Anti-Dreamworks Bias?

Yes, it was. :) It didn't have the re-watch factor of The Incredibles, Meet the Robinsons or Kung-Fu Panda, but it was still good.

Space Chimps wasn't Dreamworks. It was produced by Vangaurd Animation and released by 20th Century Fox.
 
Oh I thought it was. :sweat: My bad.

I do want to see Meet the Robinsons.

Also to be honest a lot of movies don't have re-play value to me. Only very few movies do. Only movie with re-play value to me from Pixar or Dreamworks specifically are
Toy Story 2, Monsters vs. Aliens, Kung fu Panda, Shrek, Shrek 2, and Over the Hedge. I may be leaving one more movie or two out.
 
Okay, but what of it? We aren't talking about perfection, we're talking about the relative quality of Dreamworks Animation. Personally I think they're generally okay but could be much better, and I don't think I'm just nitpicking irrelevant details. I also think that comparison is inevitable. Movies compete against other movies, and Pixar and Dreamworks both produce computer animated films at a steady rate. These are two studios that are competing with each other. This by no means has to mean not liking Dreamworks simply since it isn't Pixar.
 
I admit, I'll go see any Pixar movie, but Dreamworks has to draw me in. Maybe it's just that Pixar has a better track record.

I've skipped several Dreamworks movies (Bee Movie, Madagascar, Shark Tale) because they sounded lame. I nearly skipped Kung Fu Panda until my cousin, a harsh toon critic, told me it rocked. Still, I don't think it's so much bias as it fails to draw me in.
 
Here's my 2 cents on the Shrek franchise:

Shrek: The first Shrek was actually pretty good, IMO. A twist on the traditional fairy tale and a direct thumbing at the nose at the Disney fairy tale genre, with some clever jokes and sly adult humor, culminating in a quirky rendition of The Monkees' "I'm a Believer" at the end. (Unfortunately, this "hip" musical number ending has since been used and re-used by Hollywood animators in numerous other animated movies.) But the first Shrek had an original story, and told it well.

Shrek 2: Here's where the trouble began. The original Shrek was meant to be a single stand-alone story and was not intended to have a sequel. The producers openly admitted this and that money was the chief motivating factor for them producing a 2nd Shrek feature. When the Suits get dollar signs in their eyes, it can be both a blessing and a curse, with the inevitable slew of video games, toys, board games, T-shirts, breakfast cereal and all sorts of other merchandise coming at us from out the wazoo. Having said that, Shrek 2 wasn't a bad movie, but it reeked of "We're only in it for the money now!", and the fact that the original story didn't warrant a sequel unfortunately rang through in just about every scene.

By the time Dreamworks got to Shrek 3 and the Shrek Christmas special, the franchise had become the very thing it was originally made to parody: a toyetic manufactured cash-cow. There's something to be said when my own father, who loved the first movie, said that the bit with Donkey and Puss in Boots boogeying down to Sly Stone's "I Wanna Thank You For Lettin' Me Be Mice Elf" over the end credits was the only good part of the movie.

Is this the case with all of Dremworks movies? No, but the Shrek franchise is a prime example of what can go very, very wrong with an animated movie, and Dreamworks is just a tad more quick to pump out sequels than Disney, Pixar, Fox and other studios.
 
Was Never After Dreamworks? Because I don't recall seeing the DW logo from it.

Essentially, any non-Pixar studio CGI movie automatically gets hated. Bolt was actually a very satisfying and good movie, but suddenly people hated it because it wasn't made by Pixar, even though Lasseter headed it (and the change was actually for good).
 
Pretty much what GWOtaku spouted. I always get a sense of something different, something experimental, something unique on every Pixar films. They're not afraid to dial it up and produce stories and concepts that would otherwise be uncommon for an animated feature, usually ones that probably wouldn't appeal or make a good handling on the market. While it's crucial to make money for a business, Pixar proves there are exceptions to the rule.

We're not going to see much WALL.E where nearly 85% of the movie is silent with nothing but music and pantomine to handle its story. We're not going to see a lot of adult themes that is handled maturely like they did for The Incredibles. Why I adore Pixar is that they're always trying to do something different - refusing to belittle their core audiences.

Dreamworks can achieve that sort of level. The first Shrek was refined storytelling that made great use of all four of the main cast. Kung Fu Panda may have been predictable, but it was charming and took its time telling its story without the need to pepper and cut off the story's flow with the latest pop cultural music and reference.

For now, Dreamworks is kin to making their work look pretty, but provide little substance. For every Kung Fu Panda I see, it's constantly muddled with Shark Tale levels of mediocrity.
 
Happily N'Ever After is not DreamWorks. It's also by Vanguard Animation. And Meet the Robinsons is Disney, not Dreamworks or Pixar.

Here's a list of DreamWorks films:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation#Films_and_series

Here's a list of Pixar films:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films

Is it possible that part of the reason people are biased against DreamWorks is that they have it in their heads that any CGI film that isn't clearly Pixar is DreamWorks? I've noticed a few people adding some rather crappy random non-DreamWorks movies to the DreamWorks side by mistake, and of of course these films would bring anyone's opinion of them down.
 
I'm pretty neutral towards Dreamworks as a whole. They're clearly catering to a wide audience with their films, so I never go in expecting something aimed at a bunch of older viewers. I'm also not one to go to a theater showing, so I end up renting the movies when they come out so I don't feel like I wasted money.

I'm not a huge fan of their philosophy towards milking franchises though, and its especially apparent with Shrek, which is a shame since it came at the price of its originality and uniqueness.
 
The only difference between the two for me is Dreamworks is not above using pop-culture jokes. I feel both studios have some repetitive and samey feel to their movies in general; but I'd blame the Hollywood mindset, general audience marketplace, and the general unspoken rule of 'animation is for kids' for that rather than the studios. I suppose I enjoy more Pixar movies than Dreamworks movies, but I don't think that's saying much in the end given what's out there. Up was enjoyable, but fairly predictable and standard; I'd say the best part was the opening montage of Carl's life. After that, it just became another CGI kids movie to me. I feel the same way about Kung Fu Panda.
 
I think people mostly were upset because it wasn't American Dog, the original concept. Bolt just doesn't look as good as the original concept looked to be. I don't see very much hate for Bolt otherwise.
 
Flaws are not created equal. Additionally, I hope you're not insinuating that no movie can be criticized simply because all movies have flaws, because the very notion is ridiculous.
 
One thing that I feel is not fair is when people sneer at DreamWork's reliance on celebrity voice talent. Of course, Pixar only works with unknown voice actors like Tom Hanks, Owen Wilson and John Goodman.
 
Back
Top