“Heartbreaking” Detail Found in Original Shrek Movie

[hanselthecaretaker]

'Shrek' Fan Spots Heartbreaking Detail in Animated Movie

"Shrek" may be a much-loved family classic, but there is one dark aspect of the film that might change the way you view it.

www.newsweek.com

This was one of the first movies my kid was obsessed with. Trying to think if I’d ever noticed this detail at all, or if he did. Damn.

 

[Worgen]

Wait? You mean people didn't notice this detail? I mean its not one of those really well hidden background things, its right there.

 

[Gordon_4]

While this is a detail I feel I would miss like a champ, its also one I'm not fussed about because seeing it would involve actually watching this feature length meme that's more about its director taking potshots at Disney than making an interesting fantasy movie.

 

[happyninja42]

Until Shrek matches showing me a live horse being drowned in a bog of despair like in Neverending story, an army of beloved robots being violently killed on screen, torn limb from limb, little puppets the size/design of infants beings enslaved by giant nightmare crabs, and THEN drained of their life energy until they are mindless husks, all at the orchestration of horrific vulture like humanoids, that decay into dust on camera when they die, in a slow, agonizing, bedridden way, and a guy getting a blowjob from a ghost level stuff, I really don't care.

PG has always been a really fucking nebulous term. It literally means parental GUIDANCE. It doesn't mean there is nothing in the show that might be upsetting for really young children, if it's not explained to them. That's what fucking G stands for. PG means some shit might upset kids, so be sure to GUIDE them through the emotional bits, and dark bits, or perhaps don't take them to see it yet if they aren't mature enough to handle it

And even they bawl their eyes out, their fucking kids, they will be fine. I was horrified by all the above examples, and I'm sure dozens of others that I have A) Simply forgotten as an adult, and B) Got over because I grew up and realized it's just fiction.

 

[Gordon_4]

Until Shrek matches showing me a live horse being drowned in a bog of despair like in Neverending Story

Dude, why you gotta do a brother hurt by reminding me of that?

 

[happyninja42]

Dude, why you gotta do a brother hurt by reminding me of that?

Because you are a grown up now and know the horse was just fine by the end of filming that day

 

[Xprimentyl]

Dude, why you gotta do a brother hurt by reminding me of that?

First time a movie ever made me cry. I was a child, and not prepared for that kind of dramatic weight in my fantasy films. That [then] kid acted his ass off in that scene; pretty sure he dug deep to "fake" the kind of heartbreak that still haunts the collective childhood of we adults today, almost 40 year later.

Because you are a grown up now and know the horse was just fine by the end of filming that day

Doesn't matter. You can't unsee a gut-punch like that, even if they tried to gloss it over with an "everything is back to the way it was" ending. That scene was the saddest shit ever.

 

[happyninja42]

First time a movie ever made me cry. I was a child, and not prepared for that kind of dramatic weight in my fantasy films. That [then] kid acted his ass off in that scene; pretty sure he dug deep to "fake" the kind of heartbreak that still haunts the collective childhood of we adults today, almost 40 year later.


Doesn't matter. You can't unsee a gut-punch like that, even if they tried to gloss it over with an "everything is back to the way it was" ending. That scene was the saddest shit ever.

Yes it was indeed sad, though I remember mostly being worried for the horse IRL as a kid. I didn't think he looked particularly happy about being sunk in mud up to his neck.

I think, as far as personally sad scenes, "These look like...big....strong...hands....don't they?" Hit super hard.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Doesn't matter. You can't unsee a gut-punch like that, even if they tried to gloss it over with an "everything is back to the way it was" ending. That scene was the saddest shit ever.

Well, what about-

I think, as far as personally sad scenes, "These look like...big....strong...hands....don't they?" Hit super hard.

Ok, that one's done. Um...oh, the bit with the horse was referenced in Snow White and the Huntsman, only it wasn't particularly sad. There's that bit in the video clip from Out of the Woods, if you imagine Taylor Swift to be a horse and...

Yeah, ok, I got nothing.

 

[happyninja42]

if you imagine Taylor Swift to be a horse and...

I'm now picturing her as a horse, with Katy Perry riding her, and the two of them are done up in so much glitter and rainbows, as to paint the sky for all of time. And it's glorious!

