Jump to content

Talk:Shrek the Third

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Shrek 4

[edit]

The Shrek 4 page should be made again. There is clearky evidence that there is a fourth one in production if there was an interview with someone affiliated with the movie. If they said that there infact is a Shrek 4, then there is no reason that this page should've been deleted. Could whoever deleted this page please recreate it. Yahoo! Movies says that it is in developement, but no premise has been released. This is another form of proof that this movie exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk)

That's not proof. A news article where the producers ay 'Yes, we're doing this.' would be proof. And as it's a couple years out, is pretty speculative. A lot of projects get canceled. This is one instance where patience is a virtue :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this, that film is actually the last in the franchise to be made before the closure of Pacific Data Images Evope (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culturel References/Edit Request 4/6/14

[edit]
I found a few cultural references in Shrek the Third. Could these be put on the page? I'll tell about the references below.
  • King Harold is buried in a shoe box that says "Ye Olde Foot Locker" with a knight on top of the logo. This is a parody of the chain Foot Locker.
  • Like the second movie, the Far Far Away sign is a parody of the Hollywood Sign.
  • When the villians take over Far Far Away, some hang up some letters on the Ye Olde Bootery to call it "Ye Olde Hooters" and several men run inside. This is a refference to Hooters.

--24.147.1.197 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley[reply]

It would be original research for us to claim that these are cultural references unless a reliable source has taken note of them. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI DonIago, like the first and second movies, Shrek the Third sometimes acts like a parody film and these did appear in the film. If you don't beleave me, watch the movie yourself and reply! I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the artical for Shrek 2 has a section on it that has cultural references and this film should have a section aswell! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley[reply]
Whether they appear in the film is not the point, the point is that it's not our place to state whether something that appears in the film is a cultural reference; we must rely on reliable sources to do so; otherwise we are engaging in original research, as I said before. If you look at the sections in the other film articles you will notice that citations are provided. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shrek the Third. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category assessment

[edit]

For those interested, please share your feedback at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Categories: Films about foo, which is discussing whether or not this film should be a member of two Wikipedia categories: "Films about donkeys" and "Films about dragons". Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a film about dragons. The main villain, Prince Charming, is killed by the Dragon. The Manual of Style supports including defining elements. How is the plot of the film not a defining element, unlike production information which are (at best) trivia? Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying a story is about cars if the main villain is killed by one. That is a WP:NOTDEFINING category for this film. It is not the focus of the film. It is not what the film is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You consider a non-sentient car equivalent to one of the series main characters? The Dragon in question appears in all 4 films in the series, as Fiona's initial jailor, Shreck's enemy-turned-ally, and Donkey's love interest, spouse, and mother of his children.
How is this equivalent to a car which has no story arc? Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Film#Categories: Films about foo covers most of the issues here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the discussion even relevant to your argument? User:GoneIn60 goes off-topic and speaks about ":Category:Fictional characters in film", User:Gonnym is debating whether "popular culture" categories should include characters or films, User:Daß Wölf is talking about category:Fictional dragons (as opposed to real ones?), User:DonIago intervenes to only mention that if he/she had their way they would rename the popular culture categories, a sockpuppet makes a misleading edit and is then banned, and the discussion then dies out. There is no concesus apparent, and no conclusion to whatever was being discussed. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film is not about a dragon; it simply features one. The category doesn't apply, and consensus agrees that it doesn't. The burden is on you to if you'd like to change the consensus, and here's where you can go for help: WP:CON#By soliciting outside opinions. Also, you may want to read WP:INDENT for help on indenting in discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus agrees that it doesn't" Where was this consensus established? As the discussion Geraldo Perez cited never reached one. "Soliciting outside opinions" is specifically for "When talk page discussions fail". This one has barely started, and is apparently continuing an inconclusive one from September. Oh I have read indent. I just find indentations increasingly hard to read and rather confusing. Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This film may be about Donkey and Dragon, but it's definitely not about donkeys and dragons in the general sense. Now if we were talking about "How to Train Your Dragon"... DonIago (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's not obvious (and it should be), there was only one editor in that discussion that believed "films about donkeys" and "films about dragons" applies versus at least 5 editors who disagreed. That editor, by the way, was a confirmed sockpuppet, so the discussion fell by the wayside. Now you might argue that 5-1 is not a strong consensus...and you'd be correct. However, the reverse is also true: there is no consensus to apply the categories either. No consensus to add means we maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. This discussion isn't trending any differently than the last one, which is why I suggested the link above to explore other options, but that of course is completely up to you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After taking another look, there were actually 3 editors against, along with one that implied that they were:
"...my inclination is to agree that the Shrek films aren't about donkeys or dragons" --Donlago
"Yeah, Shrek is definitely not about Donkeys" --Gonnym
"I think the problem is well-meaning wikignomes have gone overboard with the categories in film articles" --NinjaRobotPirate
The numbers don't really matter anyway, because even "no consensus" means we maintain the status quo. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PDI

[edit]

Shrek Forever After was produced by PDI. --Evope (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

"received mixed reviews from critics"

[edit]

In order to say that without synthesis, we would need an independent reliable source to say that. We do not have that.

Other than individual reviews (of no help here), we have two review aggregators. RT gives it a 40%, "Rotten" according to their algorithm. We also have MC's algorithm applying the term "mixed or average". As the aggregators' algorithms are not subject to editorial oversight, they are not reliable sources.

