Monday, May 17, 2010

Beautiful

Sorry, I haven't got any new storyboards yet, but in the meantime this should appease lovers of the visual arts.

and clever too


BONUS:

67 comments:

Malcolm said...

That was heinous!

yawn said...

Oh my goodness!All those images, were quite horrible.The scariest image at the end,should of given me a aneurysm,but I just barfed instead.

Nicolás Rivera said...

mmm nope, not really...

Paul B said...

Oh, come on John! Stop posting this crap, give us more of your funny stuff!

Peggy said...

Those three ratty elves in the last picture are kinda cute! They've got a lot of Brian Froud appeal.

Shawn Dickinson said...

Thanks, John. I needed that.

Jeremy said...

who the shrek comes up with this stuff?!

Niki said...

The little elf man's hair - looks completely insane.

Ray said...

When I stare and look at my hairy wrinkled manhood, it looks a lot better than that horrible Shrek art.

Trey Brown said...

shrek has everything you love though: hollywood actors instead of voice actors, "realistic" character models, pages upon pages of superfluous dialogue, cheesy topical humor and swear word jokes. its as if a guardian angel had this movie made special for you

Arielle P. said...

OH DEAR LORD. What were they thinking?

EalaDubh said...

Oh, it's the last one. THAT'S why you put it up.

Gloating much?

C said...

Don't forget the best one

SoleilSmile said...

P-please...don't scare us like this again {:(

Roberto Severino said...

This stuff burned my eyes. Let's get back to talking about real cartoons, John. How about some more "Barbary Coast Bunny?"

Scrawnypumpkinseed said...

AAH! Why do todays animators hate my eyes!

Raven M. Molisee said...

You know, I don't think there's any way for me to make anyone understand how much I despise Shrek. Not one moment of any movie is funny--its hideous, rife with parody of the latest stupid movies that stupid people enjoy. I have to say, it just brings the worst side out of me.

Woah! See? Just looking at stills makes me an asshole.

JohnK said...

I agree, but don't always have time to make elaborate posts.

RooniMan said...

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! *dies*

HemlockMan said...

I loathe that CGI crap.

Austin Papageorge said...

"It Ain't Ogre... Til It's Ogre"

And good thing that after this one is done, this awful series is "Ogre".

Seriously, who the "Shrek" comes up with the taglines for these awful posters?

Aaron Clark said...

I'll say this just once, but I enjoyed the first Shrek in theatres. Mind you, I was 11 years old. I didn't think of it as the greatest CGI film ever, but I didn't think of it as the worst. It was fun, and entertaining to a degree.

However, this is just insulting.

Trevor Thompson said...

Ya know, the whole 'it's hip to be ironic' thing works for [adult swim], but not genuine cartoonists like you. You don't like it when studios are mean to audiences so why follow suit with your fans?

We know what crap looks like, John. We come here to avoid it. It's like getting foster care from abusive parents in that you're recieving the very treatment you seek to avoid.

Yuck!

Rusty said...

Dreamworks Monster Mash Kitsch.

Rusty said...

Again I'll ask this question John. You know some of the people that work on this stuff have you tried to convince them to stop.

I mean really they should know by now that formulaic tude based cartoons equal disaster.

Payo said...

Is that "bonus" from a Dreamworks CG/3D remake of The Dark Crystal or something? shudder

Payo said...

By the way, can Rankin/Bass sue them for (poorly) ripping off the Heatmiser?

Paul B said...

"I agree, but don't always have time to make elaborate posts."

Any fast doodle of you will be great, BILLION times better and FUNNY than this crap.

David R said...

That elf guy looks like a Heatmiser. Without the well thought out design.

bill said...

I met and chatted with Shrek's Director Vicki Jensen, I believe that she worked on Ren and Stimpy, if I'm correct, OR...
maybe she just puts that on her resume?

thomas said...

when you think of it, its strange just how close the words appealing and appalling are....

This are, of course, appalling.

AdamLore said...

Hey John, how do you feel about William Steig's original 'Shrek' children's book?

http://tinyinventions.com/blog/images/williamsteig.jpg

Ash Collins said...

HHHOOOOOOOAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRKK

Rusty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

"I met and chatted with Shrek's Director Vicki Jensen, I believe that she worked on Ren and Stimpy, if I'm correct, OR...
maybe she just puts that on her resume?"

The first Shrek was decent than it got bad after the sequels started. I think Jensen realized how bad the series was getting and jumped off the ogre bandwagon.

Though that aside you have worked with some of these people that are now making these cartoons you don't care for to much. You had the chance the talk them out of it.

