Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shrek 2 Trailer Released

Posted by CmdrTaco on 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?"

6 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Story not Graphics by Uber+Banker · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  2. Toy Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. "Most sequels"? by heironymouscoward · · 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
  4. Re:most sequals are crap... by Trurl's+Machine · · 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".