Talk:Shrek/Archive 1

Plot Summary Change Suggestion

In the plot summary is states, "Farquaad, furious over the change, orders Shrek and Fiona killed..." He actually orders Shrek killed and Fiona to be locked back in the tower for the rest of her life. Sparta780 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Shrek"

The word Shrek actually comes from the Yiddish word שרעק prononounced "Shrek". It means fear/terror.

Indeed, if exclaiming ´Oh Schreck!´ in German you may be quite terrified. The yiddish word ´shrek´ is actually borrowed from medieval German (low word) and the phrase is widely used in german speaking countries even today. 132.216.35.73 19:11, 15 February 2005

Compare wiktionary:Schrecken--91.9.192.40 (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Original Book?

I'd like to write a paragraph comparing the movie and the original children's book (which I have read) as they are very different... any thoughts on where this should go or if this is a good idea in the first place?--RainbowWerewolf (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it already exists. It looks like it was initially mentioned on the Shrek! page. SpikeJones (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

C

"Shrek was also ranked second in a Channel 4 poll..." Who or what is this 'Channel 4' that is mentioned here? There's a Channel 4 broadcasting in nearly every city in America, but they are all different stations from different networks, so I don't see how they are relevant. The previous line mentions Bravo, and has a link to it. Can we clarify this mysterious 'Channel 4', please? T-bonham (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Songs and Performers

I have updated the Songs and Performers section. The film features the song Hallelujah, composed by Leonard Cohen and originally released on his album Various Positions. However, the version heard on the film is sung by John Cale (the same version appears in the tribute album I'm Your Fan). The soundtrack of the film does not include the Cale version, but another one performed by Rufus Wainwright. --SugarKane 11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie trivia

A bit of Movie trivia, since i dont have the courage to add it, and im hoping someone else will notice some more :) Actually this is the only hting i can currently remember.

• When they reach the castle the parkinglot for the chariots the sign says, "You are parked in Lancelot."

I found it to be funny that Mike Myers actually read opposite his wife Robin Ruzan when recording his lines for the climactic love scene at the end of the movie. 68.94.200.122 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Eisner and Shrek

As was previously stated, Lord Farquaad looking like Shrek was completely wrong. If one compares pictures of the two, they are no where near each other in any facial feature... nor is Eisner known to be short. In actuality, Shrek is based on Eisner, which is clearly evident if the two are physically compared.

---Edit: I found a pic demonstrating this (http://www.nanalog.com/images/shrekeisner2.jpg).

66.82.9.52 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Virtually every publication which comments on the matter seems to think it's Farquaad who is based on Eisner. Having Shrek (the hero) be so based wouldn't make sense, given the relationship between Katzenberg and Eisner. Besides one picture, can you cite any reference which claims that Shrek is derived from Eisner? --EngineerScotty 22:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Between Fiona and Crap Head

Here's what we need in this article. Lord Farquaad was tricking Princess Fiona into marrying him, and before it happened, Fiona was going to believe in Farquaad. During that wedding, Shrek and Donkey rode the dragon to rescue Fiona from marrying Farquaad, and when Shrek came in, Farquaad told Shrek that he came into a wedding being uninvited. Shrek told Fiona that she can't marry him, and Fiona said back to Shrek, "And why not?", and Shrek told her that it was because Farquaad is just marrying her, so he can be king, which Shrek obviously meant to say that Farquaad is tricking her into marrying him. Then Fiona changed her mind into marrying Shrek, but she needs to be an ogress, in order to marry Shrek. The crowd became displeased and ended up leaving. --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

Fictional Scots

I removed the category Category:Fictional Scots from the article, on the grounds that Shrek is a character in a fictional universe which does not include Scotland. Unlike other Myers characters such as Stuart McKenzie and Fat Bastard, who are unambiguously Scottish, Shrek's no more a Scot than is Gimli from Lord of the Rings--even though both characters were voiced with a Scottish brogue. Likewise, Fiona's not a California girl, Donkey's not African-American, Puss-in-boots is not a Spaniard, and Queen Lillian and King Harold are not English. --EngineerScotty 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC), who knows a thing or two about fictional Scots. :)

