DVD Talk
WTF is wrong with Dreamworks? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : WTF is wrong with Dreamworks?


Mr.Blonde510
10-02-04, 06:21 PM
Dreamworks is so dumb, their milking the crap out of cgi flicks, they had Shrek 2, ok they did great with that, but then they had to release a show about cgi animals, now not too long after Shrek 2 they have Shark Tale, Dreamsworks just doesnt know how to seperate there projects, and their stupidity might even hurt other cgi flicks like Incredibles, because people will get tired of cgi flicks eventually if you keep on pulling crap out your ass every few months.

Jason
10-02-04, 06:29 PM
They're not the only studio guilty of this. It seemed like every time you turned around, they were releasing another damn Lord of the Rings movie. People must have gotten sick of those pretty quickly, because I haven't seen any commercials for another one this year. :)

I don't think that CGI movies will be going away anytime soon. In fact, they're only getting started.

Jay G.
10-02-04, 06:29 PM
It's not just Dreamworks. Disney has dropped hand-animated features as well and soon will be expelling a lot of uninspired, undercooked CGI films onto theatrical screens as well.

The studios are currently under the impression that CGI = instant box-office success. It will take a few bombs before they wise up. The crap might pull down the success of other CGI films, but I think the overall quality of Pixar's films will make them continually successful, as well as strengthening Pixar's brand.

Mr.Blonde510
10-02-04, 06:34 PM
Basically Dreamworks is doing to CGI what Disney did to 2d animation movies, milking it.

And to the person who said Lord of the Rings, its called a trilogy, and atleast its a great movie, to most people atleast, imo its overated but bringing LOTR to this discussion is stupid.

Lethal Nemesis
10-02-04, 06:37 PM
I think he was joking about that.

PopcornTreeCt
10-02-04, 06:38 PM
Well it makes money so why not. I don't see how it hurts anything. Computer animation is not a gimmick its a new entertainment medium. As long as Pixar = Good and Dreamworks = Bad. We'll be fine.

das Monkey
10-02-04, 06:38 PM
And to the person who said its called a trilogy, its called sarcasm.

das

Mr.Blonde510
10-02-04, 06:39 PM
Yeah I forgot to read the sentence where he says they havnt showed commercials in a year :P.

Mr.Blonde510
10-02-04, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
Well it makes money so why not. I don't see how it hurts anything. Computer animation is not a gimmick its a new entertainment medium. As long as Pixar = Good and Dreamworks = Bad. We'll be fine.

How many casual movie goers do you think pay attention to what company is releasing the movie? Sooner or later it will be a gimmick, if they keep milking it.

Matthew Chmiel
10-02-04, 07:08 PM
1. Shrek made the studio $270 million in the US and an additional $210 million worldwide.
2. Shrek 2 made the studio $440 million in the US and an additional $435 million worldwide.

Movies in America = business.
Business = money.

When DreamWorks/PDI's CGI animated films stop turning profit, that's when they'll stop making them.

Trigger
10-02-04, 07:30 PM
http://www.rjdposters.com/rjdesign/assets/product_images/404240146-WB042.JPG

fumanstan
10-02-04, 08:13 PM
I couldn't care less. DreamWorks can do what they want as long as they come out with something entertaining. I haven't seen Shark Tale so i can't comment.

Jackskeleton
10-02-04, 08:34 PM
Dreamworks targets a more adult market. Look at the names tagged on Sharks tale. They are all names that a parent wouldn't mind watching. So it's an added bonus to taking the kids to see a film that looks like they may enjoy. See how that works?

They aren't stupid. They just seem to jump on the wagon late or enjoy milking an idea. Both sides do this. Ants/bug's life Finding nemo/Sharks tale.

either way, it's making cash in the box office. so they aren't that dumb.

Supermallet
10-02-04, 08:43 PM
What MrBlonde is worried about is saturation of the market. However, there aren't nearly enough CGI films released to saturate the market.

matome
10-02-04, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by fumanstan
I couldn't care less. DreamWorks can do what they want as long as they come out with something entertaining. I haven't seen Shark Tale so i can't comment.

What he said.

jaeufraser
10-02-04, 09:30 PM
Yeah, at some point saturation might happen, but right now I can hardly fault them. Dreamworks has had a lot of success with their CG animated films (Shrek in particular, but Antz still did quite well, opening at a similar time as Shark Tale compared to a Pixar release).

So...no I don't think Dreamworks is being dumb. I don't think Shark Tale looks very good, but it seems like the market is very welcoming to these types of films.

