"The deal of a lifetime" kinda looks like a Plot Hole. Strictly speaking, Shrek (who 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 had never met the pesky troll in the first place. That would have theoretically rendered the first contract void, the villain wouldn't have died at the hands of Shrek and our ogre would have shown everybody a bit of genre savviness after being tricked into signing a loophole-filled contract. Since Rumpel's contract was magically unbreakable, would this simple but effective option have saved Shrek's day? We find out a little earlier in the movie that there was only a singleCurse Escape Clause that Shrek could effectively exploit. This makes things a little more complicated...
He could erase Shrek at birth to fulfill 'never met in the first place' though.
If Shrek were to use the "deal of a lifetime" to erase a day, it would've had to be a day specifically from the timeline he was currently in, where he technically doesn't exist, so it wouldn't have made any difference.
The main conflict in the movie is that Shrek signs a contract that causes Shrek and Fiona to never have met. Despite this, Donkey does not know Shrek (they met before 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 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.
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 exists, 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 throughout 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 Rumpelstiltskin 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 the 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.
Alternatively, at least one or two of Farquaad's men did succeed in rescuing her and bringing her to Duloc, and it went similar to the first movie: he found out her secret and had her sent back to the dragon's keep.
The empty Dragon Keep was 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?
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.
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?
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, and 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.
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.
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, things 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.
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.
You make a fine point about the different escape clauses for each contract, but I will remind you that that wouldn't be Twue Wuv. Just mystical mind wash 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 has been 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.
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)
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-seated hatred of witches, who 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 "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 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 the 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 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 takes the contract and nullifies/destroys it, that makes no sense. With most magical contracts 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 "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 these contracts might be horrible, they are still contracts and are 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 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 signs and use to free the other ogres are supposed to be "The Deal of Your Life", and thus implied to be a real "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 established 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.
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.
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 wished for Rumple to have never been born in the first place? Technically, he didn't void the first contract but prevented 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 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.
Shrek wishing for Rumple's nonexistence wouldn't erase the first contract, because that technically didn't happen in the alternate timeline. It would just create another world where both Shrek and Rumpel were never born.
From an in-universe perspective, it's also psychological for Shrek. At that point, he knew with certainty that Fiona wanted no part of 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.
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 whatnot.
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 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 this 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.
He had people spread the word all ogres are invited to his house party. And the Pied Piper also does party performances, Fiona must've been the one who hired him.
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 (which explains why it's dried up) and eventually made their way to kingdoms with more racial tolerance.
Well, taking into account his flashback from Shrek The Third, it seems that Gingy is from Far Far Away, as the Muffin Man has a shop in the city.
If Rumpelstiltskin makes Fiona's parents never exist due to his contract with them, then shouldn't Fiona never exist too?
Harold and Lillian's contract didn't have the same terms as Shrek's did. Rumpel explains this in the movie; signing their contract caused them to disappear on the spot as a way of ensuring their problems would like he'd promised them. He did not just take away the days on which they were born.
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 sometime 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 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 is someone who would need it. As a bonus, the King and Queen were at a sufficiently advanced age for them to live another six to ten years as Charming gets the 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.
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 has mysteriously 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.
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 conceived", so "born" was a stand-in for "conceived". Maybe in the Shrekverse, the two words are used synonymously.
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 to some extent. What Rumple REALLY did was alter the outcome, I.E. Made Shrek a stillborn, his mom had a last-minute miscarriage or even made Shrek born a GIRL, so his parents would raise him differently. Rumple only legally owned a day from Shrek's past, not THE PAST!
Tldr: Taking a day from someone's past via magic only takes it from that person's past. Anything anyone else did that day is unaffected (unless it relied on the person the day is being taken from doing something).
"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.
The rules of time/reality warping magic in the Shrek universe seem rather vague, and it's unknown exactly what the contract said, but given what Rumpel was trying to achieve, he most likely picked a magic contract that (when signed) gave him the freedom to alter the past in any way to ensure a specific outcome, under the guise of it being a "day for a day" contract. If so, then technically it wasn't the day of Shrek's birth that was erased, but the birth itself, which most likely means Shrek wasn't conceived.
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 compensation for being able to warp reality on such a large scale.
