Talk:Shrek Forever After

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 15, 2006 Articles for deletion Deleted
May 27, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
June 29, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
WikiProject Animation / American / Films / Computer / DreamWorks Animation (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Don't use abbreviations[edit]

BigBang616, please do not use abbreviations on Wikipedia. (you used aka) Wikipedia is a factual website, not a chat zone. Thanks, Monkeys 9711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeys 9711 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure i've seen AKA many times in wikipedia articles so why don't you just go do some research and fix those 2000 or so instances of the use Pinner458 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Deletion? Why would this page be deleted. Just leave it. We have proof of it, and possibly even a fifth one. Just leave this page alone. Stop trying to delete this page which deserves to be here. KEEP THIS PAGE!

Shrek 5?[edit]

Who put up Shrek 5 on the Infobox? There is not even proof of it.

It was recently changed. Thanks for the correction. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone put Shrek 5 there again. Let's not get to far into the future. Could someone change it back?

Feel free to change it back. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

well, i think there will be a shrek 5, but i'm inexperienced in this department, so forget my opinion.--a bag filled with crapped on nachos 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, someone keeps putting it back...--Mrperson777 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

After Shreak 2 came out, there was word online that there would be a total of 7 Shrek movies. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a very-determined IP keeps adding that there will be a Shrek 5 sometime in the future, even though the most recent trailer states that Shrek Forever After will be the "final chapter." What is the current consensus amongst the editors, so we don't get into an edit/revert war over this? Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE on that ... the cited source in the article is enough for me: pending something more recent than this stating otherwise, there will not be a Shrek 5. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Shrek (series)[edit]

I'd like to recommend that this article is merged and redirected to Shrek (series) because there is very little context to substantiate an entire article at the present. References about the beginnings of development can be placed there instead. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. My reasoning for removing the CSD tag was that none of the arguments for deletion still apply to this version of the article. WP is not a crystal ball doesn't really apply because it has been announced by the studio. Although, I am fine with another AfD nomination and I fully support a redirect to Shrek (series). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, it's just that articles that are underdeveloped tend to attract a lot of unsubstantiated rumors, so from what I've seen, housing content such as the announcement of development under a fuller article helps preserve encyclopedic integrity. Let's just say you should've seen The Dark Knight back in its first days... —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some merging of the Shrek information. The original Shrek page, for example, contains all the sequel information. Duplicating the sequel information on each individual Shrek # page is redundant and can lead to citation and editing errors/mistakes/lack of updates/etc. SpikeJones 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I changed the 2-D in the whole, "it's gonna be 3-D" to "regular" because saying 2-D will lead people to believe that we mean like a regular cartoon (17:05, 20 May 2007)

We need to be sure to clarify in the text somehow that Dreamworks' announcement was that the 3D releases would be "in addition" to the standard format releases, not a substitue/replacement. SpikeJones 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek: Ever After[edit]

Change the title Shrek 4 to Shrek: Ever After

The NY licensing show was today and we now have the title - Shrek: Ever After. Here is the poster: 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've just gone around and corrected, that is NOT the title of the movie. fethers 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The poster is in fact a promotional poster created for Shrek the Third. — MovieJunkie Talk! 14:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


For now I'm letting the cast stay because they are probably legit, but if theres no reference by tomorrow they'll be removed. — MovieJunkie Talk! 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and taking some time in finding some references... I knew there would be some around. If however I hadn't been bothered, I would have merely deleted the section. In future, can we please add references, or not bother in the first place! — MovieJunkie Talk!

19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got any info on the video game version of Shrek goes Fourth? If anyone has got any info on that please give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking News on Shrek goes Fourth video game ports[edit]

I have found a link[1] on IGN with infomation on video game ports of Shrek goes Fourth. Should I include it in the article? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


After the Monty Python references of Shrek the Third, are the Shrek team now referencing the comedy series Blackadder? The third season was called "Blackadder the Third", and the fourth season was "Blackadder Goes Forth". (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gonna have to look that one up. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Shrek is using the exact same naming convention for all four films. Mastertechnician (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those that count as copyright fraud? Would adding that to the article be notable to the article? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No joy on wether or not Shrek using the exact same naming convention as Blackadder for all four films is copyright fraud? Give us a bell asap If anyone's got any. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(a) to be added to the article, you will need to find a citable reference per WP:CITE that shows the Shrek's titles AREe influenced by Blackadder. (b) if shown to be a direct influence, it would be parody, not fraud, and therefore not even likely to be included in the first place. SpikeJones (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok will do in acordince with WP:CITE. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

final film?????[edit]

I thought there was a 5th film in development as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot section's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia[edit]

In particular the last few sentences sentences:

Now, If Shrek shares true loves kiss by sunrise, everything will return to normal! But now, Rumplestiltskin has sent out an army of witches to stop him. Now Shrek must stop Rumplestiltskin and return everything to normal. But can he?

read like promotional material. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now.. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot section, already?[edit]

If the film isn't out for another month, how does it have such a detailed plot section? —Mike Allen 06:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Move the article[edit]