Not to mention...we get what, 4 or 5 CG animated films a year? Wow, geesh, what an overload. I'm happy to see animation being so popular in any form, and hardly see that as too many.

Supermallet
10-02-04, 09:38 PM
A Shark's Tale is in no way at all similar to the situation with Antz. Antz opened on Oct. 2nd, 1998. A Bug's Life opened on Nov. 20th, 1998. Compare that to Finding Nemo opening in May 2003, and A Shark's Tale opening in the fourth quarter of 2004. Antz was in direct competition with A Bug's Life (and is the better film), while A Shark's Tale is just cashing in on Finding Nemo.

Iron_Giant
10-02-04, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
1. Shrek made the studio $270 million in the US and an additional $210 million worldwide.
2. Shrek 2 made the studio $440 million in the US and an additional $435 million worldwide.

Movies in America = business.
Business = money.

When DreamWorks/PDI's CGI animated films stop turning profit, that's when they'll stop making them.
Plus the DVD sales, product tie ins, TV...

I sure that Shrek made Dream Works over 1 Billon Dollars over the past 4 years.

Sharks Tale world wide will be a big money making over the next 12 months, not as much as Shrek but still a big money maker. S.T. only cost $75 Million to make and I am sure the it will make that back in the USA. Add in Worldwide sales, DVDs, TV, Product tie ins...S.T. will be a huge hit for S.T.

If your job and the stock price depended on your company making money, wouldn't you have release S.T.? I would have and I am sure most anyone else would have.

Mr. Salty
10-02-04, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
Antz was in direct competition with A Bug's Life (and is the better film), while A Shark's Tale is just cashing in on Finding Nemo.
I would buy that if the production time on a CG film wasn't so long. It takes a lot longer than the year-and-a-half separating Nemo from Shark's Tale.

Although it's interesting how DreamWorks often seems to follow Pixar's movies. A Bug's Life was in production before Antz, which DreamWorks rushed to get into theaters first. (A Bug's Life went into development at Disney/Pixar before Katzenberg left Disney for DreamWorks. Coincidence?)

Supermallet
10-02-04, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Salty
I would buy that if the production time on a CG film wasn't so long. It takes a lot longer than the year-and-a-half separating Nemo from Shark's Tale.

If Dreamworks were able to get Antz into theaters even after starting production later than Disney (and with just as money high-profile actors as a Shark's Tale), then don't you think they could do the same for A Shark's Tale if they were going for direct competition?

A Shark's Tale is a cash-in.

jaeufraser
10-02-04, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
A Shark's Tale is in no way at all similar to the situation with Antz. Antz opened on Oct. 2nd, 1998. A Bug's Life opened on Nov. 20th, 1998. Compare that to Finding Nemo opening in May 2003, and A Shark's Tale opening in the fourth quarter of 2004. Antz was in direct competition with A Bug's Life (and is the better film), while A Shark's Tale is just cashing in on Finding Nemo.

My point was not that they shared similar subject matter. I think the similar subject matter did not help nor detract from either of their box offices, so I really think it's a moot point and not somehting people think of. I don't think Shark Tale is going to succeed based on "it's like Finding nemo" but moreso on "it's CG and from the Shrek people."

I was referring to timing. Antz opened on October 2nd, Bug's Life the following month. Now we have Shark Tale opening October 1st, with The INcredibles the following month. That release pattern was hardly accidental, and I'm sure it's Dreamworks trying to get some good ol CG cash in anticipation of the big boy, which seems to be working just right. 30 plus million opening, which is quite good for an October release.

Now, those release patterns seem quite similar to me. they might've picked the subject matter of fish due to some of the success of Finding Nemo, but the release date and thinking has everything to do with The Incredibles, and follows the mindset of the Antz/Bug's Life showdown, no doubt. It was a wise move financially. Is it a cash in? Who cares, what movie isn't made with the intent of making shitloads of money.

Dr. DVD
10-02-04, 10:46 PM
FWIW, the CGI flicks they're making are quite good, and so are Pixar's. When the projects seem rushed and uninspired with lackluster CGI as opposed to something that seems intelligent, then I will object.

Supermallet
10-02-04, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser

I was referring to timing. Antz opened on October 2nd, Bug's Life the following month. Now we have Shark Tale opening October 1st, with The INcredibles the following month. That release pattern was hardly accidental, and I'm sure it's Dreamworks trying to get some good ol CG cash in anticipation of the big boy, which seems to be working just right. 30 plus million opening, which is quite good for an October release.

