I've been thinking about DreamWorks a lot lately. If Pixar is the studio that's always looking to try something new, then Dreamworks is the studio that's always looking to try absolutely nothing new. The only thing they did that was even remotely clever was Shrek, but I don't consider the original film to be the brilliant medium-defining masterpiece that a lot of people made it out to be. It's mediocre at best, with maybe a few exchanges here and there that make me laugh (the "ogres are like onions" scene is pretty chuckle-worthy, for instance). And then it broke box office records and Katzenberg ordered six sequels, and the already middling quality plummeted like a brick.
As for everything else, unengaging stories and groan-inducing humor are par for the course. Once in a while, they make something that's fairly entertaining, but you've got to sift through a lot of boring fluff and meaningless pop culture jokes to get to it. And don't get me started on the character designs. If they're not bland and uninspired (Bee Movie, Over the Hedge), they're downright ugly (Antz, Shark Tale, Madagascar). Even their 2-D movies like The Prince of Egypt, Road to El Dorado, and Sinbad all look the same. It's an epidemic of the mid-'90s animation boom - everyone tried to mimic the Disney drawing style, but Disney doesn't have a unified drawing style. Aladdin didn't look like Pocahontas, which didn't look like Mulan, which didn't look like Atlantis: The Lost Empire, which looked nothing like Lilo and Stitch. But you can identify a DreamWorks movie just by looking at it, and when you're bogged down by that sameness of design, it takes you out of whatever there is of the story.
And then there's the matter of casting. I know using celebrities for animated features is nothing new - Disney did it as far back as the 1940s, and even Pixar does it for pretty much all their films. But the key difference is that Pixar goes for celebrities whose voices and performances fit the character they're playing. Tim Allen's booming self-confident baritone is perfect for Buzz Lightyear. Ellen DeGeneres' peppy bouncy delivery is ideal for Dory. David Hyde Pierce's erudite manner fits Slim like a glove. Even Larry the Cable Guy's backwards Southern drawl was the perfect match for Mater. But with DreamWorks, you get the sense that they cast the voices first and then created the characters. We've got Woody Allen, so make Z neurotic. We've got Eddie Murphy, so make Donkey a fast-talker. We've got Jack Black, so make Lenny a quirky lug. Pixar promotes its movies based on the character interaction; DreamWorks promotes its movies based on who's behind the microphone.
DreamWorks makes movies by committee. They think about what'll make the most money and reach the most profitable demographics, not about what'll tell the best story or create the most endearing characters. And for that, I have very little respect for them. Anybody can make an animated movie; it takes real talent and effort to make a good one. DreamWorks could put in that effort, but they're content to take the easy way out. Look at it this way - if I had the choice of watching a marathon of either Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up or Antz, Shrek, Shark Tale, Shrek 2, Madagascar, Over the Hedge, Shrek the Third, Bee Movie, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, and Monsters Vs. Aliens, I'd watch the former group of films, hands down, because I know I'd be in for a fun and memorable ride. With DreamWorks, it's not just mediocrity, it's uneven mediocrity...with every character raising an eyebrow and begging for you to get the joke.
