Anti-Dreamworks Bias?

And sometimes it doesn't even feel like the celebrity at all. For instance, Po never felt like Jack Black at all. He's playing an already established martial arts archetype.

Oh, and KFP was MEANT to be cliche. If you're going to give homage to the various old kung fu movies, then yes, playing the archetypes is the way to go.
 
"Everybody was Kung Fu Fightiiiiiiiiing/Those kids were fast as lightniiiiiing..."

Doesn't that count? That is, isn't the entire movie a single pop culture reference (specifically, a reference to this disco song from the 70's)? Further, the movie even ADMITS it; it features a cover version of the song in question.

In any case, regarding the "anti-Dreamworks bias" in question, can you blame them? Ever since the beginning of the "Shrek era", there movies have only been "family entertainment" simply because it's convenient for them, and thus figure it would be convenient for the parents, thus, their movies are more for the parents then they are for all of the family. This is why I don't bother with any of their post-Shrek movies; Pixar is Pixar, and Dreamworks is Dreamworks. In other words, my dislike for Dreamworks has nothing to do with any comparisons, because in the end, it's the material itself that makes them..."unlikeable" (for lack of a better term). Personally, "I like to move it, move it", but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to think that the movie it was featured in (hint: it's also the name of an actual African country) was the origin of it; I know it's a dance hall song from the mid (early?)-90's even if they don't think I do.

As for Kung Fu Panda, the thing is, even if it doesn't rely more on pop-culture references (again, like their other movies do), it might as well be the case where Dreamworks is concerned. Really, G rating? PG rating? It makes no difference. Claiming that a movie is a "family" movie, when it's more about giving the grand/parents something to entertain their grand/sons/daughters with, is not family entertainment, it's both sarcasm and hypocrisy, and is an insult to anyone's intelligence...even Dreamworks'. Unless Dreamworks actually (with all due respect to them) gets a clue, and realizes this, I will never watch any of their post Shrek movies.

*(Chicken Run doesn't even count anyway since it was a 3rd-party production to begin with; OTOH, Flushed Away was a co-pro, and it's not that good, so that does count).

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, isn't Kung Fu Panda also a single reference to those bad kung fu movies from the 70's and 80's?
 
First things first, I think both studios create beautiful work. While I didn't really enjoy SharkTale's story line I think it's beautifully animated and the set pieces are fantastic.

I went back and watched some Dreamworks fair, I find the celebrity voices annoying when it's plastered all over the DVD and posters but I don't think any of them do a bad job. In fact, the cast of Kung Fu Panda did a great job and so did the cast of Over the Hedge(Not a great movie, but the acting was superb)

The thing with Celebrity voices though is sometimes they end up playing themselves, with Madagascar it was just Ben Stiller, David Schwimmer Jada Pinkett Smith and Chris Rock as themselves.

There's writing for an actor and then there's writing with an actor in mind, many times you can clearly tell the difference.

I don't think Shrek was written for Mike Myers, but I think he was on the list of possibilities. I do think Woody was written for Tom Hanks however, I think RJ was written for Bruce Willis and I think that Remy was written with Patton Oswalt in mind.

I think the problem, for DreamWorks, is the dated fair of their jokes, I love Shrek and I like the jokes but sometimes I feel as though there are too many at once, I can't take them all in and enjoy them.

DreamWorks works better when it's less jokes, more character study. I love the movie Kung Fu Panda, it had story, taste and characters with clear motives and interesting stories. Same goes for Shrek, the characters acted a certain way and you always knew why and you sympathized with them, we watched these characters grow.

This is where I see Monsters Inc. failing, I like the movie sure (I cried actually) but the characters never really go anywhere.

Also, I liked Cars but meh, I raged when he didn't win, I understood the motivation but just EERRHGH really?

As for 2-D fair, I can't really compare the two, I love the movie Road To El Dorado and Sinbad was a fun adventure that I originally wrote off as crud, but I haven't seen enough to compare.

I think DreamWorks is making movies, some are hit and miss like Pixar movies are, the thing is, if you're entertained, they've done their jobs.


I hope this makes sense, lol posting at 3am, bad Mia..
 
Where do I begin? Dreamworks Animation movies are inferior to Pixar and any anime film. Here's why.

1. Narrow philosophy that a cast of A-list/celebrities can means box-office bucks
2. 2D/cel animation -> inferior; computer/3D animation -> superior
3. Story is just a backdrop for laugh-out loud/slapstick situation comedies, or regurgitating catchphrases or pop culture
4. Does anyone want to watch a Dreamworks Animation movie 10 years later? Prince of Egypt, Sinbad, Shark Tales anyone??
5. Typecast of animation genre as only for comedy; besides Prince of Egypt, is there any other Dreamworks Animation movie that's straight drama?
 
For what it's worth, I hate Michael Bay movies, generic anime, and obnoxious shows. I see a lot more Michael Bay hate on the internet than Dreamworks hate.

Blue Sky I'd say is halfway to a good studio. Visually they're better than Dreamworks and at their best even Pixar-level beautiful but they haven't had a fully working story since the first Ice Age movie. Get new writers and keep their animators and they could produce something great.



He felt like Black to me, but that's OK since I like Black more than most people.

