View Full Version : 'Shrek' Opens Big

Another Voice
05-19-2001, 10:50 PM
Early indications are that ‘Shrek’ is doing very, very well at the box office this weekend. It will probably bring in more than twice as much as the second place film, ‘The Mummy Returns’. The early, early projections have the film pegged at about $30+ million for the three-day weekend.

For people who think that I never have anything nice to say, please go see this film. The animation is very well done, the story works as both a parody of classic fairy tales and in its own right, and Mike Meyers’ voice work is the best I’ve ever seen, er, heard in an animated film with the possible exception of Robin Williams (gee, even Eddie Murphy gets some laughs).

If anyone is concerned, the jabs at Disney are not mean-spirited and are very funny for anyone who’s ever been forced to walk through an empty switch-back queue before. Besides, you have to love any movie that makes a joke about in-ride photos.

05-20-2001, 02:08 AM
I read in an article somewhere (can't remember the source now...so forgive me if it was posted here and I'm just repeating somebody else's info...) that some top Disney executives were invited to an early screening of Shrek and to give their opinion about the Disney jabs...and they were reported to have found them very funny. I think that's cool.

It's going to be a good year for animation fans!

05-20-2001, 10:24 AM
I love your posts Voice....don't let anyone here break your spirit.

05-20-2001, 05:32 PM
I know this is going to be unpopular, but I just saw it, and thought it leaned too heavily on fart jokes and other bodily functions to have any real lasting impact on the summer. The animation was outstanding, though, and Eddie Murphy did a nice job basically reprising Mushu. Mike Myer's work was so understated as to be almost bland. Cameron Diaz' animation was right on the mark.
Sorry if this is more debate than rumor, Mr. Moderator!
My 2 cents is, I can't wait for Atlantis, JP 3 and Evolution.


05-20-2001, 06:20 PM

I just posted on the community board pretty much the same thing. We just saw it this afternoon and felt that Disney has absolutely nothing to worry about. I thought the story line was weak, and although there were about 3 scenes that really had me laughing, overall it was a lot of toilet humor. We thought the movie overall was okay. I presonally thought Emprorer's New Groove was much more funny. Although that movie didn't go over to well at all. I appreciate that Disney hasn't felt that they need to get a laugh by adding alot of belching and things of that nature. You see that everywhere today and I just don't get it. My husband and I said on the way home from the movie today "Dreamworks has gas, Disney has class"

05-20-2001, 07:03 PM
I love it!!! Dreamworks has gas, Disney has class!!! Somebody call Disney marketing!!:p

05-20-2001, 07:55 PM
Just Bob & Pixie Duster echoed my family's sentiments exactly after seeing it this afternoon. I guess we just expected it to be really, really funny in a clever way and not just the "oops - look, we're about to rhyme a dirty word...hey we didn't!", bathroom humor way.

It was okay, but we were expecting more. I felt like the reaction of the others in the theater were pretty much the same. I think it will open well, but I would look for it to fall off fairly quickly.

Another Voice
05-20-2001, 09:17 PM
The final results for this weekend’s ‘Shrek’ are actually going to be better than first thought – between $41 and $43 million. The real test will come next week; most movies tend to fall off between 30% and 50% per week. With the three-day holiday weekend and no competition for the family movie market, there’s a chance that ‘Shrek’ may increase its box office.

I think that people going to ‘Shrek’ expecting an animated fairy tale will be disappointed. The humor is both more adult and more childish than recent Disney fare, but that’s the movie they were trying to make. There was a deliberate creative decision early on to put the “gross-out” humor in the film as a way of defining the main character – he is a monster after all. Part of the Disney formula is to have the “hero who changes from bad to nice” never really do anything bad in the first place. The Beast from ‘Beauty and the Beast’ really didn’t do anything beastly except look like a buffalo. Since the goal of ‘Shrek’ was to break out of the Disney formula, what better way than to have an ogre actually act like an ogre? Disney is also trying to break out of the formula with ‘Atlantis’, but it has chosen to do it with violence. There are a lot of deaths in this film and it will be interesting to see how that goes over with the public.

