Old news...But can we talk? Shrek was dreck!

[Another Voice]

Great comments from everyone; this thread seems to have started a lot of interesting conversations.

There has been a trend recently to put in a lot of “zany” sidekicks into the animated films recently with only limited success. In the rush to hype toy sales and the generate media-friendly clips, people have forgotten about basic story structure. Movies have a very limited amount of time to tell their story and everything that doesn’t push the story along ends up slowing everything down. It’s not enough for the sidekick just to be funny; they have to illustrate aspects of the main character’s story.

If you look at a classic like ‘Bambi’, the story is all about growing up. Thumper is the wide-eyed, mischievous side of the childhood that Bambi’s going through. At the end of the film, after everyone falls in love, it’s Thumper that shows up with all his kids and highlights the logical extension of what Bambi has grown into. By using a secondary character to explore to extreme aspects of the central character’s situation, you allow the audience to get a greater understanding of the main character.

The problem with the gargoyles and Rossie’s gorilla (beside from Rossie herself) is that these characters didn’t serve that role and then weakened their movies. There was nothing wrong with having the characters in the film, but they weren’t written correctly and they ended up hurting the films. Comedy can be great in movies, but it can’t just stop the story.

My concern with ‘The Lion King’ isn’t it’s music per se, it’s just that movies with those kinds of “stop the story, it’s time for a production number” structures don’t tend to age well. Try to watch one of the 1930’s “all singing, all dancing” musicals that show up on the Turner Classic Movie channel and you’ll see why. Unless the music is a part of the story, those films seem like a collection of music videos with acting in between. As musical tastes change, the appeal of the music moments will go up and down.

I’m not sure about ‘Toy Story’. I think those two films are going to be seen more as historical pieces rather than as movies – just like ‘The Jazz Signer’ and ‘How the West Was Won’ are today. A lot of aspects about the TS movies are timeless, but I’ve always felt that there’s a strong Baby Boomer angle about them that isn’t going to be meaningful twenty years from now. Basically the theme of the movies is Baby Boomers (as represented by Woody and all the old toys) in conflict with those upstart Gen Xers (Buzz and the computerized toys). These movies are going to be granting PHd’s on film historians and social analysts for generations to come; but I don’t know what kind of audience they are going to have. Plus in the future, everyone’s toys will really talk and move on their own so the “secret life of toys” might not seem so magical as it does right now.

By the way – “my mother’s generation”? Ouch.

 

[Lesley]

As much as I like the music in Hunchback, I think it may be part of the reason the movie didn't have a lot of popular appeal....it wasn't really "accessible" to your average movie-goer....you can't sing along, kwim? That said I think the music was perfect for what the movie could have been.

I don't think the gargoyles are really necessary....but the role they play is needed, as far as giving a way to show Quasimodo's thoughts and feelings. It could have been done through the figures Quasimodo carves, etc...

But why is it that the "cute" elements in B&B work, and those in HoND and Tarzan don't? Could it be there's an inherent element of fantasy and whimsy in the storyline of B&B, where there isn't such a thing in either of the other movies?

 

[Lesley]

"By the way – “my mother’s generation”? Ouch."

Sorry! My mom is quite young, though.....but still it is a different generation. And, well, I totally didn't get all the baby boomers vs. gen. x stuff from TS.....funny, I just don't relate that way to the world. But I can see that its there now that you point it out....and I did enjoy the movie regardless (several hundred times by now...one of my ds's favorites).

And what fun are toys that play by themselves?

 

[Peter Pirate]

I think the comercialism is a very interesting point in this discussion. Disney has always made their movies to be commercially accepted...As long as it met the other required criteria (story, moral theme, etc.), and Disney has been masterful at this promotion thorughout most of the Eisner years - although they are perhaps the years when other voices lent their respected thoughts to Eisner. Since Eisner has ascended to the one man show, it does seem obvious that his thought process may now be muddled and without respectful interaction he keeps making bad decisions (two heads are better than one).

I have no problem with Disney trying to tie in commercialism, the McDonalds sales, the funny characters, etc., but I agree they MUST be adding positive lean to the film, otherwise its just fluff that confuses and muddies the main issues.

 

[raidermatt]

I think there maybe a little too much analytical thinking going on here (and it does hurt me to say that...). IMHO, the most important element any family movie must have to become a classic is the ability to get to the audience's emotions. Certainly the "princess/maid must get her prince to be happy" theme has been outdated for a long time. Yet, Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty remain classics. The Little Mermaid succeeded despite having this at its core long after it was really acceptable.

These films succeeded because of their ability to reach us emotionally. There is no formula for this. If there truly were, the movie-makers would never miss.

