Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:
** Concieved would have made sense and was probably the intended meaning of the deal. Yet, obviously, there was no way a family film could have actually referred to it as "the day you were concieved", so "born" was a stand-in for "concieved". Maybe in the Shrekverse, the two words are used synonymously.
to:
** Concieved Conceived would have made sense and was probably the intended meaning of the deal. Yet, obviously, there was no way a family film could have actually referred to it as "the day you were concieved", conceived", so "born" was a stand-in for "concieved"."conceived". Maybe in the Shrekverse, the two words are used synonymously.
Changed line(s) 111 (click to see context) from:
to:
** "Conceived" wouldn't have worked, as Stiltskin specifically says it's a day when Shrek was a ''baby'' that's being negated, not the day he was a zygote.
** Don't forget, Shrek and Fiona had ''triplets''. If multiple births are typical for ogres, Stiltskin's contract could easily have reduced Shrek's mother's pregnancy from triplets to twins, or twins to a singleton, without his parents even realizing anything had gone wrong.
** Don't forget, Shrek and Fiona had ''triplets''. If multiple births are typical for ogres, Stiltskin's contract could easily have reduced Shrek's mother's pregnancy from triplets to twins, or twins to a singleton, without his parents even realizing anything had gone wrong.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Indeed, if they'd ''never'' existed, then they couldn't have a claim on Far Far Away's throne to trade away, in the first place. Some other royal relative - probably Arthur - would have ruled in their stead.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23 (click to see context) from:
to:
** There are other female ogres in the world. Probably, once he'd determined that Fiona wasn't in the area where the Wanted posters were, he assumed they depicted some other ogress that just ''looked'' like her.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Especially since Stiltskin and his witch minions probably wouldn't put up with a rival magic-user like the Fairy Godmother operating in ''his'' kingdom.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
* Why is the empty Dragon Keep meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek? Considering Shrek had previously seen all those wanted posters with Fiona's face, he should've already known she wouldn't be in the tower.
to:
* Why is the The empty Dragon Keep meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek? Considering huge shocker, but considering Shrek had previously seen all those wanted posters with Fiona's face, shouldn't he should've have already known she wouldn't be in the tower.
tower?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
* The empty Dragon Keep is meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek, but considering Shrek had previously seen all those wanted posters with Fiona's face, shouldn't he have already known she wouldn't be in the tower?
to:
* The Why is the empty Dragon Keep is meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek, but considering Shrek? Considering Shrek had previously seen all those wanted posters with Fiona's face, shouldn't he have should've already known she wouldn't be in the tower?
tower.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
* The empty Dragon Keep is meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek, but considering Shrek had previously seen those wanted posters with Fiona's face on them, shouldn't he have already known she wouldn't be in the tower?
to:
* The empty Dragon Keep is meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek, but considering Shrek had previously seen all those wanted posters with Fiona's face on them, face, shouldn't he have already known she wouldn't be in the tower?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*The empty Dragon Keep is meant to be treated as a shocker for Shrek, but considering Shrek had previously seen those wanted posters with Fiona's face on them, shouldn't he have already known she wouldn't be in the tower?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
** And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likey that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve tempering with the fairy godmother's magic. Or if Fiona's curse was intact since she was born as a result of Harold being a former talking frog, the spell was just THAT powerfull. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fionas spell so that a a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)
to:
** And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likey that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve tempering tampering with the fairy godmother's magic. Or if Fiona's curse was intact since she was born as a result of Harold being a former talking frog, the spell was just THAT powerfull. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fionas spell so that a a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 105,106 (click to see context) from:
** Maybe Rumple couldn't ERASE the day Shrek was born because that would alter the past in general. Everyone alive at the time would have been affected , and there descendance alive later. They would say "What? It's Tuesday? Did we sleep through Monday?" And if Rumple tried to do this to someone born on December 7th 1941, the bombing of Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened (Say what you want about re-writing history, but still...) making our way of life today different in some extent. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom having a last-minute miscarriage, or even making Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek pass, not THE PAST!
