dreamworks animation Tagged Articles at Cinematical

The time when people thought that Dreamworks Animation might hold an artistic candle to Pixar is probably past. The hollow (if sometimes amusing) spectacle of this weekend's Monsters vs. Aliens will probably put that notion to rest for a while longer. Where Pixar always emphasized story, emotion and artistry, Dreamworks went a more straightforwardly commercial route, confusing movie stars with voice actors and generally going for broad parody instead of anything more complicated and difficult.

Which is not to say some of their movies haven't been clever. I thought the first Madagascar was funny and inventive, and all the Shreks had varying amounts of charm. I'm curious what the consensus Dreamworks Animation favorite is, so I created this poll. I've excluded their early traditional-animation flicks for space, and the Aardman co-production Flushed Away, 'cause I don't really think that one counts. Weigh in below!

I've cast the first vote. My pick? Absolutely no contest: it's Antz, Dreamworks' first foray into computer animation and by far their best. All of their other films are characterized by snark, sarcasm, and a total lack of dramatic ambition; they're sporadically funny larks. Antz is a movie -- funny, but also sad, exciting, and memorable. And that opening pan through the ant colony, set to Harry Gregson-Williams and John Powell's rousing score, is as spectacular as anything in Monsters vs. Aliens, eleven years earlier. I think it holds up against almost any Pixar release, except maybe Monsters, Inc.

Video taken down at studio's request

It may be bootlegged -- and therefore a limited-time offering -- but from very early on, this trailer for next spring's 3-D animated bonanza Monsters vs. Aliens had me sold and only worked its way up from there.

I like that all of the human characters appear to be related to the Parr family, and that the monsters and aliens on display promise to look even cooler in three dimensions. I dig Stephen Colbert as the President and Keifer Sutherland as General W.R. Monger, not to mention other voices by Will Arnett, Seth Rogen, Rainn Wilson, Hugh Laurie, and Paul Rudd. (Oh, and Reese Witherspoon never did anyone any harm either.) Most importantly, the project gives off a saavy sense of humor without relying as heavily on pop culture riffs as Dreamworks used to. A '50-styled sci-fi send-up should hold my attention as much as the little ones, if done right.

Between this, Kung Fu Panda, and Over the Hedge, I think that it's fair to say that Dreamworks Animation has found a reliable niche as Pixar's hipper cousin. With any luck, I won't be proven wrong come March 27, 2009.

Folks weren't leaping over one another to take in the latest Shrek entry (although I kind of dug it), but that certainly won't stop Dreamworks Animation SKG from shoveling out at least two more films. We already know that plans for a Shrek 4 are in the works (set to be released in 2010), but will that mark the end of our lovable green ogre? Studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg announced at the Allen & Co. media conference that work on a fifth and final chapter will begin after the fourth is released. Rich Sullivan, a Dreamworks Animation spokesman, added: "The story itself has five chapters. Based on the success of the first three films, at the very least, the next one, Shrek 4, is warranted."

This is all rather interesting, as Katzenberg (according to a story in The Hollywood Reporter this past May) always envisioned Shrek as a four-part package, with the fourth (and final?) film telling an origin story. So where did this mysterious fifth film come from? In the month and a half since Shrek the Third hit theaters, has Katzenberg changed his mind? Did he confuse the numbers? Because Sullivan said the story has five chapters, not four. Now I'm confused. I could understand not ending the series with an "origin story," because that would just be weird. Instead, they'll probably use the origin thing to set up a fifth and final film. But "does Shrek need an origin story," asked our own Scott Weinberg back when that story first hit the net. "He's a freakin' ogre. Is there some fascinating back-story about how he came to live in a swamp?" I sure hope so! If you were in charge, where would you take the Shrek franchise from here? Should they stop at three, or are you willing to give them another chance with four ... and five?

The 2007 summer movie season hasn't even begun yet, but we're already receiving news about release date competition for 2009. Yes, 2009. It wasn't enough that we saw such premature territorial battling over Memorial Day, 2008 (Indiana Jones and the Fourth Installment vs. Speed Racer); the studios had to go and start the claim for that kick-off holiday of a whole two years away. There is something more significantly different about this battle, though. Both of the movies scheduled for release on Memorial day in 2009 will only be exhibited in the new 3-D format. 20th Century Fox has James Cameron's Avatar duking it out against Dreamworks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens, which is being planned as that studio's first release to play exclusively in 3-D.

The reason that this is such a noteworthy conflict is that in 2009 there may not be enough 3-D-equipped screens to handle simultaneous 3-D releases. The expected amount of screens that will be able to accommodate a 3-D movie at that time is 5,000 (currently there are only 700 screens able to do so), which doesn't even meet the demands of Dreamworks' Jeffrey Katzenberg, who claims he needs 6,000 screens for Monsters. And since Cameron's film is now being said to have a budget close to $200 million, it is assumed that Fox will have a similar demand for its own title. Obviously one of the films will need to move, and it will likely be Monsters. With Avatar being Cameron's first film since Titanic, it is certainly the more eagerly awaited picture and is therefore the most powerful. Expect an announcement sometime in the next year that states that Monsters will relocate to June.