The "lets stop for a musical number" approach has been gone for decades, outside of animated films. It was virtually non-existent in the 80's and 90's. The only late 70's movie that comes to mind that succeeded was Grease. Yet, Grease remains a "classic" movie today and is extremely popular. The LM and LK used this format well after it was dead in film, yet they succeeded. Also, LK really only has two of these scenes (Just Can't Wait, Hakuna), and LM has only three (Under, Part, Kiss), and they all serve a purpose and don't seem to be thrown in just to get a song. Hakuna in particular does an excellent job of lightening the mood after the very serious stampede scene.

The other elements mentioned, such as the comic relief characters being part of the story, and using dated jokes are important, but are only contributing factors and can be over come (the latter moreso than the former).

I believe LK will endure because of the emotions it makes us feel. How can anyone not be moved after the stampede scene? Simba is taken advatage of by pure evil, but makes a triumphant and stirring return. Can you feel the love is already dated, but Hakuna and Just Can't Wait are catchy tunes that children will always love. Circle of Life is one of the most stirring songs ever heard in a Disney film.

To a lesser extent, Mermaid does the same. B&tB will also endure, as others have noted.

I agree Tarzan is probably a near miss, but may hold-up better than we think. The loss of Tarzan's parents and Kala's son put us emotionally in their corner from the beginning. I don't like Rosie, but I didn't have a problem with Turk, or the elephant. I do agree that the Stompin' the Camp scene seems out of place and takes away from the story.

I'll stop now...

 

[Blondie]

We loved Shrek. No, it's not a movie that will be passed down through generations, but I don't think it was aiming to be one either.

 

[airlarry!]

Hey, AV, you didn't happen to have seen B&B in the pre-theatrical release, now did you? A hunch....


Anyway, my list is exactly AV's: "B&B", "Hunchback," and "Tarzan," and "Little Mermaid," all classics IMHO. Strong story, strong visual, I think in all four the musical segments do move the story along rather than stop the action.

I have always argued with my friends that "Lion King" was one of the weaker Disney movies, a sort of "Titanic" of the animated feature realm. Thin story, not the best songs, but two memorable wisecracking sidekicks got people to go over and over and over....Remember, Timon & Pumbaa got their own show, not Nala & Simba.

But, I also like what Scoop says. There is a *classic* and then there is a *cult classic*. In that vein, I think "Emperor" fits. It was funny...if you liked Seinfield and Puddy and Spade and Letterman kind of humor. If you don't like that kind, then this movie probably misses the mark. To each his own, I say...

Atlantis is tougher. How certain people on this board can say "well if it had Disney on it, then the mouse-colored glass wearers love it, and hate it if it doesn't..." is beyond me. I'm a car #3 guy, who hated Dinosaur, but that doesn't mean I will dismiss Atlantis is drivel. I'm not nitpicking with you AV, but it seems to me that "Atlantis" was the kind of movie that you walk out not hating, but instead scratching your chin saying: "Man, that movie was.....almost...good." Me and my wife walked out of the theater saying that it was so close to being a good movie but something was missing. Something we couldn't put our finger down on. AFter reading the posts here, I think it was the story...it was presented not in the "Lady & the Tramp" type of suspend your disbelief, it was instead presented as 'serious' science fiction, or maybe like and INdy Jones movie, and then preceded to totally hammer the plot through in 80 minutes. Imagine if Spielberg knocks off 60 minutes from "Raiders" and see if that was a good movie...I doubt it.

OK. Enough rambling. Atlantis was visually stunning, but emotionally lacking. Big crime for a Disney branded movie. In fact, it was more like a non-Disney movie than any recent Disney movies. At least Pocohantas, Hercules, Mulan had heart and emotion.

 

[Planogirl]

I would like to go on record as saying that The Lion King will also be an enduring classic. I think that the music was excellent but since that's just a matter of opinion, I won't go on and on about that. The Lion King offers great characters including the all-important hero, comedy characters and a likable villain. The movie has many emotional scenes which keeps a viewer's interest. The animation is quite good and the movie appeals strongly to children. It's mostly this appeal to children that will cause the movie to evolve into a classic IMO. Parents will automatically purchase it for their kids who will watch it over and over again just as they do Dumbo and Bambi. I can't see this happening with Hunchback and the Emperor's New Groove.

I guess it really depends on what constitutes a classic. I consider it a movie that stays in the public eye and is appreciated by that public for all time.