Editors recently have been modifying the article to show the film's apparent new title, Shrek: The Final Chapter. I looked at the official site, and it does appear that Dreamworks has indeed changed the title. Sounds like a move request is in order. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense although kind of a strange move to change the title so close to release. Hopefully they have made up their mind now (I see there's quite a few titles already). Mike Allen 23:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move, 26 May 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shrek Forever AfterShrek: The Final Chapter — Dreamworks is using the title "Shrek: The Final Chapter" on their site and on the film posters. Relisting to (hopefully) allow name to stabilise>  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Allen 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as noted above. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm here's something of interest. According to Slashfilm: "DreamWorks Animation insists the title is still “Forever After” and that the “Final Chapter” is only used for marketing purposes." Source Mike Allen 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The official Shrek website still refers to the film as Shrek Forever After with the "Final Chapter" used solely as a tagline. Hope this helps.SpikeJones (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The film is slated to be released very shortly and there should soon be confirmation of exactly the title under which it will be released. Till then, if we apply WP:COMMONNAME, Google hits for "Shrek Forever After" are 23 million whereas for "Shrek: The Final Chapter" there are only 59,000 hits. One seems to be overwhelmingly more common than the other. I have no reservations whatsoever to revisiting this discussion at a later date if necessary. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 13:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Wait for now, per the source provided above. It seems that they're still sticking with the original title (not really the greatest marketing technique to come out with a different title, although I guess they're more likely to get more ticket buyers if it's the "final" Shrek). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The official website shows the title has now officially been changed, but the official title is Shrek The Final Chapter 3D, not "in 3D". – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because I saw the trailer before Iron Man 2 and was confused. –thedemonhog talkedits 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The title is changed on both the film's official site (see here) and Dreamworks' official site (see here), as well as in the tv spots. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This move is based on original research. do you supporters have any sources to back up your claim of a title change? riffic (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If you look at fim's offical site a video trailer automatacally plays and that uses the final chapter title.-- (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Original research. Find a reliable source that says that the title has been changed riffic (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support to match posters - not original research, there has been some publishing, such as screenrant, since the name change. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
ScreenRant does not indicate how or why the title has been changed. Effectively you are drawing your own conclusions by what you see on a poster -- this is wp:synthesis in a nutshell. Please find a secondary source that states in ITS OWN WORDS that the title has been changed, per wikipedia policies and guidelines, thanks. riffic (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:SpikeJones below. While the "Final Chapter" phrase is not something derived from original research, the actual name of the film remains "Forever After" (despite what is marketed). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No official statement from the studio shows that the title has been changed. Marketing material can say whatever it wants ("Toys are back!" is not the same as "Toy Story 3", for example). SpikeJones (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but wait another week before closing This 14 May press release refers to the film as Shrek Forever After. Since the "Final Chapter" stuff started weeks beforehand, I do take this release as evidence that they aren't changing the official title, they're just using a different title in all their advertising to be confusing. Really confusing. (Although I won't be surprised if, as soon as this discussion gets closed, they release another press release referring to it as The Final Chapter. I suggest leaving the discussion open through next weekend, when the film is released in the U.S.) Propaniac (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's pretty clear now that the movie's been released as Shrek Forever After. Propaniac (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another poster just came out[edit]

However, we may not necessarily need to update the poster again. --Addict 2006 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception from the Future?[edit]

According to the article, "This film received negative reviews so far on Rotten Tomatoes. It currently has 20% and a score of 4.7/10 based on five reviews."

However, the film is not scheduled to be released for two weeks. Is there an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some people get to see it early. riffic (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two Titles[edit]

The title of the page is "Shrek Forever After", but in posters and in many commercials the title varies as either "Shrek Forever After" OR "Shrek The Final Chapter 3D", perhaps there should be a part of the article that mentions this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree... It looks somewhat silly to have in bold "Shrek Forever After", and then have the poster image in the infobox reading a totally different name. (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion above. (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Title[edit]

What is the official title for Shrek 4? I know it was either Shrek Forever After or Shrek: The Final Chapter, but there can only be ONE title for the opening credits, right? What was the title of the film(as appeared in the film in the opening credits)? -- (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Shrek Forever After. Mike Allen 04:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Final film? Not definitive.[edit]

Yes, I know marketing has implied this will be the final film. However, as outlined in the "Possible sequel" section, well... a sequel is possible. As a result, this repeated, unsourced claim is inappropriate. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes WestCoastGuy1990 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Data Images[edit]

An IP editor recently removed Pacific Data Images from the list of production companies without using an edit summary. I hate when IP editors do this, because I never know what they're thinking, and it forces me to look up information on Google to see if it belongs there. I was going to let the IP editor's edit stand, actually. According to the Variety review, it was produced by DreamWorks Animation. I don't see any mention of PDI here. Same in this review by The Hollywood Reporter, though they identify InTru3D as a production company. Our article on InTru3D doesn't make them sound like a production company, though. So, I'm not sure where this is coming from, except the IMDb, which, of course, is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shrek Forever After. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, early close per WP:SNOW. — JFG talk 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Shrek Forever AfterShrek: Forever After You forgot to add a colon. (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, no, there isn't one. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a wave of disruptive move requests by this IP editor that simply haven't been thought out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is disruptive and no explanation for move. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this is not a subtitle; it's a case like Star Trek into Darkness. Nohomersryan's rationale is invalid, however; we would use a semicolon for any subtitle. Whether the poster art or DVD cover literally uses a colon is irrelevant. Such marketing materials almost always use font changes and other layout tricks to indicate a subtitle, which is stylization we do not mimic per MOS:TM but replace with a colon, which is the standard treatment of subtitles, per MOS:TITLE and in every major off-WP style guide. It simply isn't applicable here; this is not a case like Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Absolutely none of the sources use the colon. There is nothing in favor of the change here. None of this editor's other move requests are going through either. This request is dead. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.