Skip

shrek 2
May 22, 2004 3:44 PM   Subscribe

Shrek 2: The First Five Minutes. Forget trailers; this is the future.
posted by reklaw (47 comments total)

 
It should have ended twenty seconds earlier.
posted by ColdChef at 3:54 PM on May 22, 2004


For some reason, I can only get an advertisement for the soundtrack?
posted by whoshotwho at 3:55 PM on May 22, 2004


Weird: the QT hi-res link is just like a 5 second ad for the soundtrack but the rest of the links are of the film.
posted by xmutex at 4:00 PM on May 22, 2004


Same here whoshotwho. For all three formats. *grumble*
posted by fvw at 4:01 PM on May 22, 2004


There are several trailers listed here
posted by BentPenguin at 4:44 PM on May 22, 2004


I got the same problem a couple of times with the "first five minutes" link, but I just tried it again and it worked fine. (QT hi-res version). Interesting way to market a movie -- I wonder how many people will watch this and then head out to download the rest of the film?
posted by Zonker at 5:18 PM on May 22, 2004


more trailers here.
posted by pekar wood at 5:31 PM on May 22, 2004


QTHR works for me.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:24 PM on May 22, 2004


I cannot believe how shoddy that animation is.

These people have nothing on Pixar.
posted by cinderful at 6:24 PM on May 22, 2004


I'd be happy to pay a buck or two to grab it off bitTorrent, with the understanding I then host to at least a 1:1 ratio.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:25 PM on May 22, 2004


I wonder how many production companies are now going to make sure to stick a "new hit single" (iTMS link) in the first five minutes of the film.
posted by emelenjr at 6:32 PM on May 22, 2004


Sigh. Another great idea that Hollywood's nicked from the porn industry. The future? Per-per-view TV has been doing this for years.

Not that I'd know about such things, of course.
posted by tapeguy at 6:36 PM on May 22, 2004


just out of curiosity cinderful, do you work in the animation field? because actually, that animation isn't bad at all. what they did with skin, hair, tree leaves, and blades of grass is nothing less than amazing. you'll notice that other recent 3d animation is about toys, bugs or fish- none of which has much in the way of millions of separately moving parts. pdi is certainly on the same playing field with pixar, in my opinion.
posted by mawlymawnster at 7:13 PM on May 22, 2004


I cannot believe how shoddy that animation is.

These people have nothing on Pixar.


That's what I've heard from the two people that have seen it in its entirety.

Not having seen it, my incredulous statement is: I can't believe how hard they are promoting this movie. I can't ride a train, open a newspaper, see a website, take a piss, sleep, shower, shave, shit, without seeing some promo for this movie. I call pants.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:17 PM on May 22, 2004


Ufez -- yep, the Shrek 2 media saturation is so bad that the movie has unfortunately crossed the threshold where I refuse to see it on principles, because of the advertising. A vain gesture which accomplishes nothing -- except preserve a tad of self-respect.
posted by Hildago at 7:36 PM on May 22, 2004


Well, I'm happy about the Huge M&Ms.
posted by ColdChef at 7:39 PM on May 22, 2004


I'm not an animation expect but when I saw it, it looked pretty cool-as good as any other computer animated film. I'm at the point that I expect the animation to be so good I don't have many "oh wow" moments...but that's good, it makes the movie have to stand on its cinematic elements rather than just a demonstration of technical elements.

And as far as Pixar v. Dreamworks Animation...keep up the competition, both look great.
posted by sexymofo at 8:19 PM on May 22, 2004


Ufez - include on that list: receive snailmail or buy ice cream... sheesh.
posted by hattifattener at 8:20 PM on May 22, 2004


Just saw Shrek 2. There's something about the animation, I don't know what, that doesn't measure up to my memory of the original. Maybe it's just my memory. Anyway, the new movie is uneven. Some of it is as good as, maybe better than, the original. But other parts are forced or dead. I caught many references to old movies and TV shows, and I'm sure there were many that were over my head. It was worth the $8, but I don't know whether I'll see it again, or add the DVD to my very small collection.
Anybody see the poster for Halle Berry in Catwoman? Meee-yow, indeed!
posted by spacewrench at 8:22 PM on May 22, 2004


Considering many trailers have become summaries of their films rather than previews, showing a contiguous segment instead of clips is an interesting idea. However, maybe more so than trailers, I think this has the potential to backfire easily. I wasn't really thinking about seeing Shrek 2 before watching this. Still, I watched the first five minutes. Now, I definitely have no desire to see it, primarily because I don't care what comes next.
posted by realityblurred at 9:13 PM on May 22, 2004


Not safe for work: HOT HOT OGREPORN!
posted by ColdChef at 9:47 PM on May 22, 2004


Aw, crap, all the OGREPORN links lead to dull human porn. Booooo! BOOOOOOO!! (Yes, am pervy ogre fancier. What's it to you?)
posted by maudlin at 10:09 PM on May 22, 2004


I enjoyed a sweet, delicious Pepsi Blue while I studiously ignored this blatant mefi advert.
posted by crunchland at 10:12 PM on May 22, 2004


X-entertainment has been following the merchandising very closely.

