Madagascar

Post by **SPACEHERO55** » May 29th, 2005, 12:52 pm

I just got back from seeing Madagascar and well............ Im gonna say it. It was not as good as Pixar.

What I'm about to say might be interperted as me being biased as a Pixar fan.

Every single CGI Dreamworks that I have seen has major story problems. With the excetption of "Prince of Egypt" and "Sinbad" The Dreamworks films just don't flow. The pacing just seems off and twisted. The stories just don't flow. Everytime I come out of a Dreamworks CGI Animated film I feel confused and unsatisfied.

The Dreamworks films just seem to have really bad pacing. It's as if the writers make it up as they go along, Most Dreamworks animated films just seem to be a long chain of gags and jokes. It's all fluff and no substance. There is no solid, well grounded story or overlaying themes at the base of all the gags and jokes. Their stories just seems so......flimsy and weak and not high-quality or concrete. There is no clear vision. Characters seem to be just poorly thrown into the movie that serve no real purpose and are there simply just because they are funny.

Im sorry to say, but this is where Pixar excells. They are just geniuses at well structured solid good stories. They just know how to do this and do it well. Not only are they funny, but the stories are well written and executed with solid characters. Pixar films are just written better, plain and simple. Their stories flow better. Their story and character development. Pixar characters always seemed real to me. I could relate to them and I felt for them. I never felt that way about Dreamworks characters.

Another thing that annoys me about Dreamworks is their dependence on big name celebrity voices. To them it's all about star power. It's like "Oh we got Will Smith or Ben Stiller to do one of the voices, thats so great. That means we can focus less on a good story" It seems that getting big name starts to do voices is more important to them than a good story. They also use that to market their films way too much, they literaly smack you in the face with it in every single trailer and tv spot, they just use this to sell their movie to audiences. They just have celebrity voices for the sake of having celebrity voices. They don't care if the voice is right for the character or if it serves the story.It's such a shallow way to market their films and I hate it.

I also hate the way that Dreamworks relies so much on selling soundtracks to 15 yearolds. I hate how they use contemperary pop and rap artists to sell their movie. They fill the movies with loads of crappy contemperary music just to sell soundtracks. I think this is so disrespectfull to whatever composer is attached to the movie. Dreamworks fills their CGI animated films with soooo many songs that the musical score is almost non exsistant and the poor composer has no time to develop strong themes or good solid music cues. It's so disrespectfull.

Pixar does not do this. Sure they might have celebrity voices, but they dont hit you over the head with it. They dont use this to market their films. They don't need to. They let the story and the characters sell you on the movie, not the star power.

Musically Pixar respects their orchestral film music composers like Randy Newman and Michael Gicchino. They dont put contemperary songs in their films cause they feel it dates the film and takes away from the world they are trying to create. Pixar feels that a classical highly thematic orchestral score is a much better way to go.

So thats my rant. Yes Im a HUGE Pixar fan and I might be a little biased, but hey I think that most of you here will agree with me that Pixar just does it better.

Post by **SPACEHERO55** » May 29th, 2005, 12:55 pm

I just got back from seeing Madagascar and well............ Im going to say it. It was not as good as Pixar.

What I'm about to say might be interpreted as me being biased as a Pixar fan.

Every single CGI Dreamworks that I have seen has major story problems. With the exception of "Prince of Egypt" and "Sinbad" The Dreamworks films just don't flow. The pacing just seems off and twisted. The stories just don't flow. Every time I come out of a Dreamworks CGI Animated film I feel confused and unsatisfied.

The Dreamworks films just seem to have really bad pacing. It's as if the writers make it up as they go along, Most Dreamworks animated films just seem to be a long chain of gags and jokes. It's all fluff and no substance. There is no solid, well grounded story or overlaying themes at the base of all the gags and jokes. Their stories just seems so......flimsy and weak and not high-quality or concrete. There is no clear vision. Characters seem to be just poorly thrown into the movie that serve no real purpose and are there simply just because they are funny.

I’m sorry to say, but this is where Pixar excels. They are just geniuses at well structured solid good stories. They just know how to do this and do it well. Not only are they funny, but the stories are well written and executed with solid characters. Pixar films are just written better, plain and simple. Their stories flow better. Their story and character development. Pixar characters always seemed real to me. I could relate to them and I felt for them. I never felt that way about Dreamworks characters.

Another thing that annoys me about Dreamworks is their dependence on big name celebrity voices. To them it's all about star power. It's like "Oh we got Will Smith or Ben Stiller to do one of the voices, that’s so great. That means we can focus less on a good story" It seems that getting big name starts to do voices is more important to them than a good story. They also use that to market their films way too much, they literally smack you in the face with it in every single trailer and TV spot, and they just use this to sell their movie to audiences. They just have celebrity voices for the sake of having celebrity voices. They don't care if the voice is right for the character or if it serves the story. It’s such a shallow way to market their films and I hate it.

