So did the Shrek franschise had a negative influence on the big budget animated films?
In what way, exactly?
I don't see how.
There has been negative influences on big budget animated films for literally decades. Particularly in the 70s and 80s.
>>84544616
I feel like the era of "cartoons with ATTITUDE" that were clearly trying to be Shrek, Hoodwinked as a prime example, sucked. But Shrek is all good.
>>84544858
I... I liked Hoodwinked.
>>84544616
do all non Disney/Pixar CGI animated movies still end with the characters danging together to some outdated pop song?
>>84545704
Zootopia did this, but at an in-universe concert to an in-universe pop song, so that's perfectly fine.
>>84544616
It had an awful influence on the internet, that's for sure
>>84544616
Man I never realized how ugly these designs are
The whole series was pretty bad, and it's not just them aging poorly. The character designs are terrible, the set designs are terrible, most of the voice actors are terrible, the writing's terrible. Why do people act like it's a classic or something?
this should illuminate your problem with shrek op
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNLIpFzINY
>>84547523
>terrible
What do you mean, sir? What defines good and bad character design/set design/voice acting/writing to you?
>>84548324
It sounds shitty to say something like "it's hard to explain", but it kind of is.
Good character design should tell you most of what you need to know about the character and express this in an interesting
way at the same time. Most of the characters look like Poser models and move like it. Everyone who doesn't follow that mould,
like the donkey and the dragon etc. are really generic the ways of designing a donkey or a dragon. In the film's defense, it
can kind of argue that that might be the point, being fairytales and everything, but it still could have looked less bland
and rubbery. If anything, the only really creative design point that paid off are Shrek's ears.
Good set design is the same thing, just with, you know, the environments. You strengthen the story/emotions/themes with the
world around the characters. Lighting is a big problem. It's mostly flat and middling and it makes every part of the frame
kind of die. There's interesting stuff they do around the volcano and some of the traveling seems, but mostly it looks like
some FMV from the computer game in the 90s.
Besides Murphy and Myers, none of the voice actors have good voices for animating or care about what they're saying, and
Murphy's really the only one who has any fun.
Good writing is pretty subjective, but I have a hard time believing that someone with some exposure to stuff like television
and movies thinks the dramatic scenes work. Comedy's even worse when it comes to the subjective thing, and I really don't
like what's going on with it.
TL;DR You can just say "well I liked it" and that's completely cool too.
>>84548981
The board exploded everything, but yeah
>>84548981
I watched the first one for the first time in forever a few weeks ago, and I was astonished at how bland it was visually. It aged like milk in almost every regard.
The second one is still good, though.
I distinctly remember this being one of the few GBC games I owned, along with Pokemon Crystal and some shitty Toy Story 2 game. Strange how it was one of the first fighting games I ever played
>>84547370
>an ogre is ugly
woah...
First movie was okay, second movie was good, I saw a bit of the third movie and it looked bland, didn't bother with the series after that.
As far as having a negative influence, I would say yes. It pretty much ushered in the era of CG domination, where all you have to do to make a successful film is throw in some celebrity voice actors and pop culture references. It showed just how ridiculously successful 3D animation could be. It wasn't just a Pixar thing anymore.