On the other box office game, rumor has it that Eisner has upped the ante on the opening weekend for ‘Pearl Harbor’. He wants between $110 and $120 million; he’d be really happy for it to be $135 million so he could claim that the movie made back its production cost the first weekend (movie finances don’t work that way but he thinks it will make great PR for the Wall Street types that know any better). The Hollywood buzz is that ‘Pearl’ will open huge because of the all the marketing, but fade very quickly at the box office due to its limited “repeat viewing appeal” and expected lukewarm word of mouth. Early reviews should be out in the middle of the week. And because I know better, I’m not going to say a thing…

All Aboard
05-21-2001, 11:25 AM
Shrek seems to have used Dinosaur's success formula from last year. Open the weekend before Memorial Day, get good word of mouth and repeat the performance on the holiday weekend. Dinosaur did $38m opening and followed with a $42m weekend over the holiday. I suspect that Shrek, too, beats its opening numbers.

We saw Shrek Friday night and absolutely loved it. I thought my wife my be turned off by the "potty" humor, but to my surprise she saw through it to the incredibly witty and irreverant humor. The performances were great. (Sounds odd for an animated, but they really seemed like performances.) Murphy one-upped his Mushu work with this one.

I was nearly on the floor during the Robin Hood scene, as well as the closing "I'm a Believer" number. Terribly funny stuff.

05-21-2001, 04:30 PM
Talking about comparing Dinosaur to Shrek in box office revenue is kinda wierd. When Dinosaur came out it was seen as sort of a dissapointment but Shrek (only a slightly bigger opening) seems to be a huge money maker. I personally think that Disney's last two big animated films (Dinosaur and Emperor's New Groove) have been extremely under rated. And from the looks of things Shrek will get Dreamworks the coveted #2 Animated Studio In The World Award:D .

05-21-2001, 05:06 PM
I really think the fact that I didn't really care for Shrek is as much style as anything. I have noticed with the Dreamworks computer stuff (antz and Shrek) that the lighting is more muted, the subject matter is a bit darker (or perhaps not as "sunny"?) and the scripts seem to pander a bit more to the moment. Lots of topical references that might cause a film to become dated quickly (like the end of "Sword in the Stone").
I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my argument, but I'm just going with my gut feeling.

It is rather interesting that Dinosaur was perceived as a disappointment and Shrek so far is wildly successful.

Also, I wonder if Shrek plays better in LA with its more cynical tone?

"DreamWorks has gas, Disney has class" ;)

Another Voice
05-21-2001, 07:19 PM
To understand the difference between ‘Shrek’ and ‘Dinosaur’, you need to look at more than just the opening weekend’s box office. First, the reviews for ‘Shrek’ have been very good to excellent; the reviews for ‘Dinosaur’ were tepid to very poor. Generally, a well reviewed film with a strong opening will continue to do well. A strong movie that is poorly reviewed, like’ The Mummy Returns’, will tend to sink rapidly at the theaters, like – well - ‘The Mummy Returns’. Second, and more important, the mix between families and adults for ‘Shrek’ was about even – the sign of strong film that hit its intended audience. The ratio for ‘Dinosaur’ was much more heavily weighted towards kids meaning that adults weren’t anxious to see the film. For a ‘family film’ to do very well at the box office, it needs to pull in the adult and date-night crowds. That’s why the Disney films from ‘The Little Mermaid’ through ‘The Lion King’ were such big hits – more adults went to see them than kids. I’m not saying it’s a science, but you can usually get a very accurate forecast on a film’s total box office by late Saturday on it’s opening weekend. The next big test for ‘Shrek’ will be it’s fall-off next weekend. If its box office is around the $30 million mark, the film will labeled a big hit. If I remember right, the box office for ‘Dinosaur’ sank more than 50% after its first weekend (adjusted for the three day holiday).

