Why is it the Fiona's Dad, the Fairy Godmother, and Prince Charming all seem to blame Shrek for intervening in the rescue of Fiona? Sure he's the one who actually did it, but wasn't he just following orders from Farquaad? Hell, they don't even mention that it was Farquaad's fault for arranging it, they just always point the blame at Shrek. Why is that, in this case, the messenger gets blamed and the organizer gets away scott free?
The "organizer" was dead.
In additon, the Delivery Boy Shrek was the only one to actually succeed. Up to that point, as per the legend, no knights but Prince Charming would be able to rescue Fiona. Granted, Farquaad broke tradition by sending an Ogre to rescue her, but Shrek's non-knighted status made him a loophole in the legend. A legend Prince Charming was going to fufill, but got beaten to the punch. Hence, everyone else wanted the legend to play out as expected, they just got mad at Shrek for getting involved. They expected Shrek to simply accept his fate in the swamp with all the other fairy tale creatures, instead of sticking up for himself and completly curb-stomping Farquaad's knights. This gave Farquaad an idea, and we all know how that turned out.
It could also have something to do with the fact that Shrek and Fiona fell in love during the events of film 1; which meant that Fiona remained an ogre. This can be backed up by the second film, where Fiona's Dad obviously has an issue of Shrek and his future grandchildren, being ogres.
In Shrek the Third, Shrek, Artie, Donkey, and Puss all wake up in Merlin's camp and have to fight these pirates and evil trees who end up capturing Artie, Puss, and Donkey in a net, leaving Shrek heavily outnumbered to fight the rest of the pirates and evil trees. But then Shrek flips over Hook's cannon so that it breaks his piano, which makes all of the villains run away. Why would they do that? The cannon shot missed Hook, so they still had their leader, and for Shrek to use the cannon again he would have needed another cannonball, a new fuse, more black powder, and something to light it with. Why didn't the pirates and evil trees just keep on fighting Shrek?
The cannon was how they were going to get rid of Shrek; they didn't have the strength to kill him otherwise.
First, Hook explicitly said that they weren't going to kill Shrek, they were just going to kill his friends and capture him. Second, if the cannon was actually meant for Shrek, then they should've aimed at him, and not his friends.
Shrek simply fought well enough to scare the minions into a retreat and Hook got stuck to a retreating tree.
I actually think it's part of a joke. Like because the piano's destroyed, they have no chance of winning - as if the piano was the deciding factor in the fight. Or maybe the pirates didn't want to fight without music.
In Shrek 2, I find it odd that the first entry in Fiona's diary was "My parents are sending me to some fance castle surrounded by lava with a dragon." (Not those words). The rest of the book is full (admittedly, the majority of it is variations on "Mrs. Fiona Charming") but it should have taken some time to fill. Why was it in her childhood room (in the music box, which makes it unlikely she sent it back and her parents left it there), instead of where she had been living since her parents sent her away? Or even the entry at the end of the diary?
Maybe, her parents told her about the plan well in advance, but took some time to pick out the right castle with a non-damsel consuming dragon, and then took her away from there suddenly, so she didn't have time to pack it. Or maybe she just forgot it.
Uh, that was the last entry in the diary before she was sent away, and she's looking forward to being "Mrs. Fiona Charming". There were ones before that like, "Mom says I can't go to Sleeping Beauty's slumber party."
There were a bunch of pages where Fiona fantasized about being "Mrs. Fiona Charming" after what you call the "last" entry. Notebooks and diaries are usually filled in order, and it would presumably have taken Fiona a long time to write all those pages, hence the original question.
Yeah, and those entries consist entirely of "Mrs. Fiona Charming" written in different styles over and over again. That's not the work of someone who's going back to it day after day for a long time. That's more like something someone would put down during the initial excitement.
Her mother could have treated her to a new, fancy diary for when she's in the tower, so Fiona might have been doodling to fill up the rest of the old diary.
That wasn't the first entry, Shrek opened it to a random page.
What did Dragon turn into when Donkey drank the potion?
Apparently she was being planned to turn into a pink Pegasus... *shudder*
What would have happened to their children then? Would they have turned into Pegasi or Horses? Presuming Dragon had already given birth.
Nothing. The potion only affects the drinker and the drinker's true love.
I think she turned into a beatiful lizard!
Shrek 2: The Fairy Godmother is so powerful yet the Rebound Effect gets her?
