Talk:Shrek!

Plot section added
Article needs a plot section. 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added it. Kitia 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's currently NO Plot section. someone add one please. Xylogirl07 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A donkey here too?
Does the book have donkey or somthing like that in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.223.163 (talk • contribs) on April 9, 2007 at 05:16.
 * Yes, the book does have a donkey in it, and a talking one at that (which, incidentally, is about the closest that the movie gets to following the plot of the book) *(Ian Clelland) 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It should really be mentioned that it's very divergent in message and form from the story of the film(s). Pbhj (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Pbhj, if you've read the book and/or reviews of it, perhaps you can flesh that out? Right not it says virtually nothing about the book. 64.134.11.96 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Book
This article seems to focus more on the movie than on the actual book :( 193.136.152.161 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. damiens.rf 15:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ogre?
Just check the book, it seems that the book does not directly refer Shrek as an ogre. We can only know he may not be a human as he can fire beam from eyes and flame from mouth. Unless there is any official material referring him as an ogre, I suggest we should use other term like monster or else. -- TX55   TALK  08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible there are reliable sources now which refer to him as an ogre, if only after the fact, but you're right. In the original text, there's no mention of what he is. I've updated it to "monster" as this shouldn't be objectionable. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

First Result
I'd argue the Web page for this book, rather than for the 2001 animated film, should be the primary result upon a search for, "Shrek." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando303 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree as the film/film franchise is *much* more notable than the book.--108.31.15.173 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Bumpf

Contradiction
The infobox gives the publication date as October 17, 1990. The prose tells us the fact "Steig was eighty-three when he wrote the book." Given that Steig was born in November 1907, this would be mean he couldn't have been 83 when he wrote the book. Wrong publication date or wrong age? Nohomersryan (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased to "over eighty" the source may have generalized. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What? Background
In the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Background": "Steig was in his eighties when he wrote the book."; what book? What exactly is the book this sentence is referring to? Out of nowhere we get hit with that sentence, after one about Steig starting to write children's books in his 60's. What book? "Shrek!"? Well that title hasn't been mentioned yet, besides from the intro paragraph on the top of the page. So how the hell is the reader going to know they're talking about the Shrek! book? This sentence just feels very misplaced. Is this page an article about Steig or about the book 'Shrek!'? It makes it seem like the main focus in the article is the book, when supposedly this background is about the artist, Steig. I say either completely remove the useless sentence, or elaborate in order to get your point across in a cohesive way with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe at least change the sentence by specifying that the book is Shrek! and explaining why that is a relevant statement. Thank you for reading. I love Shrek the movie series and I'd love for others researching the character's origin to be able to understand what they're reading, and not be put off by a poorly-written paragraph with a confusing ending statement. The fact that Steig wrote Shrek! in his eighties is so very interesting (I personally did not know about this fascinating backstory), I would not want a nonsensical sentence to tarnish anyone's understanding of it. 2600:1700:58B3:AC0:6D52:4935:455C:B5E (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)