Mouth again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed- the Disney flick "Dinosaur" used snippets of the song "Crablouse" by Lords of Acid in their TV advertisements in the USA. Due to the song's lyrics and subject matter, I doubt that this song would _ever_ be used in a Disney movie aimed at kids.

"Most sequels"?

[heironymouscoward]

Aliens 2 and 3 were superb.

I think the original Star Wars trilogy was all equally well made.

Toy Story 2 was better than the original.

The James Bond movies went up and down in quality but generally delivered exactly the right kick each time.

Mad Max 2 was simply amazing.

The Godfather... ... I mean, before making such generalizations, why not just think a little? 90% of all work stinks, as Theodore Sturgeon said, this includes many sequels, but it's hardly specific to sequels.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Sexy Bern]

Hey, "Highlander 2" and "Speed 2" were STONKIN' films, both encapsulating that mystical HOLLYWOOD MAGIC.

That is all.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[heironymouscoward]

Doing a little more research through my own video library, I found some more sequels that were as good as or better than the original:

- Robocop 2
- Gremlins 2
- Ghostbusters 2
- 24 Hours more
- La Verite Si Je Mens 2
- Legally Blonde 2*
- The Gods are Crazy 2

(*) The film was just as flimsy and fun as the first one. But - and this is no joke - the cinema was filled with blonde girls. Some kind of cult movie for blondies.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[heironymouscoward]

Hey, you're right, but just apply Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap". The chance of a good original is 10%. The chance of a good original plus good sequel is just 1%.

Highlander 2 was a traumatic experience, I'll grant you that. I didn't give Speed 2 a chance, the first one was already a diaper load.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[RSevrinsky]

You're kidding, right?

Every single one of the films you've mentioned (with the possible exception of Legally Blonde 2, which I haven't seen yet) was an absolute stinker -- box office failure and critically lambasted.

- Richie

Re:"Most sequels"?

[andy1307]

Lethal weapon 2, Superman 2.....

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, I guess independent probabilities would be the way to analyze this phenomenon. Yeah. Sure.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[s33l3t]

i see wut the problem is here, think of sequels within the past 2yrs the majority of them are crap and you can tell hollywood is pushing movie like crack "hey kids this movie sucks, but you know you want to know wut its all about". nough said

Re:"Most sequels"?

[heironymouscoward]

You saw "La Verite Si Je Mens 2"? I'm impressed. It's a pity you found it a stinker.

And "Aliens"... a stinker? I don't remember ever seeing a better composed piece of horror-sci-fi.

Well, I don't give a flying fuck what the critics say, and I often find that the movies I like most of all are box office flops.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Randolpho]

Er.... Speed *1* wasn't exactly "good" either...

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Webmonger]

I'd still say "most sequels". More than half of sequels are worse than the original.

Thank god for the exceptions.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[maddskillz]

How could you say Ghostbusters 2 was better then the original? I guess I shouldn't put much merit into the opinion of someone who has Legally Blonde 2 in their collection though

Re:"Most sequels"?

[swordgeek]

Sequels are a great case for pulling out exceptions to the 'rule' that sequels suck.

There are definitely some good sequels made. In fact, there are even some good sequels made to movies that weren't written with sequels in mind. Nonetheless, I'd say that the ratio of crap/good is MUCH higher for sequels than for original (or rather, initial) stories. The problem is, you've created a story with characters designed for that story, and then the story ends. Either you retell the story, redevelop the characters (often at odds with the first movie), or if you're lucky/smart, you've created enough depth in the first movie to tell a different story with the same characters.

The other reasons that sequels mostly suck is that studios don't want to waste any money making a GOOD movie, when the viewing audience is already guaranteed.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[DWIM]

Wow, all that your postings on this subject show to me is that people can definately have very different opinions on the quality of movies. IMHO, Aliens does not hold a candle to Alien. Toy Story 2, while good, did not match Toy Story. The Return of the Jedi was significantly worse than the previous two (although The Empire Stikes Back was better than the original in many ways). The Gods Must Be Crazy was far better than the sequel. And I don't know how you can think Ghostbusters 2 was better than Ghostbusters.

But your overall point:

I mean, before making such generalizations, why not just think a little? 90% of all work stinks, as Theodore Sturgeon said, this includes many sequels, but it's hardly specific to sequels.

Indeed, think a little. If you have been paying attention to what has been coming out of Hollywood over the previous multiple decades, you would know that it is highly unusual for a sequel to match or exceed the original. The original statement, which you seem to take exception to, asks if Shrek 2 will "be a disappointment like most sequels". That is a completely fair thing to ask since, as you acknowledge, "90% of all work stinks".

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And "Aliens"... a stinker? I don't remember ever seeing a better composed piece of horror-sci-fi.

Aliens was not horror-sci-fi; it was action-sci-fi.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[ssstraub]

You listed Ghostbusters 2 and therefore I can't really listen to anything else you have to say.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[letxa2000]

No kidding. A friend and I went to Ghostbusters 2 on the afternoon of opening day. What a crock! Couldn't believe how much they biffed that.

The original Ghostbusters is excellent. I can still watch that whenever I happen to see it on TV. Full of great and memerable lines. Ghostbusters 2 was an insult.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Zirtix]

But given a good film, what is the prob. of a good sequel?

... erm ... 10%. Even with independent probabilities (highly questionable).

Ass.

PS the claim isn't that sequels are bad, anyway. It's that they are worse than the originals.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens 2 and 3 were superb.

I think the original Star Wars trilogy was all equally well made. ... (etc)

I'd like to chime in my vote for "Back to the Future Part 2", which is my favorite for that trilogy. It is a wonderfully intricate script, with so many twists and turns, always entertaining, and full of laughs. Actually, in the grand scheme of things, "Back to the Future Part 2" is probably the best sequel ever made.

If you don't believe me, or if you've never seen the trilogy, you must get Part 1 first (it isn't self-contained like the Bond serials).

Re:"Most sequels"?

[jaybird144]

Well, if the first is categorized as "good", and the second is categorized as "bad", wouldn't that make the sequel worse than the original?

Re:"Most sequels"?

[catbutt]

(Agree except for Alien 3, which killed off all the characters you rooted for in Alien 2, making it less fun to go back and watch 2 knowing that the little girl and the bot bit the dust soon after. Damn them....)

But on your last point, I think there are a lot of sequels that are only green lighted because they have a better chance at making money than non-sequels. So there is a lower threshold they have to meet....sucking isn't specific to sequels, but sequels might be more likely to suck.