to:
** Maybe Rumple couldn't ERASE the day Shrek was born because that would alter the past in general. Everyone alive at the time would have been affected , and there descendance alive later. They would say "What? It's Tuesday? Did we sleep through Monday?" And if Rumple tried to do this to someone born on December 7th 1941, the bombing of Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened (Say what you want about re-writing history, but still...) making our way of life today different in some extent. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom having a last-minute miscarriage, or even making Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek pass, past, not THE PAST!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
** And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likey that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve tamering with the fairy godmother's magic. Or if Fiona's curse was intact since she was born as a result of Harold being a former talking frog, the spell was just THAT powerfull. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fionas spell so that a a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)
to:
** And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likey that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve tamering tempering with the fairy godmother's magic. Or if Fiona's curse was intact since she was born as a result of Harold being a former talking frog, the spell was just THAT powerfull. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fionas spell so that a a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)
Changed line(s) 72 (click to see context) from:
** Before tis scene, the Pied Piper clearly switches the setting on his pipe from Witch to Ogre. It would only affect ogres.
to:
** Before tis this scene, the Pied Piper clearly switches the setting on his pipe from Witch to Ogre. It would only affect ogres.
Changed line(s) 78 (click to see context) from:
to:
** He had peoples spread the words all ogres are invited to his house party. And the Pied Piper also do party performances, Fiona must've been the one who hired him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
to:
** He could erase Shrek at birth to fullfill 'never met in the first place' though.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
to:
** They could still be alive but simply chose not to intervene in the plot because there was no point to do so if Fiona went on her own path. Farquaad only wanted to marry Fiona to rule Duloc (Fiona escaped, Farquaad can't find her or just had to make do with another one of those princesses his "The Dating Game" mirror host presented him with). Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming's only goal was to pair Prince up with Fiona, but she escaped. And because King Harold isn't around for Fairy Godmother to take her wrath out on, she gave up and most likely sought out another wife for her son.
** I could also imagine them as simply not having enough power to overwhelm Rumplestilskin's tyranny.
** I could also imagine them as simply not having enough power to overwhelm Rumplestilskin's tyranny.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* If the world that Rumplestiltskin created from his bargain with Shrek is one where Shrek was never born, shouldn't Prince Charming still be alive in this new timeline? And the Fairy Godmother? And Lord Farquaad?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* Why does no-one read the contract before signing it. Seriously, Fiona's parents, Shrek - there's a lot of um-ing and ah-ing over whether they should do it, but none of them ever check to see exactly what they're getting themselves into, or, if they do, rely entirely on Rumplestilskin telling them the truth.
to:
* Why does no-one read the contract before signing it. it? Seriously, Fiona's parents, Shrek - there's a lot of um-ing and ah-ing over whether they should do it, but none of them ever check to see exactly what they're getting themselves into, or, if they do, rely entirely on Rumplestilskin telling them the truth.
Changed line(s) 64,65 (click to see context) from:
** It's not that they don't read it, it's that the contract's wording leaves it open to interpretation and they interpret it in a more beneficial way than will occur.
to:
** It's not that they don't read it, it's it. It's that the contract's wording leaves it open to interpretation and they interpret it in a more beneficial way than will occur.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 107 (click to see context) from:
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.
to:
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.eventually.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 107 (click to see context) from:
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.
to:
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.eventualy.
** A. He's got reality-bending magic. B. Why ''would'' the witches attack him or rebel? They have it pretty cushy with him in charge.
