On Upcoming Films

NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.

I'm sure most everyone remembers how Antz and A Bug's Life came out at about the same time and everyone wondered "who got there first: Pixar, or Dreamworks?" Well, regardless of two got there first, Pixar grossed over twice as much with their production. Then, Dreamworks and Pixar again went neck-to-neck in 2001 with Shrek and Monsters, Inc as the big 3D cartoons that year. Who won? According to revenue, Pixar did. Then, in 2003, Finding Nemo shook the box office, easily dislodging Shark Tale from ever sinking in its roots and nearly tripled the latter's gross sales.

I think at that point, we all saw that it was going to be a Pixar vs Dreamworks race from here on out, and that so far, Pixar has been the clear winner. Hell, Shark Tale was the most pathetic of all of Dreamworks' previous Pixar retorts, and, year after year, Dreamworks has lost (with the exception of Shrek 2), but at least Dreamworks stopped blatantly ripping off Pixar's movie ideas. Or so we thought.

Note, I have enjoyed many of Dreamworks' films (with Madagascar being "okay", Over the Hedge being "not bad", and Kung Fu Panda being "pretty good"), I have to curl my lip at their latest feature. What is it, you may ask? Ugh. Just... just look and see.



Gee, I wonder what brought on the idea of a movie based in space. What brilliant burst of intuition could have inspired this film? Hmm...


Don't get me wrong, Space Chimps may turn out to be a pretty good movie (isn't this Dreamwork's second 3D animated film this year?), but I can guarantee you that, in the end, it won't hold a candle to WALL-E. Why? Well, mostly because WALL-E is so perfect, it transcends filmdom. It is true art, and there is no way that Dreamworks, a creator of above average 3D films at best, can compare. One has to ask, what's the difference between Pixar and Dreamworks? They both create (always for the former, usually for the latter) original 3D films that have a fairly sound concept, but Pixar manages, time and again, to come out ahead. For one thing, Dreamworks always gets PG ratings because they have to have some rude humor. You know, for adults, because nothing says "grown-up and mature" like sexual innuendo and allusions to bodily functions. In spite of this apparent golden rule ideals of Dreamworks', Pixar continues to appeal to all ages without having to resort to either rude humor (well, usually) or tired pop culture references. Well, if Pixar can avoid those things and yet still do better, why doesn't Dreamworks take a hint and try some of the same?

Now, I'm not one to be offended by foul language, crude humor, sexual innuendo, etc., but I think that it's pretty apparent by now that, if you want to catch a large audience, you have to be willing to do things differently. As of right now, "differently" means avoiding story cliches, rude humor, and pop culture references, because most films are a mix-match of two or three of the above (not that there aren't other problems, but these are the ones that separate movies that just fail from ones that almost made it). Just give it a try, Dreamworks. Maybe it will work for you, too. The bottom line is immersion. When you crack a joke that doesn't fit the world (i.e. Shrek), it breaks that immersion. When you create humor without reminding the moviegoer that they are actually watching a film (i.e. WALL-E), that deepens the immersion. Perhaps Dreamworks doesn't care about "creating worlds" the way that Pixar does, and only wants to "create films." If so, they do a decent job, but all I can say is, "too bad."

On the other hand, I must admit that Space Chimps doesn't look half bad, and I will probably go see it. Once, anyway. Now, I've seen WALL-E twice and have every intention of seeing it again in theaters, plus buying the DVD. Of course, Dreamworks has it unfairly hard in this case, because WALL-E hits so many of the things I adore, it is the closest thing to movie perfection in my mind (in spite of a few faults, but no movie is completely devoid of those). I don't anticipate any movie, even by Pixar, to top WALL-E as my favorite. Ever.

Well, I've done a good deal of ranting and rambling over Space Chimps, but let me tell you, that movie looks like gold compared to another preview I saw in the theaters while waiting for the main feature (WALL-E, of course) to begin.



Ohmygod. It's like a rip-off of a rip-off, with 90% of the awesome being lost in each translation. Granted, it was made in Belgium, and is (according to Wikiepdia) the first animated film to be made and released only in true-3D, but Fly Me to the Moon is, hands down, the worst-looking professional 3D film (with the possible exception of the horridly disappointing Tripping the Rift direct-to-DVD movie) I've ever seen. Seriously, I've seen amateurs do far better (see the embedded Plumiferos for another example). I've played games that look better. It's just flabbergastingly horrid.



What's so amazing is that Fly Me to the Moon (the trailer, anyway) isn't only ugly, its music is uninspired, its dialog is shoddy, its unfunny, and, overall, boring. It's the most boring trailer I've ever seen. It's even dumber than Beverly Hills Chihuahua (the trailer of which, by the way, isn't funny or cute--it's absolutely stupid, and I get the feeling that it beats around the bush the way it does to hide the horrid movie that is the full production).



Ouch... It makes me wince. What's worse, this was attached to WALL-E. Seriously, it's like ordering an expensive plate of caviar and getting a dog turd as a side dish.

Honestly, the only trailer I saw that looked like it may be pretty good was for Bolt.



Really, I think that all the animation studios should go to some kind of "Film as Art" seminar by Pixar. Why does it seem like, although most professional art, be it visual, musical, culinary, written, etc. are masterpieces, only a very, very small percentage of films (and games, for that matter) are truly magnificent? I realize that there is much to a movie (or game), as it needs to seamlessly combine multiple types of art, but why do people not try harder to find that perfect combination? Why are so many directors, writers, etc. satisfied with what, to any onlooker, is a work of absolute drivel? If you come up with the idea of making a "hilarious" movie about two lesbian lovers who spontaneously become male while simultaneously showing off how lackluster human creativity can be, don't. Just don't. Is it really that hard?