That's why Rebound Effect gets her, because she's so powerful. Her spell was powerful, and thusly she got hit with a heavy blast of magic.
She's probably a Glass Cannon; powerful attacks, but little defense and HP.
Same movie again: So much is made of Far, Far Away being far away, yet Shrek's friends, who are still crashing at his pad, show up in about twenty minutes in order to save him. One sentence of dialogue would have worked, especially since we saw that hook-handed piano player earlier in the movie. "Thank goodness that little boy in the green tights owed us a favor!"
O_o Never even thought of that. How DID they manage that?
it was dragon they flew in on. the reason they didnt do that with dragon in the start of the movie is because she was being all moody and stuff ie: pregnant ad in no condition to fly.
And keep in mind too, part of the reason it took so long for Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey to get there was because they were being transported in a coach that basically traveled at, like, two miles an hour.
One more time. Shrek went and messed with powerful magic that screwed with Fiona and bad. It got her dad turned into a frog, almost got her married to an evil psychotic and lord, I shudder to think of all the other things that might have resulted. Sure, Shrek (and Daddy) redeemed themselves at the end but not even one mention of how they screwed up badly? And what the heck happened to that dog? Did it die?
How did it badly screw with Fiona? It turned her back into a hottie. And none of those things were Shrek's fault.
The father turning into a frog didn't have anything to do with Shrek's dabbling in magic. He started out life as a frog, the fairy godmother turned him into a man so that he could marry Lillian (don't ask me how he got to be a king then) and when he turned against the fairy godmother she turned him right back into a frog. Because he jumped in front of the death ray coming from the godmother's wand, which was aimed at Fiona.
Lillian was probably a princess.
The magic blast seemed to in fact be aimed at Shrek. I'd assume the Fairy Godmother was trying to turn him back into an ogre. The king took the shot and was turned back to his original form. Whether he was saving Shrek or trying to shield Fiona is debatable as she was standing right next to Shrek and he may have thought she was in danger as well.
Also, the dog didn't die. I wondered about that for a while until I paused the Jump Shot at the end and saw it in the far left.
All drinking the potion did was give Fiona a choice to remain human or an ogre. Fairy Godmother and Charming were already planning to use the potion on her when Shrek stole the Happily Ever After potion, Fairy Godmother is shown brewing it as he shows up. Harold was doomed to frog status the moment he gave Fiona the wrong tea as Fairy Godmother would have zapped him for disobeying her and ruining her plans, it just happened to get lucky when he took a shot for Shrek/Fiona. Taking the potion wasn't the best idea but ultimately all it did was make her slightly easier to manipulate into Godmother's existing plans and give her a choice as to how to live the rest of her life. Nothing she'd be angry about.
Okay, a fourth time. Shrek seemed kind of callous at all the chaos he put the dwarf workers through. Sure, magically transforming the guys with crossbows who are out to kill you is one thing. But a lot of nine to five working joes got metaphorically and literally beaten down.
So? He's an ogre. He may not eat people, but he still acts like a jerk quite often. Also, that's where they make the potions, presumably they can turn the people back and/or wait for them to wear off.
As the first film should make clear, Shrek is not some fairy-tale knight in shining armor paragon of goodness. He is just guy looking out for himself (and, later, his wife). If that means causing some unintentional trouble when the stealth mission to steal a potion goes awry, hey, that's life, and it's not like can do anything to fix it, so no sense worrying about it.
Why is marrying a princess supposed to make Farquaad King of Duloc, not of the princess's own kingdom?
He's already the absolute ruler of Duloc, he just wants the status and/or validation of a royal title. Princesses and their husbands don't usually inherit their home kingdoms anyway.
I'm still irked that Farquaad can't just declare himself king. I mean, is anybody going to complain? He's the highest authority around, answerable to nobody.
He's trying to realise his vision of a perfect kingdom. It's more about cementing his claim in his own head than anyone else's.
If fairy tale land is anything like the real world Dung Ages in this regard, then as long as Duloc is not ruled by a king Duloc is a dependency of somewhere else's kingdom - possibly, but not necessarily Far Far Away itself. This means Farquaad can be omnipotent in his own land (as the feudal lord he is) yet he has to pay taxes and can be drafted into the army of the king he's attached to as a vassal. The only way he can get rid of that and make Duloc an independent satte is by being declared king of Duloc by his superior or by marrying a royal heir princess, thus gaining royal status himself in the process. This would explain also what happens to Duloc in the sequels: since Farquaad had no heirs when he died, his lands and title were (re)taken by his king and Duloc abolished as a distinct entity.