Re: "Most sequels"?

[gidds]

I'll add my vote to that. We seem to be in a small minority, but personally I really enjoyed the complexity and dark edge to BttF 2. Maybe they felt that with a light-hearted romp coming in part 3 (which I found a big disappointment), they were free to explore darker territory than they'd be able to in a self-contained film.

Maybe I'm an atypical movie-goer, but I really enjoy films that you have to think about. Not pretentious pseudo-science and ambiguity like, er, certain sequels I could mention, but where the basic plot isn't spelled out in the first few minutes (and in trailers...). I mean, how often have you sat in a cinema and been genuinely confused?

For example, I saw The Truman Show having seen no promotional material at all, not even knowing who was in it; definitely the best way to see that particular film. And for the first half an hour or so, I remember being a bit bewildered. It was a very unusual and refreshing sensation! And to discover the sheer audacity of the backstory for myself, without having it rammed down my throat in trailers or reviews, was an amazing experience. Since then I try to avoid seeing trailers or previews for films that I think I'll want to see. Especially now that previews have turned into condensed pop-video versions of the whole film, complete with the full plot, the best lines, all the twists and surprises, and an annoying man with an unfeasibly low voice...

BttF2 wasn't quite on that scale, but I still enjoyed it a lot, and can't understand why so few other people appeared to.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes MOST sequels are worse relative to the original. The problem is that, as you say, most movies are stinkers. When you create a good movie, it becomes more difficult to make the follow-on just as good or better. Using your numbers:

1st movie = 10% chance of being good
2nd movie = 10% * 10% = 1% chance of being good
etc...

You're listing the exceptional 1% of cases...

Here's a list of sequels/follow-ons that were not as good as the original:

Godfather III
Star Wars Prequels
The Matrix sequels
Legally Blonde 2
Men in Black II
American Pie franchise
Scream franchise
Scary Movie franchise
Robocop II
Mission Impossible II
Final Destination II
Die Hard franchise
The Omen franchise
Predator II
Batman follow-ons
Ghostbusters follow-ons
Short circuit II
Rocky III, IV, V
Back to the Future II, III
Silence of the Lambs follow-ons
Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure II
The Excorcist II, III
Charlie's Angels II ...and that's just off the top of my head. 10:1 odds that your sequel will not be as good.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget every Police Academy

Re:"Most sequels"?

[heironymouscoward]

Oh, no, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure II was just awesome, dude!

And you cannot be serious about Robocop 2, it had one of the highest body counts ever.

Oops, forgot one more: Tomb Raider II - actually better than the original.

Sigh, OK, I admit it, most sequels stink.

Re:"Most sequels"?

[Chacham]

Superman 2.

And how could anyone forget Star Trek 2.

POSSIBLE SPOILLERS FOR SHREK 1!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey this is a really silly question, but what happened at the end of shrek 1? I know there was something funky with redhead chycka, but I lost power and wandered off about 40 minutes before the end. She had some mad secret. what was it? what happened?

Re:POSSIBLE SPOILLERS FOR SHREK 1!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

She had some mad secret. what was it?

herpes

Re:POSSIBLE SPOILLERS FOR SHREK 1!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

She had AIDS, and died in Shreks' tender loving arms before he arrived to the castle.

Daniel

Re:POSSIBLE SPOILLERS FOR SHREK 1!!!

[Library Spoff]

spoken like the spotty virgin you most probably are...

may you catch a dose with a side portion of HPV.

Disappointment?

[GeekDork]

First, it's one 's' and 2 'p', but that's not the point. Making the Rottentomatoes link for Revolutions is something like saying LotR1 was good because Rotten liked it. They are taking their measurement from critics for Petes' sake!

Rotten is much worse than the IMDB in that regard IMO. Why? Because critics are way worse than the most angst-ridden pimpled teen. Now, I don't want to defend Revolutions (it's an extreme matter of personal taste), but Rotten is just bad.

I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[jubalj]

From an old eweek article 'DreamWorks is using HP x4000 workstations running Linux to create "Shrek 2"'

Its good to see another 'made on Linux' movie!

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

As proof that BSD is dying, the Matrix movies effects were rendered on a cluster of FreeBSD systems.

Shameless plug:
Blogzine

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[tolldog]

Many studios are using Linux boxes and several of those are HP boxes. Most large stuidos run this way because the bottom line is as important to them as it is to the smaller studios. (See previous SCO takes on Hollywood story for more on this).

-Tim

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why it's such a feather in the cap of Linux. That kind of application requires almost NOTHING of an OS. All it's doing is providing a basic shell to run a few thousand lines of number-crunching code. You could use any university student's "write an OS from scratch" midterm project to do the same thing.

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[Gyan]

WTF is so special about Linux and the graphics?

A Maya scene rendered with mental ray will render the same on a Mac, Win or Linux.

All the linux helps is in lower cost, and possibly distributed rendering.

The "made on Linux" doesn't hold much significance in terms of the actual CG created.

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[acidrain69]

There was a story on this a while back, about why studios were chosing linux. Having access to the tools and OS code was basically what it came down to. If they needed to optimize or build something from scratch, they could, and it would be easier than doing it for windows, and cheaper than doing it on a Mac.

Re:I hope its good.. it's made on linux

[tolldog]

you are right, made on linux does not change the cg look and feel because its on linux. But what it has provided is more, faster machines for the masses. Because CG always takes all the resources you have, regardless of how many machines or how many months you have to produce, faster, better, and cheaper machines allow for better cg to be created.

Render times have always been about the same for a feature film, regardless of how fast the proc is. That is because the artists keep getting more and more detailed, the shaders more complex... so on and so on.

The other nice thing about a linux solution has been the adoption by various 3rd party vendors (where other unix variants are not supported). My last render farm setup was running perl, LSF (from Platform) and Maya (from Alias). Two of these are not available on all unix flavors. Maya is only available on 3 unixes, so the choice gets limited fast. Now many larger studios have mostly in house software but they do use third party applications many times, so it is still something that is taken into consideration.

But you are right, the linux kernel does absolutely nothing different graphicly than any other kernel out there. In some cases the linux kernel is still a bit behind in comparison to Irix .

Creativity

[tedgyz]

I'm glad to see Dreamworks has put creativity on the corporate calander, like the latest Chipzilla releases. I'm sure they will inspire artistic vision with their accounting ledger.

