3 ms·

There's a bit of the whole Dreamworks vs Pixar thing. Ok here we go... Pixar consistently produces a form of the art that is simply higher than Dreamworks can

by froo 17y ago

There's a bit of the whole Dreamworks vs Pixar thing. Ok here we go... Pixar consistently produces a form of the art that is simply higher than Dreamworks can even approach. The thing about that is, that the two studios produce films for completely different markets. Dreamworks focusses directly on producing films for children (with a few outliers) and Pixar focusses on producing films for everyone (with a few outliers) Pixar's process is more story focussed than other studios, A typical Pixar film usually has a 4 year production cycle in which the first two of those are spent primarily on writing and rewriting the story to get the "feel" right. Even then, they have no problem with changing the story at the 11th hour. Case in point - WALL-E's ending was originally very different with WALL-E originally saving EVE from the trash compactors (essentially larger versions of WALL-E for irony). After the film was complete and was screened in Portland, Andrew Stanton changed the ending to what it is today. The story flows better. Compare that to something Dreamworks. Dreamworks focusses on making films which are more technically proficient and aimed at children (Kung Fu Panda was astounding from a technical standpoint and dominated the "Annies" last year, which is the animation industries version of the Emmys). Dreamworks are more focussed on the business side, rather than the entertainment side of the process. That's also why Dreamworks films are typically heavily backed by merchandising and advertising blitzes, because of this focus. So it's difficult to compare the two, it would be like saying a Michael Bay film is comparable to a Tarantino film. The fact is, they have different markets and so approach the filmmaking process in different ways. Nobody in their right mind would try and compare the two film styles. Lastly, before you try and judge Dreamworks' animation pedigree, Jeffrey Katzenberg co-founded the studio and he was responsible for the classic Disney franchsies between 88 and 94 like The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast (which I might add is the ONLY animation film EVER to be nominated for best film at the Oscars).

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Didn't you just say the same thing as the guy you replied to? From your first line I was expecting a rebuttal.
- froo 17y ago
  Actually I thought I explained it well enough. He's saying that Pixar films outpace Dreamworks films from an artistic point of view, because they both use the animation artform to tell their story. I'm saying that both studios have different primary goals, one is squarely focussed on maximising profits while the other is more focussed on 3D animation as an artform (which is apparent given its catmull/lasseter pedigree). That would be like trying to compare the artistic values of a Tarantino film to a Michael Bay film, which nobody in their right mind would - yet because the two studios use animation as an artform (instead of filming actors in the tarantino vs bay scenario which would be a classic apples vs oranges argument), people automatically lump them together... which is fundamentally wrong. Now if you want to discuss two animation studios which have similar goals - Pixar vs Blue Sky Studios is definitely good for comparison, Pixar vs Dreamworks, however, is not.
  - snprbob86 17y ago
    You should have read my entire message: "If you make a great animated film, and people pay to come see it, and they walk out with a smile on their faces, and that's what you set out to do: you have succeeded." You simply rehashed what I said, added some angst, accused me of comparing apples to oranges. You then proceeded to compare the same apples to the same oranges. Evidently, you can compare them; we both drew the same comparison. So... I'm confused... what's the problem here?
    - froo 17y ago
      Actually, I thought I had added additional information about technical proficiency in that same post but I got it mixed up with something else I argued some weeks ago on here. The only way to accurately compare the two would be on a technical proficiency and currently, Dreamworks edges out Pixar in that department, but by such a small margin that it's almost negligible. If we were to do a year by year comparison, UP and Monsters Vs Aliens were very similar (although some of the lighting in UP was fantastic, Jeremy Birn does some great stuff, I've read his book, fascinating stuff) Last year though, Kung Fu Panda was simply astounding from a complexity issue. Fur + Cloth and having cloth interact with that fur, especially when you're considering the fact that the character rigs have to do very complex manouvers to perform the kung fu moves... that's simply astounding. Even moreso when you consider that when the cloth was interacting with fur, it would flatten it when it would move over, with the fur springing back up afterwards (eg, master shifu) - Cloth + Fur are typically the hardest things to do in 3D, so having both work, plus on the scale that some of the scenes did (the revealing of the dragon warrior + the crowd) shows just how amazing the film was.

by froo 17y ago

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Didn't you just say the same thing as the guy you replied to? From your first line I was expecting a rebuttal.

froo 17y ago
Actually I thought I explained it well enough. He's saying that Pixar films outpace Dreamworks films from an artistic point of view, because they both use the animation artform to tell their story. I'm saying that both studios have different primary goals, one is squarely focussed on maximising profits while the other is more focussed on 3D animation as an artform (which is apparent given its catmull/lasseter pedigree). That would be like trying to compare the artistic values of a Tarantino film to a Michael Bay film, which nobody in their right mind would - yet because the two studios use animation as an artform (instead of filming actors in the tarantino vs bay scenario which would be a classic apples vs oranges argument), people automatically lump them together... which is fundamentally wrong. Now if you want to discuss two animation studios which have similar goals - Pixar vs Blue Sky Studios is definitely good for comparison, Pixar vs Dreamworks, however, is not.
- snprbob86 17y ago
  You should have read my entire message: "If you make a great animated film, and people pay to come see it, and they walk out with a smile on their faces, and that's what you set out to do: you have succeeded." You simply rehashed what I said, added some angst, accused me of comparing apples to oranges. You then proceeded to compare the same apples to the same oranges. Evidently, you can compare them; we both drew the same comparison. So... I'm confused... what's the problem here?
  - froo 17y ago
    Actually, I thought I had added additional information about technical proficiency in that same post but I got it mixed up with something else I argued some weeks ago on here. The only way to accurately compare the two would be on a technical proficiency and currently, Dreamworks edges out Pixar in that department, but by such a small margin that it's almost negligible. If we were to do a year by year comparison, UP and Monsters Vs Aliens were very similar (although some of the lighting in UP was fantastic, Jeremy Birn does some great stuff, I've read his book, fascinating stuff) Last year though, Kung Fu Panda was simply astounding from a complexity issue. Fur + Cloth and having cloth interact with that fur, especially when you're considering the fact that the character rigs have to do very complex manouvers to perform the kung fu moves... that's simply astounding. Even moreso when you consider that when the cloth was interacting with fur, it would flatten it when it would move over, with the fur springing back up afterwards (eg, master shifu) - Cloth + Fur are typically the hardest things to do in 3D, so having both work, plus on the scale that some of the scenes did (the revealing of the dragon warrior + the crowd) shows just how amazing the film was.