** A. He's got reality-bending magic. B. Why ''would'' the witches attack him or rebel? They have it pretty cushy with him in charge.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 106 (click to see context) from:
* How exactly is Rumpel in charge of Far Far Away? By that I mean, why didn't someone eventually overpower him and his witch army sooner? Or why didn't the witches attack him? Even with water being a threat, they still have the number advantage and magic against Rumpel and could've rebelled. So what stopped anyone from Giants to witches to anyone else from just taking over? I mean, the ogres seemed to have him helpless once they hold him in their hands with no witches?
to:
* How exactly is Rumpel in charge of Far Far Away? By that I mean, why didn't someone eventually overpower him and his witch army sooner? Or why didn't the witches attack him? Even with water being a threat, they still have the number advantage and magic against Rumpel and could've rebelled. So what stopped anyone from Giants to witches to anyone else from just taking over? I mean, the ogres seemed to have him helpless once they hold him in their hands with no witches?witches?
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.
** Perhaps the contract with Fiona's parents makes his position as king magically invincible. Even if he's usurped temporarily, reality warps itself to put him back on the throne eventualy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 98,99 (click to see context) from:
** Maybe Rumple didn't ERASE the day Shrek was born because that would alter the past in general. Everyone alive at the time would have been affected , and there descendance alive later. They would say "What? It's Tuesday? Did we sleep through Monday?" And if Rumple tried to do this to someone born on December 7th 1941, the bombing of Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened (Say what you want about re-writing history, but still...) making our way of life today different. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom having a last-minute miscarriage, or even making Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek pass, not THE PAST!
to:
** Maybe Rumple didn't couldn't ERASE the day Shrek was born because that would alter the past in general. Everyone alive at the time would have been affected , and there descendance alive later. They would say "What? It's Tuesday? Did we sleep through Monday?" And if Rumple tried to do this to someone born on December 7th 1941, the bombing of Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened (Say what you want about re-writing history, but still...) making our way of life today different.different in some extent. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom having a last-minute miscarriage, or even making Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek pass, not THE PAST!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 98 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Maybe Rumple didn't ERASE the day Shrek was born because that would alter the past in general. Everyone alive at the time would have been affected , and there descendance alive later. They would say "What? It's Tuesday? Did we sleep through Monday?" And if Rumple tried to do this to someone born on December 7th 1941, the bombing of Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened (Say what you want about re-writing history, but still...) making our way of life today different. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom having a last-minute miscarriage, or even making Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek pass, not THE PAST!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:
to:
**And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likey that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve tamering with the fairy godmother's magic. Or if Fiona's curse was intact since she was born as a result of Harold being a former talking frog, the spell was just THAT powerfull. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fionas spell so that a a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 79 (click to see context) from:
*** But... they "disappear on the spot" due to Rumple taking the day they were born, as he did with Shrek. Shrek didn't disappear on the spot as his contract promised him the day to experience what it would have been like if he didn't rescue Fiona and everything, the parents didn't get that as their contract didn't specify such a day, hence the "disappearing on the spot". so if they never existed, Fiona shouldn't have existed either.
to:
*** But... they "disappear on the spot" due to Rumple taking the day they were born, as he did with Shrek. Shrek didn't disappear on the spot as his contract promised him the day to experience what it would have been like if he didn't rescue Fiona and everything, the parents didn't get that as their contract didn't specify such a day, hence the "disappearing on the spot". so So if they never existed, Fiona shouldn't have existed either.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Also, when Shrek turns himself in to take advantage of the deal, Rumpel tells him he can't use another contract to undo the effects of his own. Presumably this failsafe is in effect for all of Rumpel's contracts, meaning it'd be impossible for someone to use the Deal of a Lifetime to steal his kingdom for themselves, as that would be undermining the contract he made with Harold and Lillian. So that could be why he's not worried about it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
[[redirect:Headscratchers/{{Shrek}}]]
to:
* The main conflict in the movie is that Shrek signs a contract which causes Shrek and Fiona to never have met. Despite this, Donkey does not know Shrek (they met prior to knowing about Fiona), Fiona is still an ogre (considering she would still be locked in the tower, Farquaad or Charming would have found her first), and Puss is a ComicStrip/{{Garfield}} {{expy}} (he still would have been a successful ogre hunter). Why?
** Donkey doesn't know Shrek because Shrek has never been born in this bizarro world.
** Fiona always changed into an ogre at night, so she was already half-ogre of a sort.
** Also, she got tired of waiting for the knight in shining armor and became one herself. She freed herself, which is not a strange thing, thinking of the martial arts skills she displayed in the prior movies.
