This is minecraft movie part two. It generally looks good but everyone shits on it in part because the original fans have aged out of it and it's no longer meant for them, and in part because of simple groupthink. Right is objectively better than left- I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey at all, it looks like someone just rotated the jaw controller straight down on x and called it a day. His tongue has no wetness to it and the 2d bump mapping on his skin/the way the light hits his lips looks totally off and kind of uncanny the longer you look at it. It was good art direction for what was available in 2001 but it's unironically the current year. 4chan in particular doubles down on it's negativity towards it because they added a character who in spite of being green has some sort of nonwhite aura about her that's a bit hard to quantify.
They overdid the aging on Fiona, the teeth are very excessive.
>>1008463 They look like Disney characters now. I thought the point of the original style was to look like some autistic computer graphics medieval realism only DnD nerds would be into and it actually is amazing how the animation wasn't really that uncanny for the time. With this new Disney style, it's clear they want this to be more of a children's movie. Whatever.
>>1009109 The perfect example of how retards can't tell AI and non-AI content apart, and just assume that everything that doesn't look like it's from the early 2000s is AI. The future is bleak, no matter how good you get, 90% of these idiots will assume it's AI.
>>1009085 >>1009106 Shrek visually has a more threatening aura in the original, which worked much better. There's room for emotional ambiguity, rather than the whole "every emotion needs to expressed with maximum exaggeration" style.
With the new model, they're making him *more* overtly goofy in a way that doesn't make sense for the character, since a good portion of his characterization comes from the incongruity of his appearance and actions.
A lot of people will bring this up, but no, it's not even "book Shrek"; it's some softened version of him? This isn't "aged Shrek" either. I wouldn't imagine him looking like this
>>1009745 >Its a softer sherk Did you people really forget about his character arc in battling his own inner selves. Yes he became nicer in the original trilogy.
>>1008497 >It generally looks good but everyone shits on it in part because the original fans have aged out of it and it's no longer meant for them, and in part because of simple groupthink This but unironically.
>>1008497 >>1010203 >puss in boots 2 uses the original shrek styled models >critics love it >fans love it >it makes a billion dollars >some guy on 4chan: "yeah that movie came out in 2022, get with the time gramps. things change, its the current year!"
>>1010228 It looks exactly the same with higher resolution and texture. Stop trying to justify your opinion of sherk being something you associate with memes.
>>1010237 No, it's different in many ways. Nose is very different, outline of eyes is different, distance between the eyes is also very obviously different. I'd say old nose is closer to african type, while new one is jewish.
>>1010203 But isn't it weird that literally the only people who say this, literally always say it of products produced between the years of 1980 and 2010?
>>1008497 >>1008463 this is unironically soul vs soulless. yes right shrek is better on a technical level, but shrek on the left has more value on a visual appeal level. it's familiar, it's original. right is literally every cover song you see on youtube with [EPIC VERSION] in the title
>>1016809 Holy shit, 2 whole years? They must be remaking the whole move. It was probably more than the style reception that did it. A lot of people were mocking it by predicting the incredibly cliched plot about a father at odds with his teenage daughter. I bet all of the jokes were actually true, so they're rewriting the plot as well.
>>1016930 >technical downgrade That's the thing, it doesn't matter if it's better on a technical level if the audience doesn't like it For example, realistic CGI is better from a 3D perspective, but the audience prefers stylized animation like Arcane
>>1010300 "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." -1 Cor 13:11
>>1008497 The problem is that Shrek does not look like Shrek from previous movies, that’s it. Also minecraft movie was single-handedly carried by Chicken Jokey and intentionally terrible acting, so that’s not an argument.
>>1017130 Damn, that fixes the disgustingly ugly features of the original model, while mantaining it's core design and character. You just gave us the real Shrek remake that we will never have.
>>1010203 Modern character designers do suck. The only animated films that do well are copy/paste sequels of franchises established over a decade ago, the rest is a competition to make the new record-setting box office bomb. Why would they recreate characters to be more like the latter camp?