Anonymous at Sun, 2 Mar 2025, 12:57:35 GMT No. 1008468
>>1008463
https://archived.moe/3/thread/10083
You already got a thread and it was killed because it was shit. Now go donuts and sin no more
KRCH at Sun, 2 Mar 2025, 17:50:53 GMT No. 1008483
>>1008463
The graphics are just terrible. The joke about the tik tok isn't funny at all.
The first impression is this: crap
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Mar 2025, 17:54:06 GMT No. 1008484
>>1008468
That was on-topic for /3/, tard
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Mar 2025, 18:36:30 GMT No. 1008488
>>1008485
>Appeal to authority (janitor)
You're low IQ
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Mar 2025, 23:01:11 GMT No. 1008497
>>1008463
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.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Mar 2025, 09:22:04 GMT No. 1008533
>>1008463
This video sums up how I feel: https://files.catbox.moe/d9kjhd.mp4
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Mar 2025, 14:22:53 GMT No. 1008540
subsurface depth is a bit too high t bh
i mostly don't care tho
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025, 05:26:23 GMT No. 1008764
>>1008463
personally, i do not like how soft and smooth it looks. Hes an ogre, but i guess if you spend all day in mud baths youd have nice skin.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Mar 2025, 04:01:17 GMT No. 1009016
>>1008540
I'm not the guy you responded to, but I like 30 fps.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Mar 2025, 04:19:39 GMT No. 1009017
>>1008533
This video better be a voluptuous black woman bouncing on a fat white dick
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025, 02:34:36 GMT No. 1009106
>>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.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025, 02:37:46 GMT No. 1009109
>>1008463
It looks soulless I thought it was so generated
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 10:32:08 GMT No. 1009737
>>1008497
>I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey
because you are severely autistic and that's a symptom
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 10:51:06 GMT No. 1009740
>>1008497
> I can't tell what the facial expression on the left is supposed to convey at all
First picture =
Second picture =
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 10:53:18 GMT No. 1009741
>>1009085
>>1009109
It’s been 15 years, yes people change. His daughters are 15 now as you saw in the video. What did you expect?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 11:13:56 GMT No. 1009743
>>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.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 12:40:52 GMT No. 1009745
>>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
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025, 18:51:12 GMT No. 1009781
>>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.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025, 01:38:19 GMT No. 1010104
>>1009085
His eyebrows look luscious.