I'm fairly certain that rule was made up on the spot by the magic mirror to save face (literally).
A kingdom is ruled by a king. Otherwise, its a manor (Lord), county (Count), Duchy (Duke), or Principality (Prince) or some other fancy title. The Mirror said it was technically not a perfect kingdom simply because it wasn't ruled by a king.
The Fairy Godmother's son is Prince Charming. Given that his mother is a fairy, why doesn't he have any powers?
I'm sure he had low-light vision and resistance to sleep spells and some such.
Similar to Arwen from Lord of the Rings, I imagine embracing heterosexuality means surrendering your fairy heritage and becoming fully human.
Struck out common mistake. Arwen is a completely different case as a member of a half-breed family who for cosmic reasons at some time must choose to which kind she wants to be counted. Normal Tolkien-Elves cannot ever become mortal.
Then again, for all we know Charming's dad was human— Or something else. That said, why are we assuming Shrek fairy-logic works anything like Tolkien's elven-logic? They're not even the same kind of magical being... Or maybe Charming had the potential to manifest hereditary powers, but his INT just wasn't high enough for him to learn spells.
Thanks. Now I'm going to spend the whole afternoon making stats for Shrek characters just to amuse myself.
Why is adoption so easy to rule out?
Because the vast majority of people are not adopted, so the laws of probability say that we are better off assuming that any given person is not adopted until given solid evidence to the contrary.
But we're not dealing with the probability of the real world, we're dealing with the probability of a fairy tale world, where foundlings and trading away your firstborn for wishes are as common as trees. Charming may have been one of the Fairy Godmother's first successful "acquisitions" in her business.
Come to think of it, if the fairy godmothers son is a prince, wouldn't that make her a queen? Why the elaborate plan to get Prince Charming to marry Fiona to (eventually) become king? He would have become one as soon as his mother died.
He wasn't a prince. Prince Charming was his name.
So... why couldn't The Queen have been ruler after her husband died in the third movie? Some law that there MUST be a king at all frikkin times?
Fairy Land, it requires a king. It's almost a rule, or the Queen has to be uncanny evil.
There have been male-only monarchies in real life.
When you think about it, it's quite logical. Lillian must be about the same age as Harold, so she couldn't be that far off from death herself. And after her, who would rule? It's not like she could have any more children. So counting out Arthur, Shrek and Fiona would have to take over anyway. So why not just hand the crown straight to them?
Why is it that Lil' Red had to become a villain just because the Big Bad Wolf turned good?
Didn't you know? After Alice, Red Riding Hood is the most popular female character subject to Grimmification. Point in fact, American McGee's planning a game around her.
also if we consider shrek 2 the game as canon then little red is a goody by virtue of being a playable character
Who says she's a villain? Granted I've missed the first half of the Fouth movie and most of the mini-movies but the only 'villainous' thing I can remember her doing is picking a pocket in the Third. But that was after the villains took over and the whole kingdom went to crap.
I'm still annoyed that Puss in Boots starts with that awesome cape (you know, the one that shows up in a lot of promotional material?), tosses it away, and poof! It's gone! Talk about the epitome of laziness on the part of the animators. Couldn't they have had some wild animal eat it, or had it gain such a huge stain they had to discard it, or whatever?
DVD Commentary: The cape was too hard to animate, so they got rid of it. Why spend time and frames on it? It showed up for like ten seconds.
If it makes you feel any better, if you look while they're riding Dragon to Far Far Away in the forth one, he's wearing the cape again.
The ending of Shrek 2 ruined the series for me. Shrek WANTED to stay as a human FOR Fiona so SHE could live a normal life. He was willing to give up his ogre life for her because he loved her. Fiona had the chance to be a human being permanently again, Shrek wanted to be human but Fiona blew the whole thing off and she and Shrek are now stupid green ogres again. WTF???
Fiona NEVER said she wanted a normal life. Shrek just decided that between her father wanting to assassinate him for being an ogre (nevermind approving of their marriage) and her childhood fantasies of marrying a handsome human prince, things would be easier for her and she would be happier if he remained in his handsome human state. But he never talked to her about it and in the end she didn't want any of that, so while it is sweet he was willing to perform the human-form change for her, it ended up being better for the both of them; Fiona wants both of them to remain ogres and Shrek doesn't have to change.
