Quote:
|
Originally Posted by choc e-Claire
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I feel like your frustration is a bit misplaced here - if I had to guess you're complaining about things that exist because of Shrek, rather than the things in Shrek themselves. There isn't really that much that's directly ripping something else, they saved that for the sequel. Of course, I may just be an idiot and not know the deal.
|
oh, so, in the 90s at some point there was a kind of reboot of looney toons, called tiny toons
the thing is tiny toons was terrible because it went "too meta", whatever happened in it was basically about something else that you had to know about, wink wink, nod nod, postmodernism for the hoi polloi. but that dates too quickly and is not funny and it's not memorable, it just disappears. unlike, say, the original bugs from the 40s or whatever which in spite of changing mores keeps yielding juice even as (postmodern) meme
shrek, the story of it, is cool. but in my recollection (it's been ages) it suffers from the same postmodern disease that spoils the details a bit, too much hollywood navel gazing and insider jokes. or maybe that was shrek 2 when it went to shit? i can't remember, i stopped watching, it became a tired refry in my head. which is a pity, because shrek and donkey were cool
this is not a rant against metafictions or postmodernism btw, only against the tired irrelevant versions of it
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
Dreams are reality. his dreams are supa white
|
well he was supa white indeed, that was very much his upbringing
just like birds have bird dreams i assume
but his art was good because he was loyal to his dreams
when an artist tries to change their dreams to fit into market forces or ideological programs or funding requirements or studio executive demands, that's when their art sucks