Hey, everybody. I know how long it's been since I wrote. I haven't given up on the dream. I apparently had more free time in the summer than I realized. Please accept my apology. I noticed earlier this week a friend of mine began following the blog. And here's how awesome Phil is: now I know he's expecting material, I'm going to write a bonus blog just to tide him over until I finally conclude my research for A Bug's Life.
My buddy Adam sent me a cartoon depicting Buzz Lightyear and Woody badmouthing Dreamworks movies between takes of Toy Story 3. They name many successful Pixar movies next to many movies Dreamworks came out with. To me, the cartoon shows two things quite well: How formulaic Dreamworks movies can be, and how snooty Pixar die-hards can be. I've noticed how often positive Pixar reviews tend to dog on Dreamworks, so I vowed to steer away from that here. The truth remains, however, that my opinion of one affects my opinion of the other. So I'd like to elaborate more why I admire Pixar movies so much, especially in light of what Dreamworks offers.
It was inevitable. Dreamworks' first cartoon was Antz, and almost dared us to compare it to A Bug's Life. The two approaches fascinate me. Antz really sets the mold for Shrek and other movies to come. A Bug's Life, meanwhile, seems almost to deliberately avoid the same story as Antz. But since the two movies came out only about 2 months apart it's brilliant how different they are because they had to have been worked on pretty much at the same time. Nowadays A Bug's Life is largely forgotten, sandwiched between two Toy Story movies. It's like the movie we watched while we waited for more Toy Story.
So how are Pixar and Dreamworks different? Several ways:
Style
Pixar loves doing research and incorporating what they learn into their stories. Ants sometimes corral aphids like cattle, so why wouldn't the queen have an aphid for a pet? The father in Finding Nemo is a homebody like all clown fish. And the cooks in Ratatouille walk and act like real artisans in a restaurant. The movie makes a big deal that Remy is not supposed to walk on his hind legs. It isn't the way of the rat.
Dreamworks likes research, too, but they tend to translate what they've learned into human terms. The ants in Antz burrow, but they use pickaxes. In Shark Tale, fish walk upright on their fins, with smaller fins where ears would be. Quadrupeds in Madagascar grab things with their paws. Yes, it's just a cartoon, but giving animals human qualities feels like pigeon-holing the characters into a man-made story, rather than letting the story come organically out of the characters themselves.
Story
Let's give a rundown of Pixar stories:
An old toy envies a new toy's popularity.
An ant helps overthrow oppression and creates a new way of life for his colony.
An old toy chooses between immortality and loyalty to friends and family.
A monster overturns a widely held myth, and uncovers a scandal in an energy plant.
A father searches for a kidnapped son, hoping to patch up the relationship.
A superhero comes out of hiding to deal with a misgiving made earlier in his career.
A racing champion breathes new life into a dusty, sleepy town.
A cook chooses between doing what he wants and honoring his family.
A robot redeems the human race from self-made exile.
An old man travels to South America to fulfill his life's greatest regret.
Old toys look for new purpose when their owner out-grows them.
Now for Dreamworks. These are their own movies, not the ones developed in conjunction with other companies:
An ant has trouble fitting in.
An ogre is bitter because he doesn't fit in.
A fish doesn't fit in.
A zebra wants to escape a zoo because he doesn't fit in.
An ogre doesn't fit in with his in-laws.
An ogre doesn't fit in as a king.
A bee doesn't fit in.
A panda doesn't fit in.
A lion doesn't fit in when he reunites with his family.
A young lady survives a radiation accident, but no longer fits in.
A viking's son doesn't fit in.
An ogre doesn't fit in as a father.
An alien doesn't fit in.
Yes, there's more to a Dreamworks story than that, but take away the action and this list describes the same main conflict each hero has. Not only that, but Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon were based on books, and Pixar's list are all stories from scratch. Pixar is reportedly working on adaptations, but after showing what original ideas they can create it's clear they know how to make stories work.
I'd like to give credit where due, and I admit Dreamworks has improved their content. I liked Monsters vs Aliens, Kung Fu Panda, and How to Train your Dragon. The latter two, in fact, seemed to tone down their pop-culture references considerably, and I could relate more to the characters. I joke sometimes that Dreamworks is starting to think more like Pixar.
Star Power
Woody Allen and Sharon Stone were big names years before Antz came out. Every Dreamworks movie since then advertised all-star casts to go along with their movies, so much that for the fourth Shrek movie a reporter made a big deal that the voice of Rumplestilskin was by a writer, not a famous actor. I could almost hear Pixar writers rolling their eyes because their team had been doing that kind of thing for years.
Tom Hanks was famous but not a big deal, and Tim Allen was kind of popular as a TV comedian. They became more in demand after Toy Story's release. Actors are hired for their ability to vanish into their characters. I don't watch Finding Nemo thinking, "Ellen DeGeneres is funny!" I think, "Dori's funny!" Early in the creative process, the writers or animators at Pixar record demos of what the characters should sound like. Often (Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, Incredibles, WALL-E) the demo sounds so good that the no-name records the final voice. In my opinion that helps the audience immerse into the story more fully.
Infrastructure
Dreamworks churns out the movies, but as I mentioned briefly, not all of them are 100% Dreamworks. Some are in conjunction with other studios, which explains how they can quickly release so many films in succession. Ultimately, comparing Dreamworks to Pixar is apples to oranges. Dreamworks is not solely animation after all, but a movie distribution group. They're more like Disney as a whole, and we know that not everything Disney produces has lasting value. This realization came to me recently, so I can finally cut them slack, and I can be at peace with my views of Pixar and Dreamworks.
Pixar, meanwhle, continues their steady pace of one movie per year. And their fans keep waiting, wondering what they'll pull out of their hats next.