STILL doesn't change the fact that Shrek enjoyed being human and wanted to remain in that form.
Did Shrek ever say he enjoyed being human and wanted to remain in that form?
So you have to be HUMAN to have a happily ever after? You just tossed the whole 'inner beauty' aesop out the window. That's just wrong, bro. And they're better looking as ogres, tyvm. And yes, Shrek did state that he was happy being an ogre. Heck, most of the fourth movie's conflict was Shrek bemoaning the fact that he was no longer 'the scary ogre' that he was used to. So yeah, I'm pretty sure he liked being an ogre more than a human.
Ouch, some impressive Ogre racism in this IJBM! Wasn't is an aesop about "dancing with what brung yah?" It's generally "homespun salt of the earth style wisdom" to "just be yourself" rather than get (magical) cosmetic surgery.
The point is: Shrek never bothered asking Fiona if she would like to be human again. He just decided that for himself; and when he did eventually (and very quickly) tell her if she wanted to be human, guess what she said? "With the ogre I married". What does that tell you? She wanted them both to be ogres again. She married an ogre, not a human. If she had wanted to be human, she would have kissed Human!Shrek on the mouth almost immediately after he told her about the potion.
Shrek NEVER wanted to be human. He and Donkey have a conversation about how he loves being an ogre buit is willing to give it up to give Fiona what she wants. Fiona chooses the life where they're both happy, the one where they're both ogres. You need to remember that Fiona is perfectly happy being an ogre and Shrek and Harold simply assumed her life would be better as a human, it's never something she stated she wanted.
Is this troper the only one who thinks Shrek & Fiona did not belong together, AT ALL? First off, the rescue mission came from out of nowhere half way through the movie, and Fiona was very ungrateful to Shrek for rescuing her, claiming there was a "perfect way" to do it, and then she demanded Shrek find her a place to stay. What kind of love is this? What kind of human falls in love with an ugly, pea-brained, stupid creature such as an ogre?
Lord Farquaad, is that you?
Seriously, though, if you're going to invalidate a romantic plotline because the characters didn't love each other at first sight and seemed entirely incompatible, that's pretty much writing off 50% of all romantic stories ever written. The movie is about how they fall in love. How did you miss that?
Yes, if anything he's shown to be of at least slightly above average intelligence and to have good critical thinking skills when he is inclined to use them. He is frequently the Only Sane Man in the room.
Not to mention, the entire movie is a subversion of the classic fairy tale, and is in fact about several characters (Fiona included) undergoing character development along these lines.
'Ugly, pea-brained, stupid'? Are you kidding me? Shrek had more depth than most guys these days. Nice try, Fairy Godmother.
You see that Donkey had children with Dragon. ARE THEY SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT A DONKEY HAD SEX WITH A DRAGON?!?
Just one question: How?
She lifts up her tail and he mounts her? Assuming the mechanics work similar to other quadrupeds.
The Third suggests Donkey doesn't know how babies are made. Maybe they never actually had sex.
Maybe instead of sex, Dragon simply pleasured Donkey's genitals, collected the resulting semen and inserted it into herself in order to initiate the pregnancy.
Dragons are mystical, fictional animals, so no one can say exactly how their biology works. For as much as we know of what the dragons in Shrek are like, it could be a little-known fact that tonguing a dragon is the way to reproduce with one.
The later movies titles. Shrek 2 makes sense and is simple. When the time comes for the third movie they decide not to call it Shrek 3 for fear of confusion with the Shrek 3-D minimovie. Um, who'd be that stupid? And now with the fourth movie it's just getting worse.
I guess you missed the era of "3 = 3-D" but it was a trope at one time.
Tenative titles from IMDB for Shrek 4 thus far are:
Forever After: The Final Chapter (USA) (informal title)
Shrek Goes Fourth (USA) (working title)
The Final Chapter (USA) (poster title)
Shrek 4 (USA) (working title) Hey that's not too shabby!
I always thought it was to shake things up and seem more unique then just generic number titles.
At the end of the first movie, why does Fiona turn into an ogre when she was born human?
I always thought that she became an ogre because true love's form was about inner beauty so being an "ugly" ogre still made her beautiful not just to Shrek but in general.