Now, those release patterns seem quite similar to me. they might've picked the subject matter of fish due to some of the success of Finding Nemo, but the release date and thinking has everything to do with The Incredibles, and follows the mindset of the Antz/Bug's Life showdown, no doubt. It was a wise move financially. Is it a cash in? Who cares, what movie isn't made with the intent of making shitloads of money.

I was talking about timing, too, but I was thrown because of the content of A Shark's Tale. I thought you were saying that A Shark's Tale was competing with Finding Nemo in the way that Antz competed with A Bug's Life. Now I see you're talking about The Incredibles. My mistake. :o

Matthew Chmiel
10-03-04, 01:39 AM
FWIW, the CGI flicks they're making are quite good
I disagree and I'll give the reason that I put in another thread. As of now, PIXAR has made the best CGI animated films (bar none). With the exception of Antz (which I liked), I have hated PDI's latest batch of flicks (Shrek, Shrek 2, and now Shark Tale) because they don't concentrate on story first (like PIXAR). For PDI, they believe that humor and visuals should come first. The humor in the three films I mentioned are only substained for America's current culture. With the Shrek films, the humor is only geared towards today's generation, nobody else. Sadly, Shark Tale's jokes are ten years too late. These three films will not age well, but at least the Shrek films are nice to look at (on the other hand, Shark Tale is an ugly looking flick).

Now on the other hand, PIXAR puts most of their effort on their stories and their films WILL stand the test of time. Their stories aren't geared for one generation. Their stories are geared towards everyone, young and old. On top of that, their animation is superior to that of PDI's and Blue Sky's.

If PDI put in as much effort into their stories as they do with humor, then the films might actually compete with PIXAR for quality. But until that moment comes, my heart stays with PIXAR.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
I think you project a very narrow-minded view. Sure, Dreamworks is very ambitious, in producing a lot of product this year, but why not? Why shouldn't there be an exploration of this medium?

I think the problem is that Dreamworks, in increasing the quantity of releases, might suffer from a drop in quality. Certainly Shark Tale has taken quite a beating critically. By rushing so many projects into production, quality control could suffer, especially in terms of story.

Some quick questions for you jeffkjoe: Do you feel at all miffed that PDI is being so overshadowed by the Dreamworks Animation brand? At least Pixar always got co-billing with Disney. It seems like Dreamworks is hogging the spotlight, and that PDI will have difficulty going solo or switching studios if the deal with Dreamworks ever goes sour.

Also, what's with the obsession with big-name actors for voices? Certainly it worked for Shrek, and to a lesser extent Antz. However, Shark Tale and Madagascar seem overloaded with name actors. Not every actor is a good voice actor.

Finally, what's with the animation for Madagascar? I understand it's stylized, but is there a reason the animals don't look at all realistic? It seems almost better suited for 2D hand-drawn animation, which if Dreamworks hadn't completely axed that division, it might've been. It also makes it look a bit made on the cheap, which it may or may not have been. It seems like instead of trying to match Pixar's constantly ground-breaking animation, that they're content to just spin their wheels with the level of animation they currently have.

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 02:11 AM
You guys are saying since Dreamworks has success with cgi flicks that its ok to make as many as they want, but thats my problem, Pixar does very successful with there cgi flicks and you dont see them milking the genre, well just wait a couple years when everyone is gonna be tired of CGI, because there not gonna be as great as they once were, except Pixar will keep releasing quality material.

Matthew Chmiel
10-03-04, 02:24 AM
PDI didn't do Shark Tale, my friend. Just Antz, Shrek, Shrek 2, and now Madagascar. Dreamworks in L.A. did Shark Tale.
Okay, then that's why it doesn't look as good on a visual scale compared to Antz and the Shrek films. I just thought PDI did all of DreamWorks' CGI films. Nevermind then. ;)

Most people disagree with you, dude. Bottom line.
And most people don't agree with me because most people in this country don't account for taste (and it saddens me that Shrek 2 made more than any PIXAR film). I'm sorry, but I'm one of those people that'll take a good story over of a long 90-minute fart joke.

As I said before, PDI could easily go head-to-head with PIXAR if they had a good script on their hands. They showed a lot of great promise with Antz which saddens me even more that the Shrek films were nowhere on par with that first film of theirs. Story comes first in my book, the great looking visuals are just gravy.

