Award archives...

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 26th, 2006, 2:19 am

I'll keep it in mind Dan!

Thanks.

Also, here's a WEIRD negative review of Cars I found. I actually don't agree with it. (surprise, surprise!

) It's pretty closed-minded and ignorant.

http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2006/06/wh ... ovies.html

Post by **Dacey** » November 26th, 2006, 12:00 pm

ditto FA reviews: if they knew DW did half of it, as well as what that ACTUALLY MEANS, they would have been like--"too many crotch gags! Too fast-paced! Stupid pop culture jokes!"--which there were quite a few of. But since they think it's Aardman, of course it's "clever" and "witty" and "charming". Yeah, whatever.

That's why "Over the Hedge", "Antz", "Shrek", "Shrek 2", "The Prince of Egypt" and a few other films from the studio all got great reviews, right?

And "Flushed Away" was mainly an Aardman production, even though DW did end up doing some of the animation themselves.

Film critics are not just a bunch of deluded snobs (well, okay, they may be snobs) who have no idea what they're talking about. You're speaking to someone who wants to write movie reviews for a living someday.

And as for "Happy Feet", SEE IT before you go saying that it's only getting good reviews because of its "Message".

Okay. Rant over.

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 26th, 2006, 4:54 pm

That's why "Over the Hedge", "Antz", "Shrek", "Shrek 2", "The Prince of Egypt" and a few other films from the studio all got great reviews, right?

Two of those titles were released eight years ago...(before the Pixar/DW "rivalry" really got going, when it became fashionable to bash DW) Shrek and Shrek 2 are the wild cards (hey, everyone in the media loves Shrek right?? 'Cause those reviews about bashing Disney fairy tales and what "little midget" means made them sound soooo witty and knowledgable!

) and I'd say Over the Hedge's reviews were MILDLY, almost reluctantly positive.

a few other films from the studio all got great reviews, right?

Which ones? I really don't remember any "great" reviews for Shark Tale or Madgascar (even among the positives). As I recall both of them were definetely below 70%. El Dorado and Sinbad were mostly panned, and Spirit was about 50/50 as I recall--and the positive reviews were mostly: "Cute movie...nice to look at....good for the kids." (more or less how OTH was described as well)

Quite different from "These people are geniuses....this film will be remembered for all time....this studio can't make a wrong step!" isn't it?

And "Flushed Away" was mainly an Aardman production, even though DW did end up doing some of the animation themselves.

Well, not trying to argue here (so forgive me) ....but, no. It was more along 50/50. Hence all the "tension" we've been hearing about. Aardman resented DW coming in and pretty much taking over. And it wasn't just "doing the animation"--it was jokes, storyboarding, all that...I'd like to cite several sources:

TAG blog:

At 11/15/2006 07:29:19 AM, Anonymous said...
There are several confusing errors(apparently)in the Variety article. First, "Flushed" is the third film, not the second, in the 5 picture deal.

Secondly, there haven't been "two subsequent misses" after last year's Wallace & Gromit feature--Flushed is the only subsequent release, and it's been far from a "miss" so far(barely 2 weeks!). The writer seems to have completely forgotten about "Chicken Run" and the fact that that film was a hit.

The assertions of the previous poster are simply ignorant. Obviously he has nothing to do with DW or Aardman, because if he did he'd know that all 3 films have used Dreamworks story people, and Flushed Away was made entirely by the Dreamworks studio, with Aardman's producers on board as well as DW's. One-half of the directing team was a DW, not an Aardman employee(albeit a british citizen who'd worked on Aardman films before--in fact, DW is a pan-EU studio, with more ex-pat artists there than anywhere else in Hollywood), and all the story artists and animators on it are DW's. The idea and much of the final words and supervision were Aardman's, but it was a true co-production of which BOTH studios are both proud of and responsible for.

At 11/15/2006 07:54:35 AM, Anonymous said...
The animation on 'Le Toad' and 'Le Frog' was great!

