Shrek 2 Trailer Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sunday November 9, 2003 @02:18AM from the bring-me-the-head-of-lithgow dept.

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?"

19 of 270 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Story not Graphics by Uber+Banker · 2003-11-09 02:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Story not Graphics by s33l3t · 2003-11-09 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Story not Graphics by Uber+Banker · 2003-11-09 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Story not Graphics by Mahatma+Goatse · 2003-11-09 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ... 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.
Disappointment? by The+Evil+Plush+Toy · 2003-11-09 02:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

--
chdir("c:\\con\\con");
1. Re:Disappointment? by gad_zuki! · 2003-11-09 02:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Disappointment? by fredrikj · 2003-11-09 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Slashdot is a weblog, not a newspaper.
3. Re:Disappointment? by RickHunter · 2003-11-09 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-09 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Toy Story 2 was just as good as the original, and that's a 100% CGI movie too...
"Most sequels"? by heironymouscoward · 2003-11-09 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature
1. Re:"Most sequels"? by heironymouscoward · 2003-11-09 02:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas une signature
2. Re:"Most sequels"? by swordgeek · 2003-11-09 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Torrent by jnguy · 2003-11-09 02:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a great file to release a torrent for, the server is getting hammered.
Opposing forces on the sequel by swordgeek · 2003-11-09 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
1. Re:Opposing forces on the sequel by Stephen+Samuel · 2003-11-09 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Re:most sequals are crap... by scons · 2003-11-09 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:The FIRST one was disappointing. by Angry+Toad · 2003-11-09 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:most sequals are crap... by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-11-09 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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: FUD city.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-09 20:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.