Umm here is the question: why do people like Monty Python so much? I mean oh my GOD. It is...mildy amusing. Once. To hear people recite it from memory makes me sick. Sometimes I pretend to laugh, sometimes I pretend I haven't seen it. I mean damnit. It's just lame slapstick and some lame nonsense. Like when they get going on about seagulls or whatever in the beginning of the Holy Grail, that kind of crap is so boring. It's so...British, I guess? Anyway, Shrek is just good, but it was just what the country needed when it came out, and then, when it came out with 2. What I really like that is underrated is the Emperor's New Groove.
The TV episodes are highly amusing, because the format doesn't force the Python gang to follow a common thread for an hour and a half. Monty Python truly shines in its short sketches; none of the movies really impressed me.
if you think Disney is what keeps Pixar's movies from being reduced to the shit that most studios consider "edgy" than you don't recognize the intentions of Pixar and their philosophy.
So "edgy" == "shit"? So maybe making a movie with a more complex story line or maybe something that's not a comedy is "shit" by your reasoning?
I really dodn't like Shrek - 1 or 2. They're very shallow and simple. Pixar movies appeal much more to thinking people. They are 100% positive. The characters are always sweet and likable. Both Shreks had too many negative "yo ass is ugly" type jokes. Shrek as the main character is far too cynical (even if sweet inside), and Donkey is too fucking annoying, in a bad way. Princess Fiona is just dull and flat, with very little character development. Lame. I really can't believe ANYONE in the world can think Shrek is better than Finding Nemo, which is in my opinion one of the best films in history, of any type. Than again, I can't believe anyone in the world could vote for Bush, so obviously I don't "get" a lot of people.
I like Shrek because I can so totally relate to the story.
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
i thought shrek was "okay." 3.5 out of 5, let's say. the animation was good, but once you understood the premise (all the fairy tales coming together through shrek's involvement), you started to see the jokes coming before you got the punchline. and naming eddie's character "donkey" just bugged me. maybe i needed to not think so much.
i was appalled, however, that shrek beat monsters, inc. that year for the academy award. monsters, inc was original and had a great script and premise.
The first Shrek was pretty funny, not hilarious, but I thought it was good. The second felt tired. If you liked Shrek, it's more of the same. Had its moments. It's Ants and especially A Shark's Tale that fell flat for me. Well, I had higher expectations for Ants anyway.
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
Pokemon is wildly underrated... there are a 100+ reasons for it to be the great success it was.
I second the emperor's new groove. I also have liked all of pixar's movies. Aladdin and The Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast were all great back in the day too. Disney kind of fell off the tracks somewhere with Pocahontas and Hercules.
if you think Disney is what keeps Pixar's movies from being reduced to the shit that most studios consider "edgy" than you don't recognize the intentions of Pixar and their philosophy.
EXACTLY. Pixars jokes are character or situation based. Dreamworks jokes are just HAR-HAR fart jokes. Not very intelligent.
Well, to be fair, Pixar does throw in enough burp/fart jokes to keep 5 year old boys (and 20 year old ones) interested. And Dreamworks pictures do have some very funny parodies. Too much of any kind of joke grows tired though. It's why Shrek 2 didn't work for me: different specifics, same delivery. A strictly annoying character can only be funny once.
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
Apart from the last phrase of the comments above, I think more of Tarantino films than Shrek.
What's wrong with you guys here? You don't like fairytales?
Pixar movies are timeless, Dreamworks movies are "fades" from what i've read it just has fart jokes and current innuendos, i think that's the word i'm looking for
I don't understand this disdain for Shrek. There seems to be an element of Pixar fan-boyism and just mean spiritedness about some of the posts I've seen. I love the fact that the Princess isn't made beautiful at the end. I happen to think that the underlying message that beauty is only skin deep and that real worth comes from within is pretty important these plastic/silicon days.
Also it's bloody funny. Oh and some of the visuals are just stunningly done, waving fields of corn and the such.
