Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Shrek 2 Trailer Released 270

Posted by CmdrTaco 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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shrek 2 Trailer Released More

Shrek 2 Trailer Released

Comments Filter:

  • Story not Graphics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Uber Banker ( 655221 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:22AM (#7428433)
    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.

  • No ":" in title == good (Score:5, Funny)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:24AM (#7428440)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by OblongPlatypus ( 233746 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:10AM (#7428583)
      I think you're right... [imdb.com]
    • 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.

      I have a similar distaste for parentheses in song titles. Like "(Don't Fear) The Reaper", or "Hey Girl (I Love You)", etc. Some good songs have parens, but the parens always bother me anyway. It says to me that the music industry had to try and parlay greater title recognition into more impulse buys, rather than le

      • Or, you know, it's actually a decision of the artists that make the songs that one part of the title simply isn't as important as the other. Or that they want to convey something else in the title. Megadeth's Holy Wars(Punishment Due), Floor's Kallisti(Song for Eris), Isis' Celestial(The Tower), etc. There are many reasons for doing that, and none of them involve marketing. Nobody ever calls that Blue Oyster Cult song "The Reaper", you know?
    • Oh, you mean like "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"? Yeah, that one will surely blow chunks...

      (Joke, he screams, as he puts on flame retardant vest!)
    • What?! Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit was a masterwork!

  • Don't forget! (Score:4, Funny)

    by readpunk ( 683053 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:26AM (#7428447) Journal
    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?

  • This movie was made using Linux (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:27AM (#7428448)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:27AM (#7428449)
    Toy Story 2 was just as good as the original, and that's a 100% CGI movie too...

  • Argh! Smash Mouth again? (Score:4, Funny)

    by hamster foo ( 697718 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:28AM (#7428455)
    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.

  • "Most sequels"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:31AM (#7428465) Journal
    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.

    • Doing a little more research through my own video library, I found some more sequels that were as good as or better than the original:

      - Robocop 2
      - Gremlins 2
      - Ghostbusters 2
      - 24 Hours more
      - La Verite Si Je Mens 2
      - Legally Blonde 2*
      - The Gods are Crazy 2

      (*) The film was just as flimsy and fun as the first one. But - and this is no joke - the cinema was filled with blonde girls. Some kind of cult movie for blondies.
      • How could you say Ghostbusters 2 was better then the original? I guess I shouldn't put much merit into the opinion of someone who has Legally Blonde 2 in their collection though
    • Lethal weapon 2, Superman 2.....
    • I'd still say "most sequels". More than half of sequels are worse than the original.

      Thank god for the exceptions.

    • Re:"Most sequels"? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 )
      Sequels are a great case for pulling out exceptions to the 'rule' that sequels suck.

      There are definitely some good sequels made. In fact, there are even some good sequels made to movies that weren't written with sequels in mind. Nonetheless, I'd say that the ratio of crap/good is MUCH higher for sequels than for original (or rather, initial) stories. The problem is, you've created a story with characters designed for that story, and then the story ends. Either you retell the story, redevelop the characters
    • (Agree except for Alien 3, which killed off all the characters you rooted for in Alien 2, making it less fun to go back and watch 2 knowing that the little girl and the bot bit the dust soon after. Damn them....)

      But on your last point, I think there are a lot of sequels that are only green lighted because they have a better chance at making money than non-sequels. So there is a lower threshold they have to meet....sucking isn't specific to sequels, but sequels might be more likely to suck.

  • Disappointment? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GeekDork ( 194851 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:37AM (#7428486)

    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.

    • Re:Disappointment? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Liselle ( 684663 )
      The point about Rotten is that they throw out a gigantic net, and catch the reviews of a lot of critics. Morever, they spotlight particularly insightful or well-reasoned commentary (sound familiar?), and it floats to the top for everyone to see. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good, and a lot better than relying on one person or critic certainly.

  • I hope its good.. it's made on linux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jubalj ( 324624 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:39AM (#7428494) Homepage
    From an old eweek article [eweek.com] 'DreamWorks is using HP x4000 workstations running Linux to create "Shrek 2"'

    Its good to see another 'made on Linux' movie!

