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.

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...

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?

Toy Story

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Disappointment?

[snarkh]

Slashdot editors need to be journalists, not editorialists.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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...

Slashdotted??

[Mononoke]

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

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?

torrent here

[O Pilgrim Grey]

try this one.

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".