September 18th, 2004
Saw Shrek with relsqui. Like all people of right think, she liked it.
I was reminded of one cool thing. The kid who sits on the moon in the DreamWorks logo was #7's cousin. Her uncle (who works at DreamWorks) made the logo.
As I told our good Kiwi friend Evie, if any of you feel compelled to get us a present at any time, be advised that a dragon is an excellent selection. While watching the film, relsqui and I decided that we'd be happy with an aviary/hatchery/squadron/flight of dragons.
Other than that, I finished the project that I actually kinda liked working on for work. Mostly because no one really knew I was working on it, so I had entirely free reign. It's this beautiful threaded submission system. Despite the fact that it's in Java, I enjoyed writing it lots.
|Date:||September 18th, 2004 12:18 pm (UTC)|| |
> Saw Shrek with relsqui. Like all people of right think, she liked it.
Probably. I hate Shrek. It was cute until it failed remarkably in trying to back that up with absolutely anything at all. I guess I expected it to stop making fun of itself for a brief second and pull through with, I don't know, SOMETHING, like all good comedies do, but then absolutely nothing happened. And it ended.
Yeah, I pretty much definately hated Shrek.
The whole point was that it made fun of itself. More importantly, that it made fun of the classic Disney films. A significant number of the shots were dictated by said Disney films.
It even ended in the the way one of those films would have. Albeit with the traditionally bad ogre as the good guy and beauty becoming a beast instead of vice versa.
If you hated it, you're simply lacking in taste. The cultural references sprinkled around made it worth while failing anything else.
|Date:||September 19th, 2004 04:54 pm (UTC)|| |
Sorry, bub, but random mockeries of fables and Disney stories does not a movie make. I did enjoy it, in the "it's pretty cute" kind of way, up until it ended. Then I realized it had absolutely no backbone to it whatsoever. Even the basic "moral dilemma" that was supposedly resolved was merely a mockery of itself, which could have been acceptable if there was actually an obvious joke stuffed in there, ANYWHERE. The main "bad guy" wasn't really a bad guy, he was just sort of a slightly obnoxious cliche, and what made it so bad was he just kind of gave up without introducing the slightest bit of tension in the story. Then it just sat there, limp and broken, and ended, accomplishing nothing; a pointless waste of time. A waste of time that was, I grant you, "kind of cute", but still so utterly pointless.
Yeah, okay, I like movies that mock stuff. But random "cultural references", as you put it, introduced for no significant or amusing reason other than to be merely "kind of cute"? And that's a good movie? Sorry. I hated Shrek. I still hate Shrek. Hell, I hate it with a passion. I'd be pissed that I wasted my money on it if I was the one who paid for the ticket. I hate it even more than I hate The Matrix. (Okay, okay. I liked The Matrix. I just absolutely hated its sequels.)
Okay. To be fair, most of my hatred of Shrek stems from so many people who liked it. For some reason, the fact that most people liked it as much as -- if not more than -- such awesome movies Pixar pumps out really rages my dream. Without my incredible bias, I'd call it an "okay, I guess" movie. However, I could never fathom how so many people could like it so much. Not in a million billion years. It really jerks my gurkin. That's probably pretty silly, eh? Well, silly or no, I'm still going to rage over it.
I find it amusing that you mention that you thought it was entertaining, yet it's a bad movie.
I like Pixar a bunch, but Shrek ranks right up there with Finding Nemo and A Bug's Life. Shrek doesn't stand up to the animation of either, but it was animated reasonably well. Mike Myers, John Lithgow, and so on turned out decent performances.
The point of Shrek wasn't the story. It was making fun of all the stories like it (for example, they live 'ugly ever after'). If the story is what makes a movie for you, then this is not the movie for you. If you appreciate well-delivered jokes, parodies, and a generally feel-good ending, then this is absolutely the movie for you.
|Date:||September 20th, 2004 12:07 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm not sure if I'm calling it a bad movie or not, but I'm definately saying it pissed me off more than most.
(Not Pixar, Dreamworks! Where did Pixar come from?)
It's interesting to me that the "random cultural references ... introduced for no significant or amusing reason" were actually attacks up the Disney corporation to parallel what was going on in the courts at the time between Dreamworks and Disney. The diminutive ruler with a name phonetically like "Farq-wad" is Eisner. Every aspect of the Disney lampooning was, in its way, intended to score points upon their opponent. This gives a whole differnt feel to all of those inside jokes, wherein Dreamworks used Disney to wipe its ... face.
I enjoyed it a lot. But I read appellate cases as a hobby. ];-)
The movie "Antz" has a similar legal history, by the way.
===|==============/ Level Head
I'd heard that somewhere, but forgotten it.
I had thought the trouble was over the conveniently timed release of Antz with respect to A Bug's Life. I recall hearing that one of the people who worked on Shrek was an animator who used to work at Pixar and came over to Dreamworks.
The more I talk to you about these things, the more I think that following various cases should become a hobby of mine. All the same, relsqui
can attest that my real interest lies not in briefs, but other garments.
ANTz was offered as a concept to Disney. Disney said "Who'd be interested in a movie about ... *ugh* ... insects? And antz of all things. No thanks."
Dreamworks did it on their own. But Disney had immediately launched into their own version, which wound up coming out a couple of months behind Dreamworks.
"ANTz" had a stellar cast, and a plot and dialog rather far from what would be considered chidren's fare: "Go to war? Why don't we ... um, just contribute money and influence their political process or something?"
And "Maybe it's just me, but I've always felt uneasy drinking from the anus of another creature."
The plot: A military leader in a communist monarchy plots a coup and instigates a war to take it the communist country's leadership and overthrow the royalty.
"A Bug's Life" was cute. The story of the ant and the grasshopper. The ants didn't even have six legs.
Lawsuits ensued, so to speak, with DW charging WD with stealing their concept.
===|==============/ Level Head
|Date:||September 20th, 2004 02:28 am (UTC)|| |
So does having seen Antz but not Bug's Life give me a moral high ground? ;) Albeit during a biology final ...
Well... It's only fair to note that "A Bug's Life" had really good outtakes at the end; it became the target to beat.
But yes. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
|Date:||September 20th, 2004 02:35 am (UTC)|| |
I have to agree with testing4l
that you're seriously missing the point. If you want to watch a great movie, go see Citizen Kane. If you want to giggle for a couple of hours, see Shrek. It's not even remotely fair to judge the one by the standards of the other.
Personally, I have trouble suspending disbelief well enough to take almost any movie seriously. So the ones that don't take themselves seriously are about the only ones I don't mind sitting through. Yet you'll notice I still call Citizen Kane a great movie--because there are better standards than what I happen to like watching.
On a tangent, I did find it interesting that Shrek makes a big point of being a different kind of fairy tale when it's a slightly simplified Knights of the Round Table plot with an altered setup. Granted, the idea is obvious enough that said plot wasn't necessarily the source, but the similarities are difficult not to notice if you know both stories.
|Date:||September 18th, 2004 08:13 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh, do you still hear from Evie? Is their piracy I'm unaware of?
Off and on. I haven't pirated in ages.