As for Dreamworks #2 award, the buzz in Hollywood is that they’ve already overtaken Disney. Not only is ‘Shrek’ set to be a top hit of the summer, Disney’s ‘Atlantis’ is expected to sink faster than its namesake. The buzz is already building for Dreamworks’ traditionally animated feature for next year – done by many of the people who worked on ‘Lion King’ and ‘Hunchback’. Another computer-animated film (about elephants) is already in production. Disney, meanwhile, has already announced that it’s cutting Feature Animation staff by 30% in the next two months and that all animators will take pay cuts of up to 50%. You can see the line of cars driving down Riverside Drive from Disney’s Animation Building to the Dreamworks Animation campus in Glendale. Several high level ‘defections’ are anticipated. Eisner’s also abandoned the one-feature-a-year rule as a cost savings measure and nothing’s been announced beyond ‘Treasure Planet’ (which is rumored to be in trouble). In the next year, Disney will spend more on made-for-video sequels and feature-length version of animated TV shows than it will on its traditional animated features.

Boy, I really hope ‘Dumbo 2’ is a really great film…

P.S. You’re right about ‘Shrek’ dating very quickly. The ‘Matrix’ sequence is already passé.

05-21-2001, 08:49 PM
Dumbo 2, Bambi Goes to College, The Return of Snow White, Alladin 4: Jafar's Ghost........

Who has class?

I fully understand cost cutting measures, however, the strategies that rebuilt Disney are slowly falling by the wayside.

Oh well.

05-22-2001, 12:42 AM
Thanks for the intelligent discussion - I can't disagree with well stated arguments, but even so, the movie was not my cup of tea.

"Dreamworks has gas, Disney has class.":D

05-22-2001, 01:31 PM
I've been searching for the reason behind my feeling that Disney is making a mistake here, or at least rushing to judgement. Your statement made it all clear.

The problem is that Disney management has forgotten what got them where they are, or at least it seems. When they were down it was because management felt that protecting the Disney name was so important that they didn't try and add value to it. Rather, they sat on their hands and thought the world would come and throw money at their feet. Eisner/Wells came in and started making use of the assets - and adding value to them. The company flourished.

Now, sans Wells, the management team seems to be suffering from "bunker mentality". They are not agressively looking 15-20 years ahead and building value that will last. They seem to be building value for the next year/quarter.

I hope Pearl Harbor is a smash and is THE movie to see this summer. Disney's never been a studio about making blockbuster-budget pictures, but they've also passed on many blockbuster-revenue pictures in the process.

Disney used to take risks. Now they seem so risk-averse that they are running into the obstacle they wish to avoid. Looking at that which you wish to avoid is the surest way of running into it. Disney management needs to stop spending so much time/money/effort trying to avoid every pitfall and return to the mentality of creating greatness.

I know this is somewhat of a stream of conciousness, but, what the hey, it's the Internet!

05-22-2001, 01:32 PM
I've been searching for the reason behind my feeling that Disney is making a mistake here, or at least rushing to judgement. Your statement made it all clear.

The problem is that Disney management has forgotten what got them where they are, or at least it seems. When they were down it was because management felt that protecting the Disney name was so important that they didn't try and add value to it. Rather, they sat on their hands and thought the world would come and throw money at their feet. Eisner/Wells came in and started making use of the assets - and adding value to them. The company flourished.

Now, sans Wells, the management team seems to be suffering from "bunker mentality". They are not agressively looking 15-20 years ahead and building value that will last. They seem to be building value for the next year/quarter.

I hope Pearl Harbor is a smash and is THE movie to see this summer. Disney's never been a studio about making blockbuster-budget pictures, but they've also passed on many blockbuster-revenue pictures in the process.

Disney used to take risks. Now they seem so risk-averse that they are running into the obstacle they wish to avoid. Looking at that which you wish to avoid is the surest way of running into it. Disney management needs to stop spending so much time/money/effort trying to avoid every pitfall and return to the mentality of creating greatness.

I know this is somewhat of a stream of conciousness, but, what the hey, it's the Internet!

05-22-2001, 04:47 PM
It is rumored that passing gas is ALWAYS funny, whether on screen or for real. I guess you'd have to check with ANY kid (no matter what age) to verify that. Let's hear it for beans. BRRRAAAAAPPPPP . . .

