We are all different, existing in many different forms. But it is important not to pre-judge folks just based upon their appearence. Everyone is a unique individual, and just because someone is ugly or fat is no reason to think less of him.
Unless, of course, he’s short, in which case he’ll be an obnoxious overcompensating runt with delusions of grandeur.
Way to smash those stereotypes, Hollywood. Woo.
Eh, mediocre sarchasm, interesting irony, but no real vitriol, no panache. Comes off as just general whining with a side order of malaise. I give it a 3.
I second the three, we need at least SOME words that insinuate sexual relations with animals of a lower order to go any higher than that.
— G. Raven
I have to agree, whenever Hollywood tries to tell the “Look beyond appearences” message tehy fall on thier face. My favorite example is Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. Now, remember that the original is just a dim memory in this remake, so “skicking to the story” is not even a remote goal. They claim that the main message is “appearences don’t matter, look at someone’s heart,” but at the end the Gypsy kisses the Hunchback chastely on the forhead, says “I’m glad we can be friends” and rides off with Young Apollo.
Question about Shrek, since I have no intention of seeing it: does the hot chick hook up with the big green guy? Kiss, Happily Ever After, all that? I have to confess, that if they do I will be a little shocked. It is at least a move in the right direction.
I just saw it last night.
Manda Jo, the ending is even better than that! Can’t say any more…
They weasel out of it. Bastards. Kiss, yes, but an obvious twist insures there is no (gasp) miscegenation by the end.
All the same, it was an enjoyable film.
And, I have to add, re: Disney’s “Hunchback”, that Quasimodo sang pretty damn well for a deaf-mute.
Avast! Here by Spoilers! Read no further, lest ye wish to know how the movie ends! Arr!
Punoqllads: No miscegenation? Umm, what about the whole donkey-dragon romance? Plus, there were a number of short characters (the gingerbread man, the three blind mice, assorted gnomes) in the movie, only one of which was a tyrannical mono-maniac. Most of the humor in this character came not from him being short, but from the lengths he would go to trying to make up for his perceived, uh, shortcomings. Most (if not all) of the characters had this same flaw to some extent. Shrek hides in a swamp becuase that’s what people expect ogres to do. The princess hides her curse from Shrek and the donkey because she thinks they will not want like her if they knew. (kinda a weak link in the plot, IMO. Did she really think the ogre would like her less if he found out she was part ogre?) Although I saw it coming, I thought the ending was fantastic, much better than the end of the similarly themed Beauty and the Beast, which Shrek was obviously spoofing. And the less said about the Disney Hunchback movie the better.
Someone call me? 
It was always my impression that he was a parody of Napolean. 'Sides, the image of a teensy-weensy guy trying to rule everyone helps enhance the irony… kinda like Dark Helmet in Spaceballs.
Well, I think Lord Farquad’s shortness actually plays into the plot. Before, everyone made fun of him because he was short, and now, everyone makes fun of him because he’s such a cockhead.
See? We get to judge him by his character, just like everyone else.
And Manda, I highly reccomend you see it. It’s a cool movie, and not nearly as vapid as the usual Disney crap.
Actually, its a pot shot at Michael Eisner, CEO or Disney, and Jeffery Katzenburg, disgruntled executive. Most of the character of Farquaad is inspired by Eisner, except of course the height. Katzenburg is really short.
More spoilers:
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Donkey and the dragon. They’re minor characters, and only one of them can actually speak. No, the film fucking wimped out. WTF, Shrek can only marry Fiona if she’s green and ugly too? Fuck that noise. It’s telling me that “appearances don’t matter, except when they do.”
The most recent Newsweek has a picture towards the back of Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit. You can’t really tell it is her.
Apparently she is starring in a movie where the main character is really shallow. Something happens and magically he can only see the inner beauty in people.
I’m assuming that the fat suit will represent Outer Ugliness and the lack of the fat suit will represent Inner Beauty. Apparently the message of this movie is that inner beauty is thin.
Now, I have no problem stating that 90% of grossly obese people are not physically attractive (to me) but saying that the trick to liking a fat person is to see them as thin is pretty bogus.
As for Shrek. For someone as unrelentingly immersed in Disney as I am, it was pretty funny. Quite a few visual gags that were likely missed by the average viewer. If Lord Farquaad was Katzenberg’s attempt to spoof Eisner, though, he should have done something a bit more specific. Almost everything that could be pinned on Eisner can also easily be pinned on Katzenberg. There’s a reason they worked well together for almost 15 years.