Imagine being an animator at DreamWorks, only to be demoted to work on what the studio considered a lesser project—a film that would later become a cultural phenomenon. Yes, you read that right: 'Shrek,' the beloved ogre who farted his way into our hearts, was once seen as a punishment assignment. But here's where it gets fascinating: the story of 'Shrek' is not just about its unexpected success; it’s a tale of irony, misjudgment, and the unpredictable nature of creativity. Let’s dive into how this green, mud-bathing ogre turned the tables on DreamWorks—and the entire animation industry.
In the late 1990s, DreamWorks Animation was a rising force, eager to challenge Disney’s dominance. Their first major release, Mimi Leder’s The Peacemaker (1997), marked the studio’s debut, followed by high-profile films like Steven Spielberg’s Amistad and Gore Verbinski’s Mouse Hunt. But it was animation where DreamWorks truly aimed to make its mark. In 1998, they released Antz and The Prince of Egypt, the latter being a prestigious, star-studded musical reimagining of the Book of Exodus. With an A-list cast including Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, and Michelle Pfeiffer, The Prince of Egypt was the studio’s crown jewel—a film intended to rival Disney’s Renaissance-era masterpieces. It earned two Oscar nominations, winning Best Song, and was a critical darling.
But here’s where it gets controversial: If you made a mistake while working on The Prince of Egypt, you were demoted to Shrek. Yes, the very film that would later overshadow its predecessor in both popularity and profitability was once considered the studio’s dumping ground. According to Nicole LaPorte’s book The Men Who Would Be King, animators referred to Shrek as “the Gulag.” One anonymous animator put it bluntly: “If you failed on Prince of Egypt, you were sent to the dungeons to work on Shrek.” Ouch. Talk about a miscalculation.
Shrek, based on William Steig’s picture book, was originally envisioned as a far grosser, more satirical take on fairy tales. The titular ogre was meant to be the most disgusting creature imaginable, marrying an equally revolting partner and having equally revolting offspring. Add to that the fact that it was a computer-animated film—a medium many traditional animators looked down upon—and it’s no wonder no one wanted to work on it. Even the “cleaned up” version of Shrek was still considered too crude for some, with its opening scene featuring the ogre breaking wind in a swamp and killing fish. Co-director Vicky Jenson recalled the anxiety of premiering the film at Cannes, surrounded by tuxedos and evening gowns, while Shrek farted on screen. DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg even feared the audience would walk out in outrage.
And this is the part most people miss: Shrek wasn’t just a comedy about an ogre; it was a pointed anti-Disney satire that resonated deeply with audiences. Its cheeky send-ups of fairy tales and its all-star cast, including Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, and Cameron Diaz, struck a chord. The film became a massive box office hit, spawning a franchise that includes sequels, spin-offs like Puss in Boots, a Broadway musical, and countless video games. Even Disney took notes, with films like Frozen adopting a similar satirical tone. The irony? Shrek made far more money than The Prince of Egypt ever did.
So, what’s the lesson here? Perhaps it’s that creativity is unpredictable, and what seems like a risk—or even a punishment—can turn into a triumph. Or maybe it’s that audiences are smarter than we give them credit for, embracing stories that challenge conventions. But here’s the real question: If Shrek had stayed true to its original, grosser vision, would it have become the family-friendly icon it is today? Let us know what you think in the comments—and don’t hold back. After all, even an ogre who farts in a bog deserves a fair debate.
