Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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");
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?
./revolution
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.
Toy Story 2 was just as good as the original, and that's a 100% CGI movie too...
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.
- b
Aliens 2 and 3 were superb.
... 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.
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...
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
She had some mad secret. what was it?
herpes
Its good to see another 'made on Linux' movie!
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
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.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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...
This is a great file to release a torrent for, the server is getting hammered.
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?
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?)
Only John Cleese could make something as simple as 'Ah!' sound funny.
This is shaping up to be a good movie!
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
... 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?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
When the bird was hitting the highnote then blew up, you laughed with the rest of us.
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
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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.
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.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
The site seems to be slashdotted, can someone post the hex translation here on slashdot? ;)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
try this one.
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.
So why did people eat this up? Was I the only one who noticed the giant step backwards in animation?
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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?
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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...
Will I retire or break 10K?
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!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
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???
This link does not seem to be bogged down with slashdot traffic yet! Trailer!
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.
That's why most /.s will download the movie from Bittorrent as soon as it has been screened.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
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".
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
So, uh, where's a DivX version? Or any version, for that matter, that I can play without having to install some proprietary hack.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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?
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
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.)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
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 $260M worldwide).
But the real point is: For every one of the artistic successes you mention, there are many more lousy kids pictures. Go to Blockbuster with any parent who's trying to find a good kids movie that's also watchable by adults. There's a ton of crap there, just like there is in any genre.
The fact that there are, thank goodness, examples of good kids/animated features we can point to doesn't mean that it's significantly easier to write or make a good kids movie than it is any other kind of movie.
I will agree with you on you list of unoriginal films except for X-Men 2. This was a great movie that had a wonderful plot filled with conflicts and respectable dialog. The other films don't even come close, epically MI:2.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word incentivise dates from 1968. Hope that helps.
1968 Guardian 10 June 7/6 You have got to appeal to people's greed. The most successful station operators incentivise their forecourt staff.
"Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
Just for the last joke with Donkey in the carriage... comedy gold, right there. :)
Microsoft started out WAY back with "Flight Simulator"
Well, if you go WAY, WAY back you'll find that "Flight Simulator" was made by sublogic.
Halo was made by Bungie, Dungeon Seige by Gas Powered Games and Terminal Velocity by 3D Realms.
Microsoft is (mostly) only a publisher and as a game publisher for PC they are a minor player.
spoken like the spotty virgin you most probably are...
may you catch a dose with a side portion of HPV.
Acid House saves Souls
Doh!
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Most of them were blaitently milking money.
no, they were ALL blatantly milking money. thats the point of most movies, you know.
i sell illegal drugs
Uh, no, "they" didn't bring us Halo. Bungie software brought us Halo. Micro$oft bought Bungie and kept Halo away from anybody who didn't buy their stinking X-box for two mortal years.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish...
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
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.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
And all of that without the use of a psell cheker.