This is a look back at DreamWorks Animation I made a number of months back (before the release of How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek Forever After), in which I look at the history of the studios and its animated films, including the Aardman efforts. Hopefully, this might also spur some interesting discussion on the studio.
Part 1:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aSob2IQaeEc&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aSob2IQaeEc&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Part 2:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BgXi2yAkNfc&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BgXi2yAkNfc&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Part 3:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DaqD9hVz6ks&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DaqD9hVz6ks&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
DreamWorks Animation Look Back
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
You can read what I have to say about DreamWorks HERE 
Personally, I miss the old DreamWorks. While not all of their earlier features were perfect, it just seemed like after Shrek 2, they quite trying (with KFP being an exception). The original DreamWorks represented a haven for animators; whether traditional, stop-mo/claymation, or computer animation. While it was always about the bottom line (read the article I posted on executive interference on both The Road to El Dorado and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, that lead to their box office failures), it just seems like it became more so after Shrek 2, in which they declared the other forms of animation dead (instead of admitting to their interference). They found the combo of pop culture references, celebrity voices and computer animation to sell their films and they seem to be comfortable with just doing that. Shrek 2 also marked the beginning of overexposure though spin-offs, sequels, specials, theme park attractions, and television series.
Anyways, I'm NOT a fan of the Aardman movies. I just don't enjoy them. I do feel that the ending of the partnership was the best thing to happen for both companies. Flushed Away was terrible, Aardman sold out to DreamWorks, as it was no longer claymation and had the DreamWorks combo (pop culture references, celebrity voices and computer animation). I much preferred the claymation, as the backgrounds, characters, and lighting were grittier, more detailed and realistic. The animation just felt 'off' being handled by DreamWorks. Also look at the budgets and returns. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit cost $30 million to make and earned $192 million. Flushed Away, which was computer animated at DreamWorks, cost $149 million to make and only earned back $175 million. Aardman animated much more efficiently (the California unions, on top of the celebrity voices, always blow budgets out of the water) and it looked better using the claymation.
Also, I didn't like Bee Movie. Seinfeld the show is funny but Seinfeld the comedian is not. I bet it would've been really good if Larry David was involved. As it is, it's entirely to average.
It's only sequels next year from Disney, PIXAR, and DreamWorks
Personally, I miss the old DreamWorks. While not all of their earlier features were perfect, it just seemed like after Shrek 2, they quite trying (with KFP being an exception). The original DreamWorks represented a haven for animators; whether traditional, stop-mo/claymation, or computer animation. While it was always about the bottom line (read the article I posted on executive interference on both The Road to El Dorado and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, that lead to their box office failures), it just seems like it became more so after Shrek 2, in which they declared the other forms of animation dead (instead of admitting to their interference). They found the combo of pop culture references, celebrity voices and computer animation to sell their films and they seem to be comfortable with just doing that. Shrek 2 also marked the beginning of overexposure though spin-offs, sequels, specials, theme park attractions, and television series.
Anyways, I'm NOT a fan of the Aardman movies. I just don't enjoy them. I do feel that the ending of the partnership was the best thing to happen for both companies. Flushed Away was terrible, Aardman sold out to DreamWorks, as it was no longer claymation and had the DreamWorks combo (pop culture references, celebrity voices and computer animation). I much preferred the claymation, as the backgrounds, characters, and lighting were grittier, more detailed and realistic. The animation just felt 'off' being handled by DreamWorks. Also look at the budgets and returns. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit cost $30 million to make and earned $192 million. Flushed Away, which was computer animated at DreamWorks, cost $149 million to make and only earned back $175 million. Aardman animated much more efficiently (the California unions, on top of the celebrity voices, always blow budgets out of the water) and it looked better using the claymation.
Also, I didn't like Bee Movie. Seinfeld the show is funny but Seinfeld the comedian is not. I bet it would've been really good if Larry David was involved. As it is, it's entirely to average.
It's only sequels next year from Disney, PIXAR, and DreamWorks
Wait... I thought Pixar's Brave was going to be released next year alongside Cars 2...
I disagree with you jpanimation about Aardman, but I COMPLETELY agree with you about Flushed Away. It wasn't even Aardman at all! It was a Dreamworks picture trying to masquerade as an Aardman film.
