Jump to content

Talk:Shrek (franchise)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.196.42.179 (talk) at 13:02, 9 January 2009 (→Redirections?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I think we should put the plots of each movie. - 203.87.129.111

Merger

Shrek 4 needs to be here. There is not enough concrete evidence of the film being made yet. Next to the comment of "we plan to make Shrek 4", there is nothing but speculation on the entire article. All relevant information needs to be kept here (which it appears it already is) and Shrek 4 needs to be redirected to its subsection. The third film isn't even out yet and people are trying to create a page for 4 and 5.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 4 is OK to be an independent article, Shrek the Third will soon be out, and an article for 4 will be out in a few months, even if it is merged.

Chinneeb 11:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still crystal balling to say there WILL be another film. How do we know there will be one? Because a couple people say there will be? Have they started making it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in pre-production. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-production does not equate to actual filming, or release of a film. Canceled Superman films, that's 20 years of directors, writers, actors, and the lot for films that ever made it to actual production. That was 50 million dollars worth of nothing, because the projects never got off the ground.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Bignole has a point. I think that it should be merged. I haven't seen Shrek the Third, but I think they've gone a bit far with three already. --King of Ty 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the merge. There is not enough information at this point to warrant an actual article, especially with no actual production yet. Films, even with franchise potential, can still wind up in development hell. Also, judging from the film article's page history, there has always been numerous instances of speculation and rumors added, which does not help. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. Since Shrek 4 is definite, it should be added as part of the story. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. Shrek is a series with a number of related off-shoots that can be tied together into a single article. As each film is released, those items relevant to each specific film can be broken off into its own article. See how Survivor (series handles the different seasons, for example. SpikeJones 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what else needs to be here? Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer. I've added the merge tag to that page as well. SpikeJones 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merger of Puss in Boots as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against the merge since Antonio Banderas confimed it in an interview. Jay B. 21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against it is a different movie, it deserves a different page. It's like merging ww1 and ww2.
  • Support the merge. There isn't enough content to justify Shrek 4. The content could easily be merged into this article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against the merge as i think all these up and coming shrek movies that have not much content should be put into the samne page. Shrek 4 and Puss in Boots: the story of an ogre killer should be put in another page. And when the movies are released or are due release, they then should have their own pages.Sdewey 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. I agree, at this point it is mostly unconfirmed, and subject to cancellation at a moments notice as Shrek the Third continues in theaters, depending on how much money it makes. Either way, at this point there isn't enough concrete evidence, or enough information regarding the movie, to constitute it having it's own article. I also support the merge of Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer
  • Against Since it has been confirmed and is on IMDB EclipseSSD 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against It has been confirmed therefor deserves its own page.
  • Against Shrek 4 is a film in itself and deserves its own page this page doesn't explain much about Shrek 4.
  • Support I think all Shrek films should be in an article called Shrek series.TammiMagee 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against I agree its kind of in the same series, but until they state it involves such characters as Shrek, Donkey etc, then it can't really be 'part of the series'. Its a spin-off, until more information is released, I'd say its separate. — Movie Junkie 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Against It's another movie, there's nothing more to be said. Hpfan9374 06:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's not gonna be a Shrek 5. If there is, it will suck. Shrek 4 is gonna wrap things up. user:Corndog778
  • Very Strong Against Shrek 4 is different to Shrek, in the same way that Shrek 1,2&3 have thjere own article. Thenthornthing 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Against It's a future movie, not a rumor or speculation etc - it deserves an article of its own. Hpfan9374 08:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very M@$%ERF#$@IN Agianst I'm sorry, but we don't need some people merging pages and deleting them because there is not enough "citations", just because you have the ability to delete and do other things, that doesn't mean sh!t, anyways let people know things, perhaps they are not all true but I think if there is a least one good citation, then there's enough for me, but i believe in free speech and respect other's opinions.

ChrisIzCali 08:01, 27 December 2007, into that 2008 ('08) baby! (UTC) Against: People deleting that The Thrills will have a song in Shrek Goes Fourth. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.36.25.25 (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shrek 4-D logo.png

Image:Shrek 4-D logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

film titles

Heh heh.. just realised the Shrek films are numbered the same as the Blackadder series. Coincidence, or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.169.150 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shrek The Halls.JPG

Image:Shrek The Halls.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters

I believe there should be an article listing all the characters in the Shrek films, since the films, especially Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third, feature many minor characters, such as Queen Lillian, Doris and Mabel the Ugly Stepsisters, and the Ogre Babies, that doen't have their own article due to only being minor characters, and I really think there should be some resource identifying them for people who haven't seen the films but may want to know who these characters are. 74.71.92.115 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek Or Treat?

I saw here before that there was going to be a halloween special in 2009.. what happened to it, why did it disappear? ~D3K_Dave 14:17 04/04/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3K Dave (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no official announcements regarding it, so as it only existed as a rumor without citation, it was removed. SpikeJones (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Why dont they just get a TV series on Nickelodeon and stop all of the damn movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.236.240 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

italics

in the characters section, italics mean what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.130.172 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey's Evil Twin

I don't suppose they'll add a scene where Shrek or anyone jumps a Shark... and oh look! In Puss in Boots Spin off movie banderas will play Puss and yes! his twin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody understand a word of that? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What now? I wasn't paying attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.202.37 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Blackadder reference

Has anyone else noticed that each of the films shares its title with that of one of the Blackadder series. There's Blackadder II and Shrek 2, Blackadder the Third and Shrek the Third, then Shrek Goes Forth and Blackadder goes forth. The Shrek films like to make references to British pop culture so could this be intentional. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yh I noticed that as well!--Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the coincidence isnt a homage, its plagiurism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.46.99 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek the third?

Something is seriously wrong with this body of text:

"Further complicating matters is a little secret Fiona's been keeping, but the biggest problem is Prince Charming; he's gathered some new partners in crime and Far Far Away is going to go crazy.

There are times in which Fiona feels worried about her new life as Queen, but shortly gets aquipt with the tasks at hand. Her friends comes to visit and shower with gifts as they find out she is pregant, and when she confesses to Shrek, he freaks out. But realises he is going to need to stand up for himself and protect his new family in the near future. Everything worked out fine in the end, Shrek and Fiona are happy and with Donkey out of the way, they can now try and enjoy their lives, however will things change or are old faces appearing."

Contralya (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I think this article has possibly been the target of vandalism, particularly in the individual film sections. An example of this would be from Shrek 2: "They ahve a long and fun adventure to search the Fairy Godmother's cottage to get a love potion and turn Shrek into a human and Donkey into a noble steed! At the end of the movie, King Harold turns into........you'll just have to wait and see! Starring Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrews, Antonio Banderas, John Cleese, Rupert Everett and Jennifer Saunders". This is present in most, if not all, of the individual film articles, and it is my opinion that this is the work of vandals. One possible solution would be to go to WP:RPP and ask for protection, or just cleanup and remove all non-neutral statements and such. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Shrek the third ver2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirections?

I've noticed that shrek 5 and the puss in boots spin off links all lead back to the same main page, whithout anything being actually mentioned in the article. would it be wise to put something for those to redirect to, or to mention it within the sequels section or just to remove the link?--203.196.42.179 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shrek_(franchise)&oldid=262959004"