CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The DreamWorks Animation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The DreamWorks Animation Thread

post #1 of 41
1/15/12 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 

Because I think it could lead to some interesting discussion, here's a thread for any and all DreamWorks animated films. I'll start us off with brief thoughts on both the 2-D and CGI films from the studio (I'm not counting the Aardman films since those have their own, non-DreamWorks identities)

 

2D/Hand-drawn Films

 

The Prince of Egypt-This is already pretty well-loved on the boards, but more praise is always nice. This is easily one of the best non-Disney animated films of the nineties, with a terrific cast all bringing their A-game, epic visuals, great realistic character animation, and quite possibly Stephen Schwartz's best-ever soundtrack.

 

The Road to El Dorado-This movie is just plain fun. Kenneth Branagh and Kevin Kline make a terrific duo, the dialogue sparkles with wit, the character animation is fantastically goofy, and even the songs (particularly the one Branagh and Kline actually get to sing) are enjoyable.

 

Joseph: King of Dreams-OK, it's clearly an attempt to cash in on Prince of Egypt (it even has more or less the same character design aesthetic), but it's a nice little film regardless. The animation is solid for a DTV, the adaptation works, and the voicework is pretty good all across the board, especially Mark Hamill and Jodi Benson.

 

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron-It's an unusual experiment (melding traditional and CG techniques together in almost every scene, a story where the horses-*gasp!*-don't talk, Bryan Adams filling the same role Phil Collins did in Tarzan), but a largely successful one. The horse body language and animation is terrific, Matt Damon provides some nicely understated narration from time to time, Adams' songs are actually pretty good, and the action scenes are pretty legitimately thrilling.

 

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas-Their last fully hand-drawn animated film, and I can kind of see why. I mean, I really, REALLY want to like this film. There are some gloriously Harryhausen-esque set pieces, Michelle Pfieffer has loads of fun as the silkily animated Eris, Dennis Haysbert is likable as Sinbad's first mate, and the animation on the whole is up to the usual feature standard. But Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones, much as I like them, bring almost none of their usual charm or wit to their characters, the story chickens out at some crucial moments, and as a result it just kind of sits there.

 

CGI

 

Antz-This actually holds up quite well. The animation is interesting in its combination of realism and fantasy, the story is well-constructed all around, and the voice cast is chosen perfectly. I especially love how Z's dialogue sounds like it might as well have been written by Woody Allen himself (I remember him joking that the creators of the film must have spied on him or something).

 

Shrek-I actually still really like the first one. Everyone involved clearly put a lot of work and legitimate heart into it, and it's still pretty funny too. The second one is all right, but for me it feels kind of pointless, and I have refused to watch anything else in the franchise since the warning signs are already there in 2.

 

Shark Tale-Ugh. Renee Zellweger and Jack Black prove to have a good facility for voice-over, but everything else just looks ugly and feels half-baked.

 

Madagascar-The first one is a trifle, sure, but it's a well-made one, with appealingly cartoony animation, a good ensemble cast in our four main heroes, and the side characters like the penguins and the lemurs (this was the film that introduced to Sacha Baron Cohen's agreeable brand of lunacy) totally steal the film. The second film is... meh. It's not great, it's not horrible. The Penguins' spin-off TV show is actually pretty solid and amusing.

 

Over the Hedge-Another well-animated and acted film that is otherwise forgettable and predictable.

 

Bee Movie-OK, this one kind of pisses me off. The visual design is bland and lame, most of the cast is phoning it in, and the story still makes no goddamn sense to me. There are a couple laughs here and there, but otherwise it's one of their worst.

 

Kung Fu Panda-Both films are great, and I've talked about them elsewhere on the forums.

 

Monsters Vs. Aliens-Haven't seen it, don't plan to.

 

How To Train Your Dragon-Another excellent, Pixar-worthy film from the writer-director team that created Lilo and Stitch back at Disney.

 

Megamind-It could've been GREAT, but settles for merely "good", and it is at least well-made.

 

Haven't seen Puss in Boots, and I'm not sure I want to.

 

Your thoughts? Sorry for such a long-ass opening post.

Reply
post #2 of 41
1/15/12 at 10:41am

Puss in Boots is like Megamind.  Enjoyable and forgettable.  I almost literally forgot that I saw it the next day.  It was quite a gorgeous looking film though (which shouldn't really be a surprise at this point, but still).