That movie contributed to the creative rut that was 2006.
I disagree with you jpanimation about Aardman, but I COMPLETELY agree with you about Flushed Away. It wasn't even Aardman at all! It was a Dreamworks picture trying to masquerade as an Aardman film.
That movie contributed to the creative rut that was 2006.
They pushed it back to summer of 2012, I'm afraid.pap64 wrote:Wait... I thought Pixar's Brave was going to be released next year alongside Cars 2...
Interesting, little write-ups on the DreamWorks films, jpanimation (I don't visit the Off-Topic board, so I totally passed that thread by, lol). Can't agree with you on the Aardman films, especially Chicken Run, but humour is extremely subjective and British comedy is not for everyone and Aardman's work is very, very British. But, I grew up on the early Wallace & Gromit shorts and British sitcoms, so I guess they appeal to my tastes.
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Here's the thing. When watching Aardman, you can see the craftsmanship. They are quality movies that are well told. As you said, British humor is subjective and I just don't care for it all that much. I personally loved the cinematography in Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit and though the horror scenes (done as a homage to The Wolf Man) were excellent (better then The Wolf Man). I felt the "new" villain was really a redressed Gaston and the story wasn't too much outside of The Wolf Man parody. I do recognize these as well made films with a budget any producer would kill for (not so much with Flush Away, which is more of a DreamWorks film).
It's funny, but to my friend's dismay, Monty Python just doesn't appeal to me (although I love the main comedians involved). Outside of a few funny scenes, The Holy Grail was just alright to me, and just isn't something I'm looking to own. The newer British films, like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, are hilarious to me.
It's funny, but to my friend's dismay, Monty Python just doesn't appeal to me (although I love the main comedians involved). Outside of a few funny scenes, The Holy Grail was just alright to me, and just isn't something I'm looking to own. The newer British films, like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, are hilarious to me.
To me, I enjoyed the Aardman films not because of their humor but because of how great they tell their stories. I put them alongside Pixar as some of the greatest animated storytellers around. Both know how to use their technology and animated techniques and get the most out of them.
Chicken Run I admit back when I first saw it I didn't like it that much. But as I kept watching it throughout the years I grew to love it. Despite being a parody of POW movies there's a lot of creativity and effort put into the story and animation.
I also like how their Wallace and Gromit shorts are parodies/tributes to classic films. "The Wrong Trousers" is a tribute to slapstick comedy films as well as "who did it" films, "A Close Shave" is a Terminator spoof and "A Matter of Loaf and Death" is a parody of murder thrillers.
Chicken Run I admit back when I first saw it I didn't like it that much. But as I kept watching it throughout the years I grew to love it. Despite being a parody of POW movies there's a lot of creativity and effort put into the story and animation.
I also like how their Wallace and Gromit shorts are parodies/tributes to classic films. "The Wrong Trousers" is a tribute to slapstick comedy films as well as "who did it" films, "A Close Shave" is a Terminator spoof and "A Matter of Loaf and Death" is a parody of murder thrillers.
Oh and estefan, finally saw all of your videos and I really enjoyed them! However, a couple of clarifications...
- Technically, Mel Gibson is a cocky AUSTRALIAN actor. Yes, Mel Gibson is actually Australian, but has hidden his heritage very well. This was even parodied in an episode of Celebrity Deathmatch where he fights the very Australian Paul Hogan. Don't feel too bad, though, I am sure very few people realizes that about Mel.
- What happened to Madagascar 2? That came out the same year as Kung Fu Panda.
- I hope you do another video for Dragons and Shrek 4 as I feel both are very good, especially Shrek 4 which is more down to Earth than Shrek 3
- Technically, Mel Gibson is a cocky AUSTRALIAN actor. Yes, Mel Gibson is actually Australian, but has hidden his heritage very well. This was even parodied in an episode of Celebrity Deathmatch where he fights the very Australian Paul Hogan. Don't feel too bad, though, I am sure very few people realizes that about Mel.
- What happened to Madagascar 2? That came out the same year as Kung Fu Panda.
- I hope you do another video for Dragons and Shrek 4 as I feel both are very good, especially Shrek 4 which is more down to Earth than Shrek 3
Well, he was born in the United States to an American father, but then moved to Australia at a young age (though upon further research, it appears his mother was Australian) and then of course, he moved back to the U.S., so while there is some Australian blood, I consider him more of an American actor. Funnily enough, there is a line in Chicken Run in which one of the chicks remarks of Rocky that "I don't think he was actually American."pap64 wrote:Oh and estefan, finally saw all of your videos and I really enjoyed them! However, a couple of clarifications...
- Technically, Mel Gibson is a cocky AUSTRALIAN actor. Yes, Mel Gibson is actually Australian, but has hidden his heritage very well. This was even parodied in an episode of Celebrity Deathmatch where he fights the very Australian Paul Hogan. Don't feel too bad, though, I am sure very few people realizes that about Mel.
I very briefly mentioned it, when talking about the first Masagascar. But having not seen it and there not being much interesting info about it, I kind of felt the need to glance it over.pap64 wrote:- What happened to Madagascar 2? That came out the same year as Kung Fu Panda.
Maybe. I haven't gotten around to seeing Shrek Forever After. I keep thinking maybe I should go to a matinee, but then I'm not in the mood. I guess I will give it a rental when it comes out, but my interest is minimal. Oddly enough, Puss-in-Boots sounds really interesting to me.- I hope you do another video for Dragons and Shrek 4 as I feel both are very good, especially Shrek 4 which is more down to Earth than Shrek 3
Pardon my bluntness, but I think discussing Madagascar 2 is important and relevant to the history of Dreamworks. Madagascar 2 was the second successful sequel after the Shrek franchise, and was big enough that it lead to a Madagascar Christmas special as well as spin-off TV show starring the penguins and the lemurs.estefan wrote:pap64 wrote:- What happened to Madagascar 2? That came out the same year as Kung Fu Panda.
I very briefly mentioned it, when talking about the first Masagascar. But having not seen it and there not being much interesting info about it, I kind of felt the need to glance it over.
When discussing a studio's history it's important to note all of its contributions, whether you like them or not, and in this case the Madagascar franchise is just as important as the Shrek franchise due its popularity.
-
Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
-
aurum-femina
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:26 pm
- Location: California
I watched your videos before. :) I'd agree with most of your opinions on their movies, except I really disliked Bee Movie but enjoyed Monsters vs. Aliens. I loved The Road to El Dorado, too. But I'll admit nostalgia has some part in that. ;)
The middle of the last deacade wasn't too bright of a time for Dreamworks for me, which did disappoint me because I really loved the risks they'd taken with movies like The Prince of Egypt and Shrek. But I've come to really enjoy their more recent movies.
I do really like the studio as an alternative to what's come to be expected of Disney or Pixar (Which is why I don't mind that they aren't trying to be Disney.), and also that they've helped the field of animation in America become much more competitive and diverse.
The middle of the last deacade wasn't too bright of a time for Dreamworks for me, which did disappoint me because I really loved the risks they'd taken with movies like The Prince of Egypt and Shrek. But I've come to really enjoy their more recent movies.
I do really like the studio as an alternative to what's come to be expected of Disney or Pixar (Which is why I don't mind that they aren't trying to be Disney.), and also that they've helped the field of animation in America become much more competitive and diverse.
I like <i>Flushed Away</i> quite a bit. Not the most memorable film, but a lot of fun.enigmawing wrote:Wow, am I the only one that actually liked Flushed Away?But to be fair I'm not big on Aardman's films in general (I'm afraid they haven't really caught my interest, although I do love stop-motion) and I also don't care much for British humor (got some overexposure there due to my ex).
Having revisited the <i>Shrek</i> trilogy recently in order, I see now that <i>the Third</i> is a pretty steep step down in quality. The first two have their charms, but they're also very calculated in their "irreverence" and adult innuendo. I won't go far enough to say that they're bad movies; they're plenty entertaining. But I wonder if their huge success didn't set back animated storytelling somewhat, not only at DreamWorks but at Disney. At the same time, they've probably inspired Pixar to be more creative (if ever so slightly less fun).