I also hate the way that Dreamworks relies so much on selling soundtracks to 15 year olds. I hate how they use contemporary pop and rap artists to sell their movie. They fill the movies with loads of crappy contemporary music just to sell soundtracks. I think this is so disrespectful to whatever composer is attached to the movie. Dreamworks fills their CGI animated films with soooo many songs that the musical score is almost non existent and the poor composer has no time to develop strong themes or good solid music cues. It's so disrespectful.

Pixar does not do this. Sure they might have celebrity voices, but they don’t hit you over the head with it. They don’t use this to market their films. They don't need to. They let the story and the characters sell you on the movie, not the star power.

Musically Pixar respects their orchestral film music composers like Randy Newman and Michael Gicchino. They don’t put contemporary songs in their films cause they feel it dates the film and takes away from the world they are trying to create. Pixar feels that a classical highly thematic orchestral score is a much better way to go.

So that’s my rant. Yes I’m a HUGE Pixar fan and I might be a little biased, but hey I think that most of you here will agree with me that Pixar just does it better.

Ronald C

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » May 30th, 2005, 2:20 am

I'd say the closest Pixar has come to making a DreamWorks film is "Finding Nemo."

There I said it -- my least favorite Pixar film is the one with the worst script and the most annoying, least pleasant voices (in my opinion) to listen to for 90 minutes => Ellen DeGeneres and Albert Brooks.

If the other Pixar films have clearly defined morals and characters, then this is the Pixar film that is the farthest from that general center that most Pixar films stick to.

I really didn't feel after watching that film that they went into recording with a finished script. As I said before, they chose two people who are probably about the most annoying 2 people (to my ears) I've heard paired up in any animated film I've seen in the past 20 years. I think the only actor that would make me want to hit myself more over the head with an Acme mallet than those 2 would be Woody Allen in Antz!

That said, even "Nemo" is better than any of the DreamWorks CGI pics I've seen...

Post by **AniMan** » May 31st, 2005, 11:44 am

SPACEHERO55 wrote: So that’s my rant. Yes I’m a HUGE Pixar fan and I might be a little biased, but hey I think that most of you here will agree with me that Pixar just does it better.

Ronald C

Well, Ron, I happen to agree with you for the most part. I have always said the reason Pixar is so successful is because it's all about story with them. I am probably more forgiving and appreciative of Dreamworks than you are, however. I think both Shrek movies are excellent (though the first one is the better of the two), and I loved Spirit and Prince of Egypt. Pixar has set the bar very high for CG animation. While they have yet to create a "bomb" both critically and financially speaking, Dreamworks has had a few, shall we say, so-so films (chief among them Shark Tale, which was financially successful but critically a bomb) and thus they are still a work in progress. While I can't say I don't put some weight in what the critics say about these movies, they can't sway me if I am determined to see a particular movie. I will go see Madagascar because it looks interesting and entertaining to me and I feel I may enjoy it. I am the foremost authority on my own opinion, so I will ultimately determine if I like something or not. But by the same token, if there is a movie that I am perhaps on the fence about seeing I usually will look to see what the critical reviews are for a film. I do tend to put more value in one critic's opinion over the others, simply for the reason that I have tended to agree with him more than any of the others, and he has been doing this for so long. That critic would, of course, be Roger Ebert. While I may not always agree with him (and have gone ahead and watched films he gave bad reviews to) I do value his critiques.
So critics do have their merit, but you ultimately decide whether or not a particular film is something that is appealing to you.

Post by **Eagle** » June 1st, 2005, 10:35 pm

Whats your thoughts on the film?

Post by **James** » June 1st, 2005, 10:42 pm

Sorry we didn't start this thread earlier! We got to talking about the film in another thread (animated-news.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=605) and I guess I forgot the title didn't mention Madagascar.

I loved the film. I've never been a big fan of the Shrek character and Shark Tale was just not that great. Madagascar had a fun script and the fun animation style, and avoided some negatives that have almost become a cliche with DreamWorks - this time there was no pop culture overload, and no celebrity voices over powering their characters. With so many animated films these days taking themselves so seriously, it almost seemed like going back to a time when animated films were just fun!

Post by **Christian** » June 2nd, 2005, 12:08 am

Animated films fun? Perish the thought!

Post by **Macaluso** » June 2nd, 2005, 12:42 am

I want to see it SO BAD but NO ONE has been available to go with me. I hate going to movies by myself.

