36 films

>36 films
>over half of them are absolute garbage, but the rest are pure kino
Why is the output of Dreamworks Animation so inconsistent?

Attached: Captain_Underpants_The_First_Epic_Movie_poster.jpg (220x325, 68K)

Pic related is part of the garbage pile I assume?

Different teams of animators, directors and writers.

no

because they exist solely to spite disney
(i hate them too but not that much)

Nah Capt Undepants was really good.

Shrek was great, so they thought they could make more great movies.

Shrek was their peak.

Wait really?
I couldn't even sit through the cringe worthy trailer

No clue. It's hard to find any meaningful trend between their good movies on a production level. The directors and writers all come from different backgrounds, and the animation both in-house and from branch studios are inconsistent.

Best guess is that they just scattershot to see what works. Most of their moneymakers are sequels to existing franchises.

Because they are more driven by their creative teams than they are by non-stop executive meetings and test screenings.

As a result, you get movies varying in quality, tone, humor, and style but you also get a less homogenized studio. The same studio that might put out something like Trolls or Captain Underpants will also put out Prince of Egypt or How to Train Your Dragon. Two groups of movies attracting very different audiences.

This is opposed to Disney or Pixar whose higher ups micro-manage everything to be perfect to the widest possible audience and as a result, you get every movie feeling the same, but it's always consistently competent.

Seriously. It's a genuinely fun and enjoyable movie, even more so if you grew up with the books. I recommend it.

No, it’s actually kino.

The movie really didn't have great marketing I'm just going to say. If anything it came off like they put as little effort as they could get away with to promote it.

Genuinely fun and good. I've never read the books so no nostalgia bias here.

While CUtfem was very well animated and upheld a certain aesthetic to that of an elementary student's drawings, which I though was appropriate considering the source material, It was too heavily directed to younger audiences for my tastes.

T.Melvin

A big chunk of their early films were "Oh, Disney/Pixar is making a _______ film; we'll make a _______ film first!"

Then came a middle period where they were cranking out Shrek sequels and spinoffs but those eventually stopped making as much money.

Since then they've basically been flailing around trying to create new franchises using preexisting properties (and buying a ton of them in the process) with nothing coming close to being as profitable as the Shrek series.

Honestly, Dreamworks kinda has a hit or miss thing with their movies, IMO.

They're killing it with TV so I can't complain.

>created an original story while still being filled with shoutouts to the books
This is how you do an adaptation.

Same. I remember when the books came out but at the time they were a thing I was no longer in Elementary School.

spbp

That's all there is to it desu

>Shrek was their peak
>not Shrek 2
Get it right, user.

Attached: Human Shrek makes for one swell Prince Charming.png (500x308, 365K)

Not big surprise.

>Budget: $38 million

I feel they've always had a muddled mission statement. Some films were made to counter-program Disney, others were made at the behest of shareholders. Also most of their catalog are adaptations. I think their only successful original franchises are Kung Fu Panda and Madagascar.

I think Dreamwork's position would be very different today if they had not focused on adaptations and acquisition of moldy cartoon and toy properties.