What do we think of the new shrek?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbiwL74KyJQ

>>1008463 (OP)
https://archived.moe/3/thread/1008398/
You already got a thread and it was killed because it was shit. Now go donuts and sin no more

>>1008463 (OP)
The graphics are just terrible. The joke about the tik tok isn't funny at all.

The first impression is this: crap

>>1008468
That was on-topic for /3/, tard

>>1008484
then why was it killed?

>>1008485
>Appeal to authority (janitor)
You're low IQ

>>1008463 (OP)

This is minecraft movie part two. It generally looks good but everyone shits on it in part because the original fans have aged out of it and it's no longer meant for them, and in part because of simple groupthink. Right is objectively better than left- I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey at all, it looks like someone just rotated the jaw controller straight down on x and called it a day. His tongue has no wetness to it and the 2d bump mapping on his skin/the way the light hits his lips looks totally off and kind of uncanny the longer you look at it. It was good art direction for what was available in 2001 but it's unironically the current year. 4chan in particular doubles down on it's negativity towards it because they added a character who in spite of being green has some sort of nonwhite aura about her that's a bit hard to quantify.

They overdid the aging on Fiona, the teeth are very excessive.

>>1008497
>Right is objectively better than left
>objectively

>>1008463 (OP)
This video sums up how I feel: https://files.catbox.moe/d9kjhd.mp4

subsurface depth is a bit too high t bh
i mostly don't care tho

>>1008463 (OP)
personally, i do not like how soft and smooth it looks. Hes an ogre, but i guess if you spend all day in mud baths youd have nice skin.

>>1008540
I'm not the guy you responded to, but I like 30 fps.

>>1008533
This video better be a voluptuous black woman bouncing on a fat white dick

>>1008463 (OP)
They look like Disney characters now. I thought the point of the original style was to look like some autistic computer graphics medieval realism only DnD nerds would be into and it actually is amazing how the animation wasn't really that uncanny for the time. With this new Disney style, it's clear they want this to be more of a children's movie. Whatever.

>>1008463 (OP)
It looks soulless I thought it was so generated

>>1008497
>I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey
because you are severely autistic and that's a symptom

>>1008497
> I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey at all
First picture =
Second picture =

>>1009085
>>1009109
It’s been 15 years, yes people change. His daughters are 15 now as you saw in the video. What did you expect?

>>1009109
The perfect example of how retards can't tell AI and non-AI content apart, and just assume that everything that doesn't look like it's from the early 2000s is AI. The future is bleak, no matter how good you get, 90% of these idiots will assume it's AI.

>>1009085
>>1009106
Shrek visually has a more threatening aura in the original, which worked much better. There's room for emotional ambiguity, rather than the whole "every emotion needs to expressed with maximum exaggeration" style.

With the new model, they're making him *more* overtly goofy in a way that doesn't make sense for the character, since a good portion of his characterization comes from the incongruity of his appearance and actions.

A lot of people will bring this up, but no, it's not even "book Shrek"; it's some softened version of him? This isn't "aged Shrek" either. I wouldn't imagine him looking like this

>>1009745
>Its a softer sherk
Did you people really forget about his character arc in battling his own inner selves. Yes he became nicer in the original trilogy.

>>1009085
His eyebrows look luscious.

They were obviously trying to make him look more like older depictions of ogres but people don't like change

>>1008497
>It generally looks good but everyone shits on it in part because the original fans have aged out of it and it's no longer meant for them, and in part because of simple groupthink
This but unironically.

>>1008497
>>1010203

>>1008497
>>1010203
>puss in boots 2 uses the original shrek styled models
>critics love it
>fans love it
>it makes a billion dollars
>some guy on 4chan: "yeah that movie came out in 2022, get with the time gramps. things change, its the current year!"

i think youre retarded

>>1010203
Old looks better not because it's old but because it looks less human. Great picture though, saved.

>>1010228
It looks exactly the same with higher resolution and texture. Stop trying to justify your opinion of sherk being something you associate with memes.

>>1010237
No, it's different in many ways. Nose is very different, outline of eyes is different, distance between the eyes is also very obviously different. I'd say old nose is closer to african type, while new one is jewish.

>>1010205
This dude's nose looks closer to old Shreks nose than new Shreks nose.

>>1010203
But isn't it weird that literally the only people who say this, literally always say it of products produced between the years of 1980 and 2010?

>>1008463 (OP)
I had no idea what the original was until I noticed the right one was rendered with subsurface scattering.
>>1009085
schizo

>>1010244
>new one is jewish.
They're trying to condition young people to unfunny Zionist Jewish actors, comedians and writers.

If something successful is made, they swoop in and remake it about them.

>>1008497
>>1008463 (OP)
this is unironically soul vs soulless. yes right shrek is better on a technical level, but shrek on the left has more value on a visual appeal level. it's familiar, it's original. right is literally every cover song you see on youtube with [EPIC VERSION] in the title

>>1008463 (OP)
Can we have one movie that doesn't have All Star in the soundtrack? Please?