** Fiona hid during the day, like how she his during the night in the original movie. Faarquad's knights and possibly Charming would have been killed by Dragon if Fiona wasn't already gone (depending on when Dragon was relocated to Rumpelstiltstkin's place). Puss was an assassin, not just an ogre slayer, and while I don't know what caused him to change his lifestyle [[WildMassGuessing he could have been hired for an information-finding or body-guarding job by Fiona and decided to retire after having a heart-to-heart chat with her and re-evaluating his life choices and whether he actually enjoys being an assassin when all the gold he gets can't buy him a loving friend]].
** The first answer was correct, but to be specific, he didn't sign a contract that 'caused Shrek and Fiona to not have met', he signed a contract that gave away his day of birth. In other words, after signing, in that world he no longer exist, because he was never born. He could never meet any of them, and this is what happened to their lives without his influence.
* In the timeline where Shrek was never born, whatever happened with Lord Farquaad? Shouldn't one of his men have gotten to Fiona before she freed herself?
** Given the narcissism he exhibited through the movie, do you really think he cared about a princess without a kingdom? He likely just chose another princess to save.
** What about Prince Charming? He was said to have broken into the castle to save Fiona shortly after Shrek did.
*** Perhaps Fairy Godmother attempted to swing a deal with Rumplestiltzkin and ended up screwed over?
** Simple, they're ''dead'', because:
-->'''Fiona:''' You're supposed to [[GenreBlind charge in, sword drawn, banner flying]]... [[IdiotBall that's what all the other knights did!]]
-->'''Shrek:''' Yeah, right before they ''burst into flame!''
** Well, the fact that Shrek and Donkey took on a whole squadron of Farquaad's men (and even HE had trouble with the dragon, and likely could not have defeated it,) leads this troper to believe that none of his men could have saved her if they wanted to.
*** Charming no longer had motivation to save Fiona... in the new timeline Far Far Away belongs to Stiltzkin. Charming wanted to marry Fiona simply to become next in line for the Far Far Away throne. Chances are he and Fairy Godmother simply moved to a different kingdom to try and take it over.
* Seriously, where were all those other ogres before this movie anyway?!
** From what we've seen of Shrek's behavior, ogres are probably a lot like tigers or Literature/{{Harry Potter}}'s giants: natural loners who need ''a lot'' of space, only banding together under extraordinary circumstances.
* Was Rumplestilskin holding the VillainBall in terms of his contract with Fiona's parents? If he had done what they intended and freed Fiona and "cured" her, thing would have worked out better. Fiona would still have no claim over Far Far Away (and probably would be relieved enough to be free to care) and could probably be kept happy with a nobility position. And being human, it would be considered improper for her to interact with Shrek, and it would be less likely she would want to, since she would still be in the "ogres are bad" mindset. Plus, with her in the kingdom, Rumplestilskin could control her better, making it less likely True Love's Kiss would occur.
** FridgeBrilliance: Had he given them what they asked for, rather than some twisted-to-the-point-of-inaccuracy version of what he said they would get, the deal would have been broken as soon as Harold and Lillian kissed, or once one of them kissed Fiona depending on how wide the definition of True Love is. Disappearing them is probably the only way he can guarantee the contract not being broken, even accidentally.
*** I thought each deal had its own escape clause? That would make sense since, a lot of people would be making deals specifically to get love.
*** You make a fine point about the different escape clauses for each contract, but I will remind you that that wouldn't be [[MoreThanMindControl Twue Wuv]]. Just [[MindRape mystical mindwash mumbo-jumbo]].
*** Donkey said that he's seen the contracts be folded to find the escape clause, if they were all the same, he'd know what it was without folding it.
