DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Published 5 years ago by

 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

The Shrek series has always been known for combining family humor with more adult-oriented jokes, but DreamWorks may have taken it too far this time. In a recent attempt to promote Shrek Forever After, the studio gave the okay to have several of the film’s characters featured in a photo spread for the men’s fashion magazine VMan. Now, the resulting racy images have studio insiders backpedaling.

According to Fox News, a number of insiders at DreamWorks and Paramount have expressed regret over the images, with one Paramount rep remarking, “In hindsight the studio would have declined to have the characters participate.” Are the pictures really all that bad? Take a look below and decide for yourself.

Shrek 4 Fashion 1 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 2 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 3 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 4 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 5 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 6 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

Shrek 4 Fashion 7 DreamWorks Sorry For Risque Shrek 4 Images

In my opinion, the problem isn’t that the pictures are inappropriate, but that they don’t make any sense. Setting aside the fact that characters from a popular family film franchise have no business appearing in a fashion spread, it’s hard to understand what demographic DreamWorks was hoping to capture with the images. What’s the strategy here? Are readers of VMan really the type of people that would be interested in seeing Shrek Forever After?

Also, why would you want to put your characters next to actual people in the first place? Our recent Shrek Forever After high-res image gallery showed just how much detail went into making these characters look good. Putting them in something as contrived as a fashion shoot only serves to deemphasize the impressiveness of the characters and, quite frankly, make them look foolish.

As I remarked when discussing the recent Iron Man 2 Dr. Pepper commercial, I have no problem with tie-in movie marketing, so long as it is well-executed and in keeping with the spirit of the film. In this case, DreamWorks failed on both counts and I’m not surprised to see the company distancing itself from the images.

What do you think? Do you find these images inappropriate? What do you think DreamWorks was thinking when they agreed to allow the characters to be in the photos?

Source: Fox News

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. What a storm in a tea cup!

  2. hmmmm, is the movie potentially SO bad that it really needs this completely fabricated controversy?

  3. Reading the Headline I was expecting something really BAD and funny…but now seeing those pics,it's really disappointing and I just think “What ? Thats the fuss about ?”

    So harmless pictures…i was thinking hardcore stuff ! Yawn…those people have really a little narrow place they live in.

  4. I'm in total agreement with you, Rob. And that picture of Puss being fed; who are they targeting? It doesn't look they are targeting heterosexuals to me.

  5. These images are stupid and nonsensical. I wouldn't say they're “risqué”, just dumb. Poor move by the marketing team in my opinion… who the hell are they trying to appeal to?

  6. I think you bring up a good point here. I wouldn't put it past a studio to try to create a “controversy” to drum up publicity, heck Nike's been doing that for years. You pay some little known magazine a couple grand to put their characters in a spread awkwardly and then let CNN, Fox News, etc. talk about it for a few days for free publicity on major networks.

  7. why? don't heterosexuals eat grapes?

  8. There weren't thinking at all. Simple to explain.

  9. “Risque” images of Shrek? Someone should show anyone who's offended by these a little site called paheal-34.

  10. I think you all have too much time on your hands.

    Who cares about Dreamworks' photo shoots?

    If you want to really talk about something controversial why not start with why Katzenberg bought the most expensive home in LA County the same year Dreamworks Animation had a banner year AND did NOT fairly compensate his workers?

    I'm just saying…

  11. So… is the cat gay?