 

So I'm going to bring something up for the sake of discussion.  A mentor/friend of mine is currently working directly with a certain famous someone (in the world of animation) on developing a new project.  I got to talk to him over Christmas with a bunch of friends.  Whenever we get together we shoot the shit about movies.  

 

The topic of How to Train Your Dragon came up.  Now... I LOVE that film.  But I thought that my friend's issue with the film (which I guess the certain famous someone completely agrees with) was an interesting one to discuss.

 

Their issue:  for a film that is largely supposed to be about how the people of Berk getting over their fear/hatred of dragons, the film sabotages its own goal (in terms of getting the audience to experience this journey for themselves) by never really letting the dragons be all that fearsome.  They're too damned appealing from the outset.  Appealing designs, appealing behavior (it acts like a dog and a cat!).

 

Now, we didn't get that deep into this discussion.  From here, I'm going to be expanding on why I think he has issues with this based on what I know of him.

 

My mentor is hardcore when it comes to story structure.  When a character goes through a journey, he expects the audience to go through it too.  His criticism is that as a film, there is no question to how AWESOME DRAGONS ARE.  And the film operates on that wavelength from the beginning.  Sure, the characters goes through a worldview shift because that's what formula dictates, but isn't it kind of perfunctory if it was never really an issue for the audience?

 

One could counter with the notion that these are meant to be family films.  How fearsome could they really make the dragons?  But do we really want to use that as an excuse when we bemoan how safe and homogenized movies are in general?  What's wrong with scaring the shit out of kids?  Is it just nostalgia talking, or were fantasy films of the 80s less afraid of getting kids to shit their pants?  Or are the dragons in the film actually scary to younger audiences?

 

 

Reply
post #3 of 41
1/15/12 at 10:57am
Thread Starter 

I would make the argument that, in the case of Dragon, it actually works. For one thing, the MOVIE OPENS WITH A GODDAMN DRAGON ATTACK. It's leavened with humor and badassery, mind you, but it still shows right up front how much of a pain in the ass these things are.

 

As far as design goes... well, some of the dragons look a little goofy. And that's part of the story-arc: these guys are just animals, not evil by nature, and showing the smaller, doofier dragons helps that along. But Toothless takes a while to warm up to Hiccup, and even I thought he was rather fearsome in the moments where he fights or threatens Hiccup physically.

 

And you cannot tell me that big-ass dragon at the end isn't scary. I would argue that there is such a thing as going too far in scaring children (the little buggers LIKE it to a certain extent, but there is a limit).

Reply
post #4 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:05am

Now imagine if the film was tasked with introducing that BIG-ASS dragon at the beginning and having Hiccup befriend HIM!  Heheheheh

 

I suppose the criticism is mostly directed at Toothless himself (herself?), since it's the relationship between Toothless and Hiccup that brings about change.

 

So just to continue playing devil's advocate... (because I don't necessarily agree with the criticism either)  Yeah, the opening attack mostly paints them as a pain in the ass as opposed to something with which a father will nearly disown his son over.  

 

I agree that Hiccup's first face-to-face scene with Toothless was rather fearsome.  That close-up... was REALLY close-up.

 

Oh yeah, and just because... Bee Movie really sucked.  I also seem to be the lone voice in thinking that Monsters vs. Aliens was really boring.  I think the few people on CHUD who have seen it enjoyed the movie well enough.

Reply
post #5 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:18am

I think MEGA-MIND is unfairly maligned. The jokes are much more memorable than most anything in PUSS. I think it's a decent twist on the genre with clever homages to spare. DESPICABLE ME takes the 1st place spot in the villain turns hero race however.

 

MADAGASCAR, OVER THE HEDGE, and ANTZ are quality and cute, but never go for the emotional jugular like most of Pixar's flicks do. DW's character designs are mostly appealing (unless it's Shrek-verse), they're animation and set pieces are fun, but with a few exceptions (HOW TO TRAIN, KFP), they fall in the "fun family fare" category and not much else. They rarely show up in the "excellent film" end of the spectrum. However, I do think that OVER THE HEDGE (and FLUSHED AWAY for that matter) tells the same story better than the "pedestrian" (that's a joke, son) CARS.

 

ROAD TO EL DORADO and SINBAD are warm-ups for the POTC franchise for Elliot and Rossio. Fortunately, Disney took the risk despite they way those 2 movies performed.

Reply
post #6 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:23am
Thread Starter 

Well, the humor in the attack comes from Hiccup running around being himself and people trying to deal with it. Note that Stoick treats the dragons very seriously from the get-go; I'd argue that his nearly disowning Hiccup is entirely consistent with his prior behavior.