*** Just because he knows how to fold it doesn't mean he can read the clause while the contract is unfolded, does it?
*** Different contracts would have different text and thus when folded would give different escape clauses.
* How did that deal make sense anyway? The deal was for Fiona to be cured in exchange for Far Far Away (Rumplestilskin did say "All your problems will disappear" but I doubt that was the actual deal). Instead, once the contract is signed the king and queen disappear and Fiona doesn't get cured? How does that work??
** Apparently that was the deal. I guess they didn't read the fine print?
*** Perhaps. But if the king & queen were boneheaded enough not to ''specify'' that Fiona's curse be lifted as part of the contract, Rumple is free to interpret "save our daughter" in any way he chooses. Like, for example, arranging for Dragon to live in his castle, giving Fiona a clear shot to escape from the tower herself.
** Well, if they're dead they don't have any problems to worry about anymore.
* In the alternate version of the timeline, it is apparent that several years have passed between Fiona's escape and the present day. This is evidenced by the lava from Fiona's volcano-castle having disappeared, Fiona having established herself firmly at the top of the ranks of an ogre colony, and the ogres having formed a deep-seeded hatred of witches, whom were never viewed as ogre-hating harpies in previous movies. This appears to be a period of at LEAST five years, but none of the characters have aged a day in appearance.
** Second, also in the alternate world in Shrek 4, Donkey seems to have no will at all to become friends with Shrek, even going so far as to be scared to death by the ogre. But in the first movie, he was practically jumping into Shrek's arms. I don't think this has to do with conditioning from the witches, since his comment of "I need this job" gives the impression that he hadn't been working for the witches for very long at all. Also, he doesn't sing much. At all.
** Five years shouldn't age somebody to any noticeable degree, unless they're kids. As for Donkey's fear, in the first film, Shrek was simply being annoyed by Donkey, and trying to get away. In this one, Shrek was actively seeking him out.
** In the first movie, Donkey was initially scared of Shrek when he first ran into him, but then Shrek "saves" Donkey by scaring away the knights. That's why Donkey initially likes him.
** Five years under Rumple's rule could have changed him. He could have learned not to trust others, especially ogres, with all of the bad publicity Rumple gave them.
** Don't the events of Shrek 4 take place on the same day on two separate timelines. As for time passing, you can watch the movies and consider the level of detail to be the aging effect... as for in movie... the only characters we see before Fiona's escape are Stilzkin and the Queen, maybe a few background witches. Stiltzkin and the Queen may both be older and simply don't change as much when they age.
*** Both timelines do seem to take place on the same day, which is Shrek's children's first birthday. Do the math (all the time between Shrek and Fiona meeting and getting married + honeymoon + events of second movie + pregnancy + 1 year) and it would sum up roughly into about 2 years after Shrek rescuing Fiona (timeline 1)/Rumple taking over Far Far Away (timeline 2). Two years is enough time for Fiona to escape and form the ogre resistance without aging significantly.
* Why didn't Rumplestilskin just take Shrek's contract away from him, if he knew about the exit clause. I mean, he did reference this in the meeting with the witches so he must've known from the start. He even reached for Shrek's pocket and pulled it out while he was captive only to [[VillainBall put it back inside]].
** Why would he take it away? What would that even do? Taking away the contract won't destroy the exit clause, the exit clause still applies even if it's not in Shrek's pocket. If you're implying he take the contract and nullify/destroy it, that makes no sense. With most magical contract you have to follow them, you can't just rip them up at any time, otherwise Shrek would've done it as soon as he could. Even if he could, that wouldn't help Rumplestilskin at all, since it'd revert him to the old timeline where he'd be a garbage eating hobo, the same as if Shrek kissed Fiona.
** No, he means Shrek would never even know the exit clause. Judging by Donkey's statement of "it used to be you had to guess his name..." every escape clause is different, so without having the physical contract in his possession to fold, he couldn't find out the escape clause and would be helpless to do anything.
** You all fail to get that while all this contracts might be horrible, they are still contracts and subject to some kind of twisted yet defined, unbreakable rules. In this case, he who signs the contract must carry the paper for the duration of it and Rumpelswhatshisname can't just steal it. This is fairy tale land after all.