But now if PDI and PIXAR put their films in IMAX... ;)

jaeufraser
10-03-04, 02:24 AM
I just don't see the complaint. Dreamworks is turning out more animated pictures. I think that's a good thing. Granted, PDI seems to be better than the group who made Shark's Tale, but truth be told, whether you like em or not, many many people do love them and that should be enough. Shrek is enormous, and that popularity is enough to justify it's existent.

What I'm reading here is that I suppose the detractors don't like the films dreamworks makes. Many do, and the box office definately supports that.

PDI has made 4 CG films since 1998, including Madagascar. Pixar has made 5. Dreamworks has also released Shark Tale, which puts their tally at 5. Oh my God! 5 movies, when Pixar has only done...wait...5 also? How dare they "milk" the genre! Yes, three of them are opening within a year, but I really can't see how 3 freakin films equals milking the genre. Jerry Bruckheimer turns out practically the same number of action films in a single year, which doesn't even take into consideration the myriad of other action flicks out there.

I guess I don't know why the existence of these films would bother anyone. In general, they're of much better quality than your average film, they make boatloads of money and seem to be quite popular. Why exactly should they stop making them?

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Milking the genre? Dreamworks simply is releasing 2 flicks a year, a trend that Disney itself did during the past decade!

And about your ability to see into the future and forseeing the decline of CGI:

I hate to bring this up, but I'm just donig so to make a point: Shrek 2 is the highest grossing film of the year and Shark Tale has the highest box-office of the week. And based on the trailer, Robots looks very promising as well.

I don't see the decline in interest in CG happening anytime soon.

There not doing Robots there doing Madagascar, which from the trailer seems very mediocre.

BizRodian
10-03-04, 02:36 AM
Don't worry about anyone who doesn't know how to use the word "they're" :)

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by BizRodian
Don't worry about anyone who doesn't know how to use the word "they're" :)

Oh im sorry I didnt know this was grammar school, i'll remember next time, lame.

Jericho
10-03-04, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Blonde510
You guys are saying since Dreamworks has success with cgi flicks that its ok to make as many as they want, but thats my problem, Pixar does very successful with there cgi flicks and you dont see them milking the genre, well just wait a couple years when everyone is gonna be tired of CGI, because there not gonna be as great as they once were, except Pixar will keep releasing quality material.

Comparing Dreamworks to Pixar isn't fair though. Dreamworks is a studio, Pixar is a company. PDI is more comparable to Pixar. Disney is more comparable to Dreamworks. And since hand-drawn animation is on the outs, pretty much any animation from here on in is CGI. So labelling CGI movies as a genre is misleading. It's animation that's the genre. And like all genres, animated movies have its hits and misses.

Saying bad CGI movies will hurt the genre is like saying making Tomb Raider 2 or the Mummy Returns will hurt the action/adventure genre. No matter what the genre, there are good and bad films. So what? Making one bad film in a genre means jack. I don't think people are saying to themselves, yeah that last action movie I saw sucked so I won't see the next one even though it's from a different studio, with a different story, and different actors. And if people do say such things, well then they are stupid.

BizRodian
10-03-04, 02:57 AM
Remember, this is the internet, and the way you type, is the way people see you. If you type like a child, people are going to think you are one. No one will take you seriously.

But don't sweat it man, as long as there's someone else who has lesser writing skills than myself, it'll make me look smarter. I'm on the low end here :D :(

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 03:08 AM
So I should like say Gigli just because the people who worked on it put in hard work to make it? Lame lame lame.

Get off my dick.

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 03:13 AM
Also this is a discussion board and people have opinions, if you dont like my opinion you can go cry me a river.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
PDI isn't being overshadowed by the Dreamworks brand.
You seriously don't think so? Because this thread has just shown that Shark's Tale was confused as a PDI effort simply because it was Dreamworks, and most articles I read about Shrek mention Dreamworks but marginalize PDI, if they're mentioned at all.


And you're saying that the fact that Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Billy Crystal, and John Goodman are hired for Pixar flicks with their names just as equally advertised in promotion as Dreamworks isn't the same thing?
If you go back and look at the posters for Pixar's films, only Toy Story 2 features any actor's names, and that probably had more to do with contract negotiations with the actors to return. Pixar got Hanks and Allen at bargain prices for Toy Story 1, because it was before either of them were really name actors. Also, look at the trailers. Again, with the exception of Toy Story 2, the actors aren't named in them, even Crystal and Goodman. Check out the trailers(and posters) yourself at http://www.pixar.com/

The showcasing of actors just seems like a diversion. If Shark Tale wanted a shark that sounded like Squiggy, why didn't they hire Squiggy instead of Jack Black doing a Squiggy impression? It's the same problem 2D animation had in its last years, with Dreamworks and Disney both hiring name actors for voicework and wondering why the box-office didn't explode.