The humans don't look very realistic in the full length film but the emotion and expressions are really well done. The movie had some incredibly fun and subtle parts.
posted by drezdn at 10:20 PM on May 22, 2004


I'm guessing they made the humans look unrealistic on purpose, both to keep a cartoonish look in keeping with a fairy tale milieu, and because of the uncanny valley problem.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:35 PM on May 22, 2004


well done, crunchland, you've cleverly deduced that reklaw is actually a stooge for Dreamworks, and that his previous 12 links & 130+ comments are all a thinly veiled attempt to disguise this blatant advertisement. Congratulations, you ever vigilant Sherlock of the community blog!!
posted by jonson at 10:40 PM on May 22, 2004


Ufez, I'm with you. As a rule, I refuse to see things that saturate the environment with their schlocky adverts. This one, that godawful horrid thing they did to Dr. Suess's memory, any number of other films which have been impossible to escape.

Actually...come to think of it...Mike Myers has had something to do with almost all of the super saturation films...when, dear lord, when will his 15 minutes be over?
posted by dejah420 at 11:49 PM on May 22, 2004


I cannot believe how shoddy that animation is.

Heh. I remember saying "wow" when that Dire Straits video came on MTV in the 1980s. How far we've come!
posted by boredomjockey at 11:51 PM on May 22, 2004


The animation is good, but not Pixar quality.
posted by ericrolph at 12:07 AM on May 23, 2004


Fortunately, we've been largely spared the Shrek hype here in the UK, thus far. I think it comes out in June or July, so I guess we've got that to look forward to. Unless the reviews are terrible, I'm going to see it, since it's one of the only films I'll get my wife to watch!
posted by salmacis at 3:39 AM on May 23, 2004


This has become a common tactic. The first time I remember seeing it, which I'm sure was not the actual first time, was when In America (a terrific film, BTW) put its first six minutes online last year, partly as an incentive to skeptical Oscar votes in response to the Academy forbidding sending out screeners. In very short order, it became a TV thing -- the opening minutes of Dawn of the Dead and The Day After Tomorrow have both been broadcast. (Another movie actually made it on-air first, but I forget what it is.)
posted by blueshammer at 6:03 AM on May 23, 2004


I enjoyed a sweet, delicious Pepsi Blue while I studiously ignored this blatant mefi advert.
posted by crunchland at 12:12 AM CST on May 23


You should switch brands then, because at 12:12am CST on May 23 you failed your ignore check.

Please roll another d20 to see if revisit this thread and fail your fortitude check.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:13 AM on May 23, 2004


All I expected from this discussion was about a troll ; guess we got many , yay !
posted by elpapacito at 7:58 AM on May 23, 2004


This has become a common tactic. The first time I remember seeing it, which I'm sure was not the actual first time, was when In America (a terrific film, BTW) put its first six minutes online last year

I was going to post the same. That was the first I'd ever seen of it as well, though 28 Days Later did it in short order.

I don't think it is a terribly effective tactic. "In America" was much better than those six minutes led me to believe (the trailer got me really excited to see the film, but the first six minutes were only so-so.) Likewise, as realityblurred said, these first five minutes killed what little interest I had in seeing Shrek 2.
posted by rafter at 9:22 AM on May 23, 2004


If you're going to be picky about animation quality, Dreamworks and Pixar both have nothing on Miyasaki and Studio Ghibli.

The first Shrek worked more for its writing and characters than its animation (which was very good, but not outstanding). I especially enjoyed the moments where the genre of animated fairy tales was subverted (fried eggs anyone?) The only major thing I would have changed was to have made the Duke from the first tall. The short jokes were weak, and it undermined what it seemed like was suposed to be the theme of the movie - that it is character, not looks, that matters. But if the second Shrek can keep up at least some of the interesting writing and characers, it would be worth seeing.

I like the first five minutes concept. Now you know it's not just highlights, but that there are at least five enjoyable (for me) minutes in the film, and I do want to find out what happens next. Of course, it works best for a film like this, in which there was a lot happening all at once. But now that I think of it, even slower films tend to have a hook right at the beginning; I was sold on Harold and Maude by its first scene.
posted by jb at 10:20 AM on May 23, 2004


I'll bet that on a dollars-to-seconds scale, this is the most money that has ever been spent for fart gags.
posted by milovoo at 10:38 AM on May 23, 2004


I also wanted to see Shrek 2, but also am turned off by the media blitz, and also didn't like the first 5 minutes.