Redundancy

It seems the Jokes category's third bullet has a redudancy in it stating the samething twice instead or combining it in oneAkupta321 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard III

An anon user added the statement "Farquaad's image is taken in whole from Richard III (National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits)". The same user altered the Richard III page to say that Shrek is "the most visually accurate moving image of Richard III". I've edited the other page to tone down the statement, but this information on both pages seems to me to need verification. Should these statements be removed? Romalar 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to double check but I remember something from interviews from the makers that Farquaad was based on Michael Eisner from Disney Pnkrockr 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Derivation of the name

The name Shrek is taken from the Yiddish word שרעק (pronounced Shreck) meaning 'fear', 'terror', or (in its closest sense) 'fright', and the German "Schreck" with the same meaning.

Any source for this? Has his creator actually identified either the Yiddidh or German words the origin, or is this just speculation really? Flapdragon 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be a source, but it's hardly necessary. It is highly unlikely that William Steig, whose parents were Polish Jews (and hence spoke Yiddish), would have called his fearsome title character Shrek without knowing that it was the Yiddish word for "fear." marbeh raglaim 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to do better than that. May be true, but it could just as easily be taken from the German word simply because the creators were feeling Teutonic at the time. Who knows? So there has to be reference to back up this factoid. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence re: etymology of the name to make it more ambiguous, and added a "fact" thing to the end. It might not even come from the German/Yiddish word "shreck" but from something else entirely, like the name of someone's dog or that bad guy in the Batman movie. As and when someone finds a verifiable source saying where the name came from, this sentence can then be changed. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't have come from the German word, for the simple reason that it doesn't have the German spelling. marbeh raglaim 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not good enough. It could equally easily be a pun on the German word, anglicized slightly. Without a verifiable source, it's all speculation. Cheers, Neale —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neale Monks (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The online yiddish dictionary (http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/) translates "fear, alarm; terror" to the word "Shrek" (with that exact spelling). The author of Shrek! was the son of polish-jewish immigrants. Search the web for "steig shrek yiddish" and you'll find dozens of articles stating that "Shrek" came from the yiddish word for "fear". E.g. the flyer for the Jewish Museum in New York exhibit (http://www.jewishmuseum.org/site/pages/pdfs/TJM_Steig_Travel-Desc_6-07.pdf). Or from the official biographical web site (http://www.williamsteig.com/article-riverbank2002.htm). How much evidence do you need? It's hardly a controversial little factoid. And, yes, the word is still in use in modern German ("Schreck") - Yiddish is a Germanic language. It's also still in use in Swedish - "skräck", where it has a stronger meaning than fear and means "horror" (and is in fact the genre term for horror movies). It's also still in use in Norwegian ("skrekk"), where it's more akin to "fright", and Danish ("skræk") where it's more akin to "dread". But there's no mention that I can find anywhere that the German language per se (or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish) has anything to do with the choice of title. So that part was speculation on the somebody's part. But the Yiddish origin is incontrovertible so I will put that back in. --Psm (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Lord Farquaad's name is derived from "Fart Wad". When you think about it, that's what it sounds like. Jdaniels15 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Can someone slap a "This article does not cite it's references" tag on...? Because I don't see one reference in the entire article, just external links and notes. --Hitsuji Kinno 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

addition to fiona fight

Hi, this was removed because it was badly worded, can someone help me ? i'm not a native english speaker. thanks :

1. 20:00, 22 December 2006 Treyt021 (Talk | contribs) (removed badly worded addition)
2. 19:59, 22 December 2006 209.47.172.20 (Talk)

Still in the same fight, there are references to others fights : ghost in the shell (when major fight some clueless crook) and the fifth element (when mila jovovitch fight alien in the orange room)

done, thanks LelandParrish 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Pinocchio merge