 

I never checked out Monsters Vs. Aliens because the design just looked so BLAND. Say what you will about DreamWorks, but most of their actual films have different aesthetics. They don't all look like Shrek.

Reply
post #7 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:26am
Thread Starter 

In regards to Elliot and Rossio, am I alone in admiring them as screenwriters? They have a real gift for snappy dialogue, and that continued into the later Pirates films. They also really know how to write for animation.

 

As far as Megamind goes, as I noted, it's pretty good. Not great (many of the types of jokes have been done better in stuff like Venture Bros.), but solid.

Reply
post #8 of 41
1/15/12 at 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

 (many of the types of jokes have been done better in stuff like Venture Bros.)

Well, that goes without saying.
 

 

Reply
post #9 of 41
1/15/12 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post

Quote:

Well, that goes without saying.
 

 


Yeah, although I suppose that's not really fair to Megamind. It does have a lot of funny lines and jokes: Megamind and Metro Man taunting each other endlessly until Roxy breaks it off, MM's strange pronunciations of certain words, pretty much anything Minion does, Metro Man's secret dream to be an [awful] country singer, etc. I just felt like it didn't *quite* live up to its potential in certain areas, namely the romance between MM and Roxy, which despite Will Ferrell and Tina Fey's best efforts fell completely flat for me. The wedge driven between Minion and MM BECAUSE of the romance made for some good drama, though.

 

I also liked that Jonah Hill got to be legitimately creepy as Titan in the latter part of the film.

 

 

Reply
post #10 of 41
1/15/12 at 6:04pm
Thread Starter 

So... anyone else seen Spirit or Sinbad? I'm curious to hear people's thoughts, especially since Spirit got buried under the summer rush of 2002.

Reply
post #11 of 41
1/15/12 at 6:22pm

I've seen both, but it's been a while and neither one of them made much of an impression on me.

Reply
post #12 of 41
1/15/12 at 6:30pm

I liked Sinbad, the animation was pretty good and the action scenes were nice.  The giant eagle chase over the snow was pretty awesome.


That said, it was a little kiddified, and the mains weren't as interesting as they needed to be.  It was light, but fun overall.

Reply
post #13 of 41
1/15/12 at 6:36pm
Thread Starter 

Yeah, it's a shame the story wasn't up to the level of the animation.

 

Incidentally, Elliot and Rossio's original pitch (I think they even did it at Disney) sounds a little more interesting: http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp37-xtras/wp37x.SINBAD.html

 

I like the idea of starting Sinbad out BEFORE he became an adventurer and building up to that, as well as a more consistently comic tone.

Reply
post #14 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Well, the humor in the attack comes from Hiccup running around being himself and people trying to deal with it. Note that Stoick treats the dragons very seriously from the get-go; I'd argue that his nearly disowning Hiccup is entirely consistent with his prior behavior.



I think a lot of this comes from Hiccup being the PoV character for the movie. For Hiccup the dragons are pests. He says so right in the opening narration. He's afraid of them, but unless he's actually being chased by one he's not shitting his pants in terror at the very idea of their existence. For the rest of the vikings the dragons are the enemy in a war that's being going for generations that they're constantly on the brink of losing. The only other exception seems to be Gobber, who despite losing two limbs to dragons seems to be more annoyed by them than anything else.

Reply
post #15 of 41
1/15/12 at 11:26pm

The 2nd part of FilmCritHulk's write-up on screenwriting actually features a section on what the screenplay for Kung Fu Panda does well:

 

 

 

Quote:

28. MERGE INTO CONFLICTING ARCS

HULK USES THE FOLLOWING MOVIE ALL THE TIME WHEN TALKING ABOUT SCREENWRITING, NOT BECAUSE IT'S A STUNNING EXAMPLE OF INNOVATIVE WRITING, BUT BECAUSE IT ONLY TRIES TO DO THE MOST BASIC THINGS AND IT GETS THEM SO, SO RIGHT.

THE MOVIE IS KUNG FU PANDA.

REALLY? YES.

