History Headscratchers / ShrekForeverAfter

* Since Shrek was never born in the alternate reality, he never signed the contract with Rumpel, therefore the alternate reality wouldn't exist. So at what point would the timeline have corrected itself if Fiona hadn't kissed Shrek and ended the reality?

** Perhaps 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 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).

** 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 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).

** And disregarding how much of Jackass Genie Rumple is in the entire movie, it's likely that he very well couldn't lift Fiona's curse because it would involve 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 powerful. If Rumple really intended to make the deal honest, he would have redefined the "true loves kiss" antidote of Fiona's spell so that a kiss from her PARENTS could break it. (Like in Frozen)

** Or...maybe Shrek ''was'' stillborn 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.

* "The deal of a lifetime" kinda looks like a PlotHole. Strictly speaking, Shrek (who [[LoopholeAbuse takes himself to Rumpel]] to gain this loophole-free contract) couldn't erase Rumpelstiltstkin's first agreement with another one. However, the entire climax would have been avoided if he wished he [[HoistByHisOwnPetard had never met the pesky troll in the first place]]. That would have theoretically rendered the first contract void, the [[ThouShaltNotKill villain wouldn't have died by the hands of Shrek]] and our ogre would have shown everybody a [[SmartBall bit of genre savviness]] after being tricked into signing a loophole-filled contract. Since Rumpel's contract was magically unbreakable, would this [[OccamsRazor simple but effective option]] have saved [[ItMakesSenseInContext Shrek's day]]? We find out a little earlier in the movie that there was only a ''single'' CurseEscapeClause that Shrek could effectively exploit. This make things a little more complicated...
** He could erase Shrek at birth to fullfill 'never met in the first place' though.

* 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?

** 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.

** 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.

*** Perhaps Fairy Godmother attempted to swing a deal with Rumplestiltzkin and ended up screwed over?

*** 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.
*** 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.

* The empty Dragon Keep meant to be treated as a huge shocker, 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?

** 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.

* 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.

*** 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]].

* 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??

** 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 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)

* 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.

** 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.

* 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 easiest explanation is that Stilskin was just being arrogant and mocking towards Shrek by giving him back the very contract which ruined his life. He didn't expect Shrek to escape his palace, so it didn't matter whether or not Shrek had the contract on him or if he knew about the exit clause, since he wouldn't have gotten the chance to kiss Fiona while he was imprisoned.

* 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-screwing, 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."?

** 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.

*** 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.

* 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.

*** Also, Shrek was too drunk to care about little things like ''reading the contract'' and what not.

* 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.

** 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.

** 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.

** 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.

* 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.

** 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.

** 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.

** 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 their descendants 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 past, not THE PAST!

** 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.

* 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?

* Why the Poison Apple villains aren't seen at all in the alternate Far Far Away and the Poison Apple itself is closed down? They all redeemed themselves just because Artie Pendragon convinced them that just because people treat them as villains that doesn't mean they are villains, so why they shouldn't be terrorizing Far Far Away? If I recall correctly, there were even some witches among the villains who teamed up with Prince Charming to take over Far Far Away and there was even a different Rumpelstilstkin among them...
** Maybe, like the Fairy Godmother, Rumpel hated so-called “villains,” so he had them all banished from Far Far Away and just abandoned the Poison Apple. As for the different Rumplestilskin, this troper likes to think he’s the Shrek 4 Rumpel’s father and when Rumpel became King, the Shrek 3 Rumpelstiltskin became King Father. Just a guess.
** Alternatively, he simply got rid of the competition. Perhaps there was a big struggle for ownership of the Kingdom amongst the villains after the contract signing, Rumple ended up winning.

* Similarly like the question above, why there are no celebrities, including the princesses, in the alternate Far Far Away? Why especially Snow White, Cinderella and the Sleeping Beauty aren't seen living at the kingdom, if other Far Far Away citizens like the baker are seen still living there?

* In the alternate Far Far Away, the citizens hate ogres, as shown when one of them throws a tomato on Shrek and the others insult him. However, the resistance movement led by Princess Fiona to overthrow Rumpelstilstkin's tyranny is solely composed of ogres, so why the citizens of Far Far Away hate ogres if they are fighting to free them from Rumpelstiltskin and his rule? It's not like they enjoy having Rumpel as their king, given the deplorable living conditions they have...
** Very likely a simple case of [[TruthInTelevision prejudice winning out over reason]]. The townsfolk are socialised to hate ogres by their oppressive rulership, and this is deeply ingrained enough in them that it persists even against their better interests. Bear in mind too that ogre-human relations are far more hostile in this universe than even that of the first movie. No one is going to hear the other side out here because the status quo is to kill/enslave on sight ([[CasualDangerDialogue as opposed to politely waiting for the punchline]]).

