casualotter21 said:I have to say, I was genuinely surprised by all those computer-animated feature films—if you can even call them that—that started targeting the mainstream audience about seven years ago. I’ve sat through almost all of them: Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Ice Age, Shrek, Finding Nemo, Antz, Monsters, Inc... The only one I missed was A Bug's Life, much to my regret. Every single one of those was leagues better than the politically correct lemonade Disney kept serving us throughout the 90s. It seems like the writers actually put some effort into the scripts to make them appealing to people. I'll never forget that closing gag in Toy Story 2 with the fake outtakes from the "movie" set. Now that... that is how you write a cartoon!
On another note, you know what I’d love to revisit? Those old Disney classics I used to watch on bootleg VHS tapes back in the late 80s here in the States: The Jungle Book, Lady and the Tramp, Snow White, Alice, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians... They were solid films with great characters and fantastic soundtracks. I really wonder how they would hold up if I watched them today.
👍
Those old Disney films still look incredible! If memory serves, the last truly good Disney movie was The Little Mermaid.
Of course they’re all good. I really don't want this to devolve into some pointless argument because I'm not claiming that Shrek is superior; I am simply stating that its content differs more significantly than the differences between Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo.
My own personal favorites follow a specific order: first there is Nemo, then Monsters, Inc., and finally Shrek. However, I am inclined to believe that Shrek possesses a somewhat more complex and intelligent sense of humor, not to mention a more sophisticated execution of its core concept.
While *Finding Nemo* and *Monsters, Inc.* certainly excel at delivering sharp parody and those high-energy, hilarious sequences that cleverly disguise a pretty basic core concept, I find myself thinking that *Shrek* actually resonates on a somewhat deeper level than they do. Let me be clear once again: that doesn't make it better. It simply makes it different.
The Undertaker said:Wait, what on earth is this!?😕
You all are talking absolute nonsense!
What kind of "analysis" is this even supposed to be!?😕
I suppose next you'll claim you've uncovered some deep symbolism in the color of Shrek's outfit, won't you?😕
No, but Melissa Moore32 is over here trying to argue that Shrek isn't actually special just because he lacks certain elements found in Monsters, Inc. and things of that nature!
You're overstepping again, Richard Howard2. You're just throwing shots without any actual arguments. Who do you think you are? I didn't "get" Shrek. Has it finally sunk in that I understood it perfectly fine, yet I see absolutely zero "meaning" or "depth" in it? We are talking about Shrek, a cartoon produced because some wealthy daddy liked a picture book his spoiled kids enjoyed.
[/b]
Well, you laid it all out yourself, so I won't even bother listing them; I'll just comment.
The whole "size compensation" thing is pure idiocy. Throwing in a "penis joke" that, on point A, kids won't grasp, and on point B, isn't funny to adults—at least not to those with a sense of genuine, intelligent humor. I'm just not sure which group you fall into, Richard Howard2.
"Friendship on a slightly more complex level"—How complex? How much more complex? Reading this, you sound like you're discussing "The Deer Hunter" instead of Shrek.
I'll give you the part about the prince and the castle, but that's something you can find in plenty of animated films, whether they are live-action adaptations or series. So, I don't see why that's some special selling point for Shrek.
And the ending itself is so predictable it's actually tragic (from an adult perspective, obviously). It's the kind of ending specifically engineered for children. Just a little neat little punchline at the end.
[/b]
Hahaha….😂 You really gave me a laugh there. You claim kids can't understand it? Please, look at the nonsense you're spewing. It was made for kids, and it was made EXACTLY so that they could understand it. Now, the fact that you're acting proud of having grasped messages intended for ten-year-olds is your own business.
To wrap up this debate, I don't think Shrek is bad or inappropriate for kids, it ISN'T. But it's nowhere near the quality of other animated films, whether it's Disney or DreamWorks, which also cater to a slightly older teenage demographic.