    • Many studios are using Linux boxes and several of those are HP boxes. Most large stuidos run this way because the bottom line is as important to them as it is to the smaller studios. (See previous SCO takes on Hollywood story for more on this).

      -Tim
    • WTF is so special about Linux and the graphics?

      A Maya scene rendered with mental ray will render the same on a Mac, Win or Linux.

      All the linux helps is in lower cost, and possibly distributed rendering.

      The "made on Linux" doesn't hold much significance in terms of the actual CG created.
      • There was a story on this a while back, about why studios were chosing linux. Having access to the tools and OS code was basically what it came down to. If they needed to optimize or build something from scratch, they could, and it would be easier than doing it for windows, and cheaper than doing it on a Mac.
      • you are right, made on linux does not change the cg look and feel because its on linux. But what it has provided is more, faster machines for the masses. Because CG always takes all the resources you have, regardless of how many machines or how many months you have to produce, faster, better, and cheaper machines allow for better cg to be created.

        Render times have always been about the same for a feature film, regardless of how fast the proc is. That is because the artists keep getting more and more det

  • More originality please? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:50AM (#7428521) Journal
    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.
    • They will stop using that kind of tactics only when people stop falling for it. That is, about two days after hell has frozen over.

      They say that there's two kinds of joy people can have when watching movies (this also applies to other things, too) -- the joy of discovery (of novelty) and the joy of recognition. It's so much easier to cause the second one, you can't really blame the studios for making money the easy way.

    • You're missing an important point here, which actually strengthens your argument. Most of the original movies weren't all that original to begin with! Hell, almost everything being made these days that isn't a direct sequel, is a remake of a 'classic.' The rest are live action movies of comics or sitcoms.

      Hollywood will stop doing this when people stop paying for it. Ditto for the music industry. Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen. Fortunately, there's lots of room in the music industry and an increasing
    • If you don't like sequels, Don't go to them.

  • You mean, Shrek 3? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mm0mm ( 687212 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:51AM (#7428525)
    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...

  • Torrent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jnguy ( 683993 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:54AM (#7428536) Homepage
    This is a great file to release a torrent for, the server is getting hammered.

  • Ah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:07AM (#7428576)
    Only John Cleese could make something as simple as 'Ah!' sound funny.

    This is shaping up to be a good movie!

  • Slashdotted?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:18AM (#7428622) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:20AM (#7428631) Homepage Journal
    ... 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?

  • Opposing forces on the sequel (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:56AM (#7428761) Journal
    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.
    • Making a sequel to a finished story is usually a terrible idea.

      Yeah, right. They got married. You really wanna call that the end of the story?

      A friend of mine [seanstewart.org] made a comment about one of the books he wrote [seanstewart.org]:
      "Most people expect the hero to go on a quest, free the princess, marry her and live happily ever after... I did that in the first 2 chapters, so that I could get on with the real story.

      • "Yeah, right. They got married. You really wanna call that the end of the story?"

        Yep, absolutely. That is, if that's the story that's being told.

        Read [slashdot.org]
        my other post on the subject to see why sequels to stories like Shrek are difficult to pull off.

        As for your friend, he's telling a different story--what happens after happily ever after. That's fine, but it has little bearing on the story that leads up to happily ever after.
  • You know, I think some Shrek/Katzenberg-hater probably put up the Dreamworks link and said it was to the Paris Hilton [google.com] 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.
  • The site seems to be slashdotted, can someone post the hex translation here on slashdot? ;)
  • Note that the 2-3 animated movies per year is from an article in AUGUST 2002. Slightly out of date.

    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. [millennium...emovie.com] Looks like Dreamworks is getting serious about a range of animation.

  • Does anybody have a list of big name sites/companies we've Slashdotted? If so, please add Dreamworks to the list. Thank you.

  • So, uh, where's a DivX version? Or any version, for that matter, that I can play without having to install some proprietary hack.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close