* Okay, I get that Fiona just got bored of waiting for her Prince Charming or some brave knight to rescue her from the Dragon's keep, so she eventually escaped from the tower on her own, and she likely realized later on that her parents had been vanished away by Rumpelstiltskin, thus allowing her to just focus on leading the Ogre Resistance to topple Rumpel's rule and restore Far Far Away into the precious kingdom it once was...but did Fiona forget that she had her cousin Artie Pendragon studying at Worcestershire Academy? Why she didn't go looking for her cousin to take care of him? Artie didn't have any more family aside Fiona and her parents, so it seems really cruel from Fiona's part leaving him at Worcestershire to be picked on by his peers while she solely focuses on defeating Rumpelstilstkin...

** The timelines begin diverging from the very moment of Shrek's birth (or lack thereof). Rumpel taking over Far Far Away likely would have had a huge ripple effect Gingy's life since he's from Drury Lane. In this universe, Gingy very well could have been created solely to gladiator fight with animal crackers, never even meeting Farquaad.
** He got away on his own and got his legs back. My guess is that his experience with Farquaad turned him into a badass.

* How the messenger who saved Harold and Lillian from signing Far Far Away to Rumpelstiltskin at the last moment knew that Fiona had been rescued? The only way to access to the castle and verify that Fiona had been rescued was by crossing the bridge, but the bridge was burned up by the Dragon when Shrek, Fiona and Donkey escaped. We can see that Prince Charming had to use a zipline to get into the castle in the second film, though that doesn't explain how the Big Bad Wolf got into the tower.

* Related to the question above, there is an ogre named Gnimrach (Charming backwards) in the resistance who is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backwards, is he an ogre Prince? If so, what kingdom is he Prince of? And who is his Princess?

** She most likely sees herself more as an ogre than as a human in this timeline due to the fact that she's the leader of a revolutionary band of ogres.

* In [[WhatCouldHaveBeen the early version of this film]], Brogan was meant to be Prince Charming under Fiona’s curse. If this was kept, who would’ve cursed him? The same witch who cursed Fiona?

* Related to the question above, there is an ogre named Gnimrach (Charming backwards) in the resistance who is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backwards, is he an ogre Prince? If so, what kingdom is he Prince of? And who is his Princess?

* Why does AU!Fiona imply that her curse is that she turns into a beautiful Princess during the day?
** She most likely sees herself more as an ogre than as a human in this timeline due to the fact that she's the leader of a revolutionary band of ogres.
** Alternatively, she says it out of habit. She may know that the curse is actually the other way around, but because she lives and works alongside other ogres, who wouldn't seem to be terribly fond of humans, it's a lot easier to maintain their loyalty for them to think that she's an ogre who's only cursed to become human rather than the other way around.
*** So because of that, would she have created an alternate past to tell the ogres?
*** Possibly. Considering she's the leader of the resistance movement, it would make sense for the other ogres to have some knowledge of her connection to the royalty of Far, Far Away. Maybe she told them that Harold and Lillian were also ogres, in that case.
*** Ok, how about this: Fiona was born an Ogre to Ogre parents, but one of Rumpel’s witches cursed her to become human during the day and that was why she was locked in the tower.
----
* While negotiating with Rumpel, before unknowingly giving away the day of his birth, Shrek mentions that the day in which he met Donkey is a day he would like to forget. However, considering he read the book about how Shrek and Donkey rescued Fiona, why doesn't Rumpel just take that day? If Shrek hadn't meet Donkey, the fairy tale creatures would have still been sent to his swamp, he would have gone alone to meet with Lord Farquaad, made the deal to rescue Fiona but end up killed by the Dragon. And that's because it was thanks to Donkey that the Dragon got distracted and didn't realize that Shrek was escaping with Fiona until it was too late. In that way, Rumpel's plans would have still worked out perfectly...
** That's also assuming that Shrek would have made it to the Dragon's Keep. For all we know, maybe Shrek could have also been killed by Farquaad's knights at [=DuLoc=] because it was thanks to Donkey that some of the knights were knocked out with a huge beer barrel, preventing them from outnumbering Shrek...
** Actually, Donkey still would’ve met Shrek since he was a fairytale creature exiled from Duloc. So he would’ve still gone to Duloc with Shrek and helped to rescue Fiona. What Rumpel would’ve done is delay Fiona’s rescue by one day, so EVERYONE would’ve lived happily every after, Shrek and Fiona in Shrek’s swamp and Rumpel in Far Far Away (provided they don’t become part of the Ogre Resistance).
** Rumpel specifically said earlier “I wish that ogre was never born.” He specifically wanted Shrek to be erased for sadism and revenge.
----
* When Shrek kisses Fiona before fading away, thus leading Fiona to stay as an ogre permanently due to adopting the form of her True Love, why doesn’t Fiona float and shine like in the original film when Shrek kissed her after the Dragon ate Lord Farquaad?
** Probably because that was the SECOND time they kissed. The curse specifically says “True Love’s FIRST Kiss.”
----
* Is there any reason why Shrek and Fiona are shown in the fairy tale with no shoes? In regard to the former, Shrek always wore shoes back when he scared the villagers who annoyed him and when he rescued Fiona from the Dragon's Keep. Heck, he even wears his shoes at the end of the film, but in the illustration he is barefoot. And we have never seen Fiona barefoot while wearing her green dress.