Nothing, Richard Howard2; I suggest you go watch "The Odyssey." A real story about friendship, courage, and honor. Unless, of course, that's a bit too heavy for you, given how you trigger on psychology meant for ten-year-olds. If so, perhaps we should stick to discussions about "complexity" and "meaning" at that level. [/B]
I still maintain you haven't understood it. Even the humor in Shrek is on a higher level than in Monsters, Inc. and things like that.
BTW, in a normal scenario, Princess Fiona would have turned back into Belle at the end.
feralgardener502 said:Yeah... I'm convinced the target audience completely lost it over that whole gag involving the Sydney Opera House and the forgotten Doritos or whatever... Apparently, the trauma ward at the local hospital was absolutely packed with kids who were basically choking on popcorn because they couldn't stop laughing. Hahaha, opera... hahaha, alright, let's see... haha... Dad... wait, what on earth is "sidnai opera"?
Kids these days... honestly, I don't know where we went wrong.
While these animated films are technically produced for all ages, let's be honest—the primary target audience is children. But you already know that, don't you?
Melissa Moore32 said:It's Monsters, Inc., obviously. 👍 Shrek is actually the bigger piece of junk. 🙂
God, Richard Howard2 just won't stop talking...😲 Using words like "complex" and "philosophy" in the same sentence as Shrek... you must have eaten some bad mushrooms. 😁
In reality, neither movie hits the mark. They TRIED to make them appeal more to adults, but they couldn't figure out how to dodge the censors and stay kid-friendly at the same time, so they ended up with a big fat nothing. 👎
Aside from Shrek—which is anything but intelligent—name one other film from DreamWorks in collaboration with Pixar.
Just as I thought... you clearly didn't get Shrek! 🙂
From basic adult jokes about "size compensation," to more intricate dynamics regarding how we value human traits (friendship on a slightly more nuanced level), through the satirical and ironic comedic lens used to analyze society via the villainous prince and his kingdom, all the way to the layers (remember the onion metaphor?) of the human psyche embodied by Shrek himself, and finally that grand finale where Princess Fiona resolves her curse by turning into an ugly Ogre (because within that Ogre lies her true beauty) ---> all of this is far deeper than what children can grasp.
It isn't just some simple story about sacrifice, nobility, and the family values you see in other animated films.
One really ought to be comparing Monsters, Inc., Ice Age, and Finding Nemo, given they all target the exact same demographic.
If you haven't caught on yet, Shrek actually possesses a certain depth; its philosophy is more complex, making it essentially a film for adults rather than just kids.
Of course, they're all excellent. We’ve been fortunate enough to be swept up in this wave of intelligent, entertaining animated features from DreamWorks and Pixar, following those several miserable years of agony we endured with Disney.
A brilliant film in every sense of the word. The cast is top-tier, there is an abundance of laughter, and the parody—which remains respectful rather than derisive—is genuinely intelligent this time around.
The term DVD is a catch-all for the technology introduced a few years back to finally kill off the VHS tape. It can refer to the physical disc itself (the Digital Versatile Disc) or the specific data format stored on it. Essentially, the DVD format consists of a collection of files compressed using the MPEG-2 audio/video codec—which provides that sweet spot between image quality and storage efficiency—"packaged" into .vob and .ifo files. This allows a standard DVD player to read them as a full movie complete with menus and extra features. DVD technology has become the universal audio/video standard, embraced by every major studio releasing titles and every manufacturer making home theater gear. Compared to VHS, the leap forward is huge: you get multi-channel surround sound perfect for a home theater setup, drastically sharper visuals, and interactive multimedia. A single-layer, single-sided DVD holds about 4.7 GB, though you can double or even quadruple that capacity with dual-layer or double-sided discs. For most people, however, 4.7 GB is more than enough (considering a standard CD only holds about 650-700 MB). There are various other iterations like DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM, but that’s a whole different rabbit hole.
