“To get the answer to that question, you're going to have to buy a ticket for "Shrek the Third." Which opens in theaters nationwide this Friday.”

A repeat of last year when you ran those “Over the Hedge” articles…  Jim, are you sure you’re not on the DreamWorks payroll?

I hope, come June, we’re going to get some in-depth Ratatouille articles like these ones you’re writing for these ridiculous DW movies because otherwise things are going to start looking a little fishy here at JHM.  

Only one comment on this story and it's already started... ugh.

Look, I'm not expecting to particularly enjoy Shrek 3, but can you at least appreciate the craft? This is good stuff!

I'm especially impressed with the look of that circular pier for some reason. It looks like it would be great for staging scenes.

Are you serious Falfa31?

(shakes head in amazement)

I'm not even going to waste the time setting you straight. Totally not worth it.

Interesting article Jim, thanks.

You know, it's sort of sad when you think that a talented man like Cundo drones 100's of hours of shear talent for a mediocre piece of celluloid like Shrek the 3rd... only to have it never show up in the actual film-- I mean, it must sting at least a little to know that fresh out of ITT Tech talentless animators who pump out the monotony year after year, dollar by dollar, will ultimatley dumb down the real artisan's masterpiece. It's like watching "flushed away"... a bitter disappointment. I find that movies are a great deal more interesting when I know artists actually tangably put effort into something. watching Wallace and Gromit I approach the movie with resect knowing that real craftsmanship and work went into produsing each frame--while flushed away is another pick it up throw away movie trying to cheat people into believing they did the work when really, to borrow from Jurassic park--

           The problem with modern CGI techniques is that it

didn't require any discipline to attain it.  They read

what others had done (Pixar, Disney, Frank and Ollie) and took the next step.  They

didn't earn the knowledge themselves, so they don't take

any responsibility for it.  They stood on the shoulders

of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as they

could, and before they even knew what they had, they patented

it, packaged it, slapped in on a plastic lunch box, and

now they want to sell it.----(shrek the 3rd)

      Their studios and it's CG animators were so preoccupied

      with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to

      think if they should.  

A nice segway-- But watch "Jurassic Park" and tell me your not impressed by the live action animatronic dinosaur shots! especially for 1993! I don't know about everyone else-- but just knowing that Stan Winston's team put hour after hour into it makes me appreciate it that much more. Even the CG team at the time had Dennis Muren on board-- who had a great understanding for movement and character alongside others who understood color and how an environment alters it.

It was believable when you saw the Dinosaurs moving, unlike every other Spiderman or CG plagued movie where the characters are like rubber toys flailing about due to the horrible lack of understanding the modern CG artists and animators at dreamworks have concerning movement and color.  

And thank God some are actually catching on to the idea that status quo is NOT good enough, and that actual hard work=respect-- The jim Henson Company, Decided that the 2nd Dark Crystal will be completely done with animatronics and puppets with the exception of CGI backgrounds-- But because they realize that it's their awesome tangable craftsmanship that impresses their audiences who resect them dearly for their hard work henson fans and moviegoers alike are pumped about this new installment--like "Hitchhikers Guide" fans were...

As for the mistake that is teh Shrek Franchise-- you better believe Frank and Ollie would have shown them a thing or two--

"Are you serious Falfa31?

(shakes head in amazement)

I'm not even going to waste the time setting you straight. Totally not worth it."

Huh?  What are you talking about?

(sigh)

Okay. Since you asked I will spend a little time on you.  :o)

If you havn't noticed already (and I'm assuming you havn't based on your comment) the name and description of this site says:

"Jim Hill Media

News, reviews, history and commentary about the entertainment industry

(But mostly about the Mouse)"

Is not Dreamworks a member of the entertainment industry? Doesn't Cundo Rabaudi work in the entertainment industry?

The definition of 'mostly' is not 'all'.

Granted we mostly come to this site for Disney related info... and mostly that is what this site is. But to complain whenever it's not (and someone always does) is not only pointless, but wrong.

Fair enough?

PS - I forgot to mention this too. Sorry Falfa31

Just because Jim says 'If you wanna know more - go buy a ticket' doesn't mean he's a shill for that company. Only a Dreamwork hater would tell you to not buy a ticket.

And yes, I too am amazed at what seems like a preference for non-Disney studios at times, but that is Jim's opinion and he's entitled to it.

Hook,

I was merely pointing out how JHM always seems to be plugging these DW movies, but when it comes to Pixar output, we get nothing...unless the movie does poorly and then we have to hear about how Disney overpaid for Pixar, blah, blah blah...etc.  