Re:"Most sequels"? how bout bad ones

[s33l3t]

these are just a few i dont want spend all day typing. back to the future (all the sequels)== crap . the mummy returns = crap how about any rocky movie after the first one . rambo the first one was ok, but come on you know enemies have better aim than that . predator please dont get me started on those . nightmare on elm st sequels == plz shoot me i saw enough after the first one . halloween . sigh all crap

More originality please?

[t_allardyce]

I wish hollywood would stop using these cheep sales tactics, afew very long stories - eg Lord Of The Rings, series - eg Harry Potter, James Bond justify having more than one film, but often they are just taking the piss knowing that people who liked the first will undoubtedly go see the second and only be dissapointed after they have paid their money. I dont want to live in a world where there are no original films and every month there are only sequels, prequels, remastered re-releases, remakes, adaptations, remakes of previous adaptations and directors cuts.

Lets see in the past couple years theres been:
T3, X-men 2, Legally Blonde 2, Bad Boys 2, Scary Movie 3? American Pie er 2, no 3? Austin Powers (ok it was quite good), Men In Black 2, The italian job, Texas Chainsaw massacre, Oceans 11, The Mummy Returns, Rush Hour 2, Planet of the Apes, Jurrasic Park 3, MI:2.

Most of them were blaitently milking money.

Its the same with the music industry - covers, re-mixes, re-mixes of covers, re-mixed dance versions of covers and bands that sound so similar that not even their parents could tell them apart.

Re:More originality please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that at least two of those three exceptions you mentioned, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond, were definitively not made by Hollywood.

Re:More originality please?

[Anonymous Coward]

how can u forget _Tomb Raider 2_?

It made my year.

Re:More originality please?

[bj8rn]

They will stop using that kind of tactics only when people stop falling for it. That is, about two days after hell has frozen over.

They say that there's two kinds of joy people can have when watching movies (this also applies to other things, too) -- the joy of discovery (of novelty) and the joy of recognition. It's so much easier to cause the second one, you can't really blame the studios for making money the easy way.

Re:More originality please?

[swordgeek]

You're missing an important point here, which actually strengthens your argument. Most of the original movies weren't all that original to begin with! Hell, almost everything being made these days that isn't a direct sequel, is a remake of a 'classic.' The rest are live action movies of comics or sitcoms.

Hollywood will stop doing this when people stop paying for it. Ditto for the music industry. Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen. Fortunately, there's lots of room in the music industry and an increasing amount of room in the movie industry for people with good and creative ideas to express themselves. In the last two years, we've had "Frida," "Amelie," and "The Barbarian Invasion," as examples of big-budget movie making that kicks ass! (although one of them _was_ a sequel, now that I think of it :-)

It's pretty simple: The mass-market entertainment industry will ALWAYS pander to the lowest common denominator, and take the fewest risks possible. The only thing we can hope for is that the few good ideas out there don't get squashed.

Re:More originality please?

[t_allardyce]

Yes there is the joy of recognition and sometimes theres nothing i like more than to sit down and watch "The Worlds Greatest Police Videos 8" or some film involving blowing up everything in sight in slow motion and also theres the music that forfils some sort of itch because it has a catchy tune even though you know its bad reprocessed teeny-pop (although allot of it doesnt even have a catchy tune, or has such bad acting and explosions its not even worth that). Personally i think these things are the entertainment vice of our time like drugs, alcohol, caffine, and shoot-em-ups and while i easily get hooked and consume them, im damnd if im going to pay the drug-dealing producers, so financially ive stopped falling for it.

Yeah they are making it in an easy way but how different are they from drug dealers? we are addicts so we cant say we're much better.

Re:More originality please?

[Lerc]

If you don't like sequels, Don't go to them.

Re:More originality please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the sucky Speed 2 !

Re:More originality please?

[Lord_Dweomer]

" I wish hollywood would stop using these cheep sales tactics, afew very long stories - eg Lord Of The Rings, series - eg Harry Potter, James Bond justify having more than one film, but often they are just taking the piss knowing that people who liked the first will undoubtedly go see the second and only be dissapointed after they have paid their money."

Don't worry, with the increasing saturation of cell-phones and text messaging in our society, that is bound to stop happening sooner or later.

You mean, Shrek 3?

[mm0mm]

Will Shrek 2 live up to the original, or will it be a dissapointment like most sequels?

I thought a sequel to Shrek was already released this summer and it sure was a dissapointment. I'm sure it was a sequel, I saw the same green guy in it.

... oh wait, the title was 'hulk' or something, so maybe it was a different film. my bad...

Torrent

[jnguy]

This is a great file to release a torrent for, the server is getting hammered.

Re:Torrent

[xigxag]

Don't expect a major studio to BT their trailer anytime soon. It would mean they were giving away the rights to redistribute their IP. That's a big no-no for them -- people will just have to deal with a slow server. As we can see from the example of the record labels, the majors would rather lose potential customers then let control over their IP be ceded.

Re:Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrent link here.

Re:Torrent

[lady_J96]

Thank you O pilgram grey!!!!

Re:Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the GameTab server for Shrek torrents.

Re:Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

cool speeds bud!

on 128k cable im hitting 28k per second!!

great stuff man!

Hollywoods got it all wrong.

[SloWave]

Hollywood likes to take a good movie (like the Matrix) and make lousy sequels to them. Why don't they takie a lousy movie (like the Core) and make a decent sequel?

Re:Hollywoods got it all wrong.

[Blublu]

If the original movie is crap, there's no need for a sequel.

Re:Hollywoods got it all wrong.

[Andy_R]

PLEASE explain that to Disney, who seem intent on torturing parents everywhere with a straight-to-video sequel to every cartoon they ever made.

Re:Hollywoods got it all wrong.

[Blublu]

Yes, but Disney are perfectionists, so they always want to make it as crappy as they possibly can.

Re:Hollywoods got it all wrong.

[rylin]

They are.
It's called " The Core 2: The Day Shakira's Ass Stood Still ."

John Lithgow & Cleese

[Antarius]

John Cleese is in the sequel? Cleese & Lightgow play very well against each other, so I'll be waiting to see how that pans out.

(I've often compared Lithgow in 3rd Rock to an "American John Cleese.")

But Lithgow's character is back? How, pray tell, do you come back after being swallowed whole by a whopping-great-dragon?

(Or do I *really* want to know?)

Re:John Lithgow & Cleese

[Anonymous Coward]

How, pray tell, do you come back after being swallowed whole by a whopping-great-dragon?

(Or do I *really* want to know?)

He secretly took some survival lessons from Kenny McCormick while Shrek and Donkey were out saving the princess.

Ah!

[FrostedWheat]

Only John Cleese could make something as simple as 'Ah!' sound funny.

