Anti-Dreamworks Bias?

M

matrixxxx98765

New member
I'm saying that ideally, serious effort should be made to make these movies genuinely good. This isn't synonymous with a call for pretentiousness, though. Most of the most famous Disney movies adapt fairy tales and aren't "high art," but they still have an appeal that spans generations. That's the ideal place to be in my view.
 
As someone who enjoys DreamWorks movies like Shrek, I've been kind of surprised to see that there's a set of animation fans out there who just seem to really dislike the company.

It seems like any DreamWorks production has to overcome an initial skepticism even if it is good. And sometimes you'll hear people say something like they're surprised they liked a Dreamworks movie. Sometimes, I have to be honest, it seems like the main problem people have with DreamWorks is simply that they aren't the beloved Pixar.

Anyone else notice it? What do you think are the reasons for it? Do you think it is justified or unfair?
 
My opinion on Dreamworks can be summed up in a sentence; they've made a few really bad movies, a bunch of mediocre ones, and a few really good ones.

There's nothing wrong, though, with hating all of Dreamworks movies; the trouble is, it's become the "in" thing to do, so that Dreamworks movies are constantly demonized, sometimes by people who haven't even seen them all, often in order to elevate other studios (like Pixar) to a higher point of worship.That's what bother me.
 
There is a tendency in some Dreamworks Animation productions, most notably the Shreck series, to rely heavily on topical or pop-culture referenced humor, and especially digs and in-jokes at the expense of competing studios.
Topical jokes quickly become dated and tired, and digs at competitors can be taken as mean-spirited.

There is also that characteristic skewed grin with one raised eyebrow that has virtually become the trademark Dreamworks Animation facial expression. It seems to happen in every single film. I'm inclined to believe there is an animator in the studio who actually looks like that.

Now if you take each film separately on its own merits, some are great, most are good, some less so. But if you look at them collectively, you begin to see these patterns.
 
What risks and uniqueness did Incredibles , Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, and Up really have? I'd say Toy Story, but it was the first CG film so I suppose that's what you're talking about. Wall-E is probably the one I find the most unique out of all of them. My main statement was more that both companies don't really push the boundaries that much. I doubt we'll see Pixar do a psychological thriller, a romance, an action movie, a serious drama, and so forth. It just seems like both companies are stuck in the 'talking animal/object goes on a zany adventure' format. Though like I said, that's probably a problem with the market and the mindset most adults have with animation than anything else.
 
That doesn't hold much merit because there is also the "Cheesy Pixar Smile" that is found in just about every film from Cars, Toy Story, The Incredibles, Up, Monsters Inc.

I've been wondering why there is so much hate for Dreamworks for ages. Granted, Shark Tale was horridly written, but the colors and some of the designs (Not the faces of the fish) were pretty neat to look at.

The pop culture references are mostly only really found in Shrek, so it's kind of silly when people label every other film they make in the same boat as that.

The only film that even did well against the haters was Kung Fu Panda (Not one single pop culture reference I can think of in that)

In all, I feel like people need to look at each DW film individually, everyone is so busy kissing Pixar's behind that other CGI films are judged unfairly upon first glance.
 
I generally don't mind Dreamworks films, and I think the biggest problem I have is that they find a successful film, and they have to make a franchise out of it. Take Shrek, the first film was great, it was funny. But then they decided to make sequel after sequel, and each movie got less and less funny. It's the same with Madagascar, the first one was funny, the sequel just wasn't.



That doesn't mean the movies can't be good. Take a look at the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies, they are generally seen as some of the most important pieces of film, and yet they made plenty of topical jokes that have since badly dated, and they took plenty of jabs at competitors like Disney. And yet nobody criticizes them the way they do Dreamworks, instead the cartoons are highly praised.

I do realize there is a difference between 7-minute short cartoons and full-length animated features, and the WB shorts may have made their topical jokes more clever, but it is a bit hypocritical.
 
I've enjoyed more of Dreamworks films than Pixars.
Only thing from Pixar I really favor is the Toy Story series. The Incredibles and Monsters Inc. are good also but those are the only Pixar stuff I like. I can't comment on Up since I have not seen it yet.
 
As far as Toy Story goes, it's innovations weren't just that it was the first CGI film. That it wasn't a fairy tale or a musical and that it focused on adult characters who weren't princes or princesses made it pretty unique in its day as far as American animation goes.