If Rumpel was able to choose the exit clause, having it be True Love's Kiss was actually a smart move. He knew about Shrek and Fiona's relationship beforehand, as it's what essentially ruined his life, and, since true love takes a long time (definitely longer than a day) to fully achieve, he made it so Shrek would have to start all over again. He also knew that Fiona never being rescued, and still being under her curse, would become disillusioned with true love and reject Shrek. This could also be a reason why he enslaved the ogre population; to further convince Fiona that true love and happily ever afters are myths, hardening her heart, and making it almost impossible for Shrek to win her over.
Other tales have explained that creating truly unbreakable curses requires a phenomenal amount of power, so it's "easier" to create curses that involve very complicated loopholes that can't be easily exploited; True Love's Kiss is an obvious example, but as another case, we have the "Permanent Stone Sleep" spell used in Gargoyles, where the stone gargoyles would only be awoken when the stones of Castle Wyvern rose above the clouds (not exactly something easy to do even with modern technology), or the curse that restored Angelus's soul being banished if he experienced a moment of perfect happiness (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (which as later sources pointed out isn't something that easy to achieve).
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.
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 eventually.
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.
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 Rumpelstiltskin 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's 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, but Rumple ended up winning.
Similarly to the question above, why there are no celebrities, including the princesses, in the alternate Far Far Away? Why especially Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty aren't seen living in the kingdom, if other Far Far Away citizens like the baker are seen still living there?
Well, one of them (Cinderella or Snow White) will definitely be married to Lord Farquaad since Fiona rescued herself, so they would be Queen of Duloc in that timeline. Also, Rapunzel may be with Prince Charming since it’s established in Shrek the Third that she’s his true love. As for Sleeping Beauty, I have no idea.
Moved away and found her own prince. Or still asleep.
Let’s hope that SB’s Prince isn’t the son of a cannibalistic ogress, like in the original fairytale.
Alternatively, maybe AU! Fiona leads 2 different resistances, the Ogre one during the night, and a Princess one (like the one in Shrek 3) during the day. So during the day, the princesses would be battling Rumpel, and sleeping during the night.
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 do 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 prejudice winning out over reason. The townsfolk are socialized 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 (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 from Fiona and her parents, so it seems really cruel on Fiona's part to leave him at Worcestershire to be picked on by his peers while she solely focuses on defeating Rumpelstiltskin...
First of all, how would alternate-universe Fiona know that her cousin was being bullied at Worcestershire? Putting that aside, we don't know that she didn't do anything to collect him from school; since he's also an heir, it's possible she recognized that Rumpel might target him and so is keeping him in hiding somewhere. The third film established that Artie isn't that adept at physical combat, so he's not of much use to the rebellion, and there'd be no reason for Fiona to mention him to Shrek since she has no reason to assume that Shrek knows about him or that he's significant in any way.
Alternatively, Rumple took care of him just after he got rid of Harold and Lillian. Guy had to move fast if he wanted to secure his hold on power.
Why Gingy doesn't have his legs glued with white glaze in the alternate universe? He got his legs broken while tortured by Lord Farquaad and while anyone could say that this was different because Shrek was never born, by the time Farquaad was torturing Gingy, Shrek had yet to intervene in Farquaad's schemes, so why Gingy has his legs unbroken in the alternate universe?
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 on 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. I guess 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 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.
We don't know when the rest of the world got the news Fiona was free. For all we know, the contract signing might have taken place after the wedding, and even then the messenger probably didn't have all the details.
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 (Stilzchen in German), but still).
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!
In an 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 backward) in the resistance which is based on the early version of the film talked about above. Because his name is Charming backward, 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 because 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 met Donkey, the fairy tale creatures would have still been sent to his swamp, he would have gone alone to meet with Lord Farquaad, and 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 ever 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 chose the day Shrek was born over the day he met Donkey because he doesn't just want to be king, he specifically wants Shrek to be erased from existence (i.e. effectively dead) 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? Regarding 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.
It could be that animators didn't pay attention to this detail. And Fiona in her ogre form was actually barefoot in the fairy tale at the beginning of the second film, but only because picture of her ogre form was portrayed in monstrous light, to show how her being an ogre was "bad thing".
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?
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?
In the video game, Rumpel bargains with the Fairy Godmother that she will be his “Queen For A Week” if she brings Shrek to him. But where was Prince Charming? Did Fairy Godmother get rid of him (assuming she created Charming via magic)?
