Dreamworks vs Pixar

Cafe Society
1

So Pixar makes Toy Story and it’s a runaway hit. It was distributed by Disney (which annoyingly claims ownership of it at every opportunity), whose Animation division was then headed by Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Katzenberg leaves the ranks soon after and becomes a part of Dreamworks SKG, as head of their Animation division. Having inside knowledge of Pixar’s plans, he anticipates a few of their upcoming movies.

A short time before Pixar’s A Bug’s Life gets released, Dreamworks fast-tracks their own Antz. Many people expressed their suspicion that something sneaky was going on, but of course it was denied.

The next Pixar film, after Toy Story 2, was Monster’s Inc. and Dreamworks matches that with Shrek which, interestingly enough, is also about monsters.

And now, after Finding Nemo, comes Sharktale.

In my opinion, none of Dreamworks’s animated films are anywhere near as good as Disney (2D division) or Pixar (3D). Not even Shrek (though I know it has many diehard fans who prefer it over Monsters Inc).

I say boycott Dreamworks, and do not see this fishy movie of theirs. Not only do the reviews suggest it’s pretty awful, but they should not be encouraged in their stealing of ideas from their clear superiors (and completely cocking them up).

Next from Pixar is The Incredibles then Cars. Next from Dreamworks is Madagascar, a stylised story of Central Park Zoo animals escaping back to the jungle. At last, originality comes out of the Dreamworks camp. But don’t be surprised to see a clumsy superhero or anthropomorphic motorcycle film to be coming out of their studios one day soon. It’s almost a guarantee.

2

I don’t really think you can compare Shrek and Monsters, Inc. I do agree, however, that Dreamworks looks like it’s basically repeating what Pixar does.

3

Don’t get me started on how dreadful Shrek was. Ok, you got me started. First of all “ugly” apparently only means “fat” - as it was agreed upon that she was pretty cute even as an ogre. It’s not OK to make fun of the big fat ugly ogre, but they make short jokes at every opportunity? Oh, and in the end, when the princess is “ugly” forever, it’s not until she recieves validation from her man that she even thinks about considering herself attractive? WTF??? And the fact that they did it so skillfully that millions of parents thought it was an enlightened tale of … I don’t know what, exactly. Got all my Gloria Steinheim hackles up, lemme tell ya.

breathing heavily

I have to agree with you on the dubious ethics of the folks at Dreamworks, although I also have to point out that you left out a lot of their movies. There have been original works as well as the “let’s steal Disney’s ideas” movies. Which makes me sad, 'cause the original ones can be fantastic: Paycheck, House of Sand & Fog, Catch Me If You Can, The Ring, Road to Perdition, Minority Report, Spirit: Stallion of Cimarron, A Beautiful Mind, A.I. (shut up, I loved it, y’all who hated it are nuts!), The Mexican, Cast Away, Meet the Parents, Almost Famous, Chicken Run, Gladiator, Galaxy Quest , American Beauty, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad. This is obviously a production house with a lot of talented people working for them.

I saw an ad for Shark Tale last week that said something about it being the “urban” Finding Nemo. (“Urban” now means African American in the US.) Followed by an ad in the next break showing all the punching, slapping, running into things, falling, violence and pain (a long commercial filled with this in pretty quick cuts, so they obviously have lots of this in the movie) - all playing off the idea that the movie was or will be a “hit.” So now we have “urban” = violence, or at least stupid slapstick humor, whereas Finding Nemo was a beautiful and sweet movie about a father’s (hello - FATHER’S - how often do we see that?) love for his son.

I know, I know, y’all are going to say I’m taking this way too seriously, they’re just movies and I should chill out. And if they were adult movies, maybe you’d be right. But these are kids movies. They are what fairy tales used to be. These are stories forming the subconscious ways in which are children learn about and view the world. I think we need to be more careful with the underlying views and assumptions we let our kids watch. Kids don’t get irony.

stepping down off the soap box and going to watch Farscape instead

4

You’re forgetting Road to Eldorado which was very reminiscent of Atlantis: The Lost Empire neither of which were all that great. Which is ok since although I’ve never seen the Japanese version Atlantis I kinda buy that it was the inspiration for Disney’s movie. Unless you can say other wise. Does that time measure up? Hmm, A:tLE came out in 2001 but R2E came out 15 months earlier. It even came out before The Emperor’s New Groove. Well it still sucked.

