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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Really, I just like Shrek and Shrek 2. 3 was…=/. And Kung-Fu Panda. Why? I have a weakness for believing that any movie with a panda in it deserves a 5-stars.
Don’t know much about Dreamworks other than that. I’m pretty much ignorant of what goes into these films really.
Although I think it could do without some of the angry words, I think he has a point in this. Just using the same environment or species as characters in their movies aren’t really ripoffs. So that might narrow it down.
I don’t really see that many ripoffs between Dreamworks and Pixar.
I think Dreamworks deserves at least some creativity credit. You gotta admit, the plots are all different.
The only thing I can think of for now is that in Flushed Away, when Roddy is falling down the pipes, a fish appears and asks, “Have you seen my dad?” Weird.
Er, where am I? Crazy World? Did the cab bring me to “The Looney World of Dreamworks Fans?”
The reality is simple and uncomplicated - Dreamworks rips. Pixar suffers. It has always been the way of life, but Pixar still reigns supreme in the end. So shove your rip-offs up your butts, Dreamworks Animation. Please. “It’s psychotic!” No matter what anyone says, you have to admit that DWA used the dirty method of releasing its premier earlier than Pixar with many of their ripped-off productions, causing ignorant people would assume that the guilty member is otherwise!
I hate it, I hate it, I hate it! Curse you to the pits of the Earth, Dreaming Working Animating… company!
^ I don’t usually jump into a convo like this but dude, pull it back a little.
Pitches get pitched. Some studios take them in and some don’t. Not all of these films are in house. Everybody, and I mean everybody, gets inspiration from something else. Similarities will happen from now until the end of time. That’s how this business goes. Take it personally and well, just don’t. If everybody fumed about one little idea being seen elsewhere the industry would stall out.
Just chill out and take a breather.
Alright, fine, maybe I was too severe on my tone of language (sorry on the profanity used there), but you will have to admit, I was right about the factor that some of the productions DWA started were very similar in their elements so much so that the regular patrons of the theaters would not bother to watch the film with a later premier date. Just because they don’t do it anymore recently doesn’t mean they won’t try and do it again in the future. In the end, what message is this act going to send? That Pixar Animation Studios is an easy sucker capable of being ripped off effortlessly? What are other animation companies going to do (Space Chimps, anyone?)? Next thing you know, another cheap rip-off movie is released before “Up” and still ended up receiving better reviews from the general audience.
I just can’t stand it, especially when it’s so insultingly displayed here in my country.
It is known that Antz was created to compete with A Bug’s Life, that no one can argue with that. There is more than the species of the main character similar in that one. (having the main character in love with the princess of the colony, the suppression of the ants) Shark Tale, the main reason I thought it was a ripoff was because of the concept of fish. Just because the only real similarity was the species doesn’t mean that DreamWorks didn’t use the fish idea from it. And now that I think of it, there where the vegetarian sharks, too.
I guess one could say that Ratatouille must have been a ripoff of Flushed Away. Well, Ratatouille was in production for a LONG time. It had one director, then when the story got to complex, there was another with a completely new script. That MUST have taken time.
Not to mention Ratatoullie and Flushed Away have literally nothing in common, except for the fact that the main characters are both rats. ^^;
(And, if memory serves me right, I believe Brad Bird rewrote the entire script in just 18 months. That’s what I’ve heard, anyways. Pretty crazy stuff.)
On the topic of DreamWorks ripoffs…errr, it’s really hard to say. One the one hand, they do have some movies that are kind of similar in plot to some of Pixar’s stuff, and they usually come out at around the same time. On the other hand, how would DreamWorks hear about these ideas so early on in the first place? It would take them about three to four years to actually make the film, and for both films to come out at around the same time, they’d have to be in production at around the same time. Doesn’t Pixar usually keep their films secret for a while? How would DreamWorks get a hold of their ideas so early on if that was the case, then?
…So, yeah, that’s my take on the whole thing. I’m undecided. I may have some of my facts wrong, since I don’t know much about DreamWorks, though, so bear with me here. xP
In the end, though, I say if you don’t like DreamsWork’s films, just do what I do, and stay away from them. xP Can’t say I’m too fond them, to be honest. (Although, I’ll admit to liking a few of their films)
Weird.