Spaceman Spiff
05-22-2001, 07:57 PM

05-23-2001, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by JustBob
I just saw it, and thought it leaned too heavily on fart jokes and other bodily functions to have any real lasting impact on the summer.


As the great H.L. Mencken said: "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Another Voice
05-23-2001, 09:34 PM
By the way, if anyone is interested in a vastly better way of "updating" fairy tales, find a copy of Steven Sondheim's 'Into The Woods'. A filmed version of the stage play is available for both VHS and DVD.

It interweaves Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood and many other fairy tales. It is a very intellgient and adult show - adult not because of sex or violence, but in tone and storyline. The first half is played for laughs, the second half becomes serious and very moving. The last time you hear the words "Once upon a time" will change how you listen to that phrase for the rest of your life.

Disney and Henson had optioned this play to turn it into a movie. It fell victim to the troubles between the two companies after the passing of Jim Henson. If either Disney or Dreamworks want to do a serious "updating" of the fairy tale tradition that does not depend on either fart jokes or Top 40 soundtracks - this is the story they should follow.

05-23-2001, 10:26 PM
Yes, I was kind of hoping that Shrek would be more "Into the Woods"-ish. But I'm really afraid this movie will never be made due to the heavy reliance on non-theater oriented pop and rock composers to write songs for films now. The only fella that's still working regularly who deserves to be listened to is Stephen Schwartz. I'm tired of pop music people like Elton John and Sting trying to be musical comedy wannabes.
Which brings to mind another subject - why doesn't Disney use some talented yet basically unknown showtune writers to write for the direct to video sequels? The Lady and the Tramp sequel, while not great, suffered even more from a terrible song score, and it was written by (I think) Carole Bayer Sager and someone else. Better music makes a huge difference on how a movie is percieved. The animation can be a little shoddy, but if there's a sweeping musical number, many people will overlook some other faults.

05-24-2001, 08:42 AM
I heard a rumor (trying to keep with the theme of this forum) that some of us Disney fans tend to be a bit snobbish AND, at the same time, perhaps overly sensitive to our image as a fan of 'kid stuff' to the uninitiated. Remember, the sole purpose of 'Shrek' is to haul in the dough. It's lack of sophistication humorwise is hardly an issue.

05-24-2001, 09:56 PM
In my opinion Shrek was a very entertaining movie. I think that the Fart jokes were limited to two. The movie was full of wit that was enjoyed by my eight, fourteen, and sixteen year old as well as myself and wife. There was something for everyone. Dreamworks has taken animation to the next level. In a few years the possibility exists that we will be able to see the likes of Laurel and Hardy, Bogart, Gable, Leigh and Garland performing on the screen again. I am not sure if I am ready for that, but with animation like that shown in shrek it can't be that far off. The Story was presented well and even my nine year old knew that Beauty was in the eye of the beholder. I enjoyed the soundtrack and though it went well with the Movie. It was a very entertaining film.

Peter Pirate
05-24-2001, 10:28 PM
One movie does not an empire make and as I recall, all of Dreamworks other animation efforts were less than stellar...Crap may be a better word.

So even if Shrek is a good movie and I still have my doubts as to a "Disney type" appeal, they still have got to follow it up.

By the way, after seeing The Emperor's New Groove I'm no longer conceding that Disney is making movies with Disney type appeal either. I'll wait for Atlantis to decide further.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

05-24-2001, 11:38 PM

Katzenburg basher!!!!

Dreamworks hater!!!!

No matter what they do you're not happy!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ahhhhhh! That felt good. Thanks Peter old buddy!!!
;) :cool: :cool: :cool: ;)

Peter Pirate
05-25-2001, 08:01 AM
Ah yes, Landbaron, while it is true I'm not a fan of the little midget I do have nothing against Deramworks, although I haven't personally even liked their blockbusters much.