* The second contract Shrek sign and use to free the other ogres is supposed to be "The Deal of Your Life", and thus implied to be a really "you got what you really want and nothing else, no unwanted consequences" kind of contract. Two things:
** Why Rumple would create something like that is mind screwind, especially since he establish himself as quite the trickster. I mean, such a contract has a huge probability of literally blowing up in his face. What if random peasant #123 did capture Shrek and was like "Dude, what I want is your kingdom and all your contracts."?
*** He was worried that Shrek would undo everything he's done and was desperate to stop him. He thought this would give incentive to the civilians to find Shrek. He may not have realized how it could negatively affect him.
** Rumple says Shrek can't use the second contract to void the first. Fair enough. But what would have happened if Shrek instead use the "boomerang come back in your face" effect and wishes for Rumple to have never been born in the first place? Technically, he didn't void the first contract, but prevent it to exist in the first place. Would have made a fine [[HoistByHisOwnPetard Hoisted By His Own Petard]] ending for Rumple.
*** Because Shrek would then be no better than Rumplestilskin. Sinking to the villain's level is something that the hero doesn't do, and even though Shrek can be quite amoral at times, he's still the hero in a family film, and I can't see him willingly erasing the guy from existence.
*** From an in universe perspective, it's also psychological for Shrek. At that point, he knew with certainty that Fiona wanted no part in him, so he wanted to win her back. Granted this is an alternate universe version of Fiona who shouldn't be expected to love him, but you can chalk it up to pride. Or love in that Shrek loves Fiona no matter what universe she's from and wants her to love him back. And the only way to get that was to do something selfless.
*** No one ever points out that he could have wished for AU!Fiona to truly love him and to kiss him before sunrise. It would invoke the exit clause of the previous contract directly rather than trying to override the agreement.
*** The contract can only be voided by true love's kiss. Love induced by contract isn't true at all.
* Why does no-one read the contract before signing it. Seriously, Fiona's parents, Shrek - there's a lot of um-ing and ah-ing over whether they should do it, but none of them ever check to see exactly what they're getting themselves into, or, if they do, rely entirely on Rumplestilskin telling them the truth.
** TruthInTelevision. People don't tend to read the fine print.
** They did read the contract, the paper doesn't have to be 2 inches from your face so you can read the text. And don't forget, Rumple is the king of contract loopholes. Who says that the actual paper gives any more information? It's a possibility that Shrek's contract said "Mr. R Stiltskin provides a single day to Shrek the Ogre in exchange for one (1) day from his childhood as a payment." instead of "...in exchange for the day he was born." If all the deals would be so word-to-word, there would be a major drop in [[DealWithTheDevil deals with devils/tricksters/spirits/whatever]].
*** Also, Shrek was too drunk to care about little things like ''reading the contract'' and what not.
*** A drunk person in the real world cannot enter into a contract. Evidently, Fairy Tale law ''does'' allow a drunk person to enter into a contract.
** It's not that they don't read it, it's that the contract's wording leaves it open to interpretation and they interpret it in a more beneficial way than will occur.
* What was with the conga line initiated on the ogres by the Pied Piper. All of the ogres were defeated, but Puss and Donkey (who had tagged along) were clearly not affected by it, and they could still move of their own free will. Plus, they had a cart. So why didn't they make an attempt to distract the Pied Piper instead of going for Shrek and Fiona as they ended up doing? They likely could have rammed the Piper in an attempt to distract him, and if it was successful it could have caused him to stop playing long enough for at least one ogre to separate the piper from his tool of the trade. Take prisoner, destroy tool of craft, boom, battle over.
** Before tis scene, the Pied Piper clearly switches the setting on his pipe from Witch to Ogre. It would only affect ogres.
** They probably didn't have time to think it through, or possibly didn't realize the Pied Piper was the one controlling the ogres. Also Donkey doesn't have any loyalties to the ogres apart from Shrek (even though he was shown bonding with them earlier) and Puss, as a cat, is likely mostly loyal to Fiona. So they just, quickly and on the fly, rescued their two friends and helped extend the plot in one fell swoop.