I notice despite being tagged for a month, no-one has commented on the propsed merge. Does that mean it's not a well supported idea? I think it shouldn't be merged as the Shrek article is pretty long as it is and it would be a bit strange for only one of the many characters who have articles to be merged. Merging them all would make it very long. Mallanox 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

sure. maybe nobody commented because nobody cares if it's included or not. i think it should, for the same reasons. LelandParrish 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say its just some random facts about Pinocchio. If someone made a whole article about all the characters in the movie, it would be better. Yeah? Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just searched and i have noticed there are are lots of Shrek character articles and if Pinocchio is included in this article that would be a little random. I think that as I said before there should be a Shrek Character article. Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 19:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was actually an original character, or at least a revival of an otherwise obscure fairy tale figure, it would be reasonable to have a separate article, but we're talking Pinocchio here. Give the fancruft a rest...

Peter ^Isotalo 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

The quality of the movie screenshot images (taken with a digital camera of all things...) are of terrible quality and are much too large for fair use images. Can someone take some direct digital captures from the DVD (as in using "Print Screen" while playing the movie)? I would reccomend using Media Player Classic, as it doesn't use overlay displays, which enables screenshots to be taken rather than just a blank black space appearing. I don't own the DVD, otherwise I would fix this myself. Green451 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• An official Shrek site might have images of the characters for media use: I think this article qualifies. Monado (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Shrek and Zizek

I added that philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote an interesting analysis of Shrek in his book Welcome to the desert of the Real. Someone deleted what i added, may I know why? [Hamlet]

Farquaad

Is Lord Farquaad mentioned too much? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.207.153 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

References in trivia

"The line "That'll do Donkey, that'll do" spoken by Shrek is a reference to the infamous line "That'll do pig, that'll do" spoken in the movie Deliverance following a brutal anal rape scene.

I don't believe a children's movie would reference a "brutal anal rape scene" from Deliverance. This is quite obviously a reference to the infamous line from the children's movie "Babe". Please change. Thanks.

Do you get what other awful stuff has been in Shrek? Farquaad? 68.81.106.2 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

lord farquad and Nazism

Lord (or king) farquad kind of reminds me of Hitler, exterminating the fairy tale creatures at the beginning. Just a thought! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidnvn (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Isn`t that a strange beginning?

Shrek is a soccer player who learns he is the son of David Beckham of William Steig's 1990 fairy tale picture book of the same name.

What kind of beginning is that? And what connection does Shrek has with that soccer player? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeD Jake Crusher (talk • contribs) 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

One word. VandalismDragon queen4ever 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Development section

The entire Trivia section contains information that should be part of the non-existant "Development sectionDurinsBane87 03:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So WHO placed the princess in the dragon's castle? And because she was in the castle the dragon would know her secret as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.89.124 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I tried to refine it and shorten it. Hopefully, it is now closer to appearing as it should to be a proper Wiki article. I think we can tighten it up even more. Thoughts? Ccrashh 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll go back on what I said above. The trivia should be integrated into the Production section, which i Didn't notice when i made the statement above. DurinsBane87 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, what does the trivia section have to do with the Plot Synopsis? :) Ccrashh 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specifically, I just figured thre should be a wider effort to improve the total article, and figured it would be a waste of space to make a whole new section. I'd help you out, but I've burned out my editing capacity for now. DurinsBane87 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I understand now. Yeah, the article is not very well done at all. I spun off that Plot Synopsis quickly. Probably too quickly. Ccrashh 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 4 and Shrek 5.

"*Shrek 4 - The sequel to Shrek 3, to be released in 2010 .

The producers have referred to Shrek as being in four parts, the fourth supposedly focusing on how Shrek ended up in the swamp where we meet him in the first movie, or how Shrek and Fiona are having trouble taking care of their babies.

• Shrek 5 - The sequel to Shrek 4, to be released in 2013 . It was confirmed by Antonio Banderas."

I've removed both of these entries due to absolutely no citation after an entire month of it having a fact tag on it, per WP:V. When someone can come up with a Reliable Source, then you can add it back in. dposse 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy voices fairy dust?