Because she takes "true love's true form." Her true love is Shrek.
Or because she was born with the spell on her and everyone just assumed the spell worked the other way. She is half frog.
One of Donkey's children is missing from 3. She was the only one that was in the merchandise due to her purple coloring. Is she just off screen, missing/left behind, or dead?
According to the new Shrek 4 trailer, they're all red now. And she's still missing.
Shrek 4. Weren't they going to make a few more sequels? 4 was supposed to be about Shrek before he met Fiona and Donkey. Or would those cost too much money?
Yes, from what I understand, they were planning on continuing the series for at least six or eight movies in total, however, I think they understood that in doing that, people would have gotten tired of the series as a whole, and as such, they probably would have little to no interest in seeing future movies, which is why I think they chose to end the series when they did. It's both a blessing and a curse: on the one hand, this prevented the series from becoming tired and overkill, but on the other hand, because Shrek was so successful and was really the first to go for that many sequels as far as CGI movies go, now everybody wants to follow their lead... I mean, the original Ice Age was wonderful as a standalone movie, it didn't even need the Meltdown sequel, but it's clear Blue Sky Studios wanted Ice Age to be their own Shrek, because we got 4 Ice Age movies, and people are sick of that series. In this day and age, sequels are becoming an overused gimmick, so I think the folks at DreamWorks wanted to avoid being part of the problem with more Shrek sequels.
Another thing about Shrek 4: 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 Garfieldexpy (he still would have been a sucessful 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.
Is it just me, or does Puss's suggestion of finding Donkey a 'nice burro' seem slightly suspect? Burro is the masculine form, so it should be burra, unless Puss is trying to imply that Donkey is gay. Consider also the little giggle that Puss gives after saying the line. He knew what he was doing there.
Writers fearing that having Puss properly Spanish masculine/feminine form the word would cause everyone to miss the joke. And probably right in this case.
That said, it's funny to think of it as Puss knowing darn well what he's saying and that Donkey would be too stupid to realize it.
Antonio Banderas is Spanish, he knew what he was saying.
Puss starts laughing after having said it, he knew what he was suggesting.
In Shrek 4, 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?
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. Harry Potter's giants: natural loners who need a lot of space, only banding together under extraordinary circumstances
Is it just me, or was Rumplestilskin holding the Villain Ball 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 releived 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.
Fridge Brilliance: 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.
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?
How did that deal make sense anyway? The deal was for Fiona to be cured in exchange for Far Far Away (Rumplestiltskin 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 in Shrek 4, 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 this troper 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, 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 resistatnce without aging significantly.
If Rumple was already ruling Far Far Away and the vicinity around it by the time Shrek makes the jump to the AU, then where the hell did he land in the first time? Why was that one village like the happiest place on Earth? Did Rumple set it up just to mess with him?
It's a village of humans. Just like with Farquaad's kingdom, as long as you're an ordinary human, you seem to be left alone, and more or less happy. It's the fantasy creatures that get the bad treatment.
Or it might have been the next land over. Because if Rumplestilskin could keep him away from Fiona for the day by keeping him destracted with ogre like 'fun', he wouldn't have broken the contract at all. The biggest mistake might have been that the witches captured him.
What about Duloc, still ruled by Farquaad? It was certainly near Shrek's swamp, and it wouldn't be affected by Rumplestitskin's contract about Far Far Away.
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 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...
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 litteraly 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 Hoisted By His Own Petard ending for Rumple.
Because Shrek would then be no better than Rumplestiltskin. 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.
In Shrek Forever After, the biggest problem is 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 Rumplestiltskin telling them the truth.
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 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.
In Shrek 4, I was always bugged by 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.
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.