Anyway, it looks awesome. I can't wait to see it. Especially because it has I LIKE TO MOVE IT MOVE IT in it. That's just awesome.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 2nd, 2005, 4:25 pm

First of all, Violet and Mac, how old are you guys and do you pay out of your own pocket to see movies?

Secondly, what makes you think EVERYBODY has all the time and money in the world to throw away on going to every darn film?

I'm 26. all I was trying to say was that a lot of reviewers come into a film with preconceived notions of what the film will be like that affects their reviews, especially with animated films. They don't have to be experts in animation, but they should rate a film fairly according to whether it entertains, has a good story, gets the job done. Not: "Well, it just didn't make me feel the way I did when I saw Finding Nemo." To those critics: Well if you love FN so much, go home and rent it instead of ruining things for people who worked very hard on these films.

I wish I could say this better, but there is a thread in Animation Nation that discusses all of this and perfectly gets across what I'm trying to say. www.animationnation.com ("Bad Reviews for Madagascar?") Sorry, I'm kind of out of it right now or I'd use my own words.

DreamWorks films are just different than Pixar films....the sooner critics understand that there'll be less small-minded, uninformed, ignorant and JUST PLAIN NASTY reviews of DW films.

Like Michael Barrier's. He actually liked this movie, but to preface his review he felt compelled to say: "I can't imagine how this reached the screen. Has Jeffrey Katzenberg been in a coma?"

What kind of comment is that? Is that supposed to be clever or something? (He's always making digs at Katzenberg, he probably thinks that makes him look intelligent. That and the constant a**-kissing he does with Pixar) That just proves what I meant by "just plain nasty" reviews of DW. It's been going on for quite some time now. I can't think of any other studio that has been savaged like this one simply for existing.

The critics are hard on DreamWorks because there IS a pattern to the kind of humor that's used in those films and the fact that they overly rely on and loudly shout out the fact that their films use celebrity voices. You can't deny those facts, Violet, as much as you're in love with Jeffrey Katzenberg and DreamWorks...

How can you think there's a pattern? Every DW film is different in plot, visual style and execution (which I can't say for Pixar films). Spirit had only one celebrity voice: Matt Damon, and Bryan Adams if you count him. (I barely knew who he was before the film, but that's just me.) Spirit was VERY different in tone and style than Shrek as was Sinbad and Prince of Egypt. And yeah so they sometimes use celebrity voices: is that a crime against humanity or something? As one very intelligent person on AN said, those voices do not determine the conception of the characters, the characters are conceived beforehand, regardless of what ignorant critics seem to think. I think if anything DW has proved that they do something different every time.

I do agree with you, George, about movies this year in general. They have been awful, I've seen almost NOTHING being advertised that I've wanted to see in the past six months. I've been waiting for summer since January.

But eh. I guess I'm not very hard on movies... I LIKED the american Godzilla movie and 8 Crazy Nights, despite some of their faults.

Even though it was gross at times I liked 8 Crazy Nights too.

The songs were cool, really funny and if anyone deserves to be an animated character it's Adam Sandler.

Post by **Ben** » June 3rd, 2005, 7:46 am

ShyViolet wrote:
How can you think there's a pattern?

I think Animan was talking about the CG specific films, Violet.

POE is as good as anything Disney did in the late 1990s (and I always refer to it as "Disney does Moses", since most of the staff followed JK out the Mouse House door to make it), and even Spirit had something unique about it.

But when you start looking at their CG stuff, it's not that textured. The best for me was actually Antz, which was clever, funny, amazingly well animated and way underrated at the time and well past its due. It also seems to have been forgotten by DWs, which is a shame, since it could have been their first major franchise.

Anyhoo, after that, after they had proven themselves with that, they seemed to get a little cocky. Swipes at Disney ensued in Shrek, which is all fair and that, since Disney is a pretty big target, but for me the most questionable thing about the DWs films is the humor.

Hopping between being cute and cuddly, and downright vulgar, the DWs (CGI) films seem happy to coast along on star performers reading out risque lines - something that was missing in their hand-drawn stuff and in Antz. Really, they're still too young (immature?) to start pinning a certain kind of film on them, but you have to admit that their last few projects (Shrek, Shrek 2, Shark Tale and Father Of The Pride) do include many (alveit funny) moments that sometimes seem out of place in the kid of movies these films are.

I'm just finishing up my review for Father/Pride's DVD, and I have to say that I am shocked by some of the language and the themes. Yes - age old story about how it's not a family show apart - I know it was aimed at a higher audience, as the DWs films are, but the design and trailering of the show made it very reasonable to expect that kids would want to stay up and watch/tape it for the next day. And OF COURSE JK knew this, but the show is too juvenile for adutls and too adult for kids, hence its failure, and I'm not surprised it didn't work.

