The Scholarly Pursuit of Shrek
pastemagazine.com
pastemagazine.com
The cardboard Shrek was holding a bucket of cash and I would always laugh at the crassness of the image. Whenever times got tough at DreamWorks, it was time to for PDI to make another Shrek! Our punishment for making movies like Over the Hedge, Bee Movie or Monsters vs. Aliens was another Shrek movie to fill the coffers again. When the fourth installment of the Shrek franchise was announced, I remember Jeffrey Katzenberg stating "We decided that the Shrek story still has more to tell." What he really meant was that the bank account was empty, the stock price was low and Shrek could be counted on to bring in another decent box office result. Good times! How I miss PDI.
She refuses to do it as a party trick though!!
“It lacks a certain respect that is usually associated with fan writing,” he says, pausing to make eye contact with the rest of the 40-person Zoom audience to make sure we’re all in agreement. No one’s camera is on to reassure him, save the moderators and the Disney adult who has looked physically ill since he read a description of Shrek’s turgid ogre penis out loud.
As soon as it was over I wanted to flee the cinema but the rest of the parents waited for the credits and excitedly commented, “oh, that was John Cleese”. “That was Cameron Diaz”. Etc.
But the film was animated and the voices were not of those people!
Decades later I still don’t understand.
I am in no position to judge if that is true for Shrek.
(BTW, the German word for fear is Schreck [not a perfect translation, but the same spirit], yet I never made the connection mentioned in the article. Cool!)
Hard to say what kind of shrek we would have had today if he had made it.
My wife has been brought up with dubbing, so initially had aversion to subtitles; she felt her attention was split between text, and following actions/acting. But - after a few movies, she's now a subtitle convert as well - she's seen how much gets lost in dubbing.
Of course for kids, this may be a moot point as they cannot read subtitles either way.
Just to be nitpicky, it was 100% a sequel (as John Cleese only appears in those).
This. There are just so many "kids" movies which Nixon impersonations, or 80s trivia, or 70s nostalgia in place of actual content or humour.
> Why do I know what “extra-textual intertextual Easter eggs” are and not how to shampoo a carpet?
Don't we all :)
Because carpet is out of style. Engineered hardwood is where it’s at.
And besides, nobody shampoos carpet. People just let it soak up our dead skin cells, oil, and the occasional spill. Spraying an equal amount from each of the unidentified bottles found under the sink aught to clean the apartment right up. She’ll never know
Perhaps carpet in the "rug" sense then.
>This. There are just so many "kids" movies which Nixon impersonations, or 80s trivia, or 70s nostalgia in place of actual content or humour.
Isn't the reasoning obvious? Rugrats cannot go to the movies on their own. In order to entice the parental units to take the rugrats to the movies, then the producers attempt to make their movie tolerable for the parental units.
If one is off work and wearing pajama pants and drunk on rum-and-eggnog by noon, what day is it?
Uff, that strikes close!
I think that the the pursue of “the freedom” of entrepreneurship or even of remote work, self care and the real power that we have to undermine ourselves is often ignored.
I remember thinking it was OK when I watched it when it came out. I watched it again just a few months ago, for the first time since then, and found it to be about as bad as a movie can be. Not even accidentally entertaining, like some bad movies are.