Anonymous at Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:37:52 UTC No. 1008399

>>1008398
I don’t understand what’s wrong, it looks like Sherk if the material textures were clear and characters had more time to be detailed. I find no fault.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 01:01:54 UTC No. 1008403

>>1008398
this is the natural conclusion of art when every single frame needs to be individually analyzed and approved by a team of directors, designers, lawyers, sensitivity readers, sensitivity writers, normal writers, a rabbi, a doctor, a judge, the NAACP, the ACLU, the SPLC, the CIA, the EPA, and if the budget allows, an artist.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 01:54:51 UTC No. 1008404

>>1008398
Better lighting and textures in the sequel retardkun. It looks better

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 02:12:29 UTC No. 1008406

There's different lighting. And the animation is way more expressive and over the top, a bit more kiddie tone. Donkey also has very different proportions.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 02:45:17 UTC No. 1008410

>>1008398
Yes, modern Jewllywood is lazy as fuck.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 02:46:43 UTC No. 1008411

>>1008403
People in the industry don't put an effort. They are so afraid to say "I don't like how it looks" or "It should look like this"

Leftist behaviour at its peak.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 02:48:11 UTC No. 1008412

>>1008411
now that you mention it, the trailer looks like reddit at its peak. makes sense

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 03:21:40 UTC No. 1008414

>>1008404
>>1008406
The only improvement is the lighting. The animation looks worse though. Less expressive and more soulless. Kind of like with new simpsons and old simpsons. It has less character.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 08:31:26 UTC No. 1008425

>>1008398
The features are overexaggerated and the're deforming the faces a lot more. It looks too cartoony

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Mar 2025 09:05:24 UTC No. 1008426

>>1008398
OG Shrek (and to a lesser extent 2) was one of the few CG movies out at the time, so a lot of the movie's look really narrows down to the tech they had at the time. For most of the production they were pioneering their own workflows and tech, all the while trying to get the movie out of the door. They were clearly up against some limitations and there's probably a lot of places where they wanted to do something more, but couldn't. 2 Is in a similar boat, but they had some more wiggle room and money backing since it was an established (and successful) IP. Don't get me wrong, I love the movie, and it still holds up in places, but Shrek 1 is literally the epitome of "good enough, ship it".
These days, a lot of those growing pains are essentially solved, which leaves a lot of time to work extra shit to death. Couple that with the fact that CG animated movies are a normal thing now (far too common in fact), and with that comes a certain expectation on how they're supposed to look (stylistically and in motion), and you get what you see in the OP.

For the record, I don't think it looks all that bad. It's different to be sure, but it really just looks to me like it's leaning more cartoony than the semi-realism that the OG movies seemed to be going for. Granted, I'm just going from the OP post. Didn't watch the trailer, Shrek for me dropped off after 3.