And while the animation is obviously amazing, I also don't think it's Pixar quality. To say nothing about the humor itself. Finding Nemo managed to be simultaneously geared more towards little kids and more sophisticated than Shrek 2 in this little sample.
posted by jragon at 12:31 PM on May 23, 2004


Oh, and the Counting Crows song. Man, I'd recognize that voice anywhere, and it wasn't really a welcome surprise.
posted by jragon at 12:32 PM on May 23, 2004


I just can't get over the fact that they (Dreamworks) are making Shark Tale!!!?!? I overlooked the first time they did this (Antz vs Bug's Life), but I just can't let this one go. Geeze.

As for Shrek 2, I just don't think that motion capture is the way to go. As for the movie, seeing the first 5 minutes is enough to make me not want to see it again... The last half of the movie is great fun, made the $5.75 worth it. Fun movie.
posted by tomplus2 at 1:03 PM on May 23, 2004


I refuse to see it on principles, because of the advertising.

Pity that you let advertising determine your consumer choices.
posted by NortonDC at 1:43 PM on May 23, 2004


Shark Tale

Holy crap. Will Smith, Robert DeNiro, Angelina Jolie? Do they seriously think that the "star-power" of the voice actors will save this shipwreck?

I overlooked the first time they did this (Antz vs Bug's Life), but I just can't let this one go.

Bafflingly, movie studios are always doing this. The summer of '97 saw both Volcano and Dante's Peak. '98, Armageddon and Deep Impact. Last year, 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead hit theaters several months apart.

I don't get it. Do they spy on eachother and then try to "scoop" the other studio? Who stands to benefit?

I'm sure there are a host of decent plots floating around (I mean, anything looks better than that Shark Tale trailer) -- why not just produce one of the other ones?
posted by rafter at 1:53 PM on May 23, 2004


Those of you pooh-poohing the graphics in shrek 2, have a look at this. Granted, it doesn't tell us what it looks like on the big screen, but I'm really impressed by the hair and to a lesser extent the fabrics.

While I wasn't impressed with the first five minutes clip either (which I had to get elsewhere since the link in the post didnt' work for me: just the soundtrack advert), but some of the other trailers really whet my appetite. The kitty is cute. Of course I've wanted to see 2 ever since 1 came out (or at least since they announced there was going to be a sequel), and the marketing hasn't hit here yet as it isn't going to be on the big screen until july.
posted by fvw at 2:08 PM on May 23, 2004


I got the soundtrack advert when I tried opening it in Firebird/Fox and got the first 5 minutes when I tried opening it in IE. What's weird, though is that it appears that the object/embed code are both pointing to the same file.

However, this will not stop me from assuming that Dreamworks, et. al. hate open source browsers.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 4:52 PM on May 23, 2004


I work in animation, and I saw this movie this past Friday. I have to say that the best part of the whole thing was actually the trailer for the Spongebob Squarepants movie. :)

Seriously though, I don't want to say the animation is "bad" because it's not, but it's not great, either. The DW team has always, in my opinion, had a very loose grasp on physics, and it really shows in their animation. Their textures were pretty good, but their materials all looked like thick clay. Their characters also lack "life" and really feel like puppets to me.

This movie definitely had some funny parts that are worth seeing, especially towards the end. It's mostly just a series of gags and references, though, few of which are particularly clever (the 'Knights' bit was great.) Not too strong on plot, though, and personally I can't stand Cameron Diaz's voice, or Eddie Murphy at all.

Oh, and the Counting Crows make me want to slit my wrists. :)
posted by fizgig at 11:41 AM on May 24, 2004


I'll admit that the Shrek franchise is oversaturating, and that PDI's work is something of a "cheap" attempt at matching Pixar, but I found Shrek to be quite entertaining. Sure, the movie references and the Hollywood gags get tiresome, but I'm still thrilled by it all. ...Call me a chump, I guess.
posted by Down10 at 12:51 PM on May 24, 2004


More like Shriek 2.

I'm so clever.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:30 PM on May 24, 2004


Continuing the advertising insanity surrounding this film:

Today, I got a letter (from a New Jersey government office) postmarked "From far far away" with a picture of Shrek and Donkey.

No kidding.
posted by rafter at 10:11 AM on May 28, 2004


« Older moore, Give me moore   |   These look well speckly, bit of green and blue Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post