Okay, going back to the first film. I never got exactly was going on with Farquaad. I know in a satire a villain's motives can be two-dimensional, but I didn't get what was the ultimate goal. He tells Gingerbread Man that the fairy tale characters are a threat to his "perfect kingdom". No rationalization on that one. Everything is imperfect, but Farquaad picks on the fairy tale characters for some reason. So then we see scenes of fairy tale characters led off in chains, likely to prison camps and such. At least one character (Mama Bear) is put to death. Okay, it makes sense up until this point. Then we see that dozens of fairy tale folk have taken over Shrek's swamp, including Pinocchio, who was clearly seen being handed over to the guards earlier. (I guess he could have escaped during Donkey's distraction, but they could have mentioned that at some point) The pigs say that Farquaad was evicting them, which contradicts what we've seen up to this point. So Shrek goes to Duloch to complain. He tells Farquaad that his swamp is full of fairy tale folk, and Farquaad wears a pleased smile and says "Is it?" This should be an indication that Shrek has unwittingly betrayed them to certain doom, but nothing comes of this. After Shrek returns his swamp is cleared out and the fairy tale folk aren't seen until the wedding at the end, where they happily celebrate their best friend Shrek, who, um, betrayed their hideout (or refugee camp, or whatever) to an evil dictator and then was only indirectly involved in said dictator's death. Was there some stuff cut out of the movie, or am I missing something?
I just assumed that Farquad put them in Shrek's swamp because he knows an Ogre lived there and assumed Shrek would eat them all.
Shrek's swamp is a day-and-a-half walk from the citadel of Duloc. It seemed to me like the grin was "Is that so? Well, they're your problem now". Mama Bear probably got killed in a scuffle or executed as an excuse to get Faarquad a new rug. I really don't know why the fairy-tale beings were celebrating Shrek as something like a friend, but maybe the dance party was supposed to be a non-canon thing like FFA Idol etc., or answering "What Happened to the Mouse??" with "It didn't die, that's what happened", and the production team simply decided to take it as canon.
Gonna try and answer the original question here- 'Why Farquaad picks on the fairy-tale creatures?/What does he mean by perfect world?'- I'm of the opinion that he's pretty speciest and to go one step farther in the 'why' department, something of an adherent to order. Humans follow natural, physical laws and can be governed pretty tidily (in fairy tales, anyway). Du Loc is highly ordered- everything is regular, clean, and the introduction song at the info booth is all about how in Du Loc, you follow the rules. Creatures from fairy tales break natural rules. Animals talk, various and sundry things fly (donkeys, fairies, little boys), you have magic and witchcraft, and that's not going into accounting for all the different cultures of these different species. Human mindsets and customs make sense to Farquaad and he can impose order on people who, on a sheer biological/general cultural level, thinks like he does. He can't necessarily make a unicorn or ogre or witch follow his rules, he interprets that as a threat to his bastion of order, and so he goes on a crusade to get rid of the beings that threaten his way of life. Alternatively/in conjunction with that, he sees other creatures as subhuman, and when 'subhumans' get uppity about silly little things like 'equal rights' and whatnot, trouble always happens... *cough*
They were all on Shrek's swamp because Farquad dumped them there. When he says, "Is that so?" it doesn't mean he didn't know about it. Shrek is treated as a hero because all of the fairytale creatures were at the swamp under Farquad's orders when they didn't want to be. By rescuing Fiona, Shrek freed them from the swamp. I don't know where they went afterwards.
In regards to Farquaad's motivations, it's pretty simple: he's a self-hating bigot and hypocrite. He can't accept who he is on the outside, so he "compensates" and persecutes other fairy tale creatures out of said bigotry and self-loathing.
We see the fairy tale beings treat Shrek as a hero the instant he says he's going to get them out of his swamp, because they don't like being there anymore than he likes having them around. Consider also that Shrek is responsible for Lord Farquaad being eaten (not directly, yes, but it was because of his plan to stop the wedding). So from the fairy tale creatures' perspective, he heads off to get them living elsewhere, and ends up killing the guy who seems to be the only one that actually cares about relocating them.
It's pretty simple. Farquaad hates having the fairytale creatures in his perfect kingdom, so he has them all arrested and forcibly relocated to a random swamp outside his city, which just happens to be Shrek's. The creatures are pretty miserable about this whole situation, so when Shrek announces his intention to go to Lord Farquaad and demand their removal from the swamp, they cheer him on (obviously they missed the part where Shrek is not doing this for their sake, and doesn't care what happens to them as long as they are taken somewhere else). Shrek shows up in Farquaad's castle, beats up his knights, and gets held at arrow point. Farquaad tells Shrek to go get Fiona for him (with the implied threat that he will shot otherwise). When Shrek complains about his swamp, Farquaad sweetens the deal by telling him he'll relocate the fairytale creatures elsewhere if Shrek succeeds in bringing Fiona back. Shrek succeeds, and Farquaad keeps his word. We have no idea where the creatures where taken between the scene where Shrek returns and the ending credits, but since they show up at the credits we know that they were kept alive; probably relocate to some OTHER random miserable area away from Farquaad's kingdom.