Here's an article about what I mean:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012750/
Finally, what's with the animation for Madagascar? I understand it's stylized, but is there a reason the animals don't look at all realistic?
What, is there some rule that every film has to look photo-real? It simply is a change in style, that in my view, is refreshing as an animator.
It looks like a style that'd work better as hand-drawn animation. I understand going stylistic, The Incredibles does that with its humans. It's just that The Incredibles doesn't look like it was done using 4 year old software on a TV budget. Some of those animals don't have fur, they have texture maps.

I guess to me it just looks like a budgetary thing, where Dreamworks isn't willing to invest the money to let the CGI look better. And if they're not willing to invest the money, are they willing to put the time and effort into other parts of the film, like story?

Jay G.
10-03-04, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Jericho
So labelling CGI movies as a genre is misleading. It's animation that's the genre. And like all genres, animated movies have its hits and misses.
Actually, caliing animation a genre is still misleading. It's not a genre, it's a medium. Genre refers to the type of story a film is trying to tell (comedy, mystery, thriller). You could theoretically tell any type of genre film in the animated medium.
Saying bad CGI movies will hurt the genre is like saying making Tomb Raider 2 or the Mummy Returns will hurt the action/adventure genre. No matter what the genre, there are good and bad films. So what? Making one bad film in a genre means jack.
The difference is that CGI animated films is such a relatively new medium that there have been only a handful of films released in the form so far, with only maybe one or two being crap, at least as far as popular opinion is concerned. So one or tow bad films in the medium at this point could actually majorly affect the general opinion of the medium as a whole at this point. Of course, I think the general opinion of CGI films is overinflated at this point anyway, and a bad films in any medium or genre is inevitable, so it's silly to blame Dreamworks for bringing expectations for CGI back down to earth, even if that is what they end up doing.

Matthew Chmiel
10-03-04, 03:35 AM
And if they're not willing to invest the money, are they willing to put the time and effort into other parts of the film, like story?
Shrek 2 cost $80 million and had great visuals.
Shark Tale cost $75 million and has piss-poor visuals.

But while Shrek 2 only had three big name actors (Myers, Diaz, and Murphy); Shark Tale has what, six name actors?

Outside of Monsters, Inc. and the Toy Story flicks. PIXAR doesn't go with all big name actors. If you look at the upocming The Incredibles, who are the name actors in that? Samuel L. Jackson? Jason Lee? Holly Hunter? :)

Jay G.
10-03-04, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
What's lame is that you've probably never made a feature film before. You don't know what it's like to invest the long hours, the effort, and the energy. You don't know how it feels to sit in a theater and hear people laugh and enjoy the work that you've created.

Nope. All you're doing is sitting in front of a computer like some fanboy and bitching endlessly about it. Now THAT's lame.
You should re-think this argument. It's an old one, and one that doesn't have much support outside of the artistic world. It basically tries to descredit everyone who hasn't made a creative work themselves. So basically nearly every critic. And pretty much the entire audience that laughed at the work you've created.

You're creating work for an audience. So unless you don't care what your audience thinks, then Mr. Blonde's opinion, as one of the audience, is valid.

Supermallet
10-03-04, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Jay G.
Pixar got Hanks and Allen at bargain prices for Toy Story 1, because it was before either of them were really name actors.

Wait, what? Unless the deal was inked a decade before the film was released, I don't know what you're talking about.

Toy Story was released two years after Philadelphia. Presuming Hanks was signed before he won the Oscar for Philadelphia, he was still already a big name. I mean, he was nominated for an Oscar for Big in 1988.

And Tim Allen was a bigger name when that movie came out than he is now, because he's done nothing of consequence since Home Improvement. So I don't really see how they weren't big names.

And I think Matthew Chmiel is spot-on with his assessment of Pixar vs. most other animated features. Antz had an amazing script and looked fantastic. Shrek and Shrek 2 only looked fantastic, the scripts were dated by the time of release, and 90% of the jokes were never funny, period. It bothers me how much success these films have achieved without one tenth of the story quality or humor of even the weakest Pixar film.

Who casts Mike Meyers as the straight man, anyway?