Because there is still good in this world, it has taken only about three months for Aardman Animation to find a new partnership in Hollywood. The animation studio, which DreamWorks mistakenly flushed away back in January, has a new deal with Sony, and it sounds like it will be a much better team-up for the Aardman gang than their last. Reportedly, Aardman will not face the same sort of assimilation it faced at DreamWorks, where its most recent picture, Flushed Away, suffered from too much Hollywoodization. Instead, it is expected to produce a new title every 18 months, each with different budgets and some being made with CGI (as opposed to the studio's signature claymation style), all with less restriction from Sony and all based out of Aardman's home base in Bristol rather than out of Hollywood. The deal is presently set at a three year agreement, but Sony seems hopeful about the partnership lasting a long time.

Sony should benefit just as much from the deal, which will increase its output of animated films. The studio recently got into the competitive animation market full force, and so far with Monster House and Open Season it has only been performing so-so (its next release is Surfs Up, coming out June 8). Aardman will be bringing familiar characters to the table, though, with confirmed new Wallace & Gromit features. The Aardman name is also a fairly known brand around the world, which should prove profitable for overseas distribution (which Sony seems to appreciate even more than others). The partnership already has four projects in the works -- they obvioulsy aren't wasting any time -- but we are still probably a few years away from seeing the first collaboration (I'm hoping one is the animated mockumentary Tortoise vs. Hare). Although I wish Sony could now grab Crood Awakening, which had originated as an Aardman project, away from DreamWorks, I am otherwise really happy about this partnership. I may even be happier than Wallace at a cheese buffet.

When DreamWorks Animation ended its partnership with Aardman Animation earlier this year, I was disappointed to learn that DreamWorks would be holding on to Crood Awakening, an animated caveman project the two studios were working on together that was written by Monty Python alum John Cleese and Racing Stripes scribe Kirk De Micco. Personally, I'd like Aardman to be in charge of all animated films, especially any co-written by the man who gave us the Ministry of Silly Walks. Alas, Crood will be made by Americans, and even much of Cleese's and De Micco's script is being rewritten.

The film is now in the hands of Chris Sanders, who is best known as the co-writer-director of Lilo & Stitch. Sanders just left Disney, where he had been taken off American Dog, supposedly for making it "too quirky for its own good." He plans to do a significant rewrite on Crood, which will probably lose much of its British flavor, though if we're lucky will also be filled with lots of quirk. The other major difference between what the project used to be and what it is now is the style of its animation. Under Aardman the film was expected to be made with claymation, the studio's usual medium despite its use of computers for Flushed Away, but now it will certainly be done with computer animation -- and shot with 3-D projection in mind, of course. We have plenty of years before we get to see if DreamWorks' rearrangement works out, as the studio won't be able to release the film until 2010 or 2011.

After a bad year at the box office, which resulted in a major financial blow, DreamWorks Animation is anxiously awaiting the release of Shrek the Third. The sequel will be out in a month and it is sure to put the studio back in the black, though I have to point out how appropriate the movie would have been in the new 3-D format. Aside from 3-D being so hot right now, it would have been great for the film to be released as Shrek 3-D (when I was a kid it seemed all franchises went to part three just for that gimmick.) Now the studio must wait and put out the planned fourth installment of the green ogre as Shrek 4, in 3-D. And we can be sure it will actually be in the format because as of 2009 all of DreamWorks Animation's features will be in 3-D.

If a 3-D Shrek title sounds familiar, you may remember the short film shown at Universal Studios and then released on DVD a few years back (even before Shrek 2 came out.) The IMDb actually labels the thing as Shrek 4-D, but I'm pretty sure the video is titled Shrek 3-D. Of course, it was made before the current Real D 3-D technology was being utilized (it still used the red and blue glasses.) Actually, if you follow all the trends closely, you may even remember that the first Shrek was supposed to be shown on IMAX in digital 3-D (again, the old kind.)

Have you noticed how many animated movies have been in the theater over the past few months? There have been Monster House, Open Season, The Wild, Over the Hedge, Barnyard, Cars, and The Ant Bully to name a few, which doesn't even cover the glut of sequels and straight-to -video DVDs that have been released and re-released, including last week's The Little Mermaid: Ultimate Line Our Pockets Disney Adamantium Edition. Of those, only Monster House doesn't focus on talking animals, insects or vehicles. As a result, the novelty of both animated films, and the concepts they bring with them are making audiences weary, according to The New York Times.

Popular animated movies used to belong only to Disney, and they released them sparingly, not wanting to step on the toes of their own product. However, once Disney/Pixar became a force to reckon with, Disney was releasing CGI films on top of its own traditionally animated films, and began crowding the schedule with more films each year. These days, animated films crowd theaters with offerings from Disney/Pixar, Sony Imageworks, Dreamworks Animation, Warner Bros., and Paramount/Nickelodeon. It's a jungle out there -- or a forest, or a farmyard, or ... well, you get the idea.

This is typical of the Hollywood "me too!" syndrome that hits when something works well and starts making tons of money for a studio. Everyone else wants in on it. Horror films started making money, so now everyone is putting out a lot of horror movies. The Lord of the Rings opened the door for more fantasy films like The Chronicles of Narnia, and Eragon, and the popularity of X-Men gave rise to a slew of comic book movies including Spider-Man, Superman Returns and the upcoming Ghost Rider.

Animated films have always been a treasure for younger and older audiences alike, and are part of a dwindling part of the theater experience that people can still enjoy as a family. Are you still going to see animated movies?


Other animation on Cinematical:

The Demise of Hand-Drawn Animation

Studios Still Don't Get Animation

Dreamworks Choosing Quantity over Quality

Golden Globes Adds Animation Award