It just does not make sense. 24.83.3.54 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed this "The name Shrek likely comes from the Yiddish word שרעק (pronounced Shreck) or the German word Schreck, in either case meaning "fear" or "terror"." because it is a supposition (hence WP:OR) and is unsupported by the citation. Absent finding a citation of the author of the Yiddish or Dutch (or whatever other Germanic

What does sunsigned comment added by 66.232.173.71 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don Bluth

I removed the entire paragraph about Don Bluth. Despite it referring to "a notorious interview" and the fact that a Citation flag has been up for months, nobody has found a link to the allegations presented. Moreover, it claims Bluth had a falling out with Spielberg over the fact that Spielberg apparently did not give "Fievel Goes West" enough credit compared to "Beauty and the Beast," which leads to the obvious question: why would Bluth care when he had no involvement in the second American Tail movie? 206.218.218.57 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've removed the {{plot}} tag. While it could probably use a bit of a shave here and there, the summary isn't currently desperately long. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

who voiced the "Dragon"?

Despite the characted being described in the synop, it's not listed in the cast. I can't find it anywhere. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The dragon doesn't have a voice. If I recall correctly, it never speaks at all in any of the movies. It makes grunty noises and that's about it. --13² 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if there's a way to indicate that in the synop, it reads as if the dragon is actually a fully-participating character in relation to it's relationship with Donkey. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragon is a fully-participating character in relation to Donkey. Just because it is not listed in the cast is not critical. In the movie WarGames, the WOPR computer is a major talking role in the film, but it is not listed in the cast section either. SpikeJones (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My point remains the same: as somebody unfamiliar with the film or the material at hand, the synop read as if the Dragon character should have a cast credit, and the lack of a cast credit seems confusing. Perhaps a clarification of the synop somehow, or an item somewhere in the article as to why there is no credit needed? 207.237.61.26 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because a character appears in the synop doesn't mean they need a cast credit. If you were to remove the Dragon from the synop entirely, would that keep the synop in any intact form? Have you raised your question to the Film wikiproject folks to see if they have addressed this situation for other films? SpikeJones (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the character needs a cast credit, and I'm certainly not saying remove Dragon from the synop entirely. I'm saying that to somebody who is unfamiliar with Shrek (such as myself), reading the synop and noting this character missing from the cast list is confusing. A reader shouldn't have to go researching imdb or hollywood.com to try and find this info before bringing the subject to the talk page to discover the reason. This is the only place I have raised this discussion. Regardless of how this type of issue may have been handled in other articles, this matter in this article is confusing...I'm just striving to improve the clarity of the article. Perhaps a footnote to the cast list? Something to the effect of "*Dragon is not a speaking role and is thus uncredited." 207.237.61.26 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat that your question is bigger than something specific to this Shrek article. I will continue to recommend asking the film wikiproject how they handle uncredited roles of non-speaking/mute parts. Whatever recommendation they provide regarding how to handle it here will help others when the situation arises in other film-related articles. As I am assuming you are unfamiliar of where to find the films wikiproject, I have taken the liberty of asking the question there for you. SpikeJones (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your assistance and your posting the query on the film style page. (I am not particularly interested in the "bigger picture" of how wikipedia handles these type of situations. Wikipedia is too confusing with all it's guidelines that can be construed by whomever is the major editor on each article, which is why I don't have an account...) In this case, I am interested in improving the clarity of THIS article. Given the Broadway new production, I'm assuming this is a popular article as of late...and given the semi-protection status, I am not able to add my simple and fair suggestion of a resolution to the article. (adding "*Dragon is not a speaking role and is thus uncredited." as a footnote to the cast section seems reasonable and within all guidelines). 207.237.61.26 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the film, not the broadway play. If you have a question about the casting of Dragon in the play, you will need to take your question to that page instead. While we can certainly understand your interest in improving this article vs improving others, there is an effort to maintain some semblance of consistency across all of WP. The question you raise, while you feel is isolated to just here, is something that should be decided by powers larger than those who are interested in just one place. SpikeJones (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue or become hostile with you. However, the Shrek movie article is not protected because it's such a hot commodity of the day, it's because of the new franchise in the series: the Broadway musical. And while your effort may be an interest in Wikistandards and consistency, (which is a good question for the film project page) I'm keeping my focus on this article, which is why the query was placed here. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No hostility detected, I am merely trying to help you either achieve your goal so it is appropriately added per guidelines, or get a handle on why your request hasn't been done here or on other similar-situated pages. Your opinion is that THIS article is protected because of the musical; I say that we merely need to point those interested folks to the page about the musical so they can find what they're looking for. No worries there. As for this article, a wikifilm person has posted this response to the original question: Is there a reason why anything has to be said about the Dragon outside the "Plot" section? It does not seem that important to have a footnote for this situation. I am on that person's side, so I am unable to provide an adequate answer to them in your place. Please feel free to answer yourself (as you will pose your discussion better than I would) over on the aforementioned film wikiproject page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note that Dragon, despite being what you describe above as "fully participating", is completely missing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_the_Shrek_series . I note you're quite familiar with the work and have been editing that article. Will Dragon be included in the character list? 207.237.61.26 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no insight as to why Dragon is missing from that page as I did not create that page and only stumbled upon it while researching your original question. I am fascinated why you point out that Dragon is missing but avoid mentioning that every single major character in the film is *also* missing. In all likelihood, it is because each major character already has their own individual page and that page is merely for those other characters who are not significant enough to warrant existing on their own. As to why that page hasn't been appropriately updated, you are more than welcome to do so if it is a concern of yours (which I assume it is, having pointed out that there are some missing items). WP is a participatory place; you have expressed an interest, feel free to register a name and contribute where you feel necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable enough with Shrek to edit an article with such info. I'm not suggesting you do this project, however, perhaps this is a "to do" for somebody who is in fact more familiar with the work and more invested in making the articles clearer. Wikipedia does not require that every editor create an account in order to edit...my pointing out this flaw in these articles is participation enough for me, but thank you.