This is shaping up to be a good movie!

Matrix Revolutions

[rf0]

Well it wasn't that bad. Better than the second but not as good as the first. If you just look to have a fun 2 hours watching it then great.. As for shrek well lets see how many mother in law jokes they can get in. Like

I took my dog to the vet and asked for his tail to be amputated. The vet said "Why? Its perfectly fine". Well I said that I don't want my mother-in-law to have any sign she's welcome :)

Rus

2-3 Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently Dreamworks has a goal to release 2-3 animated movies every year through 2006."

- This shouldn't be too difficult, especially since Dreamworks farms out significant amounts of animation to third parties, or just finances other studios (eg, Aardman).

Slashdotted??

[Mononoke]

Come on, guys! How are they gonna finish the movie if we keep slashdotting their render/server farm?

Re:Slashdotted??

[tolldog]

HAHA

They are seperate machines though.. (but I am sure you knew that)

-Tim

Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Randolpho]

... let's talk about the movie.

I note that John Lithgow (Lord Farquad) is in the credits for Shrek 2. Is he going to be the antagonist? How, as a steaming pile of dragon-shit?

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[jjohnson]

Am I the only one who noticed how much "Farquad" sounds like "fuckwad" when spoken with a Scottish accent?

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[hiryuu]

Is he going to be the antagonist? How, as a steaming pile of dragon-shit?

What, you were expecting continuity? How 'bout The Whole Nine Yards, where Kevin Pollack's character was shot, the body dragged around a while, and then said body left in a car that got torched - only to reappear as the bad guy in the sequel?

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Robotech_Master]

He didn't seem to be digesting in the karaoke add-on ending on the DVD.

Maybe the dragon finds that he's just too hard to stomach and spits him out. At any rate, he wasn't featured in the trailer, so it's presumably meant to be a surprise.

Or for that matter, maybe he voices the "ugly stepsister".

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[bitrate]

It's possible that he's only in the film in the form of a flashback of some sort.

If he has any lines whatsoever, he has to be listed in the credits as a character in the movie, even if it's not part of the main story arc.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[valintin]

WTFP -- It's pretty clear that he is playing Prince Charming this time out.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Randolpho]

Actually, his is the voice of the person who *asks* for the ugly stepsister.

Note also the camera angle... pretty diminuitive...

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[onosendai]

Story goes something like this ... Katzenberg worked at Disney for ten years, but like many others, didn't get on too well with Michael Eisner, and vice versa. He quit in 1993 to create Dreamworks SKG.

When Shrek was created, Dreamwork's first real feature animation, the character of Farquad (or Fuck-wad) was supposed to be Eisner, and Duloc (Farquad's Castle) is modelled on Disneyworld.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[jezzgoodwin]

That's John Clease playing Fiona's father. (King Harold)

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[jezzgoodwin]

Nah, Rupert Everett is playing Prince Charming. It does seem that John Lithgow is playing Lord Farquaad.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[dq5 studios]

Larry King voices the Ugly Stepsister.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[avgjoe62]

Check out the IMDB page on Shrek 2. Lithgow is doing Farquaad again. And Larry King is the ugly stepsister. That's great!

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[bitrate]

Well, not to pick nits here, but Kevin Pollack is actually reappearing as Lazlo Gogolak, the "fahder" of the gangster who was torched in the Whole Nine Yards.

I'm sure it was the casting director's choice to have Pollack play that part since he did so well with the son in the first film, particularly with his pseudo-Hungarian accent. It's not really a continuity issue, but rather along the lines of "we chose the same actor to play a similar, yet quite different role" to keep the "family" look and feel.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[hiryuu]

That nit needed to be picked, since I didn't see the second film - only the trailer, which gave the very distinct impression that Janni Gogolak was still alive (and being played by Kevin Pollack). Thanks! :)

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Randolpho]

Yes, I noticed. But John Lithgow does, indeed, play Lord Farquaad, (I've just looked it up on imdb.com), and it's he who asks for the Ugly Stepsister.

I was amazed to learn that the Ugly Stepsister is voiced by Lary King. That should be fun...

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[jezzgoodwin]

Watch it again. You see his face. It is obviously Fiona's Dad. And it sounds exactly like John Cleese. I've heard that Farquuad may be coming back as a ghost? But he definately isn't in the trailer anywhere.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Randolpho]

ug....

ok, maybe. I still think it's Lithgow, but I can see how you might think it's Cleese.

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Antarius]

I note that John Lithgow (Lord Farquad) is in the credits for Shrek 2. Is he going to be the antagonist? How, as a steaming pile of dragon-shit?

I heard that his role was excremental to the storyline...

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[Antarius]

Am I the only one who noticed how much "Farquad" sounds like "fuckwad" when spoken with a Scottish accent?

Not just with a Scottish accent; my 2 year old son (who loves Shrek, btw) has taken a liking to going around and shouting "Farquad" at people.)

With a young Australian accent, still trying to get used to this "talking" thing, it has much the same result.

Strangely, I've been called in to have a meeting with the co-ordinator of his daycare centre next week...

Re:Ok, enough about the crappiness of sequels

[jezzgoodwin]

i will be proved right when the film comes out :P

I hope it crashes and burns.

[Viceice]

Pixar and Monsters Inc should have won that Oscar, not Shrek. All Shrek is a melting pot of childrens stories as told by a green guy and his Ass.

Not only was Monsters Inc an orginal story and equally if not more funny, it was also innovative from a technical aspect.

I don't know about you, but to me, the 1st Shrek already failed.

Re:I hope it crashes and burns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsters, Inc?

Pretty much everybody I know enjoyed Monsters, but it paled compared to Shrek. Really, it was an order of magnitude better.

Re:I hope it crashes and burns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voice acting was superior in Shrek.

Re:I hope it crashes and burns.

[anon*127.0.0.1]

You're right. Shrek was terrible. It was a kids movie, without much to offer anyone over the age of 9. Anyone who didn't have the whole plot figured out after the first 30 seconds has never read a fairy tale before. Lets see... ugly guy is reading story about princess and hero living happily ever after, says "Yeah, like that'll ever happen". Hmmm... what are the odds he'll get the princess in the end? Shrek got its laughs from a bunch of trite, topical humor that's already pretty dated, and is just going to get worse. If you don't know why the princess is moving in slow motion while the camera rotates around her, or why Shrek is doing all those strange things while he's fighting those knights, it's just not that funny.

Monsters Inc. is a classic. I'll be showing it to my grandkids 15 years from now. I doubt I'll even be able to find Shrek.