Jackskeleton
10-03-04, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Mr.Blonde510
You guys are saying since Dreamworks has success with cgi flicks that its ok to make as many as they want, but thats my problem, Pixar does very successful with there cgi flicks and you dont see them milking the genre, well just wait a couple years when everyone is gonna be tired of CGI, because there not gonna be as great as they once were, except Pixar will keep releasing quality material.

The problem in that example is the contract that pixar has with disney. I'm sure they would be cranking them out just as much as Dreamworks seems to if it was on it's own and it didn't have a specific contract with disney.

Either way, saying people will get tired of CGI is like saying people will grow tired of talkie pictures and that strange color stuff!

Mr. Salty
10-03-04, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
But look, I could be pissed off by what you're saying, but then I realize:

ICE AGE, SHREK, and SHREK 2 made some good money.

Obviously, most people disagree with you, my friend.
"The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones," "The Matrix Reloaded," "Armageddon" and "The Grinch" all made good money, but that doesn't make them good movies.

Matthew Chmiel
10-03-04, 04:09 AM
"The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones," "The Matrix Reloaded," "Armageddon" and "The Grinch" all made good money, but that doesn't make them good movies.
I'd like to say that The Matrix Reloaded is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Jackskeleton
10-03-04, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
I'd like to say that The Matrix Reloaded is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yeah, but that was before they saw Matrix Revolutions. :o

Anyhow, those are all opinions on if those films were good. I think the main purpose is that if something makes money, regardless of if it is good or bad. It is considered a success.

Mr. Salty
10-03-04, 05:50 AM
Is it me or did somebody just pack up all his posts and leave?

Jay G.
10-03-04, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Suprmallet
Toy Story was released two years after Philadelphia. Presuming Hanks was signed before he won the Oscar for Philadelphia, he was still already a big name. I mean, he was nominated for an Oscar for Big in 1988.

And Tim Allen was a bigger name when that movie came out than he is now, because he's done nothing of consequence since Home Improvement. So I don't really see how they weren't big names.
Hanks was signed before Philadelphia. So while he was famous and successful, he wasn't the two-time Oscar winner he was when the film was released. As for Tim Allen, presuming he signed on about the same time, he would've only been in season 2 or 3 of Home Improvement. He also had a considerable box-office success with The Santa Clause before the release of Toy Story. So considering their relative increase in fame, Pixar got them at bargain prices.

Also, as the article I linked to noted, Pixar picks actors that they feel would make good voices for the characters, instead of hiring what they feel are name stars and trying to make them fit. Pixar did an early test of Woody using a line of Hank's from Turner and Hooch. And Tim Allen is doing an actual voice for Buzz, not just saying his lines.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
The problem in that example is the contract that pixar has with disney. I'm sure they would be cranking them out just as much as Dreamworks seems to if it was on it's own and it didn't have a specific contract with disney.
The contract with Disney is quantity specific though, not time specific. If Pixar had cranked out 5 films in 3 years, they would've been out of their contract with Disney that much quicker. Pixar has never rushed their films though. They halted Toy Story 2 mid production when they decided the story wasn't good enough.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Salty
Is it me or did somebody just pack up all his posts and leave?
I for one am saddened by this development. I for one was excited by the opportunity to talk to someone on the inside about these films, and while I was argumentative, I really wanted to learn the opinions of one who actually works at the company, and on the films in question. I hope I wasn't too harsh.

On the other hand, jeffkjoe was very defensive from the start, and near hostile by the end. Perhaps he was too close to the works in question to be able to reasonably tolerate outside opinions.

NitroJMS
10-03-04, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
I for one am saddened by this development. I for one was excited by the opportunity to talk to someone on the inside about these films, and while I was argumentative, I really wanted to learn the opinions of one who actually works at the company, and on the films in question. I hope I wasn't too harsh.

On the other hand, jeffkjoe was very defensive from the start, and near hostile by the end. Perhaps he was too close to the works in question to be able to reasonably tolerate outside opinions.

He emailed me once about a thread I started over the hypocrisy of Shrek 2, and how the first film rails on Disney and its marketing machine, yet Shrek 2 products were seemingly everywhere. I can't find the thread, but I thought it was funny that someone took the time out to actually email me directly over such a thing.

scott shelton
10-03-04, 12:43 PM
A 49 million opening for SHARK TALE.

Nothing is wrong with Dreamworks.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by scott shelton
A 49 million opening for SHARK TALE.