Bottom line (and no need to respond, I think we've both made our POV's clear): nowhere in the Shrek articles does it mention that this character has no dialogue, and this leads to confusion when the character is missing from the cast list, and when casting is missing from related Shrek articles. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

edit semiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} Nowhere in the Shrek articles does it mention that this character has no dialogue, and this leads to confusion when the character is missing from the cast list, and when casting is missing from related Shrek articles. Adding "*Dragon is not a speaking role and is thus uncredited." as a footnote to the cast section seems reasonable and within all guidelines. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... Leujohn ^(talk) 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Leujohn ^(talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 207.237.33.80 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned

I think it should be mentioned SOMEWHERE that Shrek has alot of Double entendre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.153.38 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Video Games

This Section should only mention the video games based on the movie shrek not the series shrek. Please move to shrek the series all other video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

True Love's First Kiss (Trivia)

Hi, I admire a lot "True Love's First Kiss", and also other orchestral compositions from Shrek like " Fairytale", "Helmet Hair" and "Prince Charming". One day on youtube, I got over a video with the name "Pelléas Et Mélisande (Intro)", a particular section of that composition stunned me with the resemblance of a small section from True Love's First Kiss (see the link). I submitted the "connection" on whosampled.com... My question is... they seem quite identical, does anyone knows if there is a connection? Should we bother to mention the binding on the article? --TudorTulok (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Shrek Action Figure.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Shrek Action Figure.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty Shrek: Music section

A merger of Shrek: Music from the Original Motion Picture with the empty section of Shrek: Music was proposed with this edit. I think that perhaps a more workable solution would be for someone to write up a short summary of the information from Shrek: Music from the Original Motion Picture. That new information could then be placed within this article's empty (Music) section along with a hatnote back to the Music article itself. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I do not think soundtracks should be on a page by themselves. They always end up stubs for a long time and never really grow so they are better suited to be put on the movie's page then as a page by themselves.
• Support It would be more convenient to have the soundtrack content in the movie page rather than having a special page for it. I say merge it! NoeG2012 talk to me, baby 23:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Something is missing? Clarity request

<quote> However, John H. Williams convinced the idea of the film to DreamWorks in 1994, the time the studio was founded, and the film was put quickly into active development </quote>

Maybe the author of this sentence was talking about computer animation? (versus the traditional animation mentioned in the prior sentence) Or, maybe something else was meant? But this is very clumsy. At first I thought it might be a grammar (word selection) fail in using 'convinced'. In any case, yucky.
~ender 2012-06-16 14:00:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

Vasquez Rocks?