* In the end, why did all the members of the AU ogre army and the Pied Piper suddenly show up in Shrek's swamp, seeming to know exactly who he is?
** Outside of the film, they knew that this was Shrek's last hurrah and wanted to bring everybody back, logical or not. Inside the film: magic, I guess.
** It's reasonable to assume that Shrek may have attempted to track the ogres down when he got back to his own universe. They became friends in the AU, so it only makes sense he'd want to find them and meet them in his own world too.
** It's also possible that different ogres throughout the world all know about each other and are friendly enough, but tend not to keep in touch outside of certain circumstances.
* All of Shrek's fairytale friends are in Far Far Away when they were originally in Duloc. The only reason they ever went to Far Far Away was to help Shrek and Fiona on Shrek 2. They shouldn't have been in Far Far Away if Shrek wasn't born. Also, unless I'm mistaken, Rumplestilskin looked more like a dwarf in the third movie. He didn't look anything like the one we see in the fourth.
** I figured after being exiled from Duloc the Fairytale Creatures probably left the swamp after they de-resourced it (explains why its dried up) and eventually made their way to kingdoms with more racial tolerance.
* If Rumpelstiltskin makes Fiona's parents never exist due to his contract with them, then shouldn't Fiona never exist too?
** I believe it was more of a "disappear on the spot" thing.
*** But... they "disappear on the spot" due to Rumple taking the day they were born, as he did with Shrek. Shrek didn't disappear on the spot as his contract promised him the day to experience what it would have been like if he didn't rescue Fiona and everything, the parents didn't get that as their contract didn't specify such a day, hence the "disappearing on the spot". so if they never existed, Fiona shouldn't have existed either.
** They had a different kind of contract with Rumpelstiltskin. Their contract said that all their problems would disappear, it didn't say anything about trading a day in. So, Rumpelstiltskin made all their problems disappear, by making them disappear. In other words, he killed them rather than making them never exist.
*** Except that they traded their throne to get their deal. I don't understand why that entailed them disappearing. Certainly, their non-existence solved their problems in that they no longer experienced them, but that's not actually solving their problems. Which is blatantly obvious as their main problem was 'our daughter is locked in a tower with no prince coming to rescue her' (what the hell happened to the fairy godmother remains unexplained). I suppose you could argue that Rumpelstiltskin somehow gave Fiona the idea to escape, or removed the dragon so she could do so, or something...
*** Note the exact wording, which is how Rumplestilskin's contracts operate. He never promised to solve their problems, only to make them disappear. They can't have any problems if they don't exist.
** Unlike Shrek, for them it seemed to be that they ceased to exist from that point onward, not that they never existed.
* Why does Shrek wind up getting sent back to the moment he roared at the party when Rumpelstiltskin's contract was broken? That event happened some time before he even met Rumple (possibly hours). Shouldn't he have been sent back to the point just before (or even just after) he signed the contract?
** I don't know how the magic worked, but the moment Shrek roars is really the breaking point for him. In the 'original' timeline where he goes to Rumpelstiltskin he reacts very differently than than he does the second time around. Had he returned to the exact point he signed the contract Shrek would have had quite a bit of damage to repair, assuming it could be fixed at all. Other than "everything turns out better this way" there isn't really an answer.
* Why were Harold and Lillian meeting with Rumpelstiltskin when the second movie reveals they'd been planning with the Fairy Godmother to have Prince Charming rescue their daughter and become king of Far Far Away? And if it was because Charming was taking too long to rescue her, then why ''was'' he taking so long? She'd apparently been locked in that tower for some time, yet he only shows up to do the deed ''after'' she was saved by someone else.
** The Fairy Godmother may have been waiting until her son and princess were of an appropriate age for a quick marriage. That and for enough time to pass to deal with any unsightly issues of puberty such as acne, changing voice, etc. Could be fixed with magic, but she probably doesn't think her son someone who would need it. As an added bonus the King and Queen were at a sufficiently advanced age for them to live another six to ten years as Charming gets glory and his mother sets up a wing of the castle for herself.
