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

http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2006/06/wh ... ovies.html
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?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.
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!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?
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)a few other films from the studio all got great reviews, right?
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:And "Flushed Away" was mainly an Aardman production, even though DW did end up doing some of the animation themselves.
And even the business of animation blog:
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.
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.
I hope you get to do it!You're speaking to someone who wants to write movie reviews for a living someday.
OK, fair enough!And as for "Happy Feet", SEE IT before you go saying that it's only getting good reviews because of its "Message".
Your welcome!ShyViolet wrote:I'll keep it in mind Dan!Thanks.
Boy, were you right about the review. But lets not turn this into another 'Cars' threadShyViolet 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.
You recall wellShyViolet 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)
Whoops! Didn't mean to get on this AGAIN....my bad.Yaaaaaawwwnnn...
Moving on...
Thanks again Dan!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
Peter O'Toole!!!!There's a ton of buzz right now with Peter O' Toole in "Venus"