Shrek says hold the Phone sometimes. Why does he say that? They're not invented.
You may as well ask how everyone knows modern pop songs and other cultural references, like Starbucks. Shrek's world isn't 100% medieval fantasy, it's an Anachronism Stew.
Shrek's character really seems to ping-pong back and forth all over the place. In the first movie, he hated being seen as nothing but "a big stupid, ugly ogre" and wished everyone could see him for his inner beauty. It was his entire motivation. But in the sequels, especially 3 and 4, he keeps going on and on about "Ogres don't do this," "Ogres don't do that," "I just want to be a plain old ogre again." He switches from trying to defy the ogre stereotype to trying to aspire to it.
Midlife crisis perhaps?
Grass is greener? Looking for an excuse? Wants out?
In the first movie Shrek actually didn't wish for people to see his inner beauty, at least not consciously. Being not accepted for who he is, he used his "ugly, man-eating beast" status as advance to at least acquire peace and quiet. He did hate lack of acceptance, but gaining it certainly was not his motivation in the first place. If he ever had a motivation that lasted throughout all the movies, it was "Let me be an ogre and enjoy it and stay away if you don't like it."
In the fourth movie, 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, Rumplestiltskin 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 Du Loc 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.
Shrek The Third. The boy becomes the king, to no one's surprise. Presumably, this means that he also wins his crush Guinevere's hand. So if the whole "King Arthur" bit of Arthurian myth is played straight, isn't Guinevere eventually going to have an affair with Lancelot - who, in this canon, is the guy who used to beat up her husband?
Considering that nothing about Arthur growing up or how he became king within Shrek world has had anything to do with Arthurian legend canon, I don't see why anything that happens afterwards would be the same either. Arthurian legends (the original) does not take place in a fairy tale world full of cartoon characters. So if nothing about his origins has been accurate to Arthur's origins in the legends, why would the eventual outcome follow it either? Nothing in Shrek is accurate, nor is it meant to be accurate. It just takes the basic character concepts from other stories and places them in an entirely different world doing entirely different things. Realize: he didn't even become king of Camelot, he became king of "far far away" which is a fairy tale parody of Hollywood
Not really. The characters are based off of fairy tales but do not always have the same endings. Charming didn't marry the princess, Pinocchio is still a puppet, and I don't remember Arthur ever pulling a sword out of a stone.
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...
Of all the songs they could have picked to sing at the King's funeral in Shrek the Third, they picked LIVE AND LET DIE?! What the hell did that have to do with anything?
Potential answer to the whole Dragon/Donkey pairing - a lot of dragons, especially D&D dragons and those based off of them, have the ability to polymorph. Dragon has the same power, but uses it rarely. In this case, she just polymorphed into a female donkey.
If she could do that, she wouldn't be wearing her "collar" when she meets again with donkey near the end of the movie.
She put it back on as a fashion accessory?
In the first film, Gingerbread Man and Lord Farquad have the discussion about the Muffin Man.
Gingy: Do you know... the Muffin Man?
Farquad: The Muffin Man?
Gingy: The Muffin Man...
Farquad: Oh yes, I know the Muffin Man... Who lives on Drury Lane?
Gingy: Well... she's married to... the Muffin Man.
Farquad: The Muffin Man?!
Gingy: THE MUFFIN MAN!!
Farquad: She's married to the Muffin Man...
Who is "She"?
The Muffin Woman doy.
Anyone else think Fiona looks way better as a ogre? In-series I can guess it's about as appealing as seeing a real life ogre but to us she looks pretty cute - I thought her human form was uncanny and looked too much like her voice actress.
What exactly happened to Eclair, the red dronkey? She appeared all the time in merchandise but hasn't appeared outside of her first appearance.
So... if the Fairy Godmother had agreed with King Harold that Prince Charming was to marry Fiona... what would have happened had Farquaad married her?
It probably wouldn't have been anything else than a minor delay. Seeing how much of an egoistical jerk Farquaad was, Fiona's marriage to him couldn't possibly have been a happy one, so instead of Charming saving her from the dragon he'd save her from the clutches of an evil king once they'd learn what had happened...using the old-fashioned way in terms of the divorce.
The same they wanted to do to Shrek; kill him, and then marry Fiona.