Nothing is wrong with Dreamworks.
But, as Mr. Salty said, boffo box office does not a good movie make.
Originally posted by NitroJMS
He emailed me once about a thread I started over the hypocrisy of Shrek 2, and how the first film rails on Disney and its marketing machine, yet Shrek 2 products were seemingly everywhere. I can't find the thread, but I thought it was funny that someone took the time out to actually email me directly over such a thing.
Was is this one?
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=364463&

PixyJunket
10-03-04, 01:01 PM
Ten years from now.. Toy Story, Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo will be considered classics.

Ten years from now.. Shrek what? Shark Tale who?

PixyJunket
10-03-04, 01:05 PM
I'm also wondering if Dreamworks hires 11 year old girls to choose the music for their movies. I heard the new Car Wash which is supposed to be the grand centerpiece to Shark Tale and it was probably the most disgusting, vile piece of music my ears have been subject too in recent memory. Looking at some of their previous works, Smash Mouth? Living la Vida Loco? Ouch.

scott shelton
10-03-04, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
But, as Mr. Salty said, boffo box office does not a good movie make.

Hey, that's great about Mr. Salty. But in the real world, money creates the illusion of quality. Not fair, sure. But true.

Get ready for SHARK TALE 2.

Don't want more SHREKs and SHARKs? Don't see them. That's the only message of quality you can send to the studios.

scott shelton
10-03-04, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Ten years from now.. Toy Story, Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo will be considered classics.

Ten years from now.. Shrek what? Shark Tale who?

I disagree. Maybe not "classic" status (whatever that means), but they will still be around.

scott shelton
10-03-04, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
it was probably the most disgusting, vile piece of music my ears have been subject too in recent memory.

Wow, it's like you're describing Randy Newman's monotone music too!

fumanstan
10-03-04, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Ten years from now.. Toy Story, Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo will be considered classics.

Ten years from now.. Shrek what? Shark Tale who?

Shrek is going to be remembered up there with the Pixar movies. I'd say 10 years from now the big green ogre would be just as recognizable as some of the characters from Pixar's films, if not more.

Now the other Dreamworks animated pictures...

NitroJMS
10-03-04, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
But, as Mr. Salty said, boffo box office does not a good movie make.

Was is this one?
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=364463&

That's the one. I couldn't find it for some reason.

Matthew Chmiel
10-03-04, 02:57 PM
Wow, it's like you're describing Randy Newman's monotone music too!
Don't diss Randy Newman like that. Any man who comes out and publically insults the midget population is okay by me. ;)

Mr.Blonde510
10-03-04, 03:32 PM
Ofcourse Shark Tales did good. Mommies, daddies, and little kiddies say oh look a movie by the people who made Shrek 2, ofcourse its gonna do good, will see how well it holds up next week.

Jericho
10-03-04, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
Actually, caliing animation a genre is still misleading. It's not a genre, it's a medium. Genre refers to the type of story a film is trying to tell (comedy, mystery, thriller). You could theoretically tell any type of genre film in the animated medium.

Actually you are right about this. although most animated films these days tend to be comedic, there are plenty of adventure and drama in there as well. I chose to label animation a genre, since all animated films seem to be lumped together and judged differently than live action films.

Originally posted by Jay G.
The difference is that CGI animated films is such a relatively new medium that there have been only a handful of films released in the form so far, with only maybe one or two being crap, at least as far as popular opinion is concerned. So one or tow bad films in the medium at this point could actually majorly affect the general opinion of the medium as a whole at this point. Of course, I think the general opinion of CGI films is overinflated at this point anyway, and a bad films in any medium or genre is inevitable, so it's silly to blame Dreamworks for bringing expectations for CGI back down to earth, even if that is what they end up doing.

But I guess the question is, does the average movie-goer even care to differentiate between hand animation and CGI? Bad hand-animated movies haven't killed animation. It's still going strong. It's just that hand animation has been replaced by CGI due to convenience

scott shelton
10-03-04, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
Don't diss Randy Newman like that. Any man who comes out and publically insults the midget population is okay by me. ;)

You've got a point. I take it back.

jaeufraser
10-03-04, 04:49 PM
I'm sorry, but the problem with Dreamworks is that...they make movies you don't like, and Pixar does? How dare they?

Listen, some people truly love the Dreamworks movies. I'm sure Shark Tale was liked by some, and I know many who just love the Shrek movies.

