Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

WTF is wrong with Dreamworks?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

WTF is wrong with Dreamworks?

Old 10-02-04, 05:21 PM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WTF is wrong with Dreamworks?

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.

Last edited by Mr.Blonde510; 10-02-04 at 06:51 PM.
Old 10-02-04, 05:29 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: behind the eight ball
Posts: 19,405
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 45 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 05:29 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,938
Received 282 Likes on 210 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 05:34 PM
  #4  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 05:37 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: California
Posts: 7,728
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think he was joking about that.
Old 10-02-04, 05:38 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 05:38 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And to the person who said its called a trilogy, its called sarcasm.

das
Old 10-02-04, 05:39 PM
  #8  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah I forgot to read the sentence where he says they havnt showed commercials in a year :P.
Old 10-02-04, 05:40 PM
  #9  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 06:08 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 10-02-04, 06:30 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old 10-02-04, 07:13 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 20 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 07:34 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 10-02-04, 07:43 PM
  #14  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
What MrBlonde is worried about is saturation of the market. However, there aren't nearly enough CGI films released to saturate the market.
Old 10-02-04, 07:46 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 10-02-04, 08:30 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 08:38 PM
  #17  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 08:48 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Iron_Giant; 10-02-04 at 08:57 PM.
Old 10-02-04, 08:49 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?)
Old 10-02-04, 09:03 PM
  #20  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 09:41 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by jaeufraser; 10-02-04 at 09:46 PM.
Old 10-02-04, 09:46 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,725
Received 85 Likes on 64 Posts
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.
Old 10-02-04, 09:57 PM
  #23  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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.
Old 10-03-04, 12:39 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 10-03-04, 12:44 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,938
Received 282 Likes on 210 Posts
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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.