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yes it was indeed sad, though I remember mostly being worried for the horse IRL as a kid. I didn't think he looked particularly happy about being sunk in mud up to his neck.

I think, as far as personally sad scenes, "These look like...big....strong...hands....don't they?" Hit super hard.

Now that I think about it, despite all the fantastical imagery, creatures and themes, The Neverending Story really wasn't for children in a lot of senses. Artax sinking in the swamp while a child looks on helplessly saying "I love you," the Rock Biter expressing the depths of his personal failure, Morla being nothing short of a visual nightmare, Gmork being an ACUTAL nightmare, the existential crisis "The Nothing" embodies, the scene with the Southern Oracle which, to this day, is still unsettling, etc. Yeah, that film was the makings of an adult who had a seriously troubled childhood harboring some unresolved issues.

 

[happyninja42]

As much as I love TNES, I found it far less traumatic than Dark Crystal. At least with TNES, you get the "and EVERYONE lived happily ever after" reset of everyone, once the magical spell was completed.

Dark Crystal....nah man, whoever is dead, STAYED dead. At best, you have the little boglings that were soul drained, snap out of it when the crystal is healed. But everyone that had been wiped out, and traumatized, still gone. The only mulligan on that was the female gelfling. But still, way more traumatic for me. But also of the two films, the one I love more. I think mainly BECAUSE the stakes were real.

Now that I think about it, despite all the fantastical imagery, creatures and themes, The Neverending Story really wasn't for children in a lot of senses. Artax sinking in the swamp while a child looks on helplessly saying "I love you," the Rock Biter expressing the depths of his personal failure, Morla being nothing short of a visual nightmare, Gmork being an ACUTAL nightmare, the existential crisis "The Nothing" embodies, the scene with the Southern Oracle which, to this day, is still unsettling, etc. Yeah, that film was the makings of an adult who had a seriously troubled childhood harboring some unresolved issues.

Eh, I think it's just fine as a children's story. I think we forget just how horrific and graphic children's stories have been for centuries. I mean, I didn't have any problems following the film as a kid. The fact that it wasn't all rainbows and teddy bears made the movie feel important and real to me. It's a good transitional film, for children, into a more adult pallet of filmgoing. It's got the intense, dramatic, scary, sad events, but framed as a literal fairytale he's reading. So it helps to distance the audience from it. Plus remember ET had some traumatic elements to it as well. The death on the lab table, Elliot's panicked cries for ET's safety. The animal screams of ET when he's being captured and tortured by the MIB's.

Plus, I'd already read plenty of stories by that age, in actual books, that had elements just as dark, or darker in some cases, than TNES. Books I picked up in the children's section of my library.

Kid's are capable of understanding more mature themes than we give them credit for I think.

 

[Xprimentyl]

As much as I love TNES, I found it far less traumatic than Dark Crystal. At least with TNES, you get the "and EVERYONE lived happily ever after" reset of everyone, once the magical spell was completed.

Dark Crystal....nah man, whoever is dead, STAYED dead. At best, you have the little boglings that were soul drained, snap out of it when the crystal is healed. But everyone that had been wiped out, and traumatized, still gone. The only mulligan on that was the female gelfling. But still, way more traumatic for me. But also of the two films, the one I love more. I think mainly BECAUSE the stakes were real.

Yes, The Dark Crystal has some "dark" moments, but themes of death and the permanence thereof were nothing new to children's fantasy at the time that movie released. But asking a kid to wrap their head around the ominous, existential crisis that is "The Nothing" as its herald eyes them from dark places with green eyes and fangs is a bit heavy. Not necessarily too heavy for a child to appreciate simply as "a thing to fear," but as an adult, the theme goes a lot deeper. Every time it's mentioned in the film, the characters' eyes glaze over and they get the 1,000 yard stare, like they're remember their tour of duty in Vietnam and seeing their friends die.