You missed the salient point (or choose not to comment). We just rented Emperors New Groove and it was a major disappointement to all in the family except the 7 year old. For this I have to say, what were they thinking? I understand the sequels and direct to video offerings more than Emperor, which has little chance of producing any following. So what was the point? At least the sequels are recognizable (and we all liked 102 Dalmations) and the direct to videos are also recognizable and profitable. So I say again, I'm not so sure I trust Disney to make Disney type movies either...

Back to Shrek. I have only seen the previews & trailers but IMO you can tell it isn't a Disney flick by the animation quality (maybe it's darker or the lines are harder) I'm not sure what it is, but with every Dreamworks animated offering you can tell it's not Disney just from the picture and Shrek is no different.

AV how does the box office look for this (holiday) and is Atlantis getting lost in the Shrek, Pearl Harbor hoopla on purpose?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

Another Voice
05-25-2001, 01:21 PM
‘Shrek’ was made by a company called PDI, an animation house just like Pixar (only without John Lassiter). It’s impossible to say if the style of their animation is different from Disney/Pixar, or if it’s just the changes in technology between ‘Toy Story 2’ and now. I don’t know if there’s anything like a Disney- or Dreamworks- look to computer animation yet. In any case, the upcoming ‘Final Fantasy’ will set the new standards for everyone.

As for building an empire from one film, that doesn’t happen. But one film can set a trend. ‘Shrek’ has finally put Dreamworks in play for animation and they’re making a serious commitment to the field. Disney is firing staff, canceling projects and publicly stating that made-for-video squeals are their only interest in animation. Where are all of the talented animators and writers going to head: the studio with the trend-setting smash hit, or the studio that’s giving up after a string of failures? And if all the talent heads to one place, who’s more likely to produce good films?

The buzz is that you can add ‘Atlantis’ to that string of failures. While the Disney marketing machine is still running, it’s only running at half power. The film isn’t being drowned out so much as it’s being ignored. No one is expecting a lot from this movie and it’s opening the same weekend as ‘Tomb Raider’, so no one’s likely to see this movie either. I haven’t seen this one yet, but I have read what’s basically the film’s script. It’s obvious that the only point in making this film was to get something in theaters on a specific date. Like ‘Emperor’, the film’s quality was sacrificed for budget, deadlines, and the chance to market more Happy Meals.

By the way Mr. Pirate, the last person to use the phrases "little midget" and "Dreamworks" in the same sentence had to pay up about $450 million. That's one way of building an empire (and also a way to loose one).

05-25-2001, 01:25 PM
made-for-video squeals

That's the best "typo" I've seen in a long time...


Another Voice
05-25-2001, 01:28 PM
Damn that Doctor Freud....

05-25-2001, 02:08 PM
Well I am sure that Peter doesnt have much to worry about, he probably doesnt have the money to be worth suing. Besides eeveryone knows that midgets only sue companies that they quit from so that they can get an ego boost by saying"I was solely responsible for all of the successful movies"

Spaceman Spiff
05-25-2001, 02:22 PM
What blockbuster animated movie has Disney produced since TLK?

Peter Pirate
05-25-2001, 03:18 PM
OnWithTheShow...You're not callin' me a piker are you?;) I have some loose change in the ash tray and I haven't taken my cans back to recycling yet this month!

AV, I sincerely appreciate your respectfully calling me Mr. before you make me look foolish! It seems silly, but somehow it makes me want to come back for more.

Jeff...Are you sure it was a typo, that AV likes to toy with us I think...But it was funny!

JPholic, if you compare successes to Lion King chances are Disney may never have another blockbuster. But I recall Hunchback, Pochahontas did well...Oh and Toy Story 2 (Pixar)...

Well, in my true rose colored fashion I am still hoping for successes from Pearl Harbor & Atlantis...But if Atlantis (particularily) is a dog I'm afraid my feelings for Disney animation may be changing...There AV & Landbaron are you happy?;)
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

05-25-2001, 03:24 PM
There AV & Landbaron are you happy?

YES!! ;)

05-25-2001, 03:40 PM
Are you sure it was a typo, that AV likes to toy with us I think
...hence the quotes around "typo."