SCO Tax

[Nonillion]

Hey, you Hollywood guys better make sure to pay your SCO tax on thoes linux boxes ;)

"If shit was worth something, poor people would be born with no ass holes." Eddie Murphy

Re:SCO Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

"If shit was worth something, poor people would be born with no ass holes." Eddie Murphy

FYI that phrase was actually coined by Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Just my 2 cents.....

Opposing forces on the sequel

[swordgeek]

OK, Shrek was a whole story. It ended, and did so in the classic fairy tale manner! Making a sequel to a finished story is usually a terrible idea.

That said, Mike Meyers has a history of making better than average sequels. We'll see.

Re:Opposing forces on the sequel

[Stephen Samuel]

Making a sequel to a finished story is usually a terrible idea.

Yeah, right. They got married. You really wanna call that the end of the story?

A friend of mine made a comment about one of the books he wrote:
"Most people expect the hero to go on a quest, free the princess, marry her and live happily ever after... I did that in the first 2 chapters, so that I could get on with the real story.

Re:Opposing forces on the sequel

[swordgeek]

"Yeah, right. They got married. You really wanna call that the end of the story?"

Yep, absolutely. That is, if that's the story that's being told.

Read
my other post on the subject to see why sequels to stories like Shrek are difficult to pull off.

As for your friend, he's telling a different story--what happens after happily ever after. That's fine, but it has little bearing on the story that leads up to happily ever after.

Re:Opposing forces on the sequel

[Stephen Samuel]

The end of the story is the end of the story. The end of a good story should bring some level of completion to the matter at hand. The problem with sequels is not intrinsicly about them being sequels. It lies more in the way that hollywood etc. use them.

• People liked the first one, they'll like this one
• It has a recognized name, it doesn't have to be as good to sell.
• They want to have another sequel, so they explicitly don't wrap up the loose ends this time.

If as much care went into the crafting of sequels as went into the originals, the quality would be the same. Unfortunately, the threshold is lower, and so therefore so is the average quality of the product. At it's heart Hollywood isn't abuut art. It's about product. Some artists simply manage to fit real art inbetween the dollar signs from time to time.

Re:Opposing forces on the sequel

[swordgeek]

Hmm. I agree with almost all of what you say, except that there's one thing which misses or sidesteps my point.

Making a sequel to a complete story is the problem. After you've closed the book, the heros ride off into the sunset, etc., you have to reopen the book and say, "oh by the way..." in order to create a sequel. This is horrible, and very common.

Creating a movie (original or sequel) with deliberately hanging ends just in case they "need" to make a sequel (i.e. can make money at it) is downright pathetic, and also all too common.

Creating a series of movies from a very large story seems to be a popular idea lately, and has the potential to create great and somewhat new art, but 90% of it will still be typical hollywoodesque fluff. Creating a perpetual series is the easy way out, even if it works quite nicely.

Re:Opposing forces on the sequel

[Stephen Samuel]

After you've closed the book, the heros ride off into the sunset, etc., you have to reopen the book and say, "oh by the way..." in order to create a sequel. This is horrible, and very common.

You have, for the most part, described the nature of a sequel, but that's not what makes a sequel bad.

Sequels usually come after a hit. Hits are usually hits because they have something 'interesting' or novel. All too often what will happen is that the sequel will focus on what made the original novel. This locks the authors down and often prevents the kind of artistic freedom that led to the original novelty.

Even worse yet, when a studio goes to 'design' a sequel, what they seem to do is go out and ask audience members what they remembered most about a movie and then go out and build a sequel with more of that. Since most movie goers fall to some interesting bit of special effects, this means that sequels are often top-heavy with special effects. The studios forget that, in the original, the special effects supported a good story. Instead what you end up with is a mediocre story supporting ovarabundant special effects (or whatever was most memorable about the first installment).

I've had a reasonably eventful life with many episodes. Some could be split into groups (e.g. My live Fantasy RolePlaying Vs. my Environmenal/social escapades) distinct enough that the only thing in common is me. Stories within the groups would gain aid from the knowledge of each other, and would thus classify as {pre,se}quels to each other. Nonetheless, each one of those stories could stand alone as it's own story with a beginning, a middle and an end.

To end that long ramble, I think that the thing which makes for bad sequels is that -- once hollywood gets it's claws too deeply in, they tend to lose their true 'heart'. If a story can keep it's heart in spite of hollywood, then it has some real hope of staying good. Otherwise it's likely to be just more drek -- with, or without the 'sequel' label.

Re:Hey Dipshit.

[heironymouscoward]

Oh yeah, Terminator 2 was also just as good as Terminator 1.

I'm so glad that you educated me about the proper name for all the Alien movies. I actually watched them all, and even if I don't know shit about who directed them or even their proper names, at least my opinions are based on something more than the ability to spell "attribute".

T'es con.

No BitTorrent? Where's Akamai?

[The-Bus]

You know, I think some Shrek/Katzenberg-hater probably put up the Dreamworks link and said it was to the Paris Hilton video -- I can't imagine this much interests naturally exists for Shrek 2. That or Dreamworks runs their servers off of Windows for Workgroups.

Or both.

Re:No BitTorrent? Where's Akamai?

[Anonymous Coward]

torrent up http://www.cyberonic.com/~creamme/shrek2_tsr_qt_48 0.mov.torrent

text of the trailer

[sacrilicious]

The site seems to be slashdotted, can someone post the hex translation here on slashdot? ;)

Re:text of the trailer

[Anonymous Coward]

