Well, it’s partly to blame on Wiki, as they still say that Donkey was just for the movie. I’ve actually come across the book a few times in book stores and skimmed through. Donkey actually serves as Shrek’s ride to the castle or something if I recall correctly.
Pixelated- I wouldn’t worry; A113 has frequent outbursts in terms of his hate for Wikipedia. 
The thing with Shrek is, with the original, there was the whole ironic thing that Disney had made all of these princess type movies seriously, and now Dreamworks was in essence making fun of that. So yeah, that was pretty humorous the first time round.
Now it’s just boring.
Anyway, Dreamworks can’t even be bothered to compose their own music. They use ‘popular culture’ references so much that unlike Pixar’s films, most of the Dreamworks movies will be out of date within a decade or two.
And as for Madagascar copying The Wild or vice versa, either way, the general idea is unoriginal.
man, this has got to be the fasted reponded and most popular topic i’ve ever made. what is it about debating about dreamworks we like? 
It had to happen sometime…
Death the Wikipedia!
How stupid do you have to be to use Wikipedia as your first resource, and assuming anything on there’s true the moment you look at it, without looking it up on a reliable website first!?!! 
Death to Wikipedia!
Okay, I’m okay now. XD You guys were obviously expecting that, I can tell. ROFL!
I hope I didn’t scare you guys too much, but next time that happens, ooh you better hide. 
Edited. Please refrain from shouting. – Mitch
Wow, A113, you … you need help. 
Where are the mods when you need them? 
Wikipedia is good for basic information. Anything more, I agree, you can’t trust it’s true. But, no need for you to let it get to you so much.
wikipedia is very reliable. If you’re searching 4 what most people search 4, it’s ok.
FONY: XD I do. If everyone stopped trusting Wikipedia, then I wouldn’t have to use it. But at least you haven’t been eaten by the Wikipedia Monster. 
TS2: Looks like the Wikipedia Monster got you. Sorry.
And now, B-on-T!
BTW, was there like a childhood experience that turned you against wikipedia?
no, see, some people think that because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it will always be unreliable.
that can be true, once i was looking up lindsay lohan’s little sister for kicks, and some stupid teenager with no life posted, weeeell, lets just say it was something that you would most likely see in American Pie than Pixar.
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.