What is Digg?45 Comments
- KuntaKinte, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25adding timberlake was a bad idea
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I agree. I'm so sick of that guy and hearing his voice will ruin the movie.
- AquaFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Correction: Worst idea.
- maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Lol.. photos...
- jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7the "why would anyone digg this?" dept.
- fangor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I used to harbor the same unrestrained hatred for the man you guys do.
Then I saw this. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA - HarryHunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7they're not supposed to look realistic. the characters are intentionally stylized to create a distinct look.
- rcran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Eric Idle FTW.
P,s Check out Myer's gut! - rawsteak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4did we really need hi-res photos of the producers?
- rcran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Do you work there?
- Pestilence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When did screenshots become photos?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't think you get it. It's supposed to be a cartoon. There are CG movies meant to look real (polar express) or ones that have a different artistic style.
But the point is, hand drawn animated movies are long gone as far as wide movie releases go. CG movies aren't always meant to be ultra-real for the sake of showing off what computers can do, they have whatever style they have depending on what needs to be accomplished in the film.
The people aren't supposed to look real, they are supposed to look like fairytale people. - Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2didn't cameron diaz threaten to pull out if they didn't let JT do a voice? cause i think they originally said no.
- WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree. Shrek is quite awful. There is literally NO visual style to the characters. They are just created to look as "realistic" as possible, which isn't real looking at all. The animators are like the major fans of next-gen video game systems. They just want to push the envelope and make everything look as "impressive" as possible without giving any thought to style or art.
Also shrek is horribly unfunny, poorly written and the voice acting is atrocious. - anonymousguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I was not referring to any sort of "realism", I was alluding to the fact that Dreamworks' human characters appear "lifeless." As in, they don't appear to come alive or be inspired or have any sort of great art direction--as for stylized, I wouldn't go that far. They just look bland. But that's just my opinion.
- mabba18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We're still waiting.
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yet, this is fundamentally no different than any PS3/Wii/Apple/Microsoft/(insert other product/brand name) story that hits the front page. You don't get to whine just because you don't like the product this time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually pretty stunning, Especially the last few. They look just like people posing with crappy CGI characters!
- TheGeek27, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Shrek does look fairly decent from a purely visuals point of view, but the animation is sub-par at best. Sure, they can make pretty backgrounds and detailed faces, but the movement and flow of the animation itself is like one or two steps above a CG animation 101 class.
- mhockey14221, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3inaccurate, works fine
- TheGeek27, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Just because I have not done CG animation myself, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to critique it. If the only people ever allowed to critique something were those who had vast experience in the field, then practically all film, theater, tv, game, music, and book critics would be out of a job.
I have two eyes. I have seen other CG animation. It seems fairly obvious to me that Shrek's animation is fairly low-rent. All you have to do is compare it to Pixar's work and you can see that it is of lower quality. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shrek - The Turd ??
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3timberlake in anything is a Bad Idea!
- weddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When did Cheri Oteri become hot?
- stagl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'm starting to see a strange resemblance to video games when i see these "photos". anyone else?
- lunarworks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At the same time idiots started calling photos screenshots. (I've seen it happen on big sites...)
Photo = Picture taken with a camera.
Screenshot = Still image of computer display output. - PixelVision, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The only time I've heard JT do any voice acting is in that episode of The Simpsons. All of them were crap, I couldn't tell which one he was but he was definitely crap.
- martian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes
- anonymousguy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Shrek looked impressive in 2001... but but in 2007, the CG-based humans look about as convincing and lifelike as generic Poser models.
- Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Actually, I usually bury those too
- sctechguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Please, regale us with the animation work that YOU have done, oh high and mighty animation god.
Man, you're a dick. - HarryHunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I disagree with your statement about the quality of the animation. Sure, the animation in Shrek is to some degree "cartoony" in that it's not totally realistic, but that's intentional. Actually cartoony animation is probably even harder to do than realistic animation because for realistic animation you can just use motion capture.
Also, can we please end this discussion about shrek's visual quality right here? You can be sure that Dreamworks Animations employs some of the best artists and animators in the industry and if something looks or moves a certain way in the movie, it was their intention to have it that way. If you don't like it, that's your opinion and you're of course totally entitled to it. However, don't claim the quality of their animation is sub-par because that's just not the case. - M73A, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4down already ¬_¬
- Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2A celebrity has a gut? The horror!
- endersshadow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0http://www.duggmirror.com
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I dugg it up cause of your post
- asaturn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3photos? I thought this was a 3D movie... dugg down because Shrek is the new Land Before Time.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I GET IT.
- Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6*sigh*
This is kind of marketing spam, isn't it?
I bet DreamWorks are awfully happy to see this hit the front page.
Out of principle, I normally bury these things, and I encourage you to as well. Say no to a marketing invasion of digg. - martian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1To what does "there" refer?
- jlunski, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@ Kunta - If you are going to make a statement like that, at least say why you feel that way...
- greenlight2001, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4They should have stopped at Shriek 2. Seriously. This is going to turn into a Lethal Weapon or American Pie philosophy: 1 was good, two made more $, so why not 14?... Shriek 14... can't wait.
- Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8More like...Shrek the Turd!
- Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Why?
- martian, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5from the "why would anyone digg this?" dept.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is