I'm certain he did it on purpose. Made me laugh out loud right here in the office, not the most job-securing thing to do...


Spaceman Spiff
05-25-2001, 05:27 PM
Thank You PP! Exactly what I wanted to hear. Sure Disney has had many other successful animated movies but like you said there may never be another TLK. (Toy Story 1&2 are CGI they IMHO do not count as traditional animation.) Which just goes to show Katzenberg must have done something right during his tenure. Personally I see big things in the future of DreamWorks SKG. Like AV said, Shrek, Gladiator, and Cast Away may not make DreamWorks SKG the leader in animation and film but its a good start. Just my .02 :D

BTW, why is there so much hate for Katzenberg and DreamWorks?

Peter Pirate
05-25-2001, 06:31 PM
jpholic, I can only speak for myself, but I think Katzenberg is a whiny self-indulged person who took Disney for a lot of loot that he didn't deserve in a personal dispute with Shrek, er ah Eisner...

As for Dreamworks, well, I don't like Katzenberg & I don't like Spielberg - Talk about an ego. This guy would spend a billion dollars to film wedding video. He takes himself and his job way too seriously.

I understand your take on Toy Story (as not traditional animation), but again, credit should be given when due, and it was Disney who took the chance with this format...Like they did with Roger Rabbit...Like they did with Dinosaur. But I hope Dinosaur isn't the best Disney can do story wise these days, but AV has me worried with all of his talk of Disney defections and all.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

05-25-2001, 06:45 PM
BTW, why is there so much hate for Katzenberg and DreamWorks?

Once upon a time, JPholic, there was a little company started by a Mouse that had been taken over by an Ogre. This Ogre hired a Dwarf to work for him and to groom as his successor. Things went well for a while, but then the Dwarf wanted to have the title of company President and the Ogre didn't want to give up any of his power. During the arguement that followed between the two, the Ogre used some very ugly words about the Dwarf and the Dwarf went and hired a lawyer. Several months later, the company started by a Mouse settled out of court and the Dwarf took the money and went to a couple of friends to start a new company to give the Mouse a run for its money. ;)


Another Voice
05-25-2001, 08:39 PM
Most of the time, the spell checker in Microsoft Word is fairly weak. But sometimes it comes back with a gem that you just gotta to go with….(sorry if I cost anyone their job).

Anyway, ‘Toy Story’ was not a Disney film. It was developed and created solely by Pixar. Disney put money into Pixar in exchange for their help with the development of the computer-assistance process for the “traditional” animated films and a three picture deal. No one at Disney was really involved with any of the ‘Toy Stories’, ‘A Bug’s Life’ or ‘Monsters, Inc.’. Disney’s just the distributor and can offer suggestions, but the film is Pixar’s baby.

‘Dinosaur’ was a Disney film, an attempt to out-Pixar Pixar. Over about ten years, this film probably cost Disney about $300 million. They got nervous about the money and instead of sticking with the original story, changed it to make it more “commercial”. We’ve all seen the results, not only was the film a major money looser, but the Secret Lab’s been shut down as well. They’re not even going to use any of the technology they paid for. “Rumor” is that one of the reasons ‘Shrek’ looks so good is that most of the ‘Dinosaur’ staff went down the street to PDI.

And good story Sarangel. Get a treatment to my people and we’ll talk six figures. Seriously though, there’s been a rumor around that HBO was looking at doing a ‘Barbarians at the Gate’-style movie about the whole Eisner/Katzenburg feud. You know, the kind of movie where EVERYONE is slimy? Although he’s really just a front man like Eisner, Katzenburg at least realized that he was wrong about animation and actually turned around. I don’t’ have the feeling that Eisner’s “gotten it” yet and that’s the primary cause for the studio’s slump.

(P.S. Mr. Pirate, I didn’t intend to make fun of you. I try to use my evil powers only against Mr. Eisner and his minions. And any businessman that can get himself stuck in the mess that Eisner put himself into deserves to be made fun other. And no, I’m not happy about Disney Animation. I really do want to proved wrong and have them make good movies again. I’m just getting angry at waiting.)