THE THING HULK LOVES ABOUT THE FILM IS HOW IT BALANCES THE RELATIONSHIPS AND PLOT MECHANICS TO KEEP THEM ALL VERY UNIFIED. THERE IS PO, THE DIM-WITTED PANDA CHOSEN TO BE THE DRAGON WARRIOR BY MASTER OOGWAY AND MEANT TO UNLOCK THE POWER OF THE DRAGON SCROLL. THERE IS TIGRESS, THE ONE WHO WAS IN LINE TO BE THE DRAGON WARRIOR AND IS NOW DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED AT NOT BEING CHOSEN. THERE IS TAI LUNG THE VILLAINOUS FORMER PUPIL WHO WANTS TO UNLOCK THE POWER OF THE DRAGON SCROLL FOR HIMSELF. AND ALL THREE ARE LINKED TO MASTER SHIFU WHO FAILED IN TRAINING TAI LUNG BECAUSE HE LOVED HIM TOO MUCH AND GAVE INTO ALL TAIL LUNG'S INDULGENT BEHAVIORS. TO CORRECT HIS MISTAKES, SHIFU WAS  FAR TOO HARD ON HIS NEXT PUPIL TIGRESS, WHO HE IMBUES WITH FAR TOO MUCH DESIRE TO PLEASE HIM. AND THEN SHIFU IS FACED WITH TRAINING THE IDIOTIC, BUT WELL-MEANING PO, A TASK HE DOES NOT WANT OR UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT WAS MEANT FOR TIGRESS. AND THEN GUIDING OVER ALL OF THEM, PARTICULARLY SHIFU'S FRUSTRATIONS, IS MASTER OOGWAY, THE ONE WHO CHOSE PO AS DRAGON WARRIOR AND GUIDES ALL FIVE OF THESE CHARACTERS WITH A QUIET SENSE OF ZEN AND DESTINY.

5 MAIN CHARACTERS. 5 DIFFERENT SETS OF RELATIONSHIPS. THEY ALL HAVE MOTIVES TO RELATE TO EACH OTHER. THEY ALL HAVE REASONS TO DISLIKE EACH OTHER AND PROVIDE CONFLICT. BUT BEST OF ALL THEY ARE ALL "INTERESTED PARTIES" IN THE MAIN PLOT OF OBTAINING THE DRAGON SCROLL. THEY ALL HAVE A REAL STAKE IN THE STORY AND ACTION. THEY ARE NOT CHARACTERS MADE BE FOILS FOR EACH OTHER. THEY ARE ALL REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL STAKES. THE FILM DOES NOT WASTE OF THIS GREAT DYNAMIC EITHER. WHEN THE DRAGON SCROLL IS UNLOCKED, IN MOMENT OF CONVERGING PLOT, IT REALLY ALLOWS THEM TO COME TO A REAL CATHARSIS ABOUT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ONE ANOTHER, PO'S EMBRACING OF HIS OWN ZEN-LIKE ABILITIES, TIGRESS'S WILL TO ACCEPT PO AS DRAGON WARRIOR, SHIFU'S REALIZATION OF HIS BLINDING PRE-JUDGEMENT OF PO, AND EVEN IN THE CASE OF REVEALING TAI LUNG'S OWN PRIDE AND WEAKNESS. THE MOVIE COMES TOGETHER FOR EVERY CHARACTER ARC AND EVERY RELATIONSHIP, ALL IN A SINGULAR NARRATIVE MOMENT.

HULK JUST HAS TO SAY IT, BUT THE BASIC MECHANICS OF PLOTTING AND CHARACTER IN THIS FILM ARE FUCKING PERFECT.

IT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT FUNNY AND HAS SOME REALLY GOOD KUNG FU.

 

Reply
post #16 of 41
1/16/12 at 5:28am
Thread Starter 

That's a pretty good analysis, methinks. True, I think Tigress gets more to play with emotionally in the sequel, but she does indeed have an intersecting arc in the first one.

 

One of my favorite scenes in the film is Shifu and Po's argument after Po tries to run away (having just learned that Tai Lung has escaped, and that he IS expected to defeat the snow leopard as the Dragon Warrior). The motivations of the characters are so clear, the animation and staging is terrific, and Hoffman and Black act the hell out of it.

 

I think Black's performances in these films work because he's not just playing "Jack Black as a panda". He's playing Po, who shares some of Black's traits but is otherwise his own character.

 

On a side note, does anyone else think the logo changing on each film nowadays is rather neat? It's all stylized and Chinese for the Panda films, moody and moonlit for Dragon and Megamind, and the more standard one for the goofier films.