Monsters Inc. had uniqueness in its social commentary on the energy crisis. Not that it's a groundbreaking film or anything, but it does have a distinct flavor.

The Incredibles was probably Pixar's biggest diversion from their typical formula. No talking animals or anthropomorphic objects. While it was a comedy, it was also an action movie with real danger and a thoughtful family drama. It even posed some interesting philosophical/political questions.

Ratatouille had a premise very marketing-unfriendly (A rat in a kitchen? In FRANCE? There's no big gigantic climax or anything? And it's all snobby and gourmand-y and we can't have any fast food tie-ins?), which I doubt you'd find from Dreamworks post-Shrek.

Up is the first ever animated senior citizen-centric adventure movie, as far as I know.

And what's this about Pixar not having any romances? Wall-E was a romance and so does it sound like Newt is going to be as well.
 
I thought ?Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa? was better than the first, but what about Pixar? Three ?Toy Story? movies. Two ?Cars? movies. I believe a second ?Monsters Inc.? movie is being developed as well. Sequels are a staple of the industry as a whole; I don?t think it?s fair to single out DreamWorks like they?re doing something abominable.
 
Precisely. My point of that review ignoring the demographic is that even if you yourself didn't like the movie, it's a simple fact that as a reviewer, one has to think, "If I was 10 years old, might I enjoy this?" and simply state that it's a movie that the kids will love, but you might not if you want more substance. It's a lot more professional.

But as said before, there are people who will turn their brains off for Michael Bay, generic anime, and obnoxious shows, but will NOT stand for Dreamworks. And for what reason? To conform to the entire forum's opinion so you don't have to form your own? Really now, at least I'll admit that I still like Shrek. :/

Yes, I don't entirely agree with Dreamworks' ideas. But Pixar isn't as Godly as people make it out to be.

... But I think we can all agree that Blue Sky Studios is pretty... bad.
 
Actually, you're right. I don't know about Toy Story, although a sequel all these years after the second one sounds a bit iffy, but a Cars sequel doesn't really sound that great(I think they are only doing it because of marketing), and I'm not even sure about a second Monsters Inc. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to single out Dreamworks for being the only one that drags out their movies with sequels, because they aren't.

Generally though, I do have an issue with sequels, because I feel they tend to ruin the impact the first movie had. I know that sounds condescending, but I like movies like Toy Story and Shrek, because they just seem to come out of no where, you don't know what to expect. I will admit Toy Story 2 managed to keep that feel, but Shrek 2 was pretty predictable, and I felt it tried to hard to be as good or better than the first one.
 
After reading this whole thread...it does in fact sound like there is some kind of anti-Dreamworks bias. I don't think so at first, I love Dreamworks. I think they do great stuff. And I thought most people did too...well...I guess technically, most people do like their stuff. Maybe not on this particular forum, but anyway...

I have to admit, I haven't seen ALL of Dreamworks stuff, and yet I've seen all of Pixar's stuff...but I still love the work Dreamworks does. Like their 2D stuff like Road to El Dorado or even Sinbad, their 3D works like Antz or Kung Fu Panda. They have some talented writers and animators.

Maybe its because I have worked on some 3D animation, and its pretty freakin' hard. While I can't imagine everything that goes in to making a full length animated film, I know the basics of making short animated films...and its pretty tough stuff.

Anyway, I fail to see marketing tactics like using big name celebrities as a bad thing. Its just apart of the industry. But I'm sure most people realize this is a silly argument as seen with Pixar using big named acting talents as well.
 
I can't imagine a second Monsters Inc. being very good. Especially since the first one wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch.

One thing I'd like to add is that Dreamworks relies way, way, WAY too much on celebrity voices in their movies. It seems like they can't have a movie without at least two A-list people in it. I'm not saying that hiring popular people is a bad thing, mind you, but they take it too far. They also have a tendency to make the characters little more than caricatures of whoever is voicing them. Take Kung Fu Panda. Po wasn't really anything more than Jack Black acting like Jack Black.

Dreamworks also milk their movies with too much merchandise, advertisements, and tie-ins.
 
I like Dreamworks movies. Hell, I even enjoyed Shark Tale and if you ask me the sequel to Madagascar was better than the first. The third Shrek movie was okay. Some parts in it, mostly in the beginning, seemed kinda forced if that makes any sense.
 
Back
Top