Isn't it funny how back when the Cracker Barrel thing happened "everybody knew" that the controversy came from dumb self-entitled consumers blanket-rejecting change and awkwardly rationalizing it as taste and objectivity, and now this shitshow is rolling as it was some inspiring act of historical vindication?
We lost the shreknology
>>154351028The Boomers who first worked on Shrek are either dead or in nursing homes.Only basedcuck millennials and zoomers remain, and they can't animate.
I can see the appeal for these people of supporting their "opinions" on a supposed body of authority that no longer exists and therefore can't be denied.Consumer conditioning nurtures a mixture of arrogance and self-consciousness that makes the whole more embarrassing than its parts.
>>154351725>conveniently leave out Gen Xirs who hold most of the managerial positions and are the ones best positioned to carry the legacy
>>154351810That stupid snowclode dialogue that always ends with "we lost the technology" or "they shoot you if you try" or even "they just look at you like this [picture of Brendan Fraser in the Whale]" is just a meme, but I bet some people fall for it being true,But besides, it is quite objective, Old thing looks a certain way, newer thing looks different, The opinion on the change is subjective, but do you really think it's unreasonable to think the change is unnecessary?
>>154353400>do you really think it's unreasonable to think the change is unnecessary?The problem is that the issue hinges on the conceit that the original was based on perfectly realized creative intentions, and that the update is a result of trying and failing to reproduce that mythical ideal.In reality, BOTH may possibly be best described as being the result of applying a certain approach—itself framed on a certain state of the art—carried out by equivalently skilled professionals. Though of course only one of them benefits from the audience projecting on it a quarter-of-a-century's worth of compounded emotional attachment constructs that may only very marginally have anything to do with direct merits of the material. That would be enough of an advantage without the other of course getting proportionally undermined in turn.To be fair, I do believe that enough talent and ingenuity may have been able to actually channel the aspects of the original that were most likely serendipitous or accidental and implement them as intentional. I could agree that level of flexibility and insight simply doesn't exist anymore in the context of a major Hollywood commercial product pipeline.
>>154351028It's actually better animated though. Also aside from animation this movie is the exact same as every Shrek movie since Shrek 2. You guys outgrew it bigtime.
>>154355244No
>>154351682kek2
>>154351028That's the most retarded, engagement bait, lying, tweet i have ever seen. They didn't keep the old style because they wanted to update it to match with puss in boots 2's art style. That "my father-in-law is an animator" crap is total bullshit and is just another fucking blue checkmark cunt lying for engagement bait
>>154355860It's just a meme format, I don't know how many times I see the phrasing repeated on the final line. It's meant to express "How come they don't do things this way anymore", and the pseudo narrative with the uncle to add a dash of senseless hoplesness. But it's still true that it's thrown out in such a way just to get people uppity by not bothering to present it as a joke.I really hate it because it's mainly done to voice a complaint, which in this case I agree on that the older Shrek looked better, but they do it in such a bitchy way, they literally have to come up with such story to do it?
>>154355244I actually find it surprising how detailed and effective the facial animation is in Shrek 1 and 2 for their time, but the full-body animation was still very crude and clunky most of the time.
>>154351028Shrek has a cameo in The Last Wish and he looks exactly as he did in the other 4 movies.