Eh, I think it's just fine as a children's story. I think we forget just how horrific and graphic children's stories have been for centuries. I mean, I didn't have any problems following the film as a kid. The fact that it wasn't all rainbows and teddy bears made the movie feel important and real to me. It's a good transitional film, for children, into a more adult pallet of filmgoing. It's got the intense, dramatic, scary, sad events, but framed as a literal fairytale he's reading. So it helps to distance the audience from it. Plus remember ET had some traumatic elements to it as well. The death on the lab table, Elliot's panicked cries for ET's safety. The animal screams of ET when he's being captured and tortured by the MIB's.

Plus, I'd already read plenty of stories by that age, in actual books, that had elements just as dark, or darker in some cases, than TNES. Books I picked up in the children's section of my library.

Kid's are capable of understanding more mature themes than we give them credit for I think.

Yes, it does work well as a children's story in a broad sense, but it asks a bit much of a child. I liken it to a grandfather recounting a tale from his youth to his grandchild and trying to sugar coat the grittier bits for kid ears, but the deeper he gets into his memory, the less he softens his words until he finds himself just talking out loud like the kid isn't even there. Then at the end, he see the wide-eyed kid, mouth agape, brings himself back to the present and says "and we all lived happily ever after" before taking his last swig of whiskey. Not saying it's not good or doesn't function as a children's movie, just a bit intense at times. It reminds me a lot of Pan's Labyrinth, actually, a film about a girl who escapes her early 20th century wartime life to a fantasy world wherein she's a heroine and someone of import, though it's left to the audience to determine if it's real in every sense or only her mind. That truly is NOT a film for children.

 

[happyninja42]

Yes, The Dark Crystal has some "dark" moments, but themes of death and the permanence thereof were nothing new to children's fantasy at the time that movie released. But asking a kid to wrap their head around the ominous, existential crisis that is "The Nothing" as its herald eyes them from dark places with green eyes and fangs is a bit heavy. Not necessarily too heavy for a child to appreciate simply as "a thing to fear," but as an adult, the theme goes a lot deeper. Every time it's mentioned in the film, the characters' eyes glaze over and they get the 1,000 yard stare, like they're remember their tour of duty in Vietnam and seeing their friends die.


Yes, it does work well as a children's story in a broad sense, but it asks a bit much of a child. I liken it to a grandfather recounting a tale from his youth to his grandchild and trying to sugar coat the grittier bits for kid ears, but the deeper he gets into his memory, the less he softens his words until he finds himself just talking out loud like the kid isn't even there. Then at the end, he see the wide-eyed kid, mouth agape, brings himself back to the present and says "and we all lived happily ever after" before taking his last swig of whiskey. Not saying it's not good or doesn't function as a children's movie, just a bit intense at times.

See, I was a kid when I saw it, and none of the things you cite as being "too much for a kid" line up with my personal experience with the story. I was perfectly able to grasp the idea of "The Nothing" as well as ANY human being with a limited capacity to perceive infinitely scaled concepts like that. I was even able to grasp the idea that it was a representation of his memory of his mother, and his childhood/innocence, which he was losing as his mother's memories faded for him. And that him imbuing the princess with her name, was his way of coping with her loss, and a way of immortalizing her in his mind, by tying his memories of her, to the realm of TNES, as an emotional, and mnemonic anchor.

It reminds me a lot of Pan's Labyrinth, actually, a film about a girl who escapes her early 20th century wartime life to a fantasy world wherein she's a heroine and someone of import, though it's left to the audience to determine if it's real in every sense or only her mind. That truly is NOT a film for children.

*checks IMDB* Well...no of course not...it's rated R. That goes without saying it's not a film for 9 year olds. Although again, the type of stuff in Pan's is based heavily on traditional fairy tales, the old school kind, that were graphic as fuck, and WERE told to children all the time. So in a way, I guess it IS a film for children.
But the main protagonists of TNES, are two boys in the nebulous age range of 10-13ish. That's plenty doable for most kids to get behind.

I dunno, I mean none of the films I cited for being intense, were "too deep/much" for me seeing them, as the little 8-10ish year old I was. I got them just fine. I wasn't confused by The Nothing, but I was scared of it in the framework of the film. I wasn't confused by the rock giant crying over his lost friends, or the horse, I was sad because the film WANTED me to be sad at their losses. Being sad isn't alien to children. Sadly, many of them are all too familiar with the various things being hinted at in these films, due to IRL. Like I didn't want to know what it was like to have my older brother choke me out and threaten to kill me when I was 12ish years old, but I do know what that's like. I wish I didn't know what it was like at that age, to have parents who constantly yelled at each other every night, to the point I had to blare loud rock music in my headphones at night, just to drown them out, but I do. To see those things in a film, it doesn't shake my foundation, it's just a film.