The Wikipedia article List of productions using the Vasquez Rocks as a filming location says, "The Rocks were drawn into the animated series Futurama, depicting various alien landscapes as they did in the other science fiction shows, and they were also animated in Shrek." That raises an interesting mental image of the rocks moving, which I don't recall from any of the Shrek movies. Perhaps they appear as background in the scene where Fiona demands that Prince F. rescue her himself? I hope that someone can review the movie and specify the scene, if the rocks do indeed appear.

By the way, why does no one ever mark the minutiae of movies and video games as "not significant enough for an encyclopedia"? Monado (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Assistantly

I can't make any sense out of the use of "Assistantly" in the first paragraph.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Internet meme content

Anyone care if it stays or goes? Have reliable sources for this information? Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shrek/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Educational article, decent, 2 images, 118 citations. JJ98 (Talk) 23:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition of 'Themes' section

My group and I are looking to improve the scholarly quality of this page via the introduction of a themes section. Concerning deeper theathrical message and motivations behind the creation of Shrek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsoff (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-organisation of Cultural References section

This section seems to be unorganised. I'd like to categorise the information according to the reference's studio. All the Disney references will be in one paragraph and the other studios will be in a separate one. --CharlotteResearch (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a small piece on Duloc's parody of Disneyland and cited a supporting scholarly source, i.e. Jack Zipe's book 'The Enchanted Screen: The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films.' 161.23.128.224 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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. 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. Not much support for these moves. Guelf offered data to show that most readers are looking for the 2001 film not the character. That's consistent with the current use of 'Shrek' to mean the film. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated}}

• Shrek → Shrek (film)
• Shrek (character) → Shrek

– When I hear "Shrek", the first thing I think of is the character, second thing is the franchise, third is the first film. Unreal7 (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would say Shrek (franchise) should be moved to Shrek instead. And the film be moved to Shrek (2001 film), as the franchise is also a film topic. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, with all due respect, what Unreal7 (talk · contribs) thinks of when he/she hears "Shrek" is not a consideration in deciding what should be done with this title, or any title. Usage in reliable sources is. If there is evidence based on usage in RS, or in terms of page view counts, supporting this move, please show it. Otherwise, there is no case here. --B2C 03:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The idea is to get the reader to the article he is most likely to be seeking with the least amount of fuss. This Google ranking suggests more readers are looking for the film than the character. Guelf (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per B2C Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1st move, Oppose 2nd move - in cases like this where franchising overtakes and eats an original work there is no primary topic and defaulting to a dab makes the best sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as truly the most ridiculous move-rationale I've ever seen. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The movie is clearly the primary topic. Koala15 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, I am in favor of having "Shrek" redirect to "Shrek (film)". This benefits both people looking for the first film, and people looking for the character, franchise, etc. People looking for the film itself would immediately know that "Shrek (film)" is what they are looking for, whereas people searching for something else would recognize immediately that "Shrek (film)" is not what they want. However, I oppose moving "Shrek (character)" to just "Shrek" for the same reasons I listed above. Not everyone is necessarily looking for the character when they search "Shrek". Twyfan714 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Respectful oppose - this is probably better than the character, probably better than the franchise, and far better than a disambiguation mess. Red Slash 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As IIO suggests, there is no primary topic here. But I think the proposer has a good point, although they may not have expressed it as convincingly as some might. Put Shrek into some sentences... I really like Shrek, Shrek din't impress me at all, but Shrek has a sense of humour. The first two are ambiguous, but the third is clearly about the character. I can't find an uncontrived example where Shrek would unambiguously be the film or the franchise. I'd like us to rethink the primary topic guidelines in situations like this. I certainly don't think it's as cut and dried as some suggest above, in terms of reader experience. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (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.