You know what I'm taking about.  

When Shrek the Third underperforms next weekend (compared to Shrek 2) I can't wait to read about it hear first.

Here, here Falfa31! I second that! I am a fan of quality and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if we should hear more from Jim and other sites concerning Dreamworks; as their PR department is most likely a door knock away--

Now, I am in no way saying that Jim Hill is in kahoots with Dreamworks, but really, lets look at the quality of the films soon to be released... "Shrek 3: Rise of the Mediocrities" is soon to come out and there are a whirlwind of articles due to purposley leaky PR to over compensate for bad entertainment. Really, all they are doing is shoving Shrek in our faces... I mean really-- An article about the painstaking tiny changes underneath Shrek's Crudley developed appearance to give him more character? Is that any kind of excuse to see the film? That sounds like a team of "bubblegum mechanics" trying to sell us on the idea that the Bubblegum holding your engine together makes your engine run smoother-- It's ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! It's like using white out on an inkblot but the ink still comes through-- covering up the mistakes they can't erase... When really it's a ploy to make us think they intentionally wanted the movies to look so bad...then they call it "style"...more like "a lack of talent"... It's called, "Declining by Degrees"...

Then you have Pixar's, "Ratatouille"-- a Brad Bird film (The Incredibles) whose PR is as tight lipped as it gets... Now, I truly believe Pixar's PR department doesn't feel like they need to "blow their load" before the film is released...Because to be honest, because there is no need for over compensation due to the striking quality we've all seen and come to expect from the guys and gals in Emeryville (I mean that's how Disney made their name-- sheer quality).

Sure, both Studios have PR departments--everything from Green straws at McDonald's to a giant traveling Cheese slide for kids, but really all these "insider" articles on "Shrek the Mediocrity" are a little too "in the know" if you know what I mean-- the kind of article that you wouldn't really need to work hard to write-- while making you wonder who's really writing it. So I can see your point.

But really, I'm not saying that this is the case with Jim Hill and in no way is this true-- It's just my opinion. In fact, to be quite fair, I know Jim Hill isn't in "kahoots" because he wrote an article last summer exposing a Critic from 1450 The Boomer (a small radio Station an hour away from LA) who was and probably still is Paid to say wonderful things about bad movies so the  PR teams for those movies could flaunt those "Paid-reviews" as a last chance to get people to see the movies so they won't fail as bad. You know the kind of reviews I'm talking about here-- when a commercial for an obvious box office bomb has that ONE review saying, "FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR" with a small font type so tiny you can't read who wrote it... So obviously Jim is on our side...

I just think that being a fan of quality (which I know Jim is as well), I'd love to read more regarding quality films than trying to convince myself that my standards are just too high and that mediocre is good enough... because I won't have it. My guess  is that today's article was the result of a slow newsweek... But to be honest, I wouldn't mind waiting a day for a great article if I knew a great one was coming up... Anticipation is better than a spoiler just ask Pixar's sealed lips...and Al Lutz.

Love the models, too bad that dramworks does not add that kind of etail into terrible movies like shrek.

Guess i will never find out why the Princesses are in a dungeon because i will never spend $10.00 on a very short (movie runs at 80 minutes inclduing credits from what i am hearing) movie that rehashes the same fart and vomit jokes every other shrek movie has.

Those models are just gorgeous and hopefully after the movie ends its run, dreamworks does not just detsroy these pieces of art.

Wow, such whining.

While the Shrek movies are lowbrow, they have a different intention than the Pixar/Disney stuff.  They are intended to make people laugh, and for many people they hit a bullseye.  And the fact that they're the biggest animated moneymakers is nothing to sneeze at either.

As far as technical and artistic skill goes, the backgrounds in the shrek movies have been pretty incredible, certianly competitive with the Pixar movies released at the same time.  And the dreamworks animators have done a great job with CGI humans - I know that Pixar goes for more of a cartoony look, but I still have yet to see them do humans as well as dreamworks.

As for the notion that CGI is not real "work and craftsmanship", that's just silly.  Sure, there are shortcuts that can be taken, but the same is true of hand drawn animation (rotoscoping anyone?).  The cheats are the fault of those who take them, not flaws inherent in the medium.

And as for CGI versus animatronics or other sorts of effects, it comes down to how well they are done.  Look at the Lord of the Rings movies or Pirates, which had absolutely amazing CGI, some of it completely photorealistic.  Would anyone be able to do Gollum or Davey Jones with animatronics?

The ranting just sounds more like sour grapes that CGI is used so often than an actual critique of the technique.