So, I just find it a little arrogant for people to be stomping around calling Dreamworks awful for making movies they don't like. Fine, you don't like them, but I'm failing to see your point. Many, MANY people do like these films, and I think many are quick to just assume that their opinion is right and everyone else is sheep. Yes, I know sometimes bad movies make big money, but sometimes...people just don't like popular movies. I'm not sure why people seem to get so angry about that.

Jay G.
10-03-04, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Jericho
But I guess the question is, does the average movie-goer even care to differentiate between hand animation and CGI? Bad hand-animated movies haven't killed animation. It's still going strong. It's just that hand animation has been replaced by CGI due to convenience
I don't know about the average movie-goer, but studios definately think that there isn't an audience for hand-drawn animation anymore. When they shut down their hand-drawn studios, both Disney and Dreamworks cited the poor box-office of recent 2D animated efforts. They never mentioned that CGI was more convenient, and considering that they had to build their CGI studios from scratch instead of continuing to use their existing hand-drawn studios, it's definately not initially more convenient.

When Disney has one of their completed hand-drawn shorts completely redone in CGI, it's not a question of convenience, but of them feeling hand-drawn animation no longer has any appeal.

Supermallet
10-03-04, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
I don't know about the average movie-goer, but studios definately think that there isn't an audience for hand-drawn animation anymore. When they shut down their hand-drawn studios, both Disney and Dreamworks cited the poor box-office of recent 2D animated efforts.

We have a winner! The moviegoing public would rather see CGI movies right now. That's just the way of it. When Lilo and Stitch came out, I saw it opening day. I liked it to much I took my sister the next week. What did Disney do after that film? Cut the 2-D animation department, despite coming up with one of the most original and lovely animated films of the past decade.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to Disney once Pixar moves on.

Giles
10-08-04, 05:12 PM
Having just seen Shark Tale I have to say I was quite disappointed. The "follow the leader" atitude from Dreamworks to try and better themselves than Pixar realy falls on it's face here, The story is bland, dull and predictable, the humour is forced and is so geered to adult's that it all comes across as disjointed. A real bad sign is that at two thirds of the way through I looked at my watch, if I can't focus my attention of the film, it ultimately has failed.

On the other hand, I loved the trailer for Robots.

al_bundy
10-08-04, 06:16 PM
i remember the hype when dreamworks SKG was first created. their first few films were pretty good.

now it's just another studio or whatever they are called

jaeufraser
10-08-04, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
i remember the hype when dreamworks SKG was first created. their first few films were pretty good.

now it's just another studio or whatever they are called

The Peacemaker? Mousehunt? Naa, I'd say that they've actually gotten better over time.

Matthew Chmiel
10-09-04, 03:31 AM
DreamWorks is a studio I either love the films they put out, or loathe their other films.

Hell, in the past years, the studio has put out:
- Almost Famous
- American Beauty
- Anchorman
- Antz
- A.I.
- Catch Me If You Can
- Chicken Run
- Galaxy Quest
- Minority Report
- Old School
- Road to Perdition
- Road Trip
- Saving Private Ryan
- Small Soldiers
- The Terminal

Then of course, you have:
- Biker Boyz
- Cat in the Hat (co-production with Universal)
- Envy
- Everlasting Piece
- Forces of Nature
- Gladiator
- The Haunting
- In Dreams
- The Love Letter
- Lucky Numbers (co-production with Paramount)
- The Peacemaker
- The Tuxedo

;)

Hokeyboy
10-09-04, 02:50 PM
Wow, there's a pretty vociferous outcry against Dreamworks (I guess Dreamworks animation, really). I don't really understand it... you'd think with two big CGI powerhouses aiming to be the best in the biz, the ones truly benefitting would be us, the fans. Ah well.

Personally, I liked the first Shrek and loathed the second. Antz was pretty entertaining. A Shark's Tale was abysmal. However, I've loved every Pixar feature ever made. Dreamworks seems to focus on gags and spoofs, getting star talent for voicework, "hip and contemporary" humor (read: dated), pop-music soundtracks, and cutting-edge animation. Pixar is more about generating films with heart and an emotional core, more structured storylines, humor generated from characters and situations rather than from gags and pop-culture awareness, appropriate (rather than big-name) vocal actors, and cutting-edge animation.

For me it's no contest on who's better, but I'll be first in line for the next Dreamworks/PDI feature.

Matthew Chmiel
10-09-04, 02:52 PM
For me it's no contest on who's better, but I'll be first in line for the next Dreamworks/PDI feature.
I'll be there because their next flick actually looks quite good. ;)


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0