Peter Pirate
05-25-2001, 08:54 PM
AV, I never thought you were making fun of me, so don't worry about that even a little. I'm just stating my opinions for discussion purposes though I readily admit I have much less knowledge & conviction in the film area as I feel I may have elsewhere (note I said "feel I have" for I know many of my friends here think I'm all wet all of the time, right DVC?).

Anyway, I'm glad to hear you say you hope Disney will prove you wrong...Me too!:p

Oh, I just saw an add for another Dreamworks summer blockbuster that I have to share with you. It's called "Evolution" and it looks like it'll make last years "Big Daddy" look classy! Perhaps Dreamworks has some problems of their own, as material like this is bound to lend them little credibility, dontcha think? (JJ, the "dontcha" was an attempt at slangish humor
;) ).
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

Spaceman Spiff
05-25-2001, 10:15 PM
Thanks Sarangle for informing the un-informed.

PP, if Katzenberg is whiny, self-indulged, and vertically challenged then what is Ei$ner....Prince Charming? ;)
I personally dislike Ei$ner and Pre$$ler about the same as you do Spielberg and Katzenberg, so we agree to disagree. Ego, what ego. LOL I too think Stevie is a bit much at times but when your Steven Spielberg I think your allowed a little ego. Almost everyhing the man touches turns into gold or at least steriling silver.

:cool: :p :D :jester: :) ;) :smooth:

Thanks to all for the great reading!

05-26-2001, 02:26 AM
I'm someone who can't stand potty jokes or "dumb" humor and I loved Shrek. I think that the annoying childish moments were rare and the actual story was touching and taught an important lesson. The dialogue was witty and the animation was very eye-pleasing. No, it didn't look like Disney but why should it? I like the idea of a studio making a quality product that is different.

Now, my question is if anyone here knows who is working on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Will this be completely or partially animated? This might really be the really big upcoming blockbuster if it's well made.

05-26-2001, 02:48 AM
… And in the darkness bind them”

Ahhhh! A "plain ole" girl after my own heart. ;) New Line Cinema is producing the trilogy. And it is ALL live action. No animation at all. When I first heard about it I looked on the web for some site. My oh my!! There are a lot of them. But they all reported pretty much the same stuff, so I kept the one that I found easiest to navigate. Tolkien on line (http://www.tolkienonline.com/index.cfm) is the name of the site. I think you’ll find out all sorts of neat things about the film and it has some links too.

One cool thing they’ve got going on there is what they call a Tolkien Virgin. It’s this guy who’s never read The Lord of the Rings. So, he’s reading it now and he gives chapter by chapter reactions. You can kind of relive the experience through him. He’s on the Two Towers now where Frodo, Sam and Gollum are making their way into Mordor.

Have fun exploring, and e-mail me and tell me know what you think.

05-26-2001, 12:12 PM

Finally, Landbaron and I can be on the same side of something.

Incidently, the site above has forums much like this, although they are a bit more fanboyish, so its as bad as going to a Star Wars one. (If you ever think someone on the DIS is rude, ignorant or just downright scum. cruise on over to www.jedicouncil.net and be educated on why the Net is all about the Lowest common denominator)

At any rtae, they already did lord of the rings/ The hobbit and return of the King as animation and they sucked.

Now then Landbaron, I know your not much for speculation on Park rides, but I'm surprised you never commented on my Soarin over Sauron ride concept (or did you and my feeble brain has forgotten?).

05-26-2001, 02:51 PM
Ah, someone who finally caught the tongue-in-cheek play on words in my name. I thought that a person had to be a local to notice that. Just in time too since I am trying to think of a more Disneyesque name right now. :)

Thanks for the website. I've definitely been looking in all the wrong places.