Just to touch on MinderBinder's comment...

I agree with you fully that the Shrek movies are out with different intent for their audiences. I do agree, because rather than telling a compelling story or using endearing characters, tasteful comedy and wonderful animation to develop and tell a wonderful story, they throw "Fad" and "Fart" jokes at you for 80 minutes with an all star cast (most of whom you won't recognize because they aren't allowed to be themselves) and crude animation insulting our intelligences with every eye straining minute. All this tells me one thing, they aren't out to tell a story--they're out to make a buck. Entertainment Declining by Degrees...

On another point being quite honest, I have never seen fuller emotion evoked from a CGI Human more than in "The Incredibles". If you want humans to look human-- fine, hire humans. The human characters in the Shrek movies are so badly designed, stiff, ridged and downright crude that it hardly compels you to feel what the characters are feeling in between the badly done contemporary jokes that won't hold their water in 15 years. Which only adds to my point that the Shrek movies aren't about family entertainment--but rather how much money they can squeeze out of you.

As for Davey Jones or Golem -I do believe they could have realized them with animatronics and puppetry--But CGI is used far too much as a "crutch" for anything that might take a little "effort" in a movie's production--when CGI should only be used in moderation--which is why Henson's "Dark Crystal 2" has the right idea. But to my point, the problem isn't the Davey or Golem roles portrayed because of the talented teams behind them--What I'm saying is that for every Spotlight CGI character portrayed there are 1000 lesser ones being developed with no intent for bettering our entertainment, but rather squeezing something out in time to make a few extra bucks...(Spiderman, Shrek, the cast of Madagascar-- everything Dreamworks has done anyone?) And those characters speak for themselves.

And backgrounds? I don't believe they have any weight compared to Pixar...watch the Finding Nemo features and look at the comparisons Pixar did to actual sea life for backgrounds...they are so realistic and well done that to be honest--Shrek doesn't hold any water to your statement--but I guess your entitled to your opinion…

P.T. Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute... But don’t worry--I'll admit I'm a sucker too--only I’m a sucker for high quality entertainment—and expecting better standards when I pay for a movie.

You can point out talented CGI roles all you want (I'm not disputing those roles) in fact I'm not disputing the medium at all—for a vulgar example-- the team behind Shrek, is like a child who found his father's gun not knowing the consequences of what’s about to unfold—sure, the gun looks enticing and appealing like a big shiny toy but soon enough the consequences are rendered. What I’m trying to say is that Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people—CGI isn’t to blame, it’s the ones who use it with out a full understanding of when and even how it should be done… they don't understand that trying to make the most money isn't the best way to keep a customer--it's the service you provide that makes the customer return and all Shrek is good for is an expensive let down.

I'm merely pointing out the frauds out to make a buck --only to let you down. So have fun watching Shrek 3! You earned it!

"for every Spotlight CGI character portrayed there are 1000 lesser ones being developed with no intent for bettering our entertainment"

And for every spotlight hand-drawn animated character there are a thousand lesser ones.  For every spotlight live action performance, there are a thousand lesser ones.  You complain about CGI, but none of your complaints really are unique to the medium.  As someone once said, 99% of everything is crap.  And that applies to CGI just as much as anything else.

For the record, Shrek came out two years before Finding Nemo and three before Incredibles.

And while I haven't seen Spidey 3 yet, I can't disagree more in the case of Spidey 2.  While every movie wants to make as much money as possible, that's certainly not a case where the art and craftsmanship took a backseat to finance.  It was a great movie, well written, well acted, and well directed.  Sure, there are some FX that don't look completely real, but most of them look pretty darn good, and couldn't have been done without CGI.  And the rest of the movie is good enough to forgive the occasional "rubbery" animation.

We get it.  You don't like CGI, and you have highbrow tastes.  But that doesn't mean that the people who like those movies you mention are "suckers" (if they have a great time at the movie, how exactly were they taken advantage of?), and it doesn't mean that the people making those movies are "frauds" or that their intent is commerce over art.  And you do realize that you're in the minority on Shrek - the "customers" obviously have returned and weren't let down.  And aside from the box office, let's not forget that the first two Shrek movies got solid reviews from critics, and the first one even beat out Monsters Inc for the animation oscar.

Finally, hasn't Pixar had at least one fart/poo joke in just about all their movies?

Cundo's stuff is awesome- miles better than the comparison film stills.

Which makes me wonder- wouldn't just compositing those sculptures into the movie

1. Look better

2. Render faster

3. Cost less ?