I just think that those elements are not as foreign and strange for children to understand, depending on how they are framed. But again, that's the whole point of the G in PG. It's GUIDANCE. It's flat out stating that this film, will touch on topics that may, or may not, be confusing for your child, depending on their specific age and comprehension of various aspects of life. So be sure to watch it with them, and be ready to discuss the issues if they come up. PG doesn't mean "This won't challenge your child in any way at all." And given how long PG films have had "intense" subjects, I'd wager it never has meant that. Which again, is why they have the separate category of G. To specifically say "This isn't going to make your kid cry. NOTHING in it is at all scary or challenging for them mentally, emotionally. It's ALL puppies and rainbows."

 

[Xprimentyl]

See, I was a kid when I saw it, and none of the things you cite as being "too much for a kid" line up with my personal experience with the story. I was perfectly able to grasp the idea of "The Nothing" as well as ANY human being with a limited capacity to perceive infinitely scaled concepts like that. I was even able to grasp the idea that it was a representation of his memory of his mother, and his childhood/innocence, which he was losing as his mother's memories faded for him. And that him imbuing the princess with her name, was his way of coping with her loss, and a way of immortalizing her in his mind, by tying his memories of her, to the realm of TNES, as an emotional, and mnemonic anchor.

I dunno, I mean none of the films I cited for being intense, were "too deep/much" for me seeing them, as the little 8-10ish year old I was. I got them just fine. I wasn't confused by The Nothing, but I was scared of it in the framework of the film. I wasn't confused by the rock giant crying over his lost friends, or the horse, I was sad because the film WANTED me to be sad at their losses. Being sad isn't alien to children. Sadly, many of them are all too familiar with the various things being hinted at in these films, due to IRL. Like I didn't want to know what it was like to have my older brother choke me out and threaten to kill me when I was 12ish years old, but I do know what that's like. I wish I didn't know what it was like at that age, to have parents who constantly yelled at each other every night, to the point I had to blare loud rock music in my headphones at night, just to drown them out, but I do. To see those things in a film, it doesn't shake my foundation, it's just a film.

I just think that those elements are not as foreign and strange for children to understand, depending on how they are framed. But again, that's the whole point of the G in PG. It's GUIDANCE. It's flat out stating that this film, will touch on topics that may, or may not, be confusing for your child, depending on their specific age and comprehension of various aspects of life. So be sure to watch it with them, and be ready to discuss the issues if they come up. PG doesn't mean "This won't challenge your child in any way at all." And given how long PG films have had "intense" subjects, I'd wager it never has meant that. Which again, is why they have the separate category of G. To specifically say "This isn't going to make your kid cry. NOTHING in it is at all scary or challenging for them mentally, emotionally. It's ALL puppies and rainbows."

Not disagreeing with you, friend, just stating my feeling that in hindsight from adulthood, there was a lot more going on than 6-year-old *me* could ever have appreciated. Fortunately, and not to take anything away from the very real experiences you had as a child, I don't have family trauma as a reference for the deeper themes TNES explores.

And on the subject of ratings (which I DO understand,) another 1984 movie that had a PG rating was Gremlins, y'know, the film about little green monsters killing people and causing havoc? The rating system has evolved since the early '80s, so citing an early '80s "PG" rating as evidence for its kid-friendliness is a bit misleading, like how citing Joe Camel or '70's Marlboro sponsorships in sports as evidence that cigarettes weren't "that bad" decades ago. Not saying TNES would have merited a PG-13 rating today; like I said, it's a fine children's movie, but the lens of adulthood brings a different perspective I don't think most children can really appreciate.

*checks IMDB* Well...no of course not...it's rated R. That goes without saying it's not a film for 9 year olds. Although again, the type of stuff in Pan's is based heavily on traditional fairy tales, the old school kind, that were graphic as fuck, and WERE told to children all the time. So in a way, I guess it IS a film for children.
But the main protagonists of TNES, are two boys in the nebulous age range of 10-13ish. That's plenty doable for most kids to get behind.