This does seem to be a "pattern" of the DWs writing (the writing, not the look, though "loud and flashy" seem to be their visual trademark), which is content to throw in some gross out humor in there once in a while.

I haven't seen Madagascar yet (opens in the UK on July 15) but I'm willing to bet I'll enjoy it more than Shark Tale, as it not only looks cartoony, but all reviews are saying that it's the most un-DWs like film yet. Or could that simply be because Eric Darnell was able to steer his ship well in the course he wanted, and the way that made Antz all those years ago so enjoyable?

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 3rd, 2005, 12:17 pm

Hopping between being cute and cuddly, and downright vulgar, the DWs (CGI) films seem happy to coast along on star performers reading out risque lines - something that was missing in their hand-drawn stuff and in Antz. Really, they're still too young (immature?) to start pinning a certain kind of film on them, but you have to admit that their last few projects (Shrek, Shrek 2, Shark Tale and Father Of The Pride) do include many (alveit funny) moments that sometimes seem out of place in the kid of movies these films are.

Yeah...I get that. That's the only thing that bothers me about the films, particularly in Shrek. I have to admit the first time I saw that movie I was pretty shocked. I didn't get to watch more than an episode of FOTP, but what I heard about it kind of put me off. I thought it was going to be cute and was VERY surprised when I heard the subject matter they would be mentioning.
I think with the films they're just trying to appeal to as many people as possible, but yeah, movies aimed at kids (even if they are also aimed at the parents) shouldn't have that stuff. That's one of the biggest reasons why I prefer the 2d "epics" like Spirit, Sinbad and POE.

To be even more honest even though I love DW and everything, I think a lot of it has to do with JK's kind of ribald humor and the person he is. I recently read that originally in Madagascar Ben Stiller's Lion was just supposed to get hit with the old lady's purse until JK said: "Why not have her kick him in the crotch and mace him?" Uh.... (And just to be real honest, I really didn't like the part in Shrek 2 when Donkey accidentally kicks Shrek in the uh, you know.)

The DW animated films all reflect his personality in one way or another--the 2d ones are his more "worthy" efforts while the 3d ones are from the other side of his character. It was present at Disney when they made those high-concept live-action comedies through Touchstone which weren't classics by any means but raked in the dollars anyway. (Pretty Woman, Beaches, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, etc....) You can see it in the Lion King too--there's all that stuff about spirituality and responsiblity and at the same time you have Timon and Pumbaa and all of their, uh "issues".

It's interesting how he uses that phrase "The adult in every child" when he says who DW makes movies for. "Adults and the adult in every child." That's a neat inversion of Walt's formula but there are definite quetstions about whether or not appealing to the "adult" in every child is even good for that child. He never goes into what he means by this phrase because essentially (even if he's not aware of it) he's reflecting on his own life and his own childhood, which was kind of unusual. There's been very little said about his life, but apparently he was running around with a much older crowd from his early adolescence, (mostly people in the Lindsay administration) who weren't exactly the best role models all the time and were partially responsible for raising him, just like Timon and Pumbaa raised Simba. From the few articles and books that mention this period of time, he was apparently somewhat "out of synch" with other kids and had kind of a rough time growing up. I'm not exactly sure about the details--he is extremely private and almost never ever talks about his childhood. But from the little that I do know about it, the phrase "The adult in every child" says a lot more about Katzenberg than it does about who the films he makes are supposed to appeal to.

Post by **Josh** » June 3rd, 2005, 1:10 pm

I highly recommend the article about DreamWorks in Wired Magazine, which A-N reported today. It has a nice mix of history, description, and subtle opinion regarding DreamWorks Animation and Katzenberg.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.0 ... topic_set=

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 3rd, 2005, 1:12 pm

Thanks for the link!

Post by **Josh** » June 3rd, 2005, 1:13 pm

You're welcome!

Post by **Ben** » June 3rd, 2005, 2:05 pm

I think the "adult in every child" quote (which I just KEW you were gonna bring up!) is, sadly, little more than JK trying to sound as if DWs is the smart and sophisticated version of Disney.

Walt's "child in every adult" line was so much more sweet and innocent, and to an extent the Disney/Pixar films continue to do this.

JK's inversion (nice way of putting it!) is just that: an inversion without much basis other than to seem more "grown up" than Walt's comment.

It's like when he was head of Disney and his mantra was that they made "animated features" while other stuidos made "cartoons". Now he's moved to DreamWorks, he's been saying that about them too. I just think he likes to sell his product - something that he does well, but without much depth.

Madagascar

I could.

I could.

Re: I could.

Your Thoughts on Madagascar