Rufus.

At 11/15/2006 09:11:44 AM, Kevin Koch said...
Just a further clarification of the long post above -- there were 6 or 8 Aardman animators on Flushed Away, working side-by-side with a few dozen DreamWorks' animators. As stated, all the production work was done in Glendale at DreamWorks, but there were key creatives from Aardman on board at every stage. As said, it was definitely a co-production.

Regarding the Variety article, was the 5-picture deal struck after Chicken Run? I think it might have been, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the point remains that the article was a tad too quick to brand Flushed Away a financial disappointment, to put it mildly.

And even the business of animation blog:

Speaking of recent releases, Flushed Away has been declared a failure by DreamWorks. Okay, they didn’t use those words. But, they might as well of. My often wrong gut instincts are telling me that this was said only as an excuse for the Aardman/DreamWorks split that recently took place. These two forces seemed to be at creative odds and after the expensive experiment, it was just too much to handle for both sides. Aardman didn’t care for the story decisions from DWA, and Katzenberg didn’t care for the unShrek-like BO numbers. After talking with a couple of people over in the UK, it sounds like Jeffrey put his dirty paws all over everything and ruffled a few feathers in the process. So much so, that at least a couple of people left the project in protest.

On the one hand people (I mean people in general) are talking about DW interfering wih the story and ruining everything, on the other hand they don't want to give DW any credit for this film!

C'mon, that's completely inconsistent. If DW screwed up and alientated Aardman through pushy tactics and hands-on management, logically I think they ALSO would deserve praise for the film's strengths, shouldn't they?

Which as I saw it was the jokes, pacing, wit, and action.

You're speaking to someone who wants to write movie reviews for a living someday.

I hope you get to do it!

Like I said, I think some critics are OK. (I also used to want to be a film critic, oh once upon a time!) I do read film criticism all the time. Roger Ebert, Kenneth Turan (LA Times) and Owen Gleiberman (EW) are among my faves.

It's just that IMO, many of them just don't have a whole lot of credentials when it comes to film, literature, stories, characters, subtexts, and everything they are professing to know so much about. IMO that makes most of them, well, not much better than the average perrson as far as their profession goes! Actually, in many ways I think the average person/fanboy is a lot more intelligent--at least he is open minded and doesn't review films to impress peopel!

And as for "Happy Feet", SEE IT before you go saying that it's only getting good reviews because of its "Message".

OK, fair enough!

Post by **Ben** » November 26th, 2006, 6:10 pm

Yaaaaaawwwnnn...

Moving on...

Post by **Meg** » November 26th, 2006, 6:17 pm

Also, here's a WEIRD negative review of Cars I found. I actually don't agree with it. (surprise, surprise! ) It's pretty closed-minded and ignorant.

It doesn't seem that negative (the guy said he liked it, after all), but yes, it was a bit silly. Funny, though.

Post by **Daniel** » November 26th, 2006, 6:20 pm

ShyViolet wrote:I'll keep it in mind Dan! Thanks.

Your welcome!

and that's good to know btw

ShyViolet wrote: Also, here's a WEIRD negative review of Cars I found. I actually don't agree with it. (surprise, surprise! ) It's pretty closed-minded and ignorant.

Boy, were you right about the review. But lets not turn this into another 'Cars' thread

ShyViolet wrote: Spirit was about 50/50 as I recall--and the positive reviews were mostly: "Cute movie...nice to look at....good for the kids." (more or less how OTH was described as well)

You recall well

However, I do remember Roger Ebert praising the film, and saying its what Disney films of today are missing. Eh, I agree, even though I think Lilo & Stitch condradicts that statement

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 26th, 2006, 6:41 pm

Yaaaaaawwwnnn...

Moving on...

Whoops! Didn't mean to get on this AGAIN....my bad.

Hey WJ let's drop it OK?

I forfeit.

Apologies.