first 1024 bytes, enjoy

0000000 0000 c460 6f6d 766f 0000 6c00 766d 6468
0000010 0000 0000 b4bb 29fb b4bb 2efb 0000 5802
0000020 0100 b11b 0100 0000 ff00 0000 0000 0000
0000030 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
*
0000050 0000 0000 0040 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
0000060 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
0000070 0000 0300 0000 ba4f 7274 6b61 0000 5c00
0000080 6b74 6468 0000 0f00 b4bb e9f9 b4bb 2efb
0000090 0000 0100 0000 0000 0100 b11b 0000 0000
00000a0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000
*
00000c0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0040 0000
00000d0 e001 0000 1001 0000 0000 2400 6465 7374
00000e0 0000 1c00 6c65 7473 0000 0000 0000 0100
00000f0 0100 b11b 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 324f
0000100 646d 6169 0000 2000 646d 6468 0000 0000
0000110 b4bb 29fb b4bb 2efb 0000 5802 0100 b11b
0000120 0000 0000 0000 3a00 6468 726c 0000 0000
0000130 686d 726c 6976 6564 7061 6c70 0000 0000
0000140 0100 1f00 4119 7070 656c 5620 6469 6f65
0000150 4d20 6465 6169 4820 6e61 6c64 7265 0000
0000160 d04e 696d 666e 0000 1400 6d76 6468 0000
0000170 0100 4000 0080 0080 0080 0000 3900 6468
0000180 726c 0000 0000 6864 726c 6c61 7369 7061
0000190 6c70 0000 0100 0100 2800 4118 7070 656c
00001a0 4120 696c 7361 4420 7461 2061 6148 646e
00001b0 656c 0072 0000 6424 6e69 0066 0000 641c
00001c0 6572 0066 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 610c
00001d0 696c 0073 0000 0001 4e00 7357 6274 006c
00001e0 0000 737f 7374 0064 0000 0000 0000 0001
00001f0 0000 536f 5156 0033 0000 0000 0000 0001
0000200 1303 5380 494d 0020 0400 0000 0200 019a
0000210 01e0 0010 0048 0000 0048 0000 0000 0000
0000220 1001 6f53 6572 736e 6e6f 5620 6469 6f65
0000230 3320 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
0000240 0000 ff18 00ff 0000 5315 494d 5320 5145
0000250 0048 0000 e305 22c0 c019 0000 0000 0000
0000260 1800 7473 7374 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000
0000270 590b 0000 1900 0000 4002 7473 7373 0000
0000280 0000 0000 8c00 0000 0100 0000 4800 0000
0000290 4900 0000 4a00 0000 4b00 0000 4c00 0000
00002a0 4d00 0000 4e00 0000 4f00 0000 5000 0000
00002b0 5100 0000 5200 0000 5300 0000 5400 0000
00002c0 5500 0000 5600 0000 5700 0000 5800 0000
00002d0 5900 0000 5a00 0000 5b00 0000 5c00 0000
00002e0 5d00 0000 5e00 0000 5f00 0000 bb00 0000
00002f0 dd00 0000 0601 0000 0801 0000 2f01 0000
0000300 3001 0000 5801 0000 6001 0000 6101 0000
0000310 6201 0000 6301 0000 6401 0000 6501 0000
0000320 6601 0000 6701 0000 6801 0000 6e01 0000
0000330 d101 0000 e401 0000 4002 0000 4302 0000
0000340 7c02 0000 a302 0000 b902 0000 d002 0000
0000350 fa02 0000 fb02 0000 fc02 0000 fd02 0000
0000360 3103 0000 5103 0000 5303 0000 5403 0000
0000370 5503 0000 5603 0000 5703 0000 9003 0000
0000380 9203 0000 9303 0000 9403 0000 a403 0000
0000390 bb03 0000 cd03 0000 ef03 0000 1704 0000
00003a0 3104 0000 4604 0000 5404 0000 6304 0000
00003b0 6604 0000 8404 0000 9704 0000 a404 0000
00003c0 c904 0000 e804 0000 0205 0000 1b05 0000
00003d0 2b05 0000 3c05 0000 5405 0000 9005 0000
00003e0 b805 0000 c405 0000 da05 0000 f405 0000
00003f0 0406 0000 2d06 0000 6f06 0000 8006 0000

torrent here

[O Pilgrim Grey]

try this one.

Re:torrent here

[conan_albrecht]

HELLO MODERATORS? MOD THIS GUY UP! I'm getting the file from this torrent at over 144k/s.

Re:torrent here

[ender-]

You're welcome to pull it from my Ftp Server as well...

Ender

Re:torrent here

[Keck]

You rule, dude. Mod this guy up, i'm maxing out a T1 with this torrent.

Re:torrent here

[Kewjoe]

wow.. i got 360KB/s ... finished the 19meg file in 1 min 30 seconds.. nice!

Re:torrent here

[klang]

with 45 fucking seeds, how the hell am I going to get my sharing rate up from 0.028 ???

woops, 47, no 48 ..

Re:torrent here

[Psychic Burrito]

Is this a torrent to the trailer or already the torrent to the pirated finished version? :)

Re:torrent here

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks very much!

I hope it's good

[sujan]

Oh BTW, I thought revolutions was good too.

I say it's good after viewing the trailer.

"2-3 animated movies a year"

[jnik]

Note that the 2-3 animated movies per year is from an article in AUGUST 2002. Slightly out of date.

On the positive side (assuming the article is still mostly correct)...that's roughly 2 movies internal, 1 from Aardman, and says nothing about their other animation licensing, such as Millennium Actress. Looks like Dreamworks is getting serious about a range of animation.

Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

He was crapped out before he was digested entirely as he upset the dragons belly - although he now looks like a greased up Yoda doll...

The FIRST one was disappointing.

[Patik]

I am a big fan of CGI movies and I thought the first Shrek was awful. The animation was simply wretched. The backgrounds never moved, the characters' textures were very plain, the voices never matched quite right to their lips, and they had very awkward movement. It wasn't even comparably to the first Toy Story, which came out 6 years before.

So why did people eat this up? Was I the only one who noticed the giant step backwards in animation?

Re:The FIRST one was disappointing.

[Angry Toad]

I'd call the animation...unique. It wasn't the star, it just supported a strong story with likeable characters. Shrek was fun - not a great technical movie.

Re:The FIRST one was disappointing.

[mechugena]

Plus, although Monsters, Inc. was an OK movie, it was typical Disney. After watching it, I had two new cavities and discovered I was a diabetic from all the sugary sweetness. At least Shrek had a bit of sardonic humor in it!

But their revenue goes to Hollywood

[yerricde]

at least two of those three exceptions you mentioned, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond, were definitively not made by Hollywood

Here on Slashdot, "Hollywood" often refers to the seven major first publishers of motion pictures in the United States. Just because a film is shot on location doesn't make it any less of a movie produced by a Hollywood studio. The film adaptations of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Rowling's Harry Potter are published by Warner Bros. (New Line has been part of Warner Bros. since Warner bought Turner), and the film adaptations of Fleming's James Bond 007 series are published by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Both Warner and MGM are MPAA members.

Where's Pinocchio 2?

[yerricde]

I'm not buying anything from Disney until one of the following happens: 1. the Bono Act is repealed, or 2. Disney produces an animated Pinocchio 2.

If Geppetto could...

[yerricde]

But Lithgow's character is back? How, pray tell, do you come back after being swallowed whole by a whopping-great-dragon?

