Shrek was fun, even if overrated by some. Kung Fu Panda was very fun, in retrospect I probably enjoyed that more than any other CG film done by Dreamworks Animation. Lots of fun action and visual humor, complete with an extremely unlikely protagonist. The Prince of Egypt was an excellently done 2D movie--yes, I have rewatched that, thank you very much! It's not The Ten Commandments, but it's a powerful take on the classic Bible story. Shrek 2 complemented the original movie. I don't hate Dreamworks movies by default. They've done some good work.
However.
These movies are not the majority of what they've made. Over the Hedge was just not very interesting, it didn't leave me with any sort of lasting impression. It was all right for what it was, but that's the thing--here I am saying it was just all right. Shrek 3 fell flat. I hardly ever laughed, its parody felt like it had all been done already. The plot failed to grab me and ended in a terribly anticlimatic manner. The most funny parts were all toward the beginning of the film. A Bee Movie and Madagascar, rather like Over the Hedge, are pretty standard talking animal comedies that are most notable for the celebrity voice talent.
Here's the thing. Pixar is at the top of the game. Comparisons are inevitable. Yes, one could find some common ground and ask what the difference is. Dreamworks has talking animals? Pixar has A Bug's Life, Pixar has Ratatouille! Dreamworks has sequels? Pixar has Toy Story 2 and 3, Pixar has Cars 2!
What's the difference? Don't look at what they're doing. Look at the how and why. When Pixar made Toy Story 2 they made another entertaining and funny movie, but the sequel also did something credible with the plot. It was right for the story. Toy Story 3, based on the early info, seems to be shaping up the same way. We'll see on Cars 2. With Dreamworks, there's an impression that less thought is put into it. Did we really need Madagascar 2, or should they have made a fresh movie? But Madagascar made money, so they tried it again. Shrek 3 felt phoned in and uninspired compared to what came before, and they might make a fourth. And why not? It's making money. Last I heard, there could be as many as four Kung Fu Panda sequels depending on how things go. Now I'm not passing judgment ahead of time, but sweet mercy, there is a point where a good idea just starts to get stale and old. Dreamworks doesn't seem too good at recognizing when that moment comes.
In comparison, no two Pixar titles are alike. Toy Story 1 and 2 feels completely different from Monsters Inc or Up, Wall-E is nothing like Up, watching Finding Nemo is a different experience from watching The Incredibles. And it's not just the art style or the setting, the writing is superior too. There's lot of humor that doesn't rely on on deliberate jokes per se, if that makes any sense. There's plenty of humor that doesn't require Eddie Murphy's acting skills.
On the writing itself there are often some very potent messages at work, to the point that it feels like the movie is talking to everybody in the theater. Children, adults, it doesn't matter. Now compare that to Madagascar or Monsters vs. Aliens. There may be nothing wrong with them, but they're movies you take your kids to. Nothing more, nothing less. I strongly believe animation is a medium that can appeal to anyone at all. And in evidence of that I can point to Toy Story, I can point to Wall-E, I can point to The Incredibles, I can point to Monsters Inc, and I can sure as hell point to Up. I can't say that about several of Dreamworks' computer animated movies.
Yeah, Dreamworks is decent. But they could be better than decent. Better than good enough. Pixar gets a lot of praise, but it earns it. I'd love to see somebody--anybody--give them a reason to worry. I see flashes of inspiration, but not consistent excellence. I don't think Dreamworks will get to that level with a multitude of sequels and the variations on a theme that comprise their second tier of theatrical releases.
However.
These movies are not the majority of what they've made. Over the Hedge was just not very interesting, it didn't leave me with any sort of lasting impression. It was all right for what it was, but that's the thing--here I am saying it was just all right. Shrek 3 fell flat. I hardly ever laughed, its parody felt like it had all been done already. The plot failed to grab me and ended in a terribly anticlimatic manner. The most funny parts were all toward the beginning of the film. A Bee Movie and Madagascar, rather like Over the Hedge, are pretty standard talking animal comedies that are most notable for the celebrity voice talent.
Here's the thing. Pixar is at the top of the game. Comparisons are inevitable. Yes, one could find some common ground and ask what the difference is. Dreamworks has talking animals? Pixar has A Bug's Life, Pixar has Ratatouille! Dreamworks has sequels? Pixar has Toy Story 2 and 3, Pixar has Cars 2!
What's the difference? Don't look at what they're doing. Look at the how and why. When Pixar made Toy Story 2 they made another entertaining and funny movie, but the sequel also did something credible with the plot. It was right for the story. Toy Story 3, based on the early info, seems to be shaping up the same way. We'll see on Cars 2. With Dreamworks, there's an impression that less thought is put into it. Did we really need Madagascar 2, or should they have made a fresh movie? But Madagascar made money, so they tried it again. Shrek 3 felt phoned in and uninspired compared to what came before, and they might make a fourth. And why not? It's making money. Last I heard, there could be as many as four Kung Fu Panda sequels depending on how things go. Now I'm not passing judgment ahead of time, but sweet mercy, there is a point where a good idea just starts to get stale and old. Dreamworks doesn't seem too good at recognizing when that moment comes.
In comparison, no two Pixar titles are alike. Toy Story 1 and 2 feels completely different from Monsters Inc or Up, Wall-E is nothing like Up, watching Finding Nemo is a different experience from watching The Incredibles. And it's not just the art style or the setting, the writing is superior too. There's lot of humor that doesn't rely on on deliberate jokes per se, if that makes any sense. There's plenty of humor that doesn't require Eddie Murphy's acting skills.
On the writing itself there are often some very potent messages at work, to the point that it feels like the movie is talking to everybody in the theater. Children, adults, it doesn't matter. Now compare that to Madagascar or Monsters vs. Aliens. There may be nothing wrong with them, but they're movies you take your kids to. Nothing more, nothing less. I strongly believe animation is a medium that can appeal to anyone at all. And in evidence of that I can point to Toy Story, I can point to Wall-E, I can point to The Incredibles, I can point to Monsters Inc, and I can sure as hell point to Up. I can't say that about several of Dreamworks' computer animated movies.
Yeah, Dreamworks is decent. But they could be better than decent. Better than good enough. Pixar gets a lot of praise, but it earns it. I'd love to see somebody--anybody--give them a reason to worry. I see flashes of inspiration, but not consistent excellence. I don't think Dreamworks will get to that level with a multitude of sequels and the variations on a theme that comprise their second tier of theatrical releases.
reamworks Animation deserves every meanness I give it, and more.