Additionally, citing one or the other in the lead implies it is speaking universally, which neither one does (thus the reason we use both. Finally, "Rotten" is not "mixed" and "mixed or average" is not "mixed".

While I understand the desire to be able to spit out one judgement of a film as the word from critics, the real world seldom works like that. Some critics like a film that others hate and still others think was just average. "Mixed or average" can be a number of different things. Half the critics loved it, half hated it gives an average of 50% and "Mixed or average" ("polarized" world be more accurate). All of the critics think it was average gives the same result. A wild mix of scores can also give that same score. Using synthesis to boil all three of those scenarios (and numerous others) is contrary to encyclopedic writing. It presents your opinion of an aggregator's algorithm's automatically applied label based on a sample of some critics as if it were a true summary of critical response.

Let the sources speak for themselves. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SummerPhDv2.0 that it's not a bad idea to let the sources speak for themselves and avoid summarizing in the lead. Some articles do summarize, but they usually peg that summary directly to a reliable, secondary source outside of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. We prefer one-step removed from the aggregators whenever possible. It's also not absolutely essential to have a summary of the critical reception in the lead. For films that received accolades and overwhelmingly positive reviews, we tend to make exceptions, and usually in those cases you have plenty of reliable sources to base it on.
A good place to discuss this in more detail is at WT:FILM, but I would search through the archives to find past discussions before beginning a new one. It has come up dozens of times in recent years. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate Typo

[edit]

There was an unfortunate typo in 5th para. of plot: "...with help from Donkey, Pus, Lillian, and Dragon." I have changed that to "puss". 75.164.209.63 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Barack Obama's comments on film

[edit]

An editor has been adding "In a 2008 interview, when then-Senator Barack Obama was running for President of the United States, he recalled that Shrek the Third was the last movie that he had seen in theaters, but he stated that he felt it was "not as good as the original." to the Critical reception section of the article with the justification "It's still a critical reaction to the film -- and from a major public figure." I removed comment per MOS:FILMCRITICS as Obama is not a "Professional film critic" nor a "commentators and experts—connected to the film". Being a major public figure is not sufficient reason to include his opinions as part of the review section and override the guidance of MOS:FILMCRITICS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How old were you in 2008? It was an unusually historic election for the United States, and the fact that this film was briefly mentioned (albeit in critical terms) during the election was a pretty big deal at the time, in my opinion. Also, if the future President of the United States felt this way about the film, chances are, many more moviegoers felt the same way, hence why the Shrek series started to slow down after this installment and only one more installment was made.
Even if you disagree with it being in the "Critical response" section of the page, I don't understand why you think that this information shouldn't be on the page at all. Here's an alternative: We could create a whole new section for the page titled "Reception", and along with the "Critical response" subsection we could create another subsection marked "In popular culture" where Obama's comments (and other kinds of information along those lines) could be moved. Adamzanzie (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2023
All of that is irrelevant to this film. He is not a professional critic, an expert in the field, or involved in the film itself. Statements of political candidates when campaigning are more advertising for the candidate than the product they mention that might get them more notice. There is no reliable source that links his statements to anything that happened to the film or the series. Popular culture as section isn't generally done as normally that gets reflected in the metacritic score which we do report. As for special importance, I was around when Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton were elected, Obama is just one more of a series of Democrats who won the election, in my opinion no more special than the others, and specifically not enough to merit his opinion about a film being in anyway special enough to add to a film article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit trivial. We already have sites like Cinemascore to tell us what audiences thought (it got a B+). No need to guess what audiences thought based on a politician's statement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular culture as section isn't generally done as normally that gets reflected in the metacritic score which we do report."

Then how about this: A "Reception and legacy" section to provide information on how this film has been remembered since its release, which you will note that the first Shrek page has: It has information on the first film's legacy. Why should the Shrek the Third Wiki page not have "legacy" information of its own?

And in response to this:

"I was around when Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton were elected, Obama is just one more of a series of Democrats who won the election, in my opinion no more special than the others..."

Your choice of words in that statement (specifically, your comments about Democrats) strikes me as an indication that you're censoring this information for political reasons. I'm not defending Obama, but whether you liked Obama or not, his underwhelmed reaction to the film sets the tone for how a lot of audiences felt about it.

Even though the film was commercially successful, it certainly didn't generate nearly as much hype as the first two Shrek films did, and I believe that Obama's comments reflected the general reaction towards it, even if you guys would rather throw around the Metacritic score of B+ to try to suggest otherwise. If you really want to go down that road, then how about this: Why does the film currently have a dismal rating of 6.1/10 on IMDb? Isn't that an indication that the film isn't remembered very well and that it has faded from public consciousness?

Since this debate isn't really a hill worth dying on, I'm not going to continue disputing it, but let the record show that I think it's unfair how you are suppressing this information. Adamzanzie (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2023

There is nothing sourced that supports your belief that Obama's personal opinion had any impact on the popularity of the movie. At a minimum that would be needed to support inclusion. The information isn't suppressed, it just doesn't belong in this article. Possible more appropriate at Barack Obama. As to this being a political issue, I'd be just as opposed for the same reasons to adding this to the article if John McCain had made the statement in question during the 2008 campaign. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shrek_the_Third&oldid=1263062186"