Reply
post #17 of 41
1/16/12 at 5:45am
Thread Starter 

Also, was anyone else lucky enough to see Prince of Egypt in theaters? I think even at 8 years old, I felt a sense of legitimate awe at scenes like the parting of the Red Sea or that epic opening number: "DELIVER US! HEAR OUR CALL, DELIVER US! LORD OF ALL, REMEMBER US HERE IN THIS BURNING SAND! DELIVER US! THERE'S A LAND YOU PROMISED US! DELIVER US! TO THE PROMISED LAND!"

 

Like I said, it's probably Stephen Schwartz's best animated soundtrack. Hunchback comes close, if it wasn't for that damn gargoyle song (which by itself is fine, but is totally jarring within the movie).

Reply
post #18 of 41
1/16/12 at 7:39am

I was a big fan of The Ten Commandments as a kid, so I definitely went out to see the movie in 98.  Loved it so much that I bought the soundtrack immediately afterwards.

Reply
post #19 of 41
1/16/12 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Their issue:  for a film that is largely supposed to be about how the people of Berk getting over their fear/hatred of dragons, the film sabotages its own goal (in terms of getting the audience to experience this journey for themselves) by never really letting the dragons be all that fearsome.  They're too damned appealing from the outset.  Appealing designs, appealing behavior (it acts like a dog and a cat!).



Did they miss the part where the captured dragons very nearly killed the kids numerous times?

Reply
post #20 of 41
1/16/12 at 8:10am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post



Did they miss the part where the captured dragons very nearly killed the kids numerous times?


Exactly! One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Hiccup goes up against the Monstrous Nightmare in the arena; it really shows how powerful and dangerous these creatures truly are. And then Toothless shows up to the rescue and that awesomely vicious little fight between him and the Nightmare ensues.

Reply
post #21 of 41
1/16/12 at 8:11am

Possibly.  But in that case, we shouldn't forget that these are 'captured' dragons that are doing exactly what the humans want them to be doing for training purposes.

Reply
post #22 of 41
1/16/12 at 8:36am
Thread Starter 

Or they're following their natural instincts, which is then exploited by the Vikings *for* training purposes.

Reply
post #23 of 41
1/16/12 at 8:45am

But how fearsome are they really if they can be harnessed enough to train the kids?  Viking kids, of course.  But kids nonetheless!  Hahahaha

Reply
post #24 of 41
1/16/12 at 8:51am

"Dragon" is etched into our collective consciousness as a dangerous creature.  The film really shouldn't have to do any heavy lifting to make us think they're dangerous.

Reply
post #25 of 41
1/16/12 at 9:03am

That's a good point.  

 

If anything, it could be said that the film goes out of its way to counter that image of dragons in our collective consciousness.

Reply
post #26 of 41
1/16/12 at 9:11am
Thread Starter 

So, has anyone read The Men Who Would Be King, the book about the rise and (kind of) fall of DreamWorks? It has a lot of neat info about the productions of many of the studio's early animated films, even if I don't agree with some of the conclusions the author comes to about said films, or even the studio itself (neither was happy with the final version of El Dorado, which I love).

 

It also goes into the behind-the-scenes battles regarding Antz and A Bug's Life; Lasseter was furious about what he saw as Katzenberg betraying and ripping them off, while Katzenberg (and there are other people who worked on the film who support this viewpoint) insists it was an original idea. Compounding the trouble was that Antz ended up released *before* A Bug's Life, and it's hard to know who to believe.

Reply
post #27 of 41
1/16/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Compounding the trouble was that Antz ended up released *before* A Bug's Life, and it's hard to know who to believe.



Well, Antz certainly looks like it took less time to complete than A Bug's Life.

Reply
post #28 of 41
1/16/12 at 12:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post



Well, Antz certainly looks like it took less time to complete than A Bug's Life.


Aw, c'mon, that's not fair. It was the first feature film from PDI, it's bound to not look as good as a film from a studio who already had one film under their belt.

 

I think it looks rather nice, to be honest. The environments are creative, the character animation is solid, and, hey, they look more like real ants.

 

Reply
post #29 of 41
3/6/12 at 7:23am
Thread Starter 

OK, watched Puss in Boots with the family last night, and goddamn that was boring. Sure, it looks nice, and Banderas brings his usual charm to the proceedings. But Hayek and Galifinakis (who seems like he would be a good fit for voice-over) are on complete auto-pilot, the "adult" jokes feel more queasy and out-of-place than ever, Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris are wasted (seriously, why is half their dialogue barely audible offscreen chatter?), and it just feels so small for a story that ends up involving Jack's beanstalk and the goose that lays golden eggs.