You recall well However, I do remember Roger Ebert praising the film, and saying its what Disney films of today are missing. Eh, I agree, even though I think Lilo & Stitch condradicts that statement

Thanks again Dan!

Also I forgot that Ebert said that--good to know.

Post by **Daniel** » November 26th, 2006, 7:09 pm

No problem Vi

Post by **Dacey** » November 27th, 2006, 6:22 pm

Hey WJ let's drop it OK? I forfeit.

You forfeit? Good. Because that means...

VICTORY FOR ME!!!

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Or maybe not...

Post by **Rio** » December 2nd, 2006, 5:10 pm

In terms of Best Picture I'm thinking something like this.
Dreamgirls and The Departed with DEFINATELY get nominated with Dreamgirls probably winning. I'm guessing The Queen and Babel (dark horse alert) will be nominated too.

For Actor and Actres...
There's a ton of buzz right now with Peter O' Toole in "Venus" as well as Forrest Whitaker. Also look for Will Smith.
Helen Mirren in "The Queen" is the favorite right now. And some people are even saying Meryl Streep for "The Devil Wears Prada." I'm skeptical but who knows.

For Supporting Actor and Actress...
Everyone's saying it's between Jack Nickolson, Eddie Murphy, and Brad Pitt.
But for supporting actress I'd saying Jennifer Hudson is a shoe in.

Don't be surprised when only "Our Town" gets nominated. I'd suspect "Listen" from Dreamgirls to win though, partly because Beyonce's my girl.

Now our favorite... Animated Feature.
I'm really worried this year. I want my people as Disney and PIXAR to take this category but Monster House and Happy Feet are coming on strong. I will be close.

Post by **ShyViolet** » December 2nd, 2006, 6:52 pm

There's a ton of buzz right now with Peter O' Toole in "Venus"

Peter O'Toole!!!!

AHHHHH, I love him (as actor

) I just watched Lawrence of Arabia again. (My fave movie of all time)

I know he's old now but he was so unbelievably hot in Lawrence. (um, in both senses I guess....

)

Plus, it's a great movie with one of the BEST scores of all time!!!! (Maurice Jarre, who also did the music for Ghost!)

Peter was also in Troy 2 years ago. He played King Priam.

As for Best Picture and actor--What about Christian Bale in the Prestige? What about Christopher Nolan for Best Director?

Also, I'm hoping Affleck gets AT LEAST a nod for HollywoodLand. Yeah, yeah, I know he's "Ben Affleck" but critics really warmed to him in this part. And as I said before--he DID win an Oscar before, for Good Will Hunting, Best Screenplay.

**************************************************

I DOUBT that Superman Returns will get a nod for anything, which really shows how crummy it was in many ways. Yeah, it's a popcorn picture, BUT this was expected to be THE BIGGEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR, BY A RELATVIELY PRESTIGIOUS DIRECTOR BOTH CRITICALLY AND COMMERCIALLY!!!

Actor: I thought Routh was good but the script shot him in the foot--both feet.

Post by **Ben** » December 2nd, 2006, 6:58 pm

When did we go back to naming Pixar in capitals!??

If someone can tell me what they stand for, fair enough...

...but it's <I>not</I> an acronym!!

Post by **ShyViolet** » December 3rd, 2006, 4:46 am

Maybe it's because their logo is always in captitals:

P I X A R

Post by **Meg** » December 3rd, 2006, 9:32 am

I think you're right about that, Vi.

Post by **Ben** » December 3rd, 2006, 11:07 am

Oh, well then, we'll have to start calling Universal UNIVERSAL, and Walt Disney Pictures Walt Disney PICTURES, and 20th Century Fox 20TH CENTURY FOX, etc...

Ya'dig? I just don't get it with Pixar though. Maybe because it's a made up word that people think means something else?

Well, it's pixel and art meshed together, and that's that!!! <I>Grrrrr!!!</I>