In Wikipedia’s defense, there are hordes of people who hit the refresh key on the Recently Changed page constantly looking for inaccurices. But yes, you and A113 are correct. If I want a quick date or some information about a movie and its characters, Wikipedia rocks. If I’m writing a research paper, Wikipedia is a great place to start and get an overview. I’d never cite it, though.
But yes, quite. Dreamworks = rip off? Agree? Sometimes? Quite…
I totally agree with you. I have my own ways of defending that website, but I’m not gonna post them here because they’re off topic.
No, I have not been attacked by any “Wikipedia monster”. 
If someone I encounter online or in real life has something against Wikipedia, I’m fine with that. That’s just his/her opinion. I just hope he/she doesn’t intend to pressure ME into hating Wikipedia.
If this keeps going, then i’m gonna have to make a Wikipedia thread. XD
RR: No, it’s just trusted too much. Remember when we thought Remy’s name was Ratatouille, and Emile’s name was Rollie? And don’t forget Wikipedia tricking PixarVixen into thinking that Up would be about Don Quixote. 
In other words, it is unwise to trust Wikipedia’s words.
Pixelated: You are unwise. 
They said that Michael Lisko died when he was still alive!!! And I told them about it and they didn’t believe me and they left it there!!!
RMSH: By seeing "Rabid Wikipedia fan for life! on your siggy, it’s easy to tell you’ve been eaten by the Wikipedia Monster.
I’m going to destroy Wikipedia one of these days, whether it’s by buying it, hacking it, bribing it, or exploding the MediaWiki servers. Whatever it takes, you can count on me. 
Then we’ll use Google for our information: Much more reliable.
In the meantime, be wise and do a Google search first, and avoid Wikipedia even if it’s first on the list. If you’re lazy and want to use Wikipedia as your source, then look up the information first on a Google search. If it’s somewhere else other than Wickedpedia, then you may use it on here.
But if you don’t, I’m gonna get you, one way or another, i’m gonna find that Wickedpedia Monster and KILL HIM! Mwahahaha! 
I bet this is you by now: 
XD
B-on-T, please!
Yeah, you try telling that to a college professor! xD That’s just as bad as Wikipedia!
Anyways, back on topic!! 
Because if you search for something on Google, a Wikipedia page definitely won’t come up at all.
Anyway, back on topic, there’s one thing that always intrigues me about Dreamworks. For Pixar, there are many people who will say that they enjoy Pixar films- like us, for example! There are obvious Pixar fans out there. But what seems a lot rarer are the diehard Dreamworks fans. Sure, you’ll always come across people who enjoy most of their movies, but there are rarely any real fans of Dreamworks that love practically every feature that they’ve released. I guess it shows how quality can get you far in the movie industry, when on the other hand, churning out mindless sequels will get you people that will see the movie for a laugh and not have a deeper experience.
But then one might argue that every person’s admission ticket to see a movie is still the same, and yes, Dreamworks make a lot of money, so perhaps what they’re doing is ‘right’.
Okay, that’s it!
good idea. BACK TO DREAMWORKS, PEOPLE!
Well, if you think about it, the only thing that’s probably more than a coincidence is the species. But the stories’ plots are quite different.
Example:
Flushed Away - Ratatouille
Yeah, both involve rats…and sewers…but that’s probably where the similatities end.
Flushed Away is about a lonely rat in England named Roddy that gets flushed down to the sewers and meets a female rat. The comic relief is the singing slugs. And the main villian, a toad, is getting revenge on rats for taking his place as a pet. Interaction with humans- very little. Couple- Roddy and Rita (rats). Personification- well, they works boats and wear clothes/ walk upright like people. Shows some minor gross-out parts.
Ratatouille is about a rat in France named Remy that wants to cook. He is separated from his family by the sewers. Comic relief- I don’t know about this, but probably the way Remy controls Linguini. The villains are Skinner, the head chef that loses his temper easily, and Ego, a really picky critic. Interactions with human- a lot. Couple- Linguini and Colette (humans). There is no shown romance between rats, nor a female rat. Personification- not as much. They use real rat fact/.habits/behavior for this, as well as an excuse for walking on hind legs. Ratatouille isn’t as gross-out.
There are only a few things they have in common. Barely a ripoff except the species.
Although I seem to like Ratatouille better, Flushed Away was still a good film. Maybe Dreamworks isn’t as much as a ripper-offer as we think. (And that’s a good thing for both animations studios)
See I’ve never thought that movies with the same species were coincidences. They’ve always just been characters to me.
i never saw flushed away as a ripp-off (that was arrdmands, not really dreamworks by the way) sure, they both star rats and SOME sewer themes, but really. completely different stories.
