Are you a Pixar or a DreamWorks fan?

Post Reply New Topic

When it comes to modern animated films from the US, are you a Pixar or a DreamWorks fan?

It's tough for me to choose. The average Pixar movie is better than the average Dreamworks movie. But the two How To Train Your Dragon movies (Dreamworks) are in a class by themselves, and I like them better than anything Pixar has ever done.

quality of animation is the same.
but in my experience DreamWorks movies have a bit more 'dirtier' jokes. but just a bit.

I like both, but the majority of movies produced by PIXAR easily trumps most of the works produced by Dreamworks Animation.

I have preferred Pixar but Dreamworks used to be great back in the days of Shrek 1 and Antz but I started to not like it as much somewhere in the mid 2000's.
Pixar has created many more great movies but has also gone down in recent years.

^
what even




where the heck do you find this

I would say Pixar because the movies are more original than DreamWorks. Dream works is just trying to be as artsy as Pixar. When Pixar released A Bug's Life, DreamWorks caught up with its first film Antz via computer animation which incidentally seems to be a rip off. It seems peculiar to me because one of the first films released by DreamWorks were created in traditional animation, sometimes using claymation from 1998 until 2003. It used to make good movies; Prince of Egypt, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron you name it. After that it produced movies that were not as good as Finding Nemo or other Pixar movies. Therefore the movies from Deamworks are just crap.

I voted neither.

Both studios have their strong and weak points but neither are particualrily in a very good position right now.

For whatever reason, Dreamworks have struggled to capture the American market -- their movies always seem to perform much better internationally; How to Train Your Dragon 2 for instance is doing phenomenally well in China. So, I'm not that surprised that Dreamworks are upping all production from its native US and are instead settling into Shanghai (hence why Kung Fu Panda 3 will not be out until 2016).

I do feel rather sorry for Pixar though, and after they've carried Disney for so so long. Since Cars 2 and Rattatouille, they've been on the decline in my opinion. The fact that Pixar haven't a movie out this year (Finding Nemo delayed), and Disney's pretty much doing its own thing now (Marvel, Star Wars, the recent Frozen-Tangled, etc) makes me wonder about Pixar's future...

That isn't me saying that Pixar are a bad studio, but I found myself completely ignoring Monsters University (big self-satisfactory pat on the back to CalArts graduates who make up 90% of Disney and Pixar's staff), Cars 3 (cashcow), Up (not even going to touch that one). I only watched Toy Story 3 as late as last Christmas to see what the fuss was about... and I'll say this: Disney-Pixar are definetely masters of emotional manipulation. They're very very good at it and people like that. But to me, it felt like Pixar pretty much saying to Disney 'this is it, we're not doing anymore Toy Story films' (which pretty much has led to Disney forcing out the ABC Toy Story specials instead).

Instead, I find myself liking Pixar for their shorts, which are way more creative and experimenal than their films. I don't know why Disney keeps the majority of these in the US only; I've only been fortuante enough to see these because of a friend or they were included on the Bluray Special Editions of Toy Story, etc.

Anyway, we'll just see what happens with both studios. I'm hoping the sabbatical will improve Pixar's game so there's not just the same old, same old storytelling/gimmicky nostalgia-tweaking-at-heartstrings synonmous with Disney.

And I'm hoping Dreamworks find their own voice again -- less casting big name celebrities (Home with Rhianna) and relying on cash cow franchises (Penguins of Madgascar movie);; more original and interesting projects please. And I hope they find success within the US, because Dreamworks are at least trying to experiment visually. I can't honestly tell who was behind Brave or Wreck It Ralph because Disney and Pixar use practically the same house art-style...

I always have a major gripe with some of dreamworks films, while they are indeed enjoyable, that part that seems 'off' always bugs me to a great extent.

Kung Fu Panda, which was well-received universally was such a film, they didn't do ANYTHING to make us sympathize with the Panda, he was just grating and annoying, but they needed to give him some measure of sorrow to let us sympathize with him, that low-point in a film is its emotional core, pixar understands how to build their story around that, and to make it allegorical to a modern-day life, as it's through this vessel that we relate and sympathize.

[Spoilers Ahead]

In Kung Fu Panda, they had actually set up a pretty interesting back-story with the antagonist and the Martial Art School's master, if they were smart they would have focused on that to a degree, instead, they ignored it completely. They had one 'flashback scene' and one 'confrontation' and then thats it -- he's a bad guy, okay.

The Antagonist should have redeemed himself in Vader-esque fashion, but because the story-tellers were not able to fully perceive the extent of this satisfying character-arc... it didn't happen. It would would had been very satisfying as his relationship with his Master was similar to father and child, which would have allowed people to project and then empathize! ...It was such a perfect set up that got completely ignored in favor of the 'i'm stoopid silly face' panda.

They had a compatible angle too -- the Antagonist whom escaped the prison, escaped with some of his other crooked high-profile buddies. In this alternate story, these are the guys he turns his power against in the end when he comes to terms with his master, through some brilliant revelation illustrated by the Panda (he is the main character after all!) This mode is satisfying because it's father reuniting with son, and the Panda would have demonstrated power before or beyond violence.

But the normal ending was so unsatisfactory, as the panda was obviously not physically capable of dominating the antagonist, yet, for some magical reason, apparently being immune to his 'disabling' technique meant that he could assault with impunity, which I thought made no sense, he was utterly dominated through and through, but because he has a little fat, he can now dominate the antagonist at will? whaa?

Additionally, the antagonist was a cat-species, i can imagine a romance developing between him and the tigress in a sequel...Seriously those two could have made the most adorable couple ever, the fact that they were both head-strong would have led to conflict, which would have led to funnies, which would have led to a story that practically writes itself (a character arc when they finally figure out how to cooperate)... buuut because the story-tellers were so single-dimensional, and because they couldn't see that far into the stories future, they had to make the villain a traditional villain, one dimensional and then kill him off... and they had to focus entirely on the Panda. Of course the Panda is the protagonist but that is no reason to not have a host of well-developed characters...

Okay rant over, I can't watch the sequel as it will remind me of what could of been, which makes me sad. I normally never have any issues with Pixar movies, but Dreamworks can be frustrating because they are constantly flirting with making a phenomenal films, but they always let me down and settle for something average or above average. They are enjoyable films though, kids must love them to death, but they always leave me with a sense of wanting.

Both are good, but both also have a tendency to steal ideas from one another.
Say if a hook was working well for the other, instead of trying to come up with something new the offending studio will just try to cash in on the other's success. Example: Madagassgar was ripped off by The Wild and then Madagassgar 2 was a rip off of its own rip off.