এই প্রশ্নের উত্তর দিন

ছোটবেলার অ্যানিমেশন ছবির নায়িকা প্রশ্ন

What's so bad about শ্রেক the Third?

Speaking as someone who isn't a অনুরাগী of the শ্রেক movies, I kind of mildly dislike all of them, equally. But I've never really seen why the অনুরাগী of the franchise hate the third one so much. To me it doesn't really seem any better অথবা worse than the rest. I've just been curious about this for a while.
 What's so bad about শ্রেক the Third?
 cruella posted বছরখানেক আগে
next question »

ছোটবেলার অ্যানিমেশন ছবির নায়িকা উত্তর

KataraLover said:
Well, the main reason being that the jokes aren't funny. The new characters (aside from Artie) are annoying, Charming is a lame villain, King Harold's death was VERY DISTASTEFUL, Artie making the villains become good is really out of no where and is WAY TOO easily accomplished, there is FAR TOO MUCH going on in the movie to the point where it's really unfocused and cluttered, Fiona is really underplayed, the whole Camelot college অথবা whatever is pretty lame and stereotypical with no creativity to it like Far Far Away did, a lot of the dialogue is awkward, the pacing is inconsistent, is unmemorable, and a lot of dramatic moments just don't really pay off. If আপনি want আরো details, just go watch Doug Walker/The Nostalgia Critic's Dreamworks-uary video on it and he's not much of a অনুরাগী of the franchise aside from the সেকেন্ড movie. While not awful, it's still really bad and definitely the worst in the franchise.
select as best answer
posted বছরখানেক আগে 
scarletunicorn said:
TBH none of the শ্রেক films are good. The only one that's kinda passable is the first one...But all of the others are just boring.
select as best answer
posted বছরখানেক আগে 
UnholyNoise said:
That শ্রেক the Third even exists is a problem.. why are there three of these? I mean I like that they kind of take the piss out of a lot of disney/fairytale tropes, but they try way too hard, the humor is so forced. It's about as subtle as getting hit in the face with a brick. And as a concept it gets old after the first movie.

And tbh I'm still salty about শ্রেক in general basically nailing the coffin for Dreamworks' 2D animation. Once শ্রেক took off, it set the pace for all their future movies. and I feel like a lot of what is wrong with Dreamworks can be tracked back to Shrek
select as best answer
posted বছরখানেক আগে 
*
True. Notice how before শ্রেক came in Dreamworks tried different varied styles for their movies, but after শ্রেক took off they all turned into quirky CGI comedies. It would be long before we had a আরো decent film (Kung Fu Panda).
scarletunicorn posted বছরখানেক আগে
*
Not really, considering two 2D films came after Shrek, it was just the sequel that came after it that made it seem that way. Besides, I think something like Antz had আরো to do with it because it was actually আরো জনপ্রিয় (for some reason) than A Bugs Life, which came out the same year. The main problem with Dreamworks চলচ্চিত্র for me (aside from a lot of the jokes being forced) is that neither the worlds অথবা the characters are that interesting. Besides, even if the শ্রেক চলচ্চিত্র nailed the coffin on Dreamworks 2D animation, is that really a reason to hold against them? I mean, I'm not going to hate Merida because she was created to bash the past ডিজনি Princess for being weak damsels in distress that depend on a man (as opposed to Merida who is a false action girl and a damsel in distress that has to be constantly saved দ্বারা her mother and her little brothers). Besides, let's face it, Dreamworks isn't exactly a company that has a style that স্যুইটস্‌ 2D, since it's mainly slapstick and being supposedly "adult". I would প্রণয় to see আরো 2D stuff from them but to be honest, while I do like them, none of their 2D films are very well-done অথবা well-constructed, aside from The Prince of Egypt. Trust me, শ্রেক had VERY little to do with it.
KataraLover posted বছরখানেক আগে
next question »