Yeah, I said it reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth, not that it's a similar film insofar as its target demographic. Both are films about children escaping harsh realities to fantasy worlds and the audience is left to ponder whether we're seeing actualities or the children's imaginative coping mechanisms. That's kind of my point; at 6 years old, I thought the events of TNES were meant to be real; Fantasia was a real place and everything happened as presented on screen. As an adult, looking back, I question if Sebastian was simply a troubled kid evoking fantasies to drown out a troubled home life and bullying at school, meta-themes I don't think a typical child would pick up on when presented with flying dog-dragons, giant tortoises and rock-eating monsters.

 

[happyninja42]

Not disagreeing with you, friend, just stating my feeling that in hindsight from adulthood, there was a lot more going on than 6-year-old *me* could ever have appreciated. Fortunately, and not to take anything away from the very real experiences you had as a child, I don't have family trauma as a reference for the deeper themes TNES explores.

And on the subject of ratings (which I DO understand,) another 1984 movie that had a PG rating was Gremlins, y'know, the film about little green monsters killing people and causing havoc? The rating system has evolved since the early '80s, so citing an early '80s "PG" rating as evidence for its kid-friendliness is a bit misleading, like how citing Joe Camel or '70's Marlboro sponsorships in sports as evidence that cigarettes weren't "that bad" decades ago. Not saying TNES would have merited a PG-13 rating today; like I said, it's a fine children's movie, but the lens of adulthood brings a different perspective I don't think most children can really appreciate.

Well remember part of those films, is to try and make them enjoyable for the adults watching them too. As they are invariably going to be in the theaters with the kids. So having elements to the narrative, that might go over the head of a 6yo, would be caught by the parent. And that's on purpose. So the fact that 6yo you didn't maybe get the deepness of The Nothing, isn't a flaw in the rating system, or a sign they shouldn't have included it in the film. It was there for the parents, to have that nostalgia moment of remembering a loss as a child, and how the memories of it fade...into Nothing, as time goes on.

So yes, there were several bits that a child can't really appreciate, like you said. But they weren't there for them. They were there for the older siblings going with their little brother/sister, so they aren't cringing at every vapid detail on the screen. For the moms and dads doing the same.

I mean Bambi depicts a mother being fucking shot dead, and it's a G rated film, and nobody really seems to try and claim that was "too much".

Yeah, I said it reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth, not that it's a similar film insofar as its target demographic. Both are films about children escaping harsh realities to fantasy worlds and the audience is left to ponder whether we're seeing actualities or the children's imaginative coping mechanisms. That's kind of my point; at 6 years old, I thought the events of TNES were meant to be real; Fantasia was a real place and everything happened as presented on screen. As an adult, looking back, I question if Sebastian was simply a troubled kid evoking fantasies to drown out a troubled home life and bullying at school, meta-themes I don't think a typical child would pick up on when presented with flying dog-dragons, giant tortoises and rock-eating monsters.

Right, that's why, your parents should've been there to guide you through that bit of potential confusion. To be there to say things like "No sweety, it's ok, the horsey isn't really hurt. It's just a movie, that horse got washed off at the end of that scene, and was fed some yummy carrots and oats for his hard work as a Hollywood stunt horse. In fact, the horse was offered to the boy who played Atreyu when they finished filming, to go live with him, because they got along so well."

I dunno, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? It seems like you are saying "These things are too much for a kid to comprehend (that's variable depending on the kid though), so they shouldn't be in the film." But, I mean this is how we teach our children things. You eventually HAVE to confront them with things like loss, and grief, and fear, and violence, and death, and all the negative sides of life, because they WILL encounter them at some point. But we use storytelling as a way to cushion the blow, to drip feed it to them in tiny morsels, in a larger story that isn't as scary, and often will have things like "magical reset buttons" so that all the scary things they saw were undone by the end credits. And their parents can talk to them and explain the confusing bits that they didn't really get. I mean I've seen tons of comments online about parents having really profound conversations with their children, as a result of them watching some movie that challenged them and their worldview.