 

[YoHo]

But Scoop, isn't Shrek a Disfunctional Buddy Comedy as well? I totally agree with your take on the Genre of Emperor. it is clearly a buddy comedy. Which is likely why it failed. Usually a movie like Rush Hour is NOT the best Date movie. And the 20 something males that like buddy comedies typically dismiss animation. Toy Story drew a lot of people who hated Disney Animation. Shrek took Toy Story's visual appeal and rapped a buddy comedy around it. it isn't that its better or worse then Emperor. It's technology gave it an in with its target audience.
Its not that its Spade humor. In fact, I don't detect much in Kuzco that reminds me of say, Just Shoot Me, Aside from the voice. Its standard buddy stuff. They also pull off some very believable visual gags.

 

[perrywinkle]

I loved Shrek. It was a no brainer "let me make you laugh" movie, with lots of subtle humor.
I don't understand why a person whose monikker is "Master of His Domain" would object to potty humor?

 

[Peter Pirate]

perrywinkle...I have no objection to "potty humor" and I thought I had said that. My objection to Shrek was that, for me, there was nothing much besides "potty humor". We're really in the realm of personal taste here and I myself love a lot of screwy movies (Caddyshack, Animal House, Theres's something About Mary), but there was alwys something underlyng is these films (besides the obvious) that I didn't find in Shrek. To relate it to animation, I loved the subleties of Aladdin (and there were lots) but the basic story was also never lost (and it was a darn good one). Shrek, to me, was an hour of nothing and 40 minutes or so of a nice but basic fairy tale. I liked the Shrek & Princess characters but felt their script was lame.

As for my moniker, my obvious love of Sienfeld should prove that I'm not offended easily and I wasn't offened (at all) by Shrek...I just didn't like it.

 

[JustBob]

I guess my only real problem with Emperor is that it seemed to have 3 or 4 places where it sounded like they were heading into a song, and then it would just die. I guess there was a lot left on the cutting room floor. Also, I suppose it could be argued that, had a song started, the forward motion of the plot might have died. I have REALLY enjoyed this thread! (What can I say? I love talking about movie music!)

 

[Captain Crook]

My biggest question with regard to "Emperor" is, as was mentioned earlier, why was it promoted so little? I can understand the lack of all out media blitz for a quirky film like this, but wouldn't it have done better with a little support?

 

[ContempoSMT]

VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. Your post makes no sense because shrek was thhe highest grossing animated movie ever, so that goes to show you what people really thought about it. I am a very strong critic of movies but shrek is up there with 4 stars out of 5. so what are you going to tell me next, The GOdfather was a bad movie!

 

[johare]

Actually I think Lion King still holds the #1 animated film title with over $300M. Shrek I believe is somewhere around $268 million. I guess you could say though that Shrek hold the record for CGI animated films though.

Fortunately after seeing this weekends numbers it looks like Monsters Inc. has dropped below $10M and might have a hard time topping Shreks $268 million. Monsters was great, but we loved Shrek and would like to see it beat Monsters at the box office and win the Oscar next year!!!

 

[d-r]

And tickets cost more today than they did when the LK came out.

FWIW, personally, I think it would be a true shame for Shrek to win the oscar over Monsters Inc. However, I don't think that the total box office (which I think will be higher eventually for Monsters than Shrek; Shrek is still playing in some theaters, Monsters Inc has been out for what, four weeks? I think Monsters will have some more life during Christmas Break, as will Harry) will be the only criteria for the acedemy award. I hope at least.

Personally, I found both the animation and story superior in Monsters Inc, though I'm sure I am just a homer (I do like some non-disney animation though, FWIW I liked Anastasia and I thought Iron Giant was very, very good. I also thought Prince of Egypt was OK as was chicken run, though I prefered a bugs life to ants. And of the two south american buddy travel films, although I preferred the humor of Emporers new groove which I liked a lot, I appreciated the boldness that dreamworks had in exploring gay relationships in road to el dorado. I also enjoyed watching Titon AE, heavy metal, and american pop, though I didn't at all like quest for camelot, feivel, or any land before time).

I guess that having read "the stinky cheese man" and having watched "fractured fairy tales" on rocky and bull winkle as a kid I wasn't that impressed with the Shrek premise, I thought that the animation looked like clay mation and wasn't that impressive, although some of the backgrounds were wonderful, and, though I found the ending sweet, the potty humor combined with the disney bashing left a smart ellecky bad taste in my mouth (and I should tell you that I liked it A LOT more than my wife did). Monsters Inc, on the other hand, dragged a bit in the middle, but I found the story more interesting, the characters more compelling, and the animation more impressive.
DR

 

[johare]

And tickets cost more today than they did when the LK came out.

So that means that more people actually went to see Shrek then. Perhaps they should record attendence figures for movies along with the dollar totals. It would be more meaningful.