If Jonah could survive being swallowed whole by a sea monster, and if Geppetto could replicate the stunt, then why not F-wad?

Asked and answered

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Jonah

F___ Sonny Bono and b___f___ Cher

[yerricde]

Monsters Inc. is a classic. I'll be showing it to my grandkids 15 years from now.

As an example of a movie distributed exclusively by the foremost staunch opponent of the public domain? For artistic freedom's sake, I'd rather show them the piece of crap that is Monster's Ball than Monsters Inc. Shrek, on the other hand, shows the other side of the story by making fun of Disney.

My name is Bond. James Bond.

[yerricde]

OK, Shrek was a whole story. It ended, and did so in the classic fairy tale manner! Making a sequel to a finished story is usually a terrible idea.

You mentioned Mike Myers, who stars in a series of comedy films parallel to the James Bond 007 films. So here's counterexample of sequels to a "finished" story not working: Doesn't each Bond movie tell a story in and of itself?

Halloween, on the other hand...

Re:My name is Bond. James Bond.

[swordgeek]

Hmm. Let me see if I can explain myself clearly here.

Bond is, was, and always has been a serial. The introductory premise is one that lends itself to an infinite variety of stories, each of which is effectively a chapter in the life of 007.

Serialisation is certainly a way to spawn many stories, but calling them 'sequels' isn't exactly correct.

Now when you take Shrek (and for that matter, any of the more traditional fairy tales; not to mention most of the stories written) the characters are created from nothing, to tell a story. Generally there's some transformance, which is certainly the case with Shrek and Fiona.

The thing is that after the story ends, after the transformance has occurred, there is no more development that can be done on those characters without going back and gluing stuff onto them, and it's usually a very awkward process.

Serialisation is fine, if created as such. Bond, great. Miss Marples, lovely. Sam Spade, definitely. Serialization of a complete story is generally (not always, but close) doomed to disaster.

Me Too!

[simetra]

Shrek blew dogs. It literally featured a jackass making fart jokes. The only half way creative/fun scene was the gingerbread man interrogation. Shrek is/was crap, pure crap. Unfortunately, the American public eats that crap up. Bastards!

Another location to view shrek trailer

[DayBoyUSA]

This link does not seem to be bogged down with slashdot traffic yet! Trailer!

Re:Hey Dipshit.

[ssstraub]

Most critics agree that *both* Alien and Aliens are a toss up for best in series. Alien is a sci-fi "haunted house style" horror and Aliens is an action/sci-fi.

Rent a copy of "Aliens Special Edition" and watch the directors cut. It might be the only version on the disc in fact...I forget. It includes a few key scenes that make the story so much better, such as seeing the LV426 colony settling in on the planet and the first crew (Newt's parents) going out to the derelict spacecraft, which marks the beginning of the end of the colony.

In the theatrical release, you never even see the colony before it's devastated, so there's never any suspense of hundreds of people unknowingly living right next door to the aliens, seeing what the colony looks like before the aliens arrive and after, and being able to identify with Newt pre and post alien encounter.

Any pointers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to donkey-dragoness porn?

Re:Any pointers...

[Antarius]

to donkey-dragoness porn?

No "pointers" from experience, but...

It does seem that there is some fetish to do with donkeys. Ever since watching Shrek, my wife keeps calling me a donkey.


Well... A Donkey Hole, anyway. Pretty Similar.

Re:MPAA

[Wooky_linuxer]

That's why most /.s will download the movie from Bittorrent as soon as it has been screened.

Slashdotted?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Does anybody have a list of big name sites/companies we've Slashdotted? If so, please add Dreamworks to the list. Thank you.

Other formats?

[Trogre]

So, uh, where's a DivX version? Or any version, for that matter, that I can play without having to install some proprietary hack.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

RE: FUD city....

[King_TJ]

Actually, it's rare to find a Microsoft titled game that's a "dud", IMHO - so your analogy is sorely flawed right there.

Microsoft started out WAY back with "Flight Simulator" - a great simulation series that still gets updated pretty much every year and sells quite well. They brought us "Halo" (for X-Box, but now available for PC and even Mac OS X), and Dungeon Seige, which was quite respectable for a D&D type RPG game. I also recall them selling "Terminal Velocity" - a pretty cool shooter game. What, exactly, did MS bring to the gaming world that really sucked, anyway? Off the top of my head, I can't even think of a single title!

So it is with Disney too. I think where Disney really falls down is when they crank out the non-animated children's movies. These generally seem like excuses to let some young kids and pre-teens do some acting on the "big screen", rather than memorable, high quality movies. The worst of their animated movies is still better than 75% of the other crap Hollywood puts out in theaters each week. Pixar is teriffic too. But my point is, both companies are giants in the animation industry in the U.S. -- and I think we can expect great things to come from either one.

Rotten is not bad.

[itistoday]

You're out of your mind. Rotten is one of the best review sites that I've seen, and you know why? Because its ratings are based on those from hundreds of critics, and not people. The majority of movie-goers, and people in general, are dumb. Critics have seen many more films than the average Joe and therefore can make better comparisons between good films, and bad ones.

IMDB gave Revolutions a score of about 6.8, while Rotten gave it the 30% it deserved.

I hate it when people diss critics, because critics are not alien species, but simply people with taste that analyze movies in depth and professionally.

Average Movie goer: "I liked Revolutions! It had lots of COOL explosions and fighting!"
Critic: "This film falls way below par with the standards set forth by the original. It seems that the Wachowski brothers.... etc".

Get my point?

Re:Rotten is not bad.

[black mariah]

All critics can bite my shiny metal ass. Being a critic means nothing more than being pretentious enough to bullshit your way into a job writing about movies. The problem with most critics is that they can't separate art and entertainment. Most moviegoers don't care if the movie they're seeing makes an allegorical statement of the condition of Tibetan tree slugs, all they care about is a lot of things that go boom. This doesn't make them wrong. Not everything has to be artistic, and not everyone has to appreactiate things that are.

Re:Rotten is not bad.

[Daimaou]

I'm an average movie goer, but I thought Revolutions sucked. I hated it.

I "got" the show. No, I didn't mind that two of the main characters died. That was fine. What I did mind is they introduced a bunch of characters that they never developed, that the main characters you spent two other movies following had extended cameos at best in the movie, and that it was mind-numbingly boring.

I don't think critics rated it as low as it deserved.

from the bring-me-the-head-of-lithgow dept???

[Anonymous Coward]

"live up to the original?"

gee, fart humor and matrix action ripoffs and "in" pop-cultural non-sequiters. yeah, great film. ...shouldn't this post have been filed under:

"more-pablum-for-the-13-year-old-slashdotter-dep ar tment"

???