05-29-2001, 01:29 PM

I did indeed post a reply to your Soarin' over Sauron. I thought it was a great idea. However, I do recall raining on your parade somewhat. I posted that I remembered reading once that the Disney company and Tolkien (or perhaps his estate) had a relationship. I can't remember where I heard this. It was either in a Tolkien or Disney biography. But Disney had the rights for a time (or came very close) but I can't for the life of me remember all the details. Anyway, the deal fell through and they parted ways.

I was particularly struck when I read that (at about the time the animated feature came out) in thinking in terms of attractions for Disney. But on the hand, I was a little relieved that the deal did fall through. I think Disney would have "Disneyfied" the story too much. And I'm a bit of a purest when it comes to MY "Lord of the Rings". It is, after all, required reading in my household. ALL my kids, when they were old enough, and even my wife, had to read it or face the father's wrath!!! I read "The Hobbit", chapter at a time, to my younger ones in place of bed time stories.

http://images.www3.tolkienonline.com/gallery/archive/hobbits010510a.jpg_thumb.jpg http://images.www3.tolkienonline.com/gallery/archive/noje-11s26-gandalf-36_368.jpg_thumb.jpg

05-29-2001, 02:05 PM
Instead Disney got the Book Of three franchise and confused the heck out of me by making the Black cauldron which does a poor job of following any of the books.

Anyway, yes, I agree Disney would he Disneyied it too much as animation although now adays, if it could get past the budgets and pufed chests, they have the resources and the willingness to make non-disney traditional films to NOt mess it up.

the down side is that if it had been released as a Disney animated, it would likely not have sucked so bad.
(the Animation from LotR i good, except or the Orcs, the Animation for the Hobbit and Return of the king reminded me of Puff the magic dragon. (Where there's a Whip, there's a way is enjoyable to me for some sick and twisted reason)

but tell me, at what age are they required to read the Sillmarillion and do you give them cheat sheets? I've never met anyone who could read it and understand it the first time. At least two readings is required to get a handle on all the intersecting places and times.

05-29-2001, 02:19 PM
My oldest daughter is 19 and she has yet to dive into the "First Age" of the Sillmarillion. No, just the Hobbit, which I read to them, and the Lord of the Rings, a journey through middle-earth which they are required to make on their own. My eighth grader (13) has yet to read it, although this year she reread the Hobbit by herself. I think that sixteen is a good age.

And BTW, I've done the Sillmarillion twice and half (got bored with it about five years ago), and I'm still not clear on some things. Hmmm. Maybe it's time to take a walk through middle-earth again? Before the Christmas release!!

At the risk of going WAY off topic (even for me!!) - Do you think the new film will be good? And do you think it'll be the blockbuster they're hoping for?

05-29-2001, 02:47 PM
Everything I've heard on the film paints a rosey picture. There are more LOTRs Fanboys out there right now then star Wars, so I expect it will be huge at least on opening weekend. what worries me is that it, like many fantasy films may have trouble breaking the mold. I worry that all you'll see is rows and rows of the Comic book guy from the Simpsons. NOt a good way to make money. Lets face it, outside of literary circles and (for lack of a better word) geeks like us, LOTRs is going to be a tough sell.

Actually, I'm not answering your question. Yes, I think it looks like a good film. I caught the trailer at the beginning of Crouching Tiger hidden Dragon ad was astounded (my puny quicktime version doesn't do it justice) I'm not the kind of person to complain about Tom bombdil, nor Arwen's expanded role, although I worry that its a waste of time to tailor in these little things to bump up broad appeal. With this one, they have to pull them into the theaters, because of the great story, not despite it.

Tom doesn't bother me so much, because he is an enigma. Likely included for Tolkien's children.

As for the Silmarillion, whatever you do, don't pick up one of the Lost tale books or Unfinshed tales these are studies in Tolkien's creative processes and you'll never understand the first age til you get a handle on the original published version. that being said, i highly recommend the unfinished tales as a source on many of the whos and whys especially the Wizards.

Finally, they just recently released a blow blow commentary on the LOTRs by of course Peter its like 12 books long nd goes chapter by chapter with Tolkiens notes and comments by Peter. I suppose its interesting, but at the same tim, I wonder if its time Peter let it go and made money a different way.