Yeah, but it lacked a unique flavor in its form of homage. The Incredibles was an homage to superhero comics but it had a lot of style to distinguish itself.
 
The thing is though, comic books have indeed evolved much more, so they have a breathing room. When you're making something about old (better) martial arts movies, chances are, you can't really stretch out outside of archetypes and such.

Oh, and KFP is one of the really rare instances where I've seen people cared for the villain.
 
True, but you can have some extra fun within those archetypes. Look at Kill Bill or Kung Fu Hustle for examples of successful martial arts farces.

It probably doesn't help that most of the appeal of the old martial arts movies (and the reason they didn't need particularly great stories) came from watching real people doing real crazy stunts. Animation, no matter how pretty, can't really capture that spectacle so Kung Fu Panda was at a disadvantage that it didn't really overcome for me.
 
Er, Pixar's not really noted for staight drama either. Or Disney, or Blue Sky, or... well, any major Hollywood animation studio. Not really fair to pick on DreamWorks.



Out of curiosity, what digs at other studios did DreamWorks make? I haven't seen many of their films, so all I can think of is the Finding Nemo bit in Flushed Away (if we're counting the Aardman films)
 
I loved the Madagascar films (epic win)...but being a hardcore Kricfalusi fan, I'll NEVER forgive Dreamworks for their arena-only story policy. According to his blog, they even set up a meeting with him and everything.

Not every cartoon can be carried by plot or setting.

I'm not fond of what they did to Shrek either.
 
I used to like dreamworks for mainly the 2-D animated stuff they did along with the stuff they did with Aardman animations. But the reason I hate dreamworks is mainly because they do TOO MUCH FREAKING sequels, its really uncalled for if you ask me. Personally I dont think any dreamworks movie needs a sequel. I mean if I did an animated film that did well I would love to do a sequel to it if I enjoyed the project, but I would rather stick with doing new stuff after that.

Outside of overusage for pop-culture references some of the storys they do really look like unfinished stuff, while sometimes it just looks like a knock off. I mean why hasn't Disney sued Dreamworks for the second madagascar for having a plot too similar to lion king?{They must be blind if you ask me}. Personally Dreamworks was better when they were doing 2-D and Aardman...
 
Well they don't make great movies and theres bias by fans in general but I doubt they care their movies make money. I'll go ahead and post my opinions on the movies:


Shrek: saw it when I was on the computer and it was playing on the background, it seemed ok though not my thing.

Shark something: terrible movie

Robots - started watching it and got bored so I got on the computer and watched it on the background, not too bad but more of a kids movie didn't like it.

Bee movie: I liked this movie a lot.

Kung Fu Panda - a kids movie, didn't enjoy it at all. people led me to believe it was a great movie, its not. Even as a kid I wouldn't have thought it was great just good.
 
Well, I guess i'll post this.

4l0rw7.jpg


Cheap stabs can go both ways. :p

I'm actually okay with Dreamworks, and thinks that even though Pixar makes great movies, is a tad overrated. I've seen people ranging from flim critics to random people on message board get ripped to shreds because they didn't see the big deal with Wall-E or Ratatouille.

Pixar and Dreamworks just seemed to usher in this "medium monopoly" on American animated movies during this decade. Pixar makes sucessful movies using cgi, and everybody else follows suit with mixed results. Meanwhile, 2d animated movies were made few and far inbetween in the USA. Frankly, I've grown tired of both studios. I need medium variety.

The Princess and the Frog can't come soon enough.

test%5B8%5D.jpg
 
Worse then Pixar? Yes. Worse than a whole country? Either you lack knowledge of anime or you're just being mean.

The Prince of Egypt is Dreamworks' best non-Aardman movie, probably because it was the one Spielberg was most heavily involved with. Antz turned out be a good movie thanks to Woody Allen and Chris Weitz, despite the horribly cynical way it got greenlit. The first Shrek was good, the second was OK, and the third was utterly disposable outside of the Gingerbread Man flashbacks scene. Over The Hedge was another one scene movie: the monologue about food was hilarious, everything else was utterly boring and predictable. The first Madagascar was amusing with the penguins and then boring again with everything else, and I haven't bothered to watch the second. Kung Fu Panda at least gave its animators much better material than the other ones but storywise it was still pretty dull. I don't need to say anything about Shark Tale.

The ultimate difference between Pixar and Dreamworks is that Pixar is controlled by its filmmakers while Dreamworks is controlled by its cash registers. I have my doubts about Pixar's future sequel-heavy slate, but unless something's changed recently, we've been constantly assured that Pixar only makes sequels if there's a fun creative idea for one. The audio commentary for Shrek 2 flat-out says that a second movie was only made because the first one made a lot of money. I can pretty much assure you that the plans to make 5 Shrek movies and 6 Kung Fu Panda movies were the same.

I really hope Chris Sanders is able to maintain some of his past works' quality with his Dreamworks projects or else there's really not much interesting coming from the studio.
 
I didn't like Shreck but I loved Shreck 2. I bought it on dvd, and I rarely ever buy movies on dvd so that should show how much I liked it.

I'm not a very critical, but I do think people should ease up on Dreamworks. They're no Pixar, but they're movies do have some charm to them.
 
Back
Top