* In the alternate universe, what if Fiona transformed into a human at sunrise in front of the Ogre Resistance? Would they act like Farquaad at the end of Shrek 1 and banish her?

* In the alternate universe, what if Fiona transformed into a human at sunrise in front of the Ogre Resistance? Would they act like Farquaad at the end of Shrek 1 and banish her?

* Is there any reason why Shrek and Fiona are shown in the fairy tale with no shoes? In regard to the former, Shrek always wore shoes back when he scared the villagers who annoyed him and when he rescued Fiona from the Dragon's Keep. Heck, he even wears his shoes at the end of the film, but in the illustration he is barefoot. And we have never seen Fiona barefoot while wearing her green dress.

** 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."?

*** Or could she have told them she was born an Ogre to human parents, as what was originally planned for Shrek 1?

** 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.
*** 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.

* * In the early version of this film, Brogan was meant to be Prince Charming under Fiona’s curse. If this was kept, who would’ve cursed him? The same witch who cursed Fiona?

When Shrek kisses Fiona before fading away, thus leading Fiona to stay as an ogre permanently due to adopting the form of her True Love, why doesn’t Fiona float and shine like in the original film when Shrek kissed her after the Dragon ate Lord Farquaad?

Is there any reason why Shrek and Fiona are shown in the fairy tale with no shoes? In regard to the former, Shrek always wore shoes back when he scared the villagers who annoyed him and when he rescued Fiona from the Dragon's Keep. Heck, he even wears his shoes at the end of the film, but in the illustration he is barefoot. And we have never seen Fiona barefoot while wearing her green dress.

* In the early version of this film, Brogan was meant to be Prince Charming under Fiona’s curse. If this was kept, who would’ve cursed him? The same witch who cursed Fiona?
* Related to the question above, there is an ogre named Gnimrach (Charming backwards) in the resistance who is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backwards, is he an ogre Prince? If so, what kingdom is he Prince of? And who is his Princess?
* Why does AU!Fiona imply that her curse is that she turns into a beautiful Princess during the day?
** She most likely sees herself more as an ogre than as a human in this timeline due to the fact that she's the leader of a revolutionary band of ogres.
** Alternatively, she says it out of habit. She may know that the curse is actually the other way around, but because she lives and works alongside other ogres, who wouldn't seem to be terribly fond of humans, it's a lot easier to maintain their loyalty for them to think that she's an ogre who's only cursed to become human rather than the other way around.
*** So because of that, would she have created an alternate past to tell the ogres?

** I doubt AU!Fiona would have accepted being the daughter of her parent's murderer. Plus you don't ''necessarily'' need to have an existing claim to the throne or to be the guardian of the heir for a hostile takeover. Look what Charming did in the last movie!

* Related to the question above, there is an ogre named Gnimrach (Charming backwards) in the resistance who is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backwards, is he an ogre Prince? If so, what kingdom is he Prince of? And who would be his Princess?

* Related to the question above, there is an ogre named Gnimrach (Charming backwards) who is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backwards, is he an ogre Prince? If so, what kingdom is he Prince of? And who would be his Princess?

* Could Rumpel have adopted Fiona after he took over Far Far Away? That way, she would still have a claim to the throne (and yes, her name would be Princess Fiona Stiltskin, but still).