And The Prince of Egypt which was their first animation and pretty orig… well actually not original at all but not trying to copy anything that Disney had put out at the time.

5

Really? I think the inspiration is obvious - Katzenberg says “Find me a monster movie story” and they come back with Shrek (based on an existing book, extreeeeemely loosely).

This wasn’t so much about Dreamworks as Katzenberg’s division specifically, and their virtual plagiarism even more specifically.

I don’t deny their live-action has had some gems, and they’re getting better every year.

6

From our perspective Shrek himself was also pretty darn cute. From the perspective of the characters in the movie he wasn’t cute and was in fact kind of scary.

She was told all her life that her ogre form was hideous.

Now? It’s been like that for quite a number of years now.

You mean fairy tales filled with women hacking off their toes and heels in order to fit into glass slippers? I’m sure what kids view affect them but I’m not sure a few movies here and there will do the trick.

Marc

7

Yep, and the deception and violence didn’t work, did it? The girls were found out and didn’t get the prince. In fact, that version hasn’t been in children’s books for decades. The Disney version took over. The originals can still be found in adult books, but kids’ books are all mice and pumpkins now.

I’m not against darkness and strife or even violence in the proper context. My kid’s watched Buffy with me since he was a wee one (except some of the Spike/Buffy eps, where I thought the mix of sex and violence was just way wrong for a kid.) But after every one, we had a great talk about what was right and wrong, how the story fit or didn’t fit reality and the nuances of storytelling. It was actually he who pointed out to me the hypocrisy of the short jokes in Shrek, during one of our post-film conversations.

IF one could assume concientious parents who watch everything with their kids and can explain errors in judgement, then fine, film whatever brings in the bucks. But they can’t, and they know they can’t. The studios know full well that most kids watch these things with no adult supervision (they have marketing studies) and yet they still shill crap that’s way beyond the kids’ level of cognition. Should parents be responsible for their own kids? Hell, yeah. But should studios make better stuff with the knowledge that they’re impacting our brains? Of course. They should make better stuff just because they should take pride in their work, darn it!

And at the very least, they shouldn’t be plagarizing material to make movies for children who are expected to do their own work at school! That’s some questionable ethics, there.

8

I mentioned this in my journal not too long ago :smiley: :

The problem I have with Dreamworks’s animated movies (and something I’m sure will end up happening to Pixar if they’re not careful) is that they seem to be more concerned with their celebrity voices and pop culture references than with the actual story or plot. This is why I detest “Shrek” (amongst other things).

“Look, we have John Cleese in our movie!”
“Look, we have Robert DeNiro playing, get this, A GANGSTER SHARK! Ha ha!”
“Look, we’re parodying MC Hammer! We’re spoofing The Godfather! Ha ha ha!”
“Look, we have Woody Allen playing, get this, a neurotic ant! That’s comedy!”

These Dreamworks animated movies seem so full of themselves. Even the trailers repulse me.

9

I question your assumption that Shrek is a ripoff of Monsters Inc. I don’t know exactly when each film was conceived, but here is some evidence. Chris Farley originally recorded the dialogue for Shrek and he died in 1997, so it was underway before then. Mary Gibbs recorded the dialogue for Boo in Monsters Inc. when she was 2 1/2 years old. She was born in 1996, so she must have recorded it in 1998 or 1999. Of course each film might have been started even earlier than these dates.

Also, I don’t think that the two movies have anything in common. Calling them both “monster movies” is a gross oversimplification. Calling one a ripoff of the other is a stretch at least.

10

Thank God for Pixar, then, and its use of anonymous character actors. Who was it who did the lead voices for Toy Story? Ah, yes, the unknown actors Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. And given it was a movie about toys, it was swimming in pop culture references.

You can dislike Shrek if you want, but this is hardly fair. (To be honest, I’ve enjoyed the movies from both companies.)

11

I liked both Shrek movies, but otherwise I agree with the bulk of the criticisms here – Dreamworks’ computer-animated movies are nought but pale imitations of Pixar’s stuff, and their over-reliance on big-name actors over storytelling is a pathetic attempt to cover up that effort.