Was it Jeffrey Katzenburg along with Eisner that set Disney into sequelitis with Cinderella 2, Bambi 2, Little Mermaid 2 etc? If so, then the business model of Dreamworks can be seen to the letter. Strike gold and mine the hell out of it.
Five Shrek movies, and a direct to DVD spin off in Puss in Boots.
Two Madagascar movies, sequalized only because the original film did better then all of the other Dreamworks efforts to that point.
And within a week of Kung Fu Pandas debut, Katzenburg has announced that in addition to the made for TV Version of Kung Fu Panda, there is likely to be another FOUR (4) movies…
It really is depressing.
By the way, Im Chris/Cordonbleu, nice to meet you all 
Well, welcome to PIxar Planet cordonbleu.
I totally agree with you, cordonbleu, and you’re right, it was both Eisner and Katzenburg that set the ball rolling and sent Disney (and Dreamworks) down the toilet. In the book I’m reading now about Pixar, there are several mentions about how hard-thinking and uncreative Katzenburg appeared to be, and in such a business of animating movies, it might be good for profit, but it certainly isn’t good for quality.
Welcome to the boards, too. 
Hey Chris! Welcome
And what Dreamworks is doing is ridiculous, but understandable. If you’re a family with children 12 or younger and going to the movies, most likely you will see an animated movie. Dreamworks’ strategy of making sure at least one of their movies is out there at a time is an effective one and I’m sure it makes them a ton of money.
However, for the animation fans/purists that we of PixarPlanet are, we don’t like to see sequels pounded out for money. But they’re going to go where the money is. They’re a company like any other. Their goal is to make the greatest profit possible, and the only way to compete with Pixar, the current behemoth of animation studios, is to release more lesser quality movies to make up for the huge gross Pixar pulls in once a year.
You have to hand it to Blue Sky. They are keeping to a one movie per year schedule, and it’s working. Although it looks like currently that they’re 2006-2010 movie line up consists of Ice Age-Horton-Ice Age-Horton, at least they’re sequels are close to or just as good as the original (I personally loved Ice Age 2. They kept up the spirit of the original and introduced some very interesting new characters ).
I’ve heard that some find Shark Tale a ripoff of Finding Nemo
Well, Shark Tale uses more personification, such as running businesses, having a similar environment as New York, fame and fortune, debts, etc.
Finding Nemo seems to use some less.
Okay, now about the “rip-offs”…both are underwater, both involve sharks, food chain, and lost sons.
Let’s get more into that, shall we?
In Finding Nemo, yes, it involves the idea of vegetarian sharks, but that’s not really the main idea, just something along the way.
In Shark Tale, it also involves the idea of vegetarian sharks, and it’s the center attention, pretty much the problem, or what causes the main plot to happen.
In Finding Nemo, Marlin lost his son Nemo, and swims across the ocean just to find him. And that’s the main focus.
In Shark Tale, Frankie, a shark, is killed, and a fish named Oscar takes credit for it, lying to get famous. Meanwhile, Frankie’s brother, Lenny, a vegetarian, runs away. The father blames Oscar the “Sharkslayer” for his other son’s death, and wants to get even with him. That’s the main idea/problem.
So, yeah, there are some similar references to FN, but deep down the plots go a different direction. If they really should be called rip-offs, they’d be minor.
just pointing that out.
kung fu panda is kinda related to wall-e because of these reasons:
-There is a part somewhere in it where someone is fat
-They are in the theaters at the same time
-i dont recall in kung fu panda there being any water,wall-e had no water in it also
WALL-E had water in the film… The giant pools in the main area aboard the Axiom.
Sorry to say Moonstar, but some of those are kinda small comparatively.
Kung Fu Panda is more of the heroes journey type of thing.
Maybe Wall-E’s is too…but I’m not sure how to classify it.
Can anyone help me out on this point?
I wouldn’t call Shark Tale a rip-off, but I do believe that it is the perfect film to analyze the difference between Pixar. What I like about Pixar’s films is that they pick a certain “world” (underwater life, monsters in your closet, toys, rats) and then sort of brings that world to life.
But watching Shark Tale, what they basically did was take the underwater world and then mold it into the human world, except underwater. So rather than really being creative with what this unknown world (underwater) really is, they just made it as human-like as possible.
In fact this was one of my problems with Cars, from Pixar. Rather than detailing the secret or unknown lives of cars, it basically just made cars into humans. Which is very different than Finding Nemo or Toy Story.
Yeah that’s what I meant by personification, but you probably stated it better.