Casting

Why is there extensive text about Janeane Garofalo, but no mention of the casting of Cameron Diaz who did become Fiona? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

To add "" on Peter Pan. 86.22.6.220 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Carniolus (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Rickman was originally offered to play Farquaad

Alan Rickman was originally offered for the role of Lord Farquaad, but he turned it down to play Severus Snape in Harry Potter instead. 86.30.216.49 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--Carniolus (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shrek. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://data.detnews.com/movies/details.hbs?myrec=1258
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=320&reviewId=2145
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/content/movies/nd4756.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.observer.com/node/44569

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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: No move. There's no consensus that the film's status as primary topic has changed. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

---

This would be better if this happened. Malplaced disambiguation page. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:9D8C:5BAF:DB29:2FAD (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Shrek → Shrek (film)
• Shrek (disambiguation) → Shrek

- This article is about the film. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:9D8C:5BAF:DB29:2FAD (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If we take longterm significance out of the equation (I don't think any of the articles have a historical claim to the name) and consider the page views for the main article and the pages that are actually disambiguated this is what we get for the last 90 days: Shrek - 245k, Shrek (disambiguation) - 5k, Shrek (franchise) - 85k, Shrek! - 26k, Shrek (character) - 38k, Shrek (video game) - 6k, Shrek (album) - 1k, Shrek (sheep) - 9k. So we have 245k for the first film which occupies the namespace and around 170k for the disambiguated articles. I am omitting the film sequels from the counts such as Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third since they are not actually disambiguated, and presumably someone searching for Shrek 2 would search for Shrek 2. Now, what isn't immediately clear is how many people searching for one of the disambiguated articles visited the main namespace first. The hits for the other three film articles (Shrek 2/3/4) are in the 80-100k range so is it likely that the hits for the first film would be more than double the others? Given that there are a combined 150k hits for the franchise, character and original book I don't think a convincing case can be made for the first film being the primary topic. On that basis I am leaning towards a split, but that said I don't think the numbers are conclusive. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Has anything particularly different happened since the last move request? Seems like the other participants could use a ping. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's partially a different proposal. The last request wanted to move the character page to the main page whereas as this request is proposing that the disambiguation page takes the main page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Shrek (character), Shrek (franchise), Shrek (book), Shrek (musical) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Per what??? Is your argument that it isn't the primary topic? of course the others are disambiguated if the first film is the primary topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Per the existence of closely intertwined subjects one of which is the real first - the book In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence has been presented that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SSTflyer 08:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I write my comments in invisible ink? To the contrary there is quite a bit of evidence that the film isn't the primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in terms of longterm historical significance, the first film will always have primary topic, because it is what started it all. In the absence of any significant argument for usage being focused heavily away from the first film, i don't see any reason to change the status quo.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mild oppose This resembles the issue at The Fox and the Hound, where the Disney film is the primary use of the name, despite the earlier release of the Daniel P. Mannix book upon which the film was based. Despite being newer, the former work is far more known than the latter work. In the case of Shrek, however, I would agree that the standalone name should refer to the entire franchise that developed around the film work. So Shrek would be for the overall franchise, Shrek (novel) for the William Steig work from which the film was derived (although its proper name is Shrek! with punctuation), Shrek (character) would be for the ogre himself, Shrek (film) would be for the initial 2001 film, etc. --McDoobAU93 16:23, 9 May 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.