 

I think what's emblematic of the film's problems is best demonstrated by how it handles the past relationship between Puss and Humpty Dumpty. Prior to joining Humpty and Kitty on the big heist, Puss narrates an unnecessarily long flashback about their history together; despite this, their relationship never feels authentic, nor does the "romance" between Puss and Kitty. The same goes for the big con-man "twist", which I saw coming at least three miles away, and Humpty's change of heart in the climax feels almost insanely artificial.

 

The sad thing is that a Puss in Boots spin-off had a lot of potential. The whole film should've been as breezy and entertaining as his character, but gets weighed down by unearned drama.


Edited by Chris Spider - 3/6/12 at 9:52am
Reply
post #30 of 41
3/6/12 at 9:44am

Just a correction...

 

Both Puss and KFP2 got nominated.

Reply
post #31 of 41
3/6/12 at 9:52am
Thread Starter 

Ah, my mistake. I thought it was just Rango, Puss in Boots and Chico & Rita. *quickly corrects post*

Reply
post #32 of 41
3/6/12 at 9:53am

Puss in Boots getting nominated seemed to be more just to send the message to Pixar that Cars 2 actually WAS that bad. Course, then the question becomes where the fuck was TinTin...

Reply
post #33 of 41
3/6/12 at 10:34am

I enjoyed Puss in Boots.  It's just that it faded from my mind really quickly.

 

Reply
post #34 of 41
3/6/12 at 11:29am
Thread Starter 

I dunno, the storytelling deficiencies really annoyed me while watching it. Especially since DreamWorks had been on a "Look, we can tell actual stories with some amount of depth!" roll. Even Megamind had at least some idea of what it wanted to say, and did so fairly well.

Reply
post #35 of 41
3/6/12 at 11:34am

I had no expectations for Puss in Boots.  That probably has a lot to do with it.  I didn't really care.

Reply
post #36 of 41
3/6/12 at 11:49am
Thread Starter 

Ah. Well, I was pretty much in the same boat, but I was barely even mildly entertained by the end result. The dance fight was a fun little sequence, but all the other chases and action scenes just felt really routine.

 

And again, if you're gonna cast Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris as a murderous married couple, what is the point of making half their dialogue off-screen and barely audible?

Reply
post #37 of 41
3/14/12 at 1:16am

Honestly, I gave up on DreamWorks animated films after I stopped watching Shrek 3 about half way through. God that was bad.  Fast forward a number of years And now I work there.  So I've felt that it'll be in my best interest to watch their past films. I enjoyed How to Train Your Dragon, and I'm passing on Kung Fu Panda. Jack Black just annoys me.  Is Mega Mind any good?  My issue, and I'm noticing this with their upcoming works, is that their character design is just lacking and boring in most cases.  Rise of the Guardian's looks good..And I'm going to fall on my NDA concerning The Croods and Turbo.

Reply
post #38 of 41
3/14/12 at 2:02am

You're working at Dreamworks now???  That's great!  Are you working on 3D-releases again or something else?

 

Also, you shouldn't skip on Kung Fu Panda.  I have a friend who hated Jack Black, but loved the movie. 

Reply
post #39 of 41
3/19/12 at 9:03am

The fact that PUSS got nominated for the best of anything shows how dumb the category is when they're scraping for noms.

Reply
post #40 of 41
3/22/12 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post

I'm passing on Kung Fu Panda. Jack Black just annoys me. 


I know several people that like the movie in spite of him.  You should give it a chance as mcnooj said.  I always present this movie and another the same way to those that are apprehensive: if you don't like Jack Black try KFP and if you don't like Will Ferrell try Elf.  Both movies utilize strong elements of their personality, but in very effective and appropriate ways.

 

And to comment on the topic; I have always been fond of Over the Hedge.  Standard story with horrid climax, but the stuff in between is so genuine, and each character is so well realized I adore it.  It gets bonus points for being one of very few movies that made me laugh, in the theater, so hard I cried. (the energy drink sequence near the end) I don't give a shit that Futurama did it before them and perhaps countless others before that!

 

HTTYD and KFP are quite good, but Flushed Away is my favorite of theirs.  Just an underrated flick all around.

 

Reply
post #41 of 41
3/22/12 at 1:43pm

Hahahah, NOBODY remembers the Over the Hedge even exists!

 

But I do recall enjoying the movie.  C'mon!  Nick Nolte as a bear!

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The DreamWorks Animation Thread