When it comes to squeezing audio/video into the smallest possible footprint, DivX is probably the most famous compression format out there. Its biggest selling point is that it delivers decent enough quality to fit an entire average-length movie onto a single CD, bypassing the need for a DVD altogether. DivX is just one of many codecs within the MPEG-4 compression family. Granted, the picture quality is significantly inferior to the DVD format (as is the audio, which is stuck at stereo), but it’s still leagues ahead of VHS or older formats like Super Video CD and VCD. Besides DivX, you have other comparable options like Xvid, Windows Media Video, and others. Unfortunately, since DivX isn't an officially licensed commercial format, you won't find movies released on DivX media, and most standard DVD players won't play it—only a select few specialized players will. While it's incredibly convenient for burning copies and watching movies on a budget, the plummeting prices of DVD recorders will eventually end the reign of low-quality DivX and its ilk, because soon everyone will be able to burn everything directly to DVD.
I was bored, so I figured I'd write something... 😁
coastalorca3 said:Well, I don't think you actually get Tarantino. Just look at him. Read his interviews, look at his biography.
The guy dropped out of high school and spent five years devouring movies at a video rental store. He’s obsessed with all of it; every single scene is a nod to some other film. To him, everything is an homage, this homage, that homage. And, most importantly, he takes himself seriously.
"The most expensive intentional TRASH classic."
Wrong. Tarantino leans into violence and what YOU describe as trash. He finds value in it; he doesn't view his own work as mere trash.
Interviews show that during Uma Thurman's fight against the Crazy 88 in the House of Blue Leaves, Tarantino REALLY wanted to create the "BEST FIGHT EVER" (to quote him).
Another critic described him quite accurately as a man with encyclopedic knowledge of one specific genre—film—but nothing beyond that. He doesn't read books; he doesn't engage with other forms of depth.
Everything BAD you see in the movie Kill Bill isn't INTENTIONAL TRASH (because that's not how Tarantino works—otherwise, he wouldn't have made the deadly serious Reservoir Dogs), it's just a POORLY MADE FILM. It's due to Tarantino's own shortcomings.
Even though I was counting down the minutes until it finally ended, the film certainly wasn't a bore, and it’s worth seeing. It isn't a bad film per se; it just failed to land for me. I’ll leave open the possibility that I simply didn't grasp its essence. I understand why the Tarantino devotees worship at his altar. However, I am not one of them, so his stylistic quirks were entirely predictable—I wasn't surprised by them, nor was I particularly impressed. No matter how much of a divine revelation this might seem to some of you, to me, it was exactly what I expected it to be.
My apologies, but even Kill Bill can't be the perfect masterpiece for everyone—in fact, I’d venture to say it’s only the best for those who are already fans of Tarantino.
silvermason12 said:Watched the movie today.... boring, just pure boredom, especially that part where that typical girl gets cornered by 100 people in a hall, and of course she defends herself... and all that nonsense.... otherwise the plot is dull (hardly any excitement)... crap !!, a total disappointment👎
And apparently, I'm the one who didn't "get" the movie... 😁
I didn't care for the film. It was uncomfortable to watch, saturated with violence and anxiety on one hand, and cluttered with "I'm-Tarantino-and-I'm-cool" tropes lifted from his previous work on the other. Tarantino was clearly torn between attempting to craft something meaningful and producing something entirely senseless. The movie tries to maintain a dead-serious tone while simultaneously mocking everything in sight. While it might be worth a trip to the theater, it isn't exactly memorable. Compared to hellish junk, this is merely an overthought effort from an overconfident director.
If Tarantino's intention was to be inconsistent with everything, then he really should have been consistent with that idea.
Back in the day, certain older films—especially those produced right here in America—underwent post-production dubbing after the fact. Nowadays, that’s largely a thing of the past. We have access to incredibly sophisticated microphone technology that captures even the faintest nuance of sound. Of course, once everything is recorded, all those audio layers are digitally processed and routed through various channels, where we can precisely boost or dampen specific sounds based on what needs to take center stage.