In scared Shrekless, is anyone else bothered by the fact that we never hear Puss's story? i know we didn't hear Pinnochio's either, but Puss had the potential to be actually scary. Or is it just his voice making me think that? Either way, I would have loved to hear whatever the Shrek-verse's version of truly scary was in his accent.
Why, exactly, was Fiona cursed to be an ogre at night? What is the origin of the curse? They don't just randomly exist in the fairytale world, they must be cast by a witch or fairies. If it was Fairy Godmother's price for turning the king into human, why did she create such an elaborate easy-to-meddle-with rescue plot when she could've just demanded that if the king and the queen get a daughter, she would wed his son in exchange? If Harold and Lillian managed to piss off a witch that cast the curse, why was she never mentioned in any of the movies?
In the first film, Fiona DOES say "When I was a little girl, a witch cast a spell on me." She doesn't go into any further detail, but there is that.
It's quite possible that "a witch cast a spell on Fiona" is just something her parents came up with to explain things to her, and that the whole changing at day and night was her natural state because of her father's origin.
This can be explained through What Could Have Been. In the original script, Fiona was BORN an ogre to the late King and Queen of Duloc (who were probably human). They locked her away in the tower, lying that she was "of such rare beauty" she was kidnapped. They died, and an ambitious regent (implied but never confirmed to be Farquaad) took over rule of Duloc. When Fiona was old enough to assume the throne, she escaped the tower and encountered a witch named Bib Fortuna (a reference to the Star Wars character of the same name), who is the "witch" Fiona mentions in the movie. Bib gives Fiona a potion (rather than casting a spell) to make her beautiful, but warns that she will change between her human and ogress forms (apparently randomly, no mention of "by night one way, by day another") until she finds true love. She was later whisked away by her dragon guardian and returned to the tower. So summa summarum: She wasn't cursed to be an ogre at night, she was already an ogre, and the "spell" the witch cast was to turn her human.
In Shrek 2, the King, Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming pretend that Charming is Shrek transformed by the Happily Ever After Potion. Fiona is none the wiser, which is understandable, considering she spent the last few years locked in a tower - but what about the rest of Far Far Away? And what about the QUEEN? Surely Charming, as the son of the Fairy Godmother and a pretty big diva in his own right, is fairly well known and recognisable? Hell, the Ugly Sister tending bar in 'The Poisoned Apple' knew who he was! I just can't believe the following situations didn't arise: A) 'So wait, you're married to Prince Charming now?' or B) 'Wow, your husband sure looks a lot like Prince Charming now!' leading to Fiona getting mightily suspicious.
It's possible Charming's mostly stayed at home preparing for his day in the limelight. Really, if you scratch the surface of his roguish affable demeanor, you get a spoiled little momma's boy pretty quick. Not hard to imagine she's mostly kept him home and tied to her apron strings as much as possible.
One minor observation: in Shrek 2, when King Harold first seeks someone to eliminate Shrek, he's told about Puss, whose private quarters was in a back room at the Poison Apple (Puss even explicitly says it's his room), yet later in the movie, when Harold meets with Fairy Godmother and Price Charming to call their whole deal off, they meet in the same backroom... so, it's no longer Puss's or anyone can just use it now? Or was Puss simply using it as a place for him to crash and burn at the time?
In the second movie, Shrek visits Fairy Godmother in order to find a way to make Fiona happy, in which she responds by counting numerous fairy tales that had happily ever after endings without any ogres, tauntingly. But one of the fairy tales she mentions is "The Little Mermaid"...is she aware that the fairytale had a sad Downer Ending of the mermaid comitting suicide when finding out the Prince doesn't love her, turning into foam to suffer for centuries until finally dying? It's not a happily ever after at all!
It's referring to the Disney movie.
I know that would be the case, but they can't refer to a movie that was rewritten to the original. They are referring to the fake, sugarcoated version.
Alternately in the Fairy Godmother's mind, it is a happy ending. The prince marries a princess and not the mermaid. The mermaid gets an I Want My Beloved to Be Happy and allows them to be together. Just like she wants Shrek to do with Fiona - realise she's not 'right' for him and allow her to marry Charming. She wants the humans to stay together while the fantasy creatures leave them alone.
What would Charming have done if Farquaad actually had married Fiona? Forced Far Far Away into declaring war on Duloc?