*** Harold also remembered his promise to the Fairy Godmother and most likely wanted out of it in case it didn't work out between Charming and Fiona.
*** Harold is not really a fan of Charming marrying Fiona, but he can't openly screw with it since FGM will retaliate. The Rumpelstiltskin appearing with an offer is a good occasion to screw things up and then blame it on fortune.
** Lillian also said she didn't trust the Fairy Godmother, and they were growing desperate.
* How did Rumplestilskin taking away the day Shrek was born, prevent Shrek's existence? He could've been born on a different day instead. He had to come out of the womb sometime. The day he was conceived would've made a lot more sense.
** This is actually a good point, though it may mean that Shrek's mother's pregnancy was simply terminated on the day Shrek was meant to be born in the parallel universe. In other words, the day before Shrek was meant to be born, he would still be in his mother. Then, the day he is meant to be born is deleted. The day after that, Shrek has vanished from his mother's uterus and no longer exists. Either that happened, or he became a stillborn (so he exits the womb, but is already dead, technically making his first day of life non-existent).
** Or...maybe Shrek ''was'' still born in the alternate continuity, only on an entirely different day, and being born on that day instead of the one he was ''supposed'' to be born on somehow managed to make him a different kind of character, living in a different place, and even with a different name. In this way, there are actually ''two'' Shreks in existence in the fourth movie, but the one we see will still cease to exist due to never being born as that version of himself, while the other, alternate version would continue living on as "normal", though apart from Fiona and the other friends he would've made...if that makes sense.
** Concieved would have made sense and was probably the intended meaning of the deal. Yet, obviously, there was no way a family film could have actually referred to it as "the day you were concieved", so "born" was a stand-in for "concieved". Maybe in the Shrekverse, the two words are used synonymously.
* Are all contracts required to have an escape clause? If not, then it seems stupid for Rumpel to have put one in, and if so, then couldn't he have at least made it something Shrek would be less-knowledgeable about than "true love's kiss"?
** What he's using is contract magic. Contract magic works on specific rules that must be followed or else the spell fails. Apparently his version requires an escape clause, likely as a compensation for being able to warp reality on such a large scale.
* Why wouldn't Rumpel let Fiona go? Seriously, he locks Shrek, alone in a room, with his true love, after he has just done something that would cause her to finally start feeling genuine affection for him. If you're going to keep Fiona so there's no one there to lead the other ogres, that's fine, but lock her up somewhere else!
** Since he was about to sic the dragon on Shrek and Fiona, he probably figured it wouldn't have mattered if they were together since the dragon would kill them anyway, and she would have if Donkey and the other ogres hadn't snuck inside, which he likely didn't count on. Either that, or it was just an example of {{Irony}} since he gloated that "Nobody's smart but (him)!" right after locking up the two.
* How exactly is Rumpel in charge of Far Far Away? By that I mean, why didn't someone eventually overpower him and his witch army sooner? Or why didn't the witches attack him? Even with water being a threat, they still have the number advantage and magic against Rumpel and could've rebelled. So what stopped anyone from Giants to witches to anyone else from just taking over? I mean, the ogres seemed to have him helpless once they hold him in their hands with no witches?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
[[Redirect| tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Shrek
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,4 (click to see context) from:
%%A JustForFun/DrinkingGame for WesternAnimation/ShrekForeverAfter.
%%* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
%%* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
%%* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
%%* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
to:
%%* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
%%* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not the place.
Changed line(s) 1,4 (click to see context) from:
A JustForFun/DrinkingGame for WesternAnimation/ShrekForeverAfter.
* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
A JustForFun/DrinkingGame for WesternAnimation/ShrekForeverAfter.
* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
* Take a drink whenever the fat boy says "Do the roar."
* Take a drink whenever Rumpelstiltskin says his name.