Comparison

[gidds]

IMHO, Aliens does not hold a candle to Alien.

I don't think Aliens is a useful example, because it's highly atypical. It's a sequel only in the sense that it's set in the same universe, deals with the same creatures, and is set afterwards.

However, unlike most sequels, it's not a remake of the original in any form. It's in a different style and genre (action rather than suspense and horror), from a different director, wasn't made soon after the original, and shares only one character and almost no locations. In short, it's not trying to be a sequel in the usual cookie-cutter, copy-the-first-one-only-larger sense we've come to know it. It's a separate film in its own right; and it succeeds as such.

Because of this, it also has a slightly different intended audience. People who like suspense and horror but not action are unlikely to enjoy it, especially if they're expecting a cookie-cutter sequel. OTOH, people who enjoy action but might be put off by the first one's tension and gore might enjoy the sequel much more. (I myself fall in between the two, FWIW.)

So: 'X is better than Y' assertions are always subjective; while they may at least have some relevance for cookie-cutter sequels, in this case IMO the two films are so different that I don't think such a statement is valid or helpful.

(Nothing personal, DWIM, just a bugbear of mine. In Amazon's music reviews, for example, I'm fed up with reading that someone thinks this is the best CD in the world -- unless I share their taste in music, that's meaningless. Instead, a description of the style, how it compares to that artist's other work, what other artists it sounds like, &c would be far more useful, even if less exciting to read than endless superlatives.)

Re:Comparison

[black mariah]

Aliens does share one other thing with Alien. The same paranoia that the heating duct above you might jump down and shove its mandibles through your forehead. I like Aliens a lot more because it managed to keep the action moving while having the same amount of tension.

Also, the reviews on Amazon and anyplace else for that matter are always going to be completely biased. I don't know of anyone that can give a truly unbiased review of ANYTHING.

X-MEN 2

[barureddy]

I will agree with you on you list of unoriginal films except for X-Men 2. This was a great movie that had a wonderful plot filled with conflicts and respectable dialog. The other films don't even come close, epically MI:2.

From the OED

[Scott Carnahan]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word incentivise dates from 1968. Hope that helps.

1968 Guardian 10 June 7/6 You have got to appeal to people's greed. The most successful station operators incentivise their forecourt staff.

OK A+ in my book

[spoco2]

Just for the last joke with Donkey in the carriage... comedy gold, right there. :)

Re:OK A+ in my book

[Bombcar]

You mind refreshing my mind on that one?

I've got a headache.

Re:OK A+ in my book

[Major_Small]

haha yeah... that was pretty funny... I think this one looks real promising... I don't think they could screw it up...

but then again I didn't think they could screw up the Matrix series either...

Re:OK A+ in my book

[spoco2]

It's at the end of the trailer... *pop*... he he.

Who cares...

[HardCase]

...what the critics say? Or perhaps that should be, I don't care what the critics say. I can make up my own mind about whether or not I think that a movie is good or not. Most of the time, I agree with the RT rating, but not always. And a bad review isn't going to keep me from seeing a movie.

I thought that The Matrix sequel was a good movie, in two parts. It didn't end the way that wanted it to, but then again, I didn't make the movie. Yeah, for the most part, the reviewers didn't like it. Apparently, for the most part, the /. crowd didn't like it. But I did. What does that mean? Diddly squat, I guess. Well, except that it just reinforces my point. And if you don't like the movie? Well, that's OK...unlike a reviewer (or a self-righteous reader of this blog), I'm not going to try to change your mind.

-h-

Re:Who cares...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a troll? The guy says that he's not going to let the film critics do his thinking for him, that he liked the Matrix movies and he gets modded as a troll? Hey, I agree, there's a shitpotfull of self righteous readers on slashdot...I guess one of them must have been the moderator that smacked him. The truth hurts, huh?

ANTZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Why tell a story when it isn't accurate?

Antz preceeded Shrek.
Prince of Egypt preceeded that.

I believe Prince of Egypt was Dreamworks' first real feature animation.

This story is just silly. Dreamworks did make fun of Disney, but that was largely because Disney is their obvious competition in the feature animation market and not because Katzenberg cares much about who he used to work with.

Re:ANTZ

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant ACTUALLY REAL feature animation. As in, one that had the possibility of making money. FUCKTARD.

spelling bic

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not as "dissapointing" (sic) as two esses and one pee.

Dragon?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do hope the dragon makes a return appearance.

I like dragons. I really, really like dragons!

The Godfather?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying The Godfather had GOOD sequels? IMHO, I think part 2 was slightly worse than the original, but I am ashamed part 3 has the godfather name on it

Re: FUD city....

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft started out WAY back with "Flight Simulator"

Well, if you go WAY, WAY back you'll find that "Flight Simulator" was made by sublogic.

Halo was made by Bungie, Dungeon Seige by Gas Powered Games and Terminal Velocity by 3D Realms.

Microsoft is (mostly) only a publisher and as a game publisher for PC they are a minor player.

Re:Farquad

[real_smiff]

thank you! i always wondered what the joke was in that name (no really, and i'm a fan of the film).

Doh!

correction

[jonnyfivealive]

Most of them were blaitently milking money.

no, they were ALL blatantly milking money. thats the point of most movies, you know.

Re: FUD city....

[Ken Erfourth]

They brought us "Halo" (for X-Box, but now available for PC and even Mac OS X),

Uh, no, "they" didn't bring us Halo. Bungie software brought us Halo. Micro$oft bought Bungie and kept Halo away from anybody who didn't buy their stinking X-box for two mortal years.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...

WAKE UP MODS

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS GUY USES THIS UID TO HIDE THEIR TROLLING. MOD AS SUCH.

# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

F-wad coming back

[Orion Blastar]

The Villian's Union states that Villians must come back in the sequals. This is so they can earn money like the heros do.

If you want an explination, F-Wad wasn't very tastly and gave the dragon indigestion. Apparently he didn't bathe for a month and smelled really bad. The bad smell upset the dragon's stomach and he reguritated F-wad out. Somehow the sweat and dirt combined to make a really bad smelling base that upset the balance in the acid of the Dragon's stomach, causing ulcers. :)

I also heard a rumor that Bobba Fett escaped the Sarlac's stomach, but used every weapon in his suit to cut a hole out of the creature and ruined his armor in the process. :)

Re:OMG Frist Porst !

[Coldmetal]

And all of that without the use of a psell cheker.