Austin Papageorge said...

@ Bill

Vicky Jenson most definitely worked on Ren and Stimpy.

John himself has mentioned working with her, on this blog no less, and even mentioned her on the Mighty Mouse DVD.

And, I've seen her in the credits.

JohnK said...

Vicky is very talented. She worked on Mighty Mouse painting backgrounds and drew and painted backgrounds for some of my 80s presentations.

She draws amazing layouts.

Tony DiStefano said...

Seriouly though, how did appeal change so drastically in the past 15 years.And how did they decide this would be pleasing.I really dont get it.

Rusty said...

"Vicky is very talented. She worked on Mighty Mouse painting backgrounds and drew and painted backgrounds for some of my 80s presentations.

She draws amazing layouts."

And rightfully so its no wonder she left the series that your now targeting she was to good for them. John can you please answer this question has she criticized the sequels for Shrek?

C. A. M. Thompson said...

Only the first image loaded (might be my internet connection) and I'm glad.

Jeff M said...

I love when you pick this stuff apart. It brings me joy for some sick reason.

JohnK said...

I picked it apart? I just put up the publicity pictures and didn't say anything.

georgeliquor said...

Pixar may not be suited to the taste of everyone, but the company actually puts creativity into their work. Their films are more art than products for consumers.

Dreamworks, on the other hand...

Lampshade said...

I heard How to Train Your Dragon was surprisingly decent. Who here saw it?

syrokenikan said...

"By the way, can Rankin/Bass sue them for (poorly) ripping off the Heatmiser?"

I was thinking the exact same thing. Some of those stills look like Rankin/Bass characters without the (in my opinion) charm. It's as though the CG people have finally realizes that the closer they get to the "uncanny valley", the less their character can be: a) a cartoon, b) funny. Unfortunately, I seems like they may know the problem, but have no idea how to solve it.

^yes, this post is entirely speculative on my part

ogman said...

Not a fan of Tod Browning's FREAKS?

Roberto González said...

I was expecting you to talk about the director working on Ren and Stimpy at some point. I don't remember you mentioning it before.

This leads to a lot of questions.

Like, is she actually proud of the first Shrek?

Does John find any good qualities in the first Shrek? I'm talking about the concept, I know the visuals are terrible.

How can a good artist end directing such a horrible looking movie? I guess the state of CGI was a little primitive back then. Also maybe the studio had more influence in the final look than its own director.

I go to the cinema very often and I watch almost any movie that's animated, just because I enjoy going to the theater. I actually have watched the three Shreks. I don't like them. I don't totally hate them either. I really don't think the first one was a lot better than the other two. All of them are mediocre, watchable but ultimately disposable. Yes, the first one is a little better, but it's still mediocre.

I'm not mad about the characters or jokes but there are some decent parts. Gingerbread Man is always the funniest thing in these movies, the most likeable character BY FAR. Puss In Boots is also entertaining.

The visuals are the worst part and they seem to be getting worse. The villain character in this fourth movie is even uglier than every previous character in the saga.

When I see this I remember when you talked about the lost concept of evolution, showing those frames of South Park in its first and last seasons.

Now that there are CGI movies that look better than Shrek they should have redesigned the characters to make them less realistic and more like The Incredibles. But now the general option is to continue with the same look. If the designs had changed a little in each movie the change of style wouldn't have been so radical.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they have introduced some changes, but probably the wrong ones, like adding more hairs or something.

skillz said...

> I agree, but don't always have time to make elaborate posts. <

Curious, what do you do all day besides pick things apart?

Triangular said...

There has to be some good CGI cartoons somewhere right?? (Unfortunately, none come to mind.)

sharprm said...

John has your company ever made flash games with your characters?

Frank Macchia said...

I think we should all go see this one together.

Diana said...

Rusty: Shrek was never good. It contains pop culture references and pores, two things I never read about in "Illusion of Life".

Tim L. said...

Yay.

Iron maiden said...

so this co worker vicky once worked for you and now shes the director of shrek ,so do you consider shrek to be inspired by ren and stimpy I mean the gross jokes,and those ugly close up paintings might have inspired vicky into making shrek what It is today?

JohnK said...

I couldn't say. My guess is that modern animated movies are the products not of anyone's individual vision, but rather a scattered accumulation of compromises made out of fear by members of large committees.

Hans Flagon said...

I'm going to take a more charitable stance towards this robot puppet series for once.

it could be that I am seeing workers trying to pull what enjoyment they might from the gig and doing mild things to please themselves. Or it could merely be a lucky side effect of the way they had to deal with light and color given that the film is going to be 3D, and they are merely trying to minimize contrast to prevent ghosting from overlapping images.