Shrek 2 wasn't as good, too messy and John Cleese hasn't been funny since 1979.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
Umm here is the question: why do people like Monty Python so much? I mean oh my GOD. It is...mildy amusing. Once. To hear people recite it from memory makes me sick. Sometimes I pretend to laugh, sometimes I pretend I haven't seen it. I mean damnit. It's just lame slapstick and some lame nonsense. Like when they get going on about seagulls or whatever in the beginning of the Holy Grail, that kind of crap is so boring. It's so...British, I guess? Anyway, Shrek is just good, but it was just what the country needed when it came out, and then, when it came out with 2. What I really like that is underrated is the Emperor's New Groove.
The TV episodes are highly amusing, because the format doesn't force the Python gang to follow a common thread for an hour and a half. Monty Python truly shines in its short sketches; none of the movies really impressed me.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Umm here is the question: why do people like Monty Python so much? ...<snip> What I really like that is underrated is the Emperor's New Groove.
haha i totally agree on both points
Originally posted by applenut
see above.
if you think Disney is what keeps Pixar's movies from being reduced to the shit that most studios consider "edgy" than you don't recognize the intentions of Pixar and their philosophy.
So "edgy" == "shit"? So maybe making a movie with a more complex story line or maybe something that's not a comedy is "shit" by your reasoning?
Originally posted by Scott
So "edgy" == "shit"? So maybe making a movie with a more complex story line or maybe something that's not a comedy is "shit" by your reasoning?
1. i think pixar's films have fairly complex story lines. afterall, its their writing which is their strongest point
2. why would they make something other than a comedy? kids don't want dramas
3. this thread is comparing the "edgy" shrek to the "nonedgy" incredibles..... so, yes edgy equals shit
Originally posted by tonton
I really dodn't like Shrek - 1 or 2. They're very shallow and simple. Pixar movies appeal much more to thinking people. They are 100% positive. The characters are always sweet and likable. Both Shreks had too many negative "yo ass is ugly" type jokes. Shrek as the main character is far too cynical (even if sweet inside), and Donkey is too fucking annoying, in a bad way. Princess Fiona is just dull and flat, with very little character development. Lame. I really can't believe ANYONE in the world can think Shrek is better than Finding Nemo, which is in my opinion one of the best films in history, of any type. Than again, I can't believe anyone in the world could vote for Bush, so obviously I don't "get" a lot of people.
Nemo is the best.
Originally posted by Giaguara
I like Shrek because I can so totally relate to the story.
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
i was appalled, however, that shrek beat monsters, inc. that year for the academy award. monsters, inc was original and had a great script and premise.
have not seen shrek 2. i guess i will eventually.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
Pokemon is wildly underrated... there are a 100+ reasons for it to be the great success it was.
Originally posted by applenut
see above.
if you think Disney is what keeps Pixar's movies from being reduced to the shit that most studios consider "edgy" than you don't recognize the intentions of Pixar and their philosophy.
EXACTLY. Pixars jokes are character or situation based. Dreamworks jokes are just HAR-HAR fart jokes. Not very intelligent.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I couldn't pay attention to the story,because i thought the characters where god awfull looking. It's like they couldn't decide on a style. i find Shrek a lot like Pokemon, there seems to be no reason for its run away success.
Apart from the last phrase of the comments above, I think more of Tarantino films than Shrek.
What's wrong with you guys here? You don't like fairytales?
Shrek 2 was also good, the novelty was gone. So I didn't like it as much as Shrek 1, but still worthwhile!
And i hope the competition stays! Pushing each other for better products! (and no lay offs )
Also it's bloody funny. Oh and some of the visuals are just stunningly done, waving fields of corn and the such.
Shrek 2 wasn't as good, too messy and John Cleese hasn't been funny since 1979.
Shrek is incredibly, incredibly funny.
Nuh-uh, Pixar didn't make it!