I was searching in Google about the lines Shrek said to Fiona as he was about to disappear because his 24 hours were up, then I came across a review of Shrek Forever After by Cinefantastique. Since I couldn't comment on the post, I'll just make a post myself.
Here's a part of the review I so totally disagree with:
The script for SHREK FOREVER AFTER is marred by inconsistencies: although Shrek is the one who was never born in this new reality, it is Fiona’s royal parents who wink out of existence, and Rumplestiltskin manages to claim their kingdom without fulfilling his half of the bargain (which was to save Fiona). Does it matter? Probably not – at least, not if the jokes fly fast and funny enough to make us forget the details.
First of all, Rumpelstiltskin is a con man, and he tricked Fiona's parents into signing a contract that would make "all of their problems go away" if they were to hand him the kingdom of Far Far Away. Rumpelstiltskin did exactly just that - by making Fiona's parents disappear, all of their problems disappeared as well (get it?). In the real world, they were about to sign the contract but Shrek had already saved Fiona (shown in the first part of the movie). In the alternate universe where Shrek wasn't born, naturally the contract signing between Fiona's parents and Rumpelstiltskin did push through, making them poof out of existence.
If the movie is marred by inconsistencies, where are the others? There's only one mentioned in this review. If I was the one to point out an inconsistency, I would like to ask where Artie went. He didn't make any appearances in the real world (and of course since Shrek wasn't born in the alternate world, I don't expect to see him there at all because no one would have taken him from his high school to Far Far Away), as well as Prince Charming and his mother.
Oh well, all I can say is I really liked the movie. Plus the fact that I am just expressing my opinion, and that I'll miss seeing the green big ogre on the big screen.
Posts
2 comments:
You say you "couldn't comment on the post," implying that we don't allow comments - which isn't true.
As far as Rumplestiltskin being a con man, this may be true, but it doesn't alter the foundation of how these stories work, which is that the letter of the agreement is upheld, while its spirit is violated.
This should go without saying, but here goes anyway: Making Fiona's parents disappear does not make their problems go away; it makes them go away. This does not uphold the letter of the agreement.
In a story based on the premise that Shrek's agreement with Rumplestiltskin creates in a world in which he was never born, I would argue that having Fiona's parents wink of existence instead (especially on such a flimsy pretext) counts as an inconsistency.
Sorry you didn't like my review, but that's why we allow comments on the website - so our readers can tell us where we went wrong.
Thank you for the visit. I'm flattered. I took a screenshot of your site where it says you need to log in before you can comment. I have a Wordpress account too, but my log in details give me an error message. Maybe this is why most of your other posts don't have comments either, because you can't, unless the person who's going to comment is given access to your site.
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r28/isleng17/cinefantastique.jpg
As you said, the letter of agreement is upheld, but the spirit is violated. Think about it this way - if you're not here, living in this world anymore, do you think you would still have any problems to worry about? That's why the agreement is indeed upheld - Fiona's parents have nothing to worry about anymore but the spirit of the agreement is violated because they also don't exist.
Post a Comment