Cleanup

I made some changes. First of all, I removed the bit that labeled individual reviews as positive, as that's too interpretative. To label them as such strikes me as original research. It's better to just let the quotation speak for itself. I also removed the critical summary from Cinema Crazed, which looks like some guy's blog. What evidence is there that this person is a professional journalist who is qualified to summarize the reception of the film? We already have a summary statement from Rotten Tomatoes, so I'm not quite sure what it even adds. Also, this is kind of a minor change, but I converted the infobox to use {{plainlist}}, as instructed by {{infobox film}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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. - A request was only filed a few weeks ago ... that aside there's absolutely no reason to move the articles so closing as Not Moved. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Shrek → Shrek (film)
• Shrek (disambiguation) → Shrek To distinguish from Shrek (album), Shrek (video game), and others. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:F0AF:3E31:A9EB:E342 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage: you have to go at least six or seven pages into Google Books or Google News results before you get anything besides the big green ogre. I could see putting the franchise article at the base title, but certainly not the disambiguation page. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also speedy close given that this exact same request from the same IP range was rejected just a couple of weeks ago. Looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per NOT GETTING IT and no evidence that film is not primary topic. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 2 June 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.

Requested move 4

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. Disruptive IP has been blocked again. Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Shrek → Shrek (film) "Shrek" should be redirected to "Shrek!". 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:189E:A4B0:6469:D4DE (talk) 14:58, 2 July 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.

Reviews

Does this article really need 400 one-liners from every paper in Christendom ? Seems way over the top to me 210.22.142.82 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

I would like edit the following sections: Other media, Reception (influence), Sequels and spin-offs, and introduction in order to add a critical influence of Shrek. One of the major influences, spin-offs, and reception included a fan-fiction entitled "Shrek Is Love, Shrek Is Life." In order to include this major media source that keeps Shrek relevant, I need to edit this article.

Isawka (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

PDI

What is "PDI"? A gloss needs to be included.68.150.86.232 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Carniolus (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

production

This film was green light in 1996 according to this: http://archive.li/JJhpE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evope (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shrek. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20010518%2FREVIEWS%2F105180305%2F1023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115212612/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/140900-Shrek-the-Musical-to-Open-at-Theatre-Royal-Drury-Lane-in-May-2011 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/140900-Shrek-the-Musical-to-Open-at-Theatre-Royal-Drury-Lane-in-May-2011

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

Shrek is bisexual. JahcokBoyy3 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shrek. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829013803/http://www.film.com/movies/janeane-garofalo-talks-ratatouille to http://www.film.com/movies/janeane-garofalo-talks-ratatouille

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

change Shrek picture and add a better picture as that pic is out dated ItsYeahBoi (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As this article is about the first Shrek movie, the current image is entirely appropriate. - Donald Albury 12:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

Tjjesse2002 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC) this article about shrek is false, some of it anyways the main music took place in Norway

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2018

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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Shrek → Shrek (film)
• Shrek (franchise) → Shrek

– In Wikipedia articles such as Jurassic Park and Star Wars, the franchise is the primary topic, not the original film. This one should follow suit as well. 73.100.199.220 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• comment - hmmm I'm stuck on this one. For me, the first thing that comes to mind as the primary topic is actually Shrek (character), followed by the franchise as a whole, then the movie. Holding my vote for now because I don't have any evidence to support this, its more a gut feeling. Here is the long-term page views analysis just for reference. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose until another film comes out. I think the current setup works well as the movie is, to me, the primary topic for the base word "Shrek". Red Slash 19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• This same RM has been made four times, most recently in 2016. I'm not sure much has changed since then. jamacfarlane (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Red Slash. The film is the primary topic not the franchise. - Brojam (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Red Slash. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 13:42, 12 July 2018 (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.

Category assessment

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) 03:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit 12/5/2018

Good afternoon,

I've added a section under the Influence section about the scene for scene recreation I found on Youtube called "Shrek Retold". It has over a million views and I believe should be acknowledged in that capacity. If you disagree or feel it needs more extrapolation, please feel free to reach out.

Jgesnard (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

There is no mention of the November 29th publication of Shrek retold in the fandom section. Shrek retold is a very important part of the Shrek community and ought to be referenced. Milky Johny (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be mentioned in the Shrek#Influence section. – Þjarkur (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

First Search-Result?

I'd argue the Web page for William Steig's book, rather than for the 2001 animated film, should be the primary result upon a search for, "Shrek." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando303 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Shrek: The Series (season 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shrek: The Series (season 2). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 21:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Shrek: The Series (season 3)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shrek: The Series (season 3). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)