Advertisement

The Shrekoning: DreamWorks’ Influence Over 2000s Animation

  • Sam SummersEmail author
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Animation book series (PAANI)

Abstract

This chapter builds on its predecessors’ catalogue of DreamWorks’ conventions, innovations and idiosyncrasies to illustrate their influence on the behaviour of CG animation in the early 2000s and beyond. Working through the history of CG features in the 2000s, using movies from other studios such as Disney’s Chicken Little and Pixar’s Cars as case studies, it illustrates how DreamWorks’ narrative-cartoonal mode, developed in hit films like Shrek, steadily became the norm. The chapter suggests several explanations for the shift from realism to narrative-cartoonalism that coincided with DreamWorks’ rise and the movement from hand-drawn to computer-animation across the industry. It considers audience fatigue with the then-ubiquitous Disney fairy tale musical, as well as the unique qualities of the computer-animated medium.

References

  1. Balio, Tino. 2002. “Hollywood Production Trends in the Era of Globalisation, 1990–1999.” In Genre and Contemporary Hollywood, edited by Steve Neale, 165–184. London: BFI.Google Scholar
  2. Booker, M. Keith. 2010. Disney, Pixar, and the Hidden Messages of Children’s Films. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Eliot, Marc. 1994. Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince. London: André Deitsch.Google Scholar
  4. Forgacs, Davis. 1992. “Disney Animation and the Business of Childhood.” Screen 33: 361–374.Google Scholar
  5. Furniss, Maureen. 2007 Art in Motion: Animation Aesthetics. Rev. ed. London: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  6. Gonzalez, Ed. 2001. “Shrek.Slant. Accessed 18 October 2019. http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/shrek.
  7. Holliday, Christopher. 2018. The Computer-Animated Film: Industry, Style and Genre. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Langer, Mark. 1992. “The Disney-Fleischer Dilemma: Product Differentiation and Technological Innovation.” Screen 33: 343–360.Google Scholar
  9. Langer, Mark. 2011. “Polyphony and Heterogeneity in Early Fleischer Films: Comic Strips, Vaudeville, and the New York Style.” In Funny Pictures: Animation and Comedy in Studio Era Hollywood, edited by Daniel Goldmark and Charlie Keil, 29–50. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. LaPorte, Nicole. 2010. The Men Who Would Be King. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  11. LaSalle, Mick. 2001. “Animated Fairy Tale Perfectly Fractured / ‘Shrek’ Delights Viewers of All Ages.” SFGate. Accessed 18 October 2019. http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Animated-fairy-tale-perfectly-fractured-Shrek-2862091.php.
  12. Mitchell, Elvis. 2001. “So Happily Ever After, Beauty and the Beasts.” The New York Times. Accessed 18 October 2019. http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F00E3DD153AF935A25756C0A9679C8B63.
  13. Monnet, Livia. 2004. “A-Life and the Uncanny in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.” Science Fiction Studies 31: 97–121.Google Scholar
  14. Otto, Jess. 2004. “Interview: Brad Bird.” IGN. Accessed 18 October 2019. http://movies.ign.com/articles/563/563285p1.html.
  15. Pallant, Chris. 2011. Demystifying Disney. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  16. Phillips, Mark. 2001. “The Global Disney Audiences Project: Disney Across Cultures.” In Dazzled By Disney?: The Global Disney Audiences Project, edited by Janet Wasko, Mark Phillips, and Eileen R. Meehan, 31–61. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sandler, Kevin S. 1998. “Introduction: Looney Tunes and Merry Metonyms.” In Reading the Rabbit, edited by Kevin Sandler, 1–28. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  18. “The Tech of Madagascar.” 2005. Madagascar. Glendale: DreamWorks Animation. DVD.Google Scholar
  19. van der Heide, Bill. 1995. “Boundary Riding: Cross‐Cultural Analysis, National Cinema and Genre.” Social Semiotics 5: 213–237.Google Scholar
  20. Vardalos, Marianne. “Kantian Cosmopolitanism and the Dreamworkification of the Next Generation.” In Investigating Shrek, edited by Tim Nieguth, Aurélie Lacassagne, and François Dépelteau, 87–102. New York: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Wasko, Janet. 2001. Understanding Disney. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Wells, Paul. 2002a. Animation and America. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wells, Paul. 2002b. Animation: Genre and Authorship. London: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
  24. Westbrook, Bruce. 2001. “Shrek.” Houston Chronicle. Accessed 18 October 2019. http://www.chron.com/entertainment/movies/article/Shrek-1527382.php.
  25. Wloszczyna, Susan. 2001a. “Toons Get Their Very Own Oscar Category.” USA Today. Accessed 18 October 2019. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/2001-10-31-animation.htm.
  26. Wloszczyna, Susan. 2001b. “Disney Domain Is Under Siege.” USA Today. Accessed 18 October 2019. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/2001-06-07-atlantis.htm.
  27. Wloszczyna, Susan. 2001c. “‘Shrek’ Spins Jokes from Fairy Tales.” USA Today. Accessed 18 October 2019. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/2001-05-16-shrek-review.htm.
  28. Zahed, Ramin. 2014. The Art of DreamWorks Animation. New York: Abrams.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SunderlandSunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations