... which some won't like:
"Each year I do one DreamWorks project," actor Jack Black told the crowd at the 2009 [Academy Awards] ceremony, "then I take all the money to the Oscars and bet it on Pixar."
That was also the case 60, 70 years ago, when Disney shorts had a monopoly on the Oscars, while the funnier, livelier cartoons from Warner Bros. — which today are treasured — were ignored. In that sense, Pixar's features are closer to the old, elevated Disney style, while DreamWorks' films are flat-out cartoons, proud to carry on the fast, cavorting Warner tradition.
I don't know if I would draw exactly the same parallels, though I could see how others would. To tell you the truth, chunks of the Ice Age franchise are as Looney Tunesque as anything out there in CG land.
Posts
19 comments:
In the case of Dreamworks, they have had a history of some pretty awful movies.
BUT.
It seems now that every couple years, they make a very different kind of movie. Kung Fu Panda...and now Dragons.
How to Train Your Dragon is a movie that rivals, and possibly outclasses, any and every Pixar movie made to date. It is easily on a par with Incredibles. It is a truly fantastic, amazing film, and shows what Dreamworks is capable of when all cylinders are firing. It dwarfs every animated movie made in recent time, with the most incredible animation, lighting, camera--and the story is heartwarming, emotional, action-filled, funny, dramatic. In short, it is awesome.
Yet sadly, Dreamworks insists on mostly making MvA-type movies, and Mastermind looks like a return to that sort of crap. It's unbelievable that they do this, when it's clear they have all the talent and ability in the world to dominate even Pixar.
I think I'm officially alone in just not finding KFP all that particularly groundbreaking, "heartwarming", "emotional", or even all that danged "different" as a DW movie:
While the stylized 2-D prologue was unusual, the bulk of the film just seemed to be the standard default "We paid for Jack Black, we'll USE Black!" DW star-comic kissup, that spend so much time on Black loser-slacker shtick, we didn't really have a clear idea why we were supposed to root for the hero.
Or, for that matter, why we shouldn't take the side of the more competent, serious-minded other characters who just wish he'd go away.
(And think Black's Oscar joke was more aimed at how DW seemed too dependent on calling him up to build films around him, rather than around any inspiration for a story concept.)
Which is the main complaint that's usually leveled at MOST (okay, not Dragons) DW films, that put all their faith in star power--When most young audiences who aren't Hollywood-exec age wouldn't know Ben Stiller or Jerry Seinfeld from a hole in the ground and wouldn't care so long as there was a good story.
It's nice to see DW have one moment of visual, emotional character storytelling in Dragons...But the fact that audience is still going to have that auto-default MegaMind teaser rubbed into their face immediately before the main feature is about the worst shot in the foot for the studio's "new creative" image: You can dress 'em up, but you can't take 'em out in public for long.
And think Black's Oscar joke was more aimed at how DW seemed too dependent on calling him up to build films around him, rather than around any inspiration for a story concept.
Uh, no, Black's joke referred to the knee-jerk adoration of Pixar by the Academy voters.
Well, was getting more the satirical sense of "Jeff, could you make some movies with OTHER PEOPLE for a change??" No one likes to be that identifiably tied with the Perpetual Oscar Loser, with no way out on the horizon.
(In the sense that Seth Rogen used to be auto-default cast in every DW comedy, until he came out in public saying he couldn't stand CGI kids' comedies, and now...they've stopped asking him.)
Different directors, different stories make for movies that are different from each other. Go figure.
Kung Fu Panda was as sincere as anything. It was exactly what it set out to be-which was NOT any other DW film, but a specific, unique world with animal characters involved in a classic kung fu apprentice tale. It wanted to entertain and make people laugh while maintaining some true-to-its-own-world reality. It succeeded and had really beautiful art direction and animation to boot. It was justifiably a hit as people responded to it. It was quality all the way.
Dragon is obviously quality of the highest order too-BUT with a different plot, visual style, directors(yes, Nico designed on both-lucky for the productions)and largely story crews though some were cross-pollinating too. Shared animators, ditto many others.
I liked Jack Black as Po. I liked Jay Baruchtel as Hiccup. It's not so much what anyone's name is, it's what is DONE with the voice performance. Give the animators their due for pity's sake, instead of maligning a film because you think the actor is overused. Every film is a brand-new experience, if you give it a chance, which is all any of them deserve,
Different directors, different stories make for movies that are different from each other.
Yes, that is true. And the directors for the films that are not Kung Fu Panda and Dragons should be fired.
The Disney shorts only had a monopoly on the Oscars during the 30's. The majority of the highly treasured WB cartoons were produced in the 40's and 50's. During these two decades only three Academy Awards went to Disney short cartoons, while the livelier WB cartoons picked up 5 – so they were hardly ignored in favour of them. The lion's share of the animated shorts went to MGM Tom and Jerry cartoons which I think fit under the 'livelier' category too.
I still understand the point of the article, it's just the analogy doesn't stand up to the facts.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs475.snc3/26030_375580037295_742032295_3470494_7186867_n.jpg
Why would anyone compare the flops Prince of Egypt, Road to El Dorado, Sinbad, Cimerron...to WARNERS cartoons? DW has made it's share of flops and really, REALLY bad movies. Some of them made money. None of them sold ancilliaries--until this new push with dragon.
As a financial venture, Pixar has made FAR more money than Dreamworks. And their films have stronger and more lasting legs.
I don't know how the hell you can compare DreamWorks' output to the classic Warner Bros. cartoons. They're not even in the same league.
don't know how the hell you can compare DreamWorks' output to the classic Warner Bros. cartoons. They're not even in the same league.
Here's how the hell you can:
Because the animation from both studios entertains people, with COMEDY. That's a FACT.
That's the effing comparison. Get it?
Don't be so 'insulted" and look for arguments where there aren't any.
But I guess nothing ever really changes since back in the day the Disney animators didn't consider anything WB did "in the same league" as their features OR shorts output. That's also a fact.
Because the animation from both studios entertains people, with COMEDY. That's a FACT.
Well, that, and that WB's vintage writers were trained the 40's old-radio gags of their day, and DW's Shrek-era writers were trained on the 90's TV-sitcom gags of their day.
Obviously, one had funnier mentors.
Strife can even come from WITHIN a studio: I was once told that a nine old man made a disparaging remark about animators from the shorts unit not really being animators.....That's a FACT!
From the article:
The two studios' preferred plots reflect their means of creation. Pixar writer-directors, working in a San Francisco suburb far from the seat of industry power, get lots of staff support but pursue their visions more or less on their own.
Reeeeally. Is that what happened to Jan Pinkava?
Oh, and John Lasseter also pushed Chris Sanders and Dean Deblois out the door at Disney at a time when that studio needed all the talent it could muster. Dragon was so much better than Bolt, Froggy, or Meet the Robinsons.
Can someone please clear up this whole myth about Pixar and Lasseter doing well by their artists? If you're not named "Brad Bird," "Pete Docter," "Andrew Stanton," or anybody else from their superhero circle, I don't see you getting much support.
Of course, nothing ever really changes.
Back in the day, Disney had their own "Superhero Circle," and too bad if you weren't part of it.
All this talk of "Sanders' movie"...
As I recall this project was well underway before he got there, no?
carpetbagger?
Word on the street is Dean and Chris saved it.
Oh, and John Lasseter also pushed Chris Sanders and Dean Deblois out the door at Disney at a time when that studio needed all the talent it could muster. Dragon was so much better than Bolt, Froggy, or Meet the Robinsons.
And needless to say, a whole bucketload better than "American Dog".
Think the "Lasseter didn't feel it was the best output for shaping the studio's new image" was the POLITE version of the story given to the outside world...
"Reeeeally. Is that what happened to Jan Pinkava?"
Not to mention Gary Rydstrom or Brad Lewis.
Was newt shelved because of story problems? Or was Rydstrom in over his head as a first time director?
What about Cars 2? Did Lasseter step in to save the story? Or to save first time director Brad Lewis' butt?
The reality of directoral freedom at Pixar only seems to go so far.
Post a Comment