Anti-Dreamworks Bias?

Ya know, the more I rewatch Bee Movie, the more I think that it really had a potential. It was one of those rare movies where the supposed "calling" of the main character ends up wrong is really something you don't see in films let alone animated ones.

And up to now I still like Antz more. I am sick of the "loser of the group" being the main character.
 
I think Dreamworks does more good than bad, but the worst ones tend to be pretty darn bad. :shrug: My rankings:

-Antz: A

-The Prince Of Egypt: A-

-The Road To El Dorado: B+

-Chicken Run: A

-Shrek: A

-Shrek 2: A

-Shrek The Third: B+

-Sinbad: B

-Shark Tale: C-

-Over The Hedge: C+

-Flushed Away: B

-Kung Fu Panda: A-

-Monsters vs. Aliens: B

I specifically avoided the Madagascar movies and Bee Movie. I think it's the awfulness of Shark Tale that realy brings their overall grade average down.
 
I will admit I was Bias against Dreamworks, now last weekend after renting Monsters vs Aliens for a boreing night, I quite enjoyed it so I decided to dig out my Bee Movie and Shrek Trilogy, I forgot how you can just get a good laugh rather than focus on plot, their kids movies not adult movies for people to critiuqe.

Point: Dreamworks and Pixar are almost the same as I am not Bias Anymore :D
 
Some people complain about Dreamworks because their writing and stories aren't always that good.

In fact, my friends went to a presentation Dreamworks held at my college, and the reps said that money comes first before story. Which is the opposite of what Pixar believes.
 
Oh, sure. MAKING them do it. Oh, the poor, poor people. :shrug:
Oh, please. The people at Pixar want to make money like every other human being on the face of the earth.
 
Well, I'm sure the money is a part of it (Cars stuff sells incredibly well with young boys, even now, three years after the movie), but at Pixar, art is always placed above profitability. Don't forget, Cars was something of a pet project for John Lasseter, who's also a huge auto fanatic in addition to being an animation nut. It makes sense that he'd want to do another movie, since he obviously likes the characters and the premise so much.

I don't see how Cars felt like a DreamWorks movie. I can see how it might not feel like a Pixar movie, though, since it's longer and slower and a lot more leisurely. It was an experiment in a more expanded method of storytelling for the studio. Sure, it wasn't Toy Story or The Incredibles, but whoever said it had to be?



That was kinda the point, that humans have evolved into these unfamiliar blobs by 2805 because they've had machines doing everything for them for 700 years. They're not supposed to be cute. As for Madagascar, I've seen the concept drawings, and the designs for the characters look like they'd be a lot better in 2-D. When you have to mold them into CGI, that flat stylized appearance doesn't translate very well.
 
J. B. Warner said:
I don't see how Cars felt like a DreamWorks movie. I can see how it might not feel like a Pixar movie, though, since it's longer and slower and a lot more leisurely. It was an experiment in a more expanded method of storytelling for the studio. Sure, it wasn't Toy Story or The Incredibles, but whoever said it had to be?QUOTE]
I don't know, it just felt like a parade of stereotypes and one-note characters (everyone in Radiator Springs is just a stereotype, all who contribute nothing to the plot, Mater just being yet another goofy comic relief, Lightning being the usual stuck-up celebrity who "learns his lesson" in the end, Sally being...Well, ya get the idear. It all felt incredibly contrived). The guys in the fish tank in Finding Nemo have similar problems (everyone just has one mental illness, no real personality traits except the leader), but it's more obnoxious and glaring here.
But, overall...Any movie that gets George Carlin to voice a hippie, ain't a total loss. :D
Click to expand...
 
I was referring to the actual robots.

It's just personal taste, I guess, but the robots looked too much moe, and too much appeal to cuteness.
 
I don't have anything against using celebrity talent, though I do mind when it's used as a prop for a second tier film. Dreamworks certainly isn't the only guilty one; Disney just recently pulled that trick with G Force, that lame movie with talking Hamsters.



The trouble with that, though, is that kid's movies don't have to be subpar efforts. This goes back to what I was saying before, namely the idea that we shouldn't just settle for a "meh, it's good enough" attitude.
 
Why did they make Toy Story 2? Why are they making Toy Story 3? They hopefully have a good idea to go on.

Cars isn't my favorite Pixar movie, but I really don't get why it's treated like a second-rate film by some people.
 
Back
Top