Am I missing the mark on your criticism of these elements in PG films?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Am I missing the mark on your criticism of these elements in PG films?

There's the disconnect between your and my understanding; I'm not criticizing the film at all. It's a great movie and a fond part of my childhood; I'm simply pointing out the deeper implications that likely fly over the heads of the apparent target audience of children. There's a lot in it to frighten kids at the basest level, but as an adult, you see how much there actually is to despair over. It's almost two movies, one about fantasy and magical creatures, then, 30 years later, it's a movie about a troubled child and how his mind deals with trauma. I actually appreciate the film MORE because of this; I can appreciate the wonderment it afforded me at 6, and more at the true messages it delivers at 41 years of age. Again, not disagreeing with your assessment at all, just nodding towards the idea that it has levels to be appreciated at different age levels.

 

[happyninja42]

There's the disconnect between your and my understanding; I'm not criticizing the film at all. It's a great movie and a fond part of my childhood; I'm simply pointing out the deeper implications that likely fly over the heads of the apparent target audience of children. There's a lot in it to frighten kids at the basest level, but as an adult, you see how much there actually is to despair over. It's almost two movies, one about fantasy and magical creatures, then, 30 years later, it's a movie about a troubled child and how his mind deals with trauma. I actually appreciate the film MORE because of this; I can appreciate the wonderment it afforded me at 6, and more at the true messages it delivers at 41 years of age. Again, not disagreeing with your assessment at all, just nodding towards the idea that it has levels to be appreciated at different age levels.

To clarify, I'm not just talking about TNES, but it seemed like your comments were more broadly referring to just PG movies in general, having elements LIKE the ones in TNES, being "too much" for kids, and that this is a bad thing. If this isn't your stance, then my apologies for misreading your posts. It seemed to me, that you were voicing the opinion that "these films shouldn't have these things in them, because they are too much for kids." Which I disagree with, partly because I don't think kids are as vapid and clueless about life as we often think they are at any given age bracket. And also because I take issue with the idea that talented storytellers, can't tell a tale that includes more mature elements, AND have it be digestible, and enjoyable for children.

If your point is simply "These movies are a lot deeper than kids normally understand, which makes seeing them again as adults, a new experience." Then I 100% agree. But my only point is that this isn't done with the hopes of blowing your mind a second time as an adult, as you re-contextualize the story elements. It's done, for the current audience of adults, that will be there WITH the kids, who will be having that experience, and view of the film, on their first viewing of it. And that type of layered storytelling, in children's entertainment, has been going on for decades, on purpose.

 

[Xprimentyl]

To clarify, I'm not just talking about TNES, but it seemed like your comments were more broadly referring to just PG movies in general, having elements LIKE the ones in TNES, being "too much" for kids, and that this is a bad thing. If this isn't your stance, then my apologies for misreading your posts. It seemed to me, that you were voicing the opinion that "these films shouldn't have these things in them, because they are too much for kids." Which I disagree with, partly because I don't think kids are as vapid and clueless about life as we often think they are at any given age bracket. And also because I take issue with the idea that talented storytellers, can't tell a tale that includes more mature elements, AND have it be digestible, and enjoyable for children.

I am not talking about "PG" films in general, was speaking specifically about TNES, but agree the elements at issue (if there IS an issue) were NOT "issues," just curiosities appreciated later in life.

If your point is simply "These movies are a lot deeper than kids normally understand, which makes seeing them again as adults, a new experience." Then I 100% agree. But my only point is that this isn't done with the hopes of blowing your mind a second time as an adult, as you re-contextualize the story elements. It's done, for the current audience of adults, that will be there WITH the kids, who will be having that experience, and view of the film, on their first viewing of it. And that type of layered storytelling, in children's entertainment, has been going on for decades, on purpose.

NOW we're on the same page.

 

[Gordon_4]

Because you are a grown up now and know the horse was just fine by the end of filming that day

Yes it was indeed sad, though I remember mostly being worried for the horse IRL as a kid. I didn't think he looked particularly happy about being sunk in mud up to his neck.

I think, as far as personally sad scenes, "These look like...big....strong...hands....don't they?" Hit super hard.

Oh dude, really? First Artax and now Rockbiter? You merciless bastard