Mr.Blonde510

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

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.

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

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

I think he was joking about that.

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.

das Monkey

And to the person who said its called a trilogy, its called sarcasm.

das

Mr.Blonde510

Yeah I forgot to read the sentence where he says they havnt showed commercials in a year :P.

Mr.Blonde510

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

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

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.

Jackskeleton

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

What MrBlonde is worried about is saturation of the market. However, there aren't nearly enough CGI films released to saturate the market.

matome

What he said.

jaeufraser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Matthew Chmiel

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.

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.