As noted above, the only Dreamworks’ CGI movies worth a damn IMO are the Shrek ones, but I think this was only because the first movie was based on a published title – and even then, the first movie undercut its “appearances aren’t important” theme with all the Prince Farquand short jokes. :smack: If Dreamworks had tried to do a “monster movie” on their own, it’d have stunk as bad as AntZ and Shark Tale have.

Make mine Pixar! The Incredibles is going to KICK ASS! :smiley:

12

Pixar won’t shy away from using celebrity voices, but the difference is that they’ll do so only when they genuinely feel that the celebrity’s voice is the best for the character. When Hanks and Allen did their work for Toy Story, for instance, they still hadn’t peaked in their careers – that was the only way Pixar could get them to do the job, since they were (at the time) affordable enough for the first movie from a then-unknown studio.

In contrast, Dreamworks’ animated movies have always seemed to be more about the names on the marquee than anything else. This is evident in their trailers, their posters, and their movie promotions; the plot is incidental, and the only thing they care about is having enough big-name stars to entice grownups to see the movies.

As for pop-culture references, I think you’re misunderstanding the term as Agrippina refers to it, which is the use of “trendy” music and expressions and then-current cultural references to carry the film. This is stuff like the *Matrix-*like fight scene from Shrek, or the use of hip-hop music in Shark Tale. Pixar’s movies are almost devoid of this stuff – the only example I can recall offhand is the “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad” bit from Toy Story 2.

13

Pixar’s movies are clearly going to be timeless. They will still be watched and enjoyed for decades. Only the technology will have improved, the storyline and humour will remain relevant.

Dreamworks’s movies rely too much on pop culture. The stories are kind of meaningless, they don’t really have a clear moral you can hang on them. I have no idea what Antz was really meant to be about, and I’m not even going to see Sharktale. Shrek’s really very funny, but that’s all you can say about it. Shrek 2 has superfluous characters (what does Puss In Boots really do?) and weird set pieces that go nowhere (a giant gingerbread man? What the hey?).

They just don’t ‘get it’.

Not so much a ‘rip off’, as ‘inspired by’. For me, the basic similarity of them both being about large scary creatures, coupled with the other movies’ lack of originality, is fairly clear.

14

Just have to say, I’m a die-hard Shrek and Shrek 2 fan–but I see the coincidences you’re talking about.

Personally, I think people will tell the difference between a good movie and a bad movie, no matter which studio makes it, and flock to that one instead of the other.

15

I pick dreamworks. I haven’t enjoyed anything Pixar has ever done and I have at least enjoyed Shrek and Shrek 2 from dreamworks (didn’t enjoy much else though). I know I will be in an incredibly small minority here but I’m okay with that. I still haven’t met anyone else that hated Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo as much as I did.

Pixar movies just aren’t my cup of tea. I will grant people that Finding Nemo was a very pretty movie.

16

I just want to take another opportunity to say in a public forum how much I loathe Shrek. It’s a visual trainwreck – the characters all look like they’ve been dragged in from different movies. And its particular combination of snarkiness and smarminess makes me want to gag. It takes a lot of balls to sneer at Disney while simutaneously serving up a bowl of saccarine glurge that makes Dumbo look like Becket.

17

I didn’t really like Toy Story so I didn’t even bother to see Toy Story 2. Bug’s Life was incredibly awful. Monster’s Inc. was very funny and I just loved Nemo. So that’s 2+ and 2-.
I liked Prince of Egypt a lot and thought Antz was fantastic. Shrek was ok, Shrek 2 less so and Shark’s Tale looks too awful for words. 3+ and 1-.
Dreamworks wins.

18

We saw Shark’s Tale last night, and it was horrid… well that isn’t quite true. There was so much potential. I really loved the idea of the Rasta Jellyfish, and the godfather shark idea was pretty cool. The real problem was that they didn’t have a movie.

I hated Antz. Bug’s Life was ok. Monsters Inc was fun. I loved Toy Story 1&2 and Shrek 1&2 and Finding Nemo I don’t really see that I have to choose, but it does seem that Dreamworks does better when they don’t feel they have to directly answer any success that Pixar has, but rather find their own story.

19

I think people are being too hard on Dreamworks. Theier films arefine, enjoyable Hollywood fare, better than most other movies out there. It’s not their fault that they’re being compared to Pixar, who are making the best feature length children’s animation EVER - better than Disney did at their peak in the 1940’s. Who can compete with that?

20

It is if they’re stealing ideas.