(And note that, in Disney, I am including Pixar. In my mind, Pixar has that same spirit, mostly due to John Lasseter. I've always seen them as more or less one entity, even when they were thinking of splitting up. They were destined to merge, because they've both got that little spark of magic, you know what I mean?)
To me, though, no matter how "not-terrible" DreamWorks' products are, that studio is not where the magic is. It's where a former employee (one who, by the way, gave Ron and John a hard time about some of their projects and often made odd moves, like almost cutting "A Part of Your World") was bitter over being fired, and decided to start a new studio with his friends to leach money off of his "enemy." That's it. It's why they made "Antz," especially, being the most glaring example of DreamWorks' desire to diminish Disney's success. "The Prince of Egypt" was their greatest triumph, because it actually was a good movie made for its own sake.
And pvdfan, I agree that childhood memories are a big part of my love for Disney. But not really, because when I was little, animation was animation, and I'd put DreamWorks' and Disney's films on a shelf beside each other. Then I grew up. And Disney allowed me to recapture my childhood through it's classic stories and beloved characters. DreamWorks never made me feel like a kid again. It never made me feel like I was recapturing something I lost. I loved them both as a young child, but now I can feel the magic coming from one, and feel nothing from the other.
More than 70 years later, we all sit and wait for "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" to come out on Blu-Ray and DVD. Will you be able to say the same thing for anything to come out of DreamWorks? Only if they can find that intangible spark of magic that a man named Walt stumbled across so many decades ago. When they do, I'll be there in the cinema to watch their improved efforts.
And Goliath, personally, I find "Home on the Range," "Brother Bear," and "Treasure Planet" all better, both story-wise and aesthetically, than the Shrek films. The three of them all warm my heart, and feel like classics, despite only being around for a couple of years. "Shrek" was a great idea, and could have been excellent... But it was too busy mocking itself and everything else (especially Disney) to even be a serious film in its own right. It was like "Ha Ha Ha, stupid childish fairy tales! This is how a grown up does it! Watch this instead!" And so I just can't take them seriously.
Jeez, that was a long post. I just felt the need to seriously explain what I said. I wrote it when I was rather tired, and I feel like I sparked an awful lot of controversy. Sorry for all the fuss I caused, but there's a reason why I feel the way I do. (Plus, as an Aspie I tend to obsess over things that are precious to me, and I've rather latched on to Disney animation
)
i even got an award on this forum for defending it. 
the movie may not have any warmth or be a classic but its sincere in being a fun ( not funny!) little movie with beautiful visual style and serviceable songs.yes some jokes are lame but it is better than the hollow of a movie called sword in the stone.had it been released in the 60s or 70s it might have a better reputation. nowadays audience only go for movie that rocks the theaters with fast pace cuts and loud audio.for a movie about cows, it seemed suited for tv or home video instead.