FWIW, personally, I think it would be a true shame for Shrek to win the oscar over Monsters Inc

FWIW, I think it would be a true shame for Monsters to win the oscar over Shrek! I thought the animation in Shrek was fantastic. The characters had a very realistic appearance to them and moved very naturally. It almost seemed like you could believe that they really existed somewhere. Monsters on the other hand was good, but the animation had that fake/plastic Toy Story look to it. Boo was very cute, but just like Andy in TS she looked very much like a cartoon. The animation/movements of Sully seemed awkward and unnatural at times. Unless animation of fur plays a big role in deciding the Oscar, I can't really see Monsters winning it.

which I think will be higher eventually for Monsters than Shrek; Shrek is still playing in some theaters, Monsters Inc has been out for what, four weeks? I think Monsters will have some more life during Christmas Break, as will Harry

I don't know about that...by the time Shrek dipped below the the $10M per weekend mark it had already racked up a $228 million box office and was in it's 7th week. Monsters is at about $204 after it's 5th week and has already fallen below the $10M mark. Might pick up a little over Christmas break, but it will also have the Jimmy Neutron film from Nickelodeon to compete with. My guess is that Monsters will top out at just below $250 million. Still not bad.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by johare
So that means that more people actually went to see Shrek then. Perhaps they should record attendence figures for movies along with the dollar totals. It would be more meaningful.

I don't get your logic there...think about this one. Tckets cost more at Shrek than LK, and LK grossed more than Shrek, therefore more people went to see Shrek than LK?

I know that you love Shrek, Johare, but I only thought it was OK. What you saw as wonderful life-like animation, I saw as stilted video-game like caricatures with jerky motion similar to claymation. What struck you as an amusing story hit me as tired and somewhat mean spirited. What sounded like a fun sound track to you seemed like a bunch of baby boomer covers to me, etc. and so on. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to have seen Shrek, it just wasn't all that to me.

Honestly, I think that this thread points out how subjective a movie experience can be. I'm guessing that you saw Shrek in the theatre with your family and you all had a wonderful time that night, and you will always remember that and the movie seemed wonderful for you. We rented the DVD and watched it while we probably had other stuff on our minds and the movie didn't make much of a dent on us. You can read reviews from two critics - who write about movies for a profession and so are hopefully knowledgable about film - who disagree completely.

But, even though "ranking" films is probably very subjective, I do think and hope that they will use more than the total box office to choose the academy award winner. That said, I hope that Monsters, Inc. overtakes Shrek (because I'm tired of those "Biggest movie of the year" DVD commercials before the year was over = obnoxious).

DR

 

[johare]

I don't get your logic there...think about this one. Tckets cost more at Shrek than LK, and LK grossed more than Shrek, therefore more people went to see Shrek than LK?

I don't get my logic on that one either...looks like I was thinking backwards. Still think it would make more sense to record attendance figures (though maybe not to the bean counters).

What you saw as wonderful life-like animation, I saw as stilted video-game like caricatures with jerky motion similar to claymation. What struck you as an amusing story hit me as tired and somewhat mean spirited.

Well, everyone sees what they want to. To me the animation on Shrek was close to perfect. Many film critics also raved about how good the animation was so I'm quite sure I'm not alone here. Shrek had a realistic feel to it. Monsters was good, but still felt like nothing more than a 3d cartoon.

I'm guessing that you saw Shrek in the theatre with your family and you all had a wonderful time that night, and you will always remember that and the movie seemed wonderful for you

We both Shrek and Monsters in the theater and actually the Shrek experience wasn't that great. There was a very cold draft blowing down on us and we had to move all the way to the back (only seats left) and it was still a bit too cold in the theater. Regal wound up sending us 4 comp passes which we used for Monsters. So, we liked Shrek because it was a great movie...didn't really have much to do with our experience the first time we saw it.

That said, I hope that Monsters, Inc. overtakes Shrek (because I'm tired of those "Biggest movie of the year" DVD commercials before the year was over = obnoxious).

And if Monsters were to overtake Shrek, do you think the Disney commercials would be any less obnoxious? I'm still hoping Monsters does well, but falls just short of overtaking Shrek. And I also hope they use more than box office to decide the Oscar because I still think Shrek will come out on top.

 

[YoHo]

Johare, I think his point would be that Disney's comercails would occur after the years was over and that Dreamworks was being presumtuous.

Best Picture doesn't usually go to the Box office Champ. Monsters may win based on its story. On the other hand, Shrek also may win based on its original Story. The box office figures are so close that it will have little to nothing to do with it.