I'm seeing a bit of Maxfield Parrish.

Less hard shadows less blind slavery to razor sharp realism of pores and textures. Less primary colors. A bit like the background paintings to Snow White.

Am I wrong?

Roberto González said...

The first five minutes of the first Shrek did remind me of Ren and Stimpy back in the day, especially when he's in the mud and we see the bubbles.

That introduction was probably the best part of the movie. It starts like a very lout satire of Disney movies but it becomes one of them in its second half (and not even one of the best ones).

SoleilSmile said...

Even the best animators have to work on projects they don't like sometimes. The reason could be contract obligations and other times it's a matter of paying the bills when undesirable projects are the only things around.
In regards to the studios who produce films like Shrek, sometimes you have to lay the desire to make "art" aside and please your audience. Films need funding to be made and I'm sure the surplus from the Shrek sequels funded How to Tame Your Dragon.

A good film to watch to better illustrate my point is Preston Sturges', "Sullivan's Travels" with Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake. The allegory is a poignant one.
With this said, I retract my previous snide statement.

Nate Bear said...

AUGhgh! :P

A couple months ago, as an alum of SVA I was able to attend this semi recruiting/this-is-what-it-takes-to-work-here even that Dreamworks did at the school's new theater. I arrived about 10 minutes late, just tin time for them to show the "creative" process for a scene from the new Shrek. Of course they showed the storyboards with the actors' voiceovers first.

Those drawing were actually amazingly appealing and funny. The storyboard artist's take on the characters (Shrek and Rumple Stiltskin) were very cartoony and expressive. The gags were rendered hilariously. Even the timig was funny. (pretty good for a cartoon essentially running at about 0.04 frames per second!)

Then they showed the same scene in various level of CG renderedness. And jeeez, they ruined all the fun. By the time they got to the fully rendered cinematic version, tHe uncanny valley never ran so deep. Trying to imagine these robo-beasts as believable characters was out of the question. Half the gagas were bare a tenth as funny because all the exaggeration and funny facial expressions were halfheartedly forced upon their inflexible wire-frames. Even the timing of the gags were ruined, because all the movements were overly smooth.

It was basically a first hand look at how great cartoons can be ruined by the modern studio system.


The rest of the program was a series of examples of "good" demo reals of recently hired students. Some of them were much more imaginative and fun than anything I've seen come out of Dreamworks. I think the industry would be better off if a bunch of new animation grads were able to form their own studio from scratch rather then have to work for the few established studios who seem to only have a capacity for smooshing potential and imagination.

Kyle said...

This comment section is riddled with kissassery.

Mr. Warhead said...

I don't get the appeal of realistic character design in animated films, especially if it's in a comedic movie. Stop motion animation seems to be the only place where semi-realistic character designs work. Any other medium, it just won't WORK.

Mr. Warhead said...

John, have you ever heard of The Neverhood? It's a video game, but the cutscenes have practically the best timing in animation I've ever seen. Take a look at this one scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMMks3_PDLI&feature=related

Sven Hoek said...

I'd rather watch Bakshi take a dump

Roberto González said...

Nate Bear, that's a sad and interesting story. Even though Shrek's film are too talkative and somewhat contrived in its dialog I also have the impression that it would be funnier if the faces of the characters were more cartoony. It seems that you saw how it happens.

I thought that when I watched Flushed Away and I laughed at several gags. The guy who went to the theater with me pointed out that some of those gags were similar to others in the Shrek movies, that I use to criticize. I had to recognize some of them were pretty similar but it was funnier just because of the more cartoony look.

Cheezy WEAPON said...

That last image is from the cgi remake of "The Littles".

And.. yes.. It's as bad as you'd think it could be. Visually AND as a movie. The dialogue is terrible, and none of the voices match up AT ALL to the jittery cgi motion. Everything is hairy or fluffy, wrinkly and diseased, talking like a madman or waving their arms in our faces.

It's a shame too, cuz when I first saw the commercials, I wanted to give it a chance. ah well..

Tim said...

The odd thing about Dreamworks is that, except for Shark Tale, over the years their characters have gotten slightly less hideous in all their works EXCEPT for Shrek. I remember seeing How To Train Your Dragon with my sister and saying to her, "That's the first Dreamworks Animation movie I've seen where the character designs didn't make me cringe."

CG humans will never look natural, from what I've gathered. I agree with whoever said Gingy had the most appealing design in the series - he sure does.

Claudia said...

Hey John wanted to contact you, its regarding Guest post...