The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Taken from IMDB.com
Pop star Justin Timberlake will star alongside real-life girlfriend Cameron Diaz in Shrek 3 as the voice of one of the animated characters. The singer is lending his vocal talents to the role of the young King Arthur in the fantasy feature, which also sees Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers returning to play Donkey and lovable ogre Shrek respectively. And producer Aron Warner has quashed rumors that screen beauty Diaz, who plays Princess Fiona, persuaded him to cast Timberlake - claiming the young pop star was just right for the part. He says, "Our desire was to get somebody who is visible and had their own persona to bring to the table. Justin fit the bill perfectly." Timberlake has already appeared in the cartoon franchise - in Shrek 2, a poster of "Sir Justin" on the wall of Princess Fiona's bedroom flashes across the screen.
_________________________________________
The first film was excellent. The second was poor. The third will be dire. And I hear there'll be four.
I'd much rather they'd spend time on writing than signing big name celebrities. Or better yet, move on from Shrek and create something new. What ever happened to that Kung-Fu Panda film they were making?
Pop star Justin Timberlake will star alongside real-life girlfriend Cameron Diaz in Shrek 3 as the voice of one of the animated characters. The singer is lending his vocal talents to the role of the young King Arthur in the fantasy feature, which also sees Eddie Murphy and Mike Myers returning to play Donkey and lovable ogre Shrek respectively. And producer Aron Warner has quashed rumors that screen beauty Diaz, who plays Princess Fiona, persuaded him to cast Timberlake - claiming the young pop star was just right for the part. He says, "Our desire was to get somebody who is visible and had their own persona to bring to the table. Justin fit the bill perfectly." Timberlake has already appeared in the cartoon franchise - in Shrek 2, a poster of "Sir Justin" on the wall of Princess Fiona's bedroom flashes across the screen.
_________________________________________
The first film was excellent. The second was poor. The third will be dire. And I hear there'll be four.
I'd much rather they'd spend time on writing than signing big name celebrities. Or better yet, move on from Shrek and create something new. What ever happened to that Kung-Fu Panda film they were making?
Page:
See that's what made the original so good. It was as much for adults as kids. I remember saying it was one of the first 'Family Films' that lived up to the title.
Shrek is mainly for kids anyway, they don't care if it's crap or not.
The second Shrek seemed pretty souless to me, just a string of smug movie references tied together somehow. Even with all the quality people the had voicing people, it was still a let-down.
But then ... the first one is hardly hilarious. But it's an excellent film nonetheless, which I like more every time I see it.
But then ... the first one is hardly hilarious. But it's an excellent film nonetheless, which I like more every time I see it.
It is coming out in 2007 for those of you who want to know. (Shrek 3)
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> I look forward to seeing Disney cash in on films such as Monsters Inc
> and Finding Nemo with their own variation on the characters...
Don't forget Toy Story 3&4 (no this isn't a joke, they're being planned).
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> I look forward to seeing Disney cash in on films such as Monsters Inc
> and Finding Nemo with their own variation on the characters...
Don't forget Toy Story 3&4 (no this isn't a joke, they're being planned).
Actually Walt himself was quite a money hungry (and I hear, evil) man. There's a couple of books on it.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Walt Disney Company is an organization that exists to make money for
> its stockholders, just like any other company. It always has, and
> always will.
Of course. But there used to be a hell of a lot more effort and love that went into the films and products they were putting out. Disney used to be the forefront in animation, these days the companies a joke and it's only going to get worse once the contract runs out with Pixar.
I look forward to seeing Disney cash in on films such as Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo with their own variation on the characters...
> Walt Disney Company is an organization that exists to make money for
> its stockholders, just like any other company. It always has, and
> always will.
Of course. But there used to be a hell of a lot more effort and love that went into the films and products they were putting out. Disney used to be the forefront in animation, these days the companies a joke and it's only going to get worse once the contract runs out with Pixar.
I look forward to seeing Disney cash in on films such as Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo with their own variation on the characters...
monkey_man wrote:
> Just like The Vatican (I'm watching Godfather III)
You could argue the two are very similar. The Vatican sells salvation, Disney sells a sham of the American Dream.
> Just like The Vatican (I'm watching Godfather III)
You could argue the two are very similar. The Vatican sells salvation, Disney sells a sham of the American Dream.
Just like The Vatican (I'm watching Godfather III)
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Walt must be turning in his grave when he sees what a money hungry
> sham of a company Disney have become.
Walt Disney Company is an organization that exists to make money for its stockholders, just like any other company. It always has, and always will.
> Walt must be turning in his grave when he sees what a money hungry
> sham of a company Disney have become.
Walt Disney Company is an